Sunday, November 24, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
A FEW MORE QUESTIONS COME TO MIND
After I prepared the article containing questions posed by a resident regarding engineering, roads, and drainage, a few questions came to mind. They are my questions. I won't write the board. I attend about 80% of the meetings, listen to the tapes of all the meetings, and periodically check the correspondence book. Your board doesn't answer residents. There haven't been any reports for about a year at the board table from the Community Liaison. We'll leave the questions and comment alone posed by the resident. Back to drainage.
We've been told that drainage work has to be done in the Enclave because everything was done wrong. Previous engineering companies were bad. Apparently, previous boards, without DeMarchi and President Walton's input, were wrong - made bad decisions. This board is willing to pay for work that previously new home builders (residents) were expected to pay. We'll leave that alone for now.
We've been told that they need to get the work in the Enclave done because there are new homes about to be built. Based on the inconsistency, conflict of interest, and self interest projects, I have a few questions, because I don't believe much of what this board says.
1) How many homes in the Enclave has ARC (Walton, DeMarchi, and now Johnson) received permit requests for?
2) Who are the builders of record, named in the documents?
Suspicious? Yes, with every reason to be so. Remember, DeMarchi is on about his 3rd drainage project for that area. Over the months he has talked about his property, his expertise, previous board failure, etc., regarding drainage. At the same time he bought more than one lot in that deplorable area (bad drainage), and sold some lots, and built homes on them, and sold them to people under what must have been deplorable conditions. Is he, or one of his friends, building in that area again? He listed some of his friends during a meeting in the last two months.
Just a few questions. No accusations. Where is the Compliance Committee in answering any of these type questions about conflict of interest, possible self gain, contracting, anything? I forgot for a minute, President Walton put DeMarchi, our treasurer, on ARC, Drainage, and Legal, in charge of Compliance! Maybe you will write and ask for an answer. Since the board fails to answer, I have no place to go but this blog and hope it will spur others on to ask the questions, maybe they'll answer you, if you have the right board connections.
We've been told that drainage work has to be done in the Enclave because everything was done wrong. Previous engineering companies were bad. Apparently, previous boards, without DeMarchi and President Walton's input, were wrong - made bad decisions. This board is willing to pay for work that previously new home builders (residents) were expected to pay. We'll leave that alone for now.
We've been told that they need to get the work in the Enclave done because there are new homes about to be built. Based on the inconsistency, conflict of interest, and self interest projects, I have a few questions, because I don't believe much of what this board says.
1) How many homes in the Enclave has ARC (Walton, DeMarchi, and now Johnson) received permit requests for?
2) Who are the builders of record, named in the documents?
Suspicious? Yes, with every reason to be so. Remember, DeMarchi is on about his 3rd drainage project for that area. Over the months he has talked about his property, his expertise, previous board failure, etc., regarding drainage. At the same time he bought more than one lot in that deplorable area (bad drainage), and sold some lots, and built homes on them, and sold them to people under what must have been deplorable conditions. Is he, or one of his friends, building in that area again? He listed some of his friends during a meeting in the last two months.
Just a few questions. No accusations. Where is the Compliance Committee in answering any of these type questions about conflict of interest, possible self gain, contracting, anything? I forgot for a minute, President Walton put DeMarchi, our treasurer, on ARC, Drainage, and Legal, in charge of Compliance! Maybe you will write and ask for an answer. Since the board fails to answer, I have no place to go but this blog and hope it will spur others on to ask the questions, maybe they'll answer you, if you have the right board connections.
A FEW RESIDENT QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T SENT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY DON'T ANSWER. IN THIS CASE THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY OR LOGIC TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING
The questions pertained to roads and drainage. You'll remember the board brought real engineers into the current road projects. One area that is being repaired again is Duck Pond. Anyone would probably agree that engineering for projects on our roads is necessary. In the case of Duck Pond, it was repaired in 2010 or 11 when Huggins headed roads. He, and the board, except for one, refused to bring in engineers. Apparently, they were needed, because this board is investing our funds, once again, due to poorly planned past projects. Many who were sitting on the board during the last project continue to sit at the board table today. You might say, "give them credit for lessons learned". That's logical, except for the following resident questions.
(1)Why is it that this board will embrace engineering for road repair and not drainage? Good question. If you read the Reserve Study, at every turn of the page, the excerpts are advising the use of engineering services. Once again, there is no consistency of good business and administrative judgment. President Walton and DeMarchi are our resident experts and apparently don't feel the need for engineers. How does a road chair who brings engineering to the board table for his project, vote drainage projects without the support of engineering? How does anyone on that board who supported the vote for engineering on roads, vote for drainage projects that DeMarchi says were done incorrectly by all in the past, vote for drainage projects without the support of engineering, in the best interests of Wedgefield and the use of our assessment dollars, ignoring the advice in the Reserve Study and basic common sense?
(2) How does the road committee determine which projects are "most in need"? Do they ever take numbers into consideration? This resident thought that since road repair is needed in so many areas of the plantation, that they might consider high usage areas first. How many people are impacted by bad roads and travel on Duck Pond, compared to maybe, Wedgefield Road? We don't know the answer.
You can write the board and see if they answer. Visit the office and look at the correspondence book, review board reports, because the board doesn't respond and we haven't had a report from the Community Liaison in over a year. If you write and get an answer, please share it. I'd love to see how the board answers these two questions. Don't hold your breath, if you write to them.
(1)Why is it that this board will embrace engineering for road repair and not drainage? Good question. If you read the Reserve Study, at every turn of the page, the excerpts are advising the use of engineering services. Once again, there is no consistency of good business and administrative judgment. President Walton and DeMarchi are our resident experts and apparently don't feel the need for engineers. How does a road chair who brings engineering to the board table for his project, vote drainage projects without the support of engineering? How does anyone on that board who supported the vote for engineering on roads, vote for drainage projects that DeMarchi says were done incorrectly by all in the past, vote for drainage projects without the support of engineering, in the best interests of Wedgefield and the use of our assessment dollars, ignoring the advice in the Reserve Study and basic common sense?
(2) How does the road committee determine which projects are "most in need"? Do they ever take numbers into consideration? This resident thought that since road repair is needed in so many areas of the plantation, that they might consider high usage areas first. How many people are impacted by bad roads and travel on Duck Pond, compared to maybe, Wedgefield Road? We don't know the answer.
You can write the board and see if they answer. Visit the office and look at the correspondence book, review board reports, because the board doesn't respond and we haven't had a report from the Community Liaison in over a year. If you write and get an answer, please share it. I'd love to see how the board answers these two questions. Don't hold your breath, if you write to them.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
THE WPA ANNUAL MEETING: (1) THE NUMBERS, (2) CONCERNS, (3) ON PRINCIPLE & FOR THE RECORD
THE NUMBERS:
*214 votes were cast - slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted
*The candidates, though uncontested (3 board slots & 3 candidates) received the following votes out of the 214 cast: Garrison - 164, Keith Johnson -194, Jacky Walton -169. That must mean that each of the following numbers represent the number of residents who took the time to write in "NO" next to the individual candidate names: Garrison - 50 NO, Johnson - 20 - NO, Walton - 45 - NO. A recommendation follows in the article for those who took the time to take this extra step and send a message to the individual candidates.
*By-Law Amendment # 1, restricting the power of the board to enter into loans, etc., above $15,000 passed. 142 votes were required to pass. 151 voted in favor, 63 opposed.
*By-Law Amendment # 2, requiring that the board contract the services of a certified Public Accountant failed. 142 votes were required to pass. 127 voted in favor, 87 opposed.
THE CONCERNS:
First, slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted. This is down from over 50% in 2012. This board that fails to answer residents, fails to provide review of records for review by residents, recently failed to post meeting tapes on the WPA website for 10 months, failed to appropriately file and include the last by-law amendment for over two years and failed to live by it in the interim, fails to acknowledge actual costs of our "accounting function", forces us to pay for services to individual lot owners out of general funds, finds accounting records in private individual resident homes, fails to hold to their own votes, accepts poor contracting and individual board member self interest projects, contracts - conflict of interest - with not only a board member (self gain) but contracts with our president for services, abuses certain board members who question and fail to capitulate to their poor standards, appoints individual board members with poor records to chair positions etc., HAS CREATED THIS APATHY. Residents must be left feeling that they won't be heard and there is no road to good governance, or exit from bad governance.
Some residents have stated that they didn't bother to vote because they couldn't vote for these guys. When advised to at least make a statement on principle and write "NO" next to their names, they said they couldn't because there were people on the election committee who would note how they voted. They said they golf with some of those members, or certain board members would find out how they voted and those board members help them in their homes, with their boats, yards, etc. They need them. The question is one of principle. Why would you want people in your life helping you, who violate your principles and standards, for a game of golf, cards, social group, or work on your home projects? Where is individual integrity of principle? If you feel retaliation might occur, why wouldn't you want to make things better at the heart of your day to day life - your HOME and your neighborhood? Even in these circumstances, why are you willing to sit by and watch them not only abuse individual board members - your former friends at the board table, and assist them in pulling them from social circles in our near (here) and greater community (outside the gates)?
Does that sound hard? Look at a simple, relevant example, of how far the individual CURRENT board members have fallen in principle and decency, let alone good governance, and integrity of action and word. In 2011 there was a recall effort, under the state law used in the 2010 recall. We won't take the time now to go into detail. The basic fact is that SIX of the CURRENT BOARD were so appalled by the behavior and governance of five of the 2011 board, Garrison being one of them up for recall, that they signed petitions to call for a special meeting and REMOVE them, solicited signatures from other residents, and helped with the planning. Yet, five of the six who have tenure of 1- 4 years, have supported Garrison in votes, kept quiet while he called a questioning board member moronic, and overall attempted to make an elected board member look like a fool. I'd hate be one of you who might call them friend and expect that they would do the right thing in a desperate situation. They were elected for governance, nothing else. That is the only reason. What reason could you possibly give for allowing Garrison to be legal chair, vote to appoint one of his cohorts who authored letters to residents telling them not to pay their assessments - starve a board - to a committee, and then allow him month after month to come to the board table without written legal opinion, and vote his recommendation?
Some say, I'm not the kind to stand up and argue a point? While that is somewhat gutless, all it would take, whether board member or resident, is the bravery to do the right thing, by simply voting "NO", when it went against principle, good business practice, consistency, and the best interests of Wedgefield. Your board was elected to do the right thing. If they don't have the bravery to at least vote "NO" when needed, they need to resign. YOU NEED TO QUIT STANDING BY AND WATCHING THE DETERIORATION OF OUR HOMES AND COMMUNITY.
RECOMMENDATION TO THOSE WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE "NO" BY CANDIDATE NAMES: Get to the meetings, write the board even if they don't answer your questions, write and tell the board you will be coming to the office to review records because it is your right and THEY shouldn't have to go to a private residence to find all the records. When you find board votes and behaviors that are objectionable, ask to speak at a meeting and address your concern, it becomes part of the record. VOTE EVERY YEAR WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DON'T BE AFRAID WHO WILL SEE HOW YOU VOTED. Don't call people friends easily. Right now it could appear that you don't mind being part of the destruction of other people you ONCE called friend, as you sit by in silence afraid of retaliation. Don't say "I just want peace", and let people abuse those you use to call friend. Friend or not, why would you allow it to happen to anyone? I don't know of anyone who is so financially desperate that they need the free services, or social club and gatherings, that they need to sit by and watch this kind of behavior, at the expense of other of their friends or neighbors. Don't you want your friends and neighbors to have principle?
ON PRINCIPLE AND FOR THE RECORD:
Does it hurt to find out that people you formerly called "friend", worked along side in promotion of good governance, will stand by and let others you both called "mutual friends" turn on you and hurt you? Yes, it does. I'm not special, but I'm old enough to know what my principles are and I won't give them up. It would hurt me in the long term, and I couldn't live with the lack of integrity. Have I lost some of what I use to call "friends"? Not really, because I misjudged them and didn't realize how little principle they had, and how willing they were to sit back and let our home and community be harmed by "special interests". In the end, I'd want to hold to principle, character, and moral values, and call people friends who don't give them up for what one of my friends said, "is just politics".
FOR THE RECORD IS IMPORTANT. I have been sued and put through a long legal tangled process. One of the things that stands out is "THE RECORD". Our minutes are sanitized, our association records often closed to us, our very meeting tapes kept off the WPA website for months, etc., so I will continue to transcribe tapes, gather information to the best of my ability, and make it available - FOR THE RECORD.
ADDED 11/21/13:
I posted the article above on the 20th. This morning a reader sent me the following:
"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort rereading your financial statement? Of course no, what will matter then will be PEOPLE. If relationships will matter then, shouldn't they matter now?" - Max Lucado
*214 votes were cast - slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted
*The candidates, though uncontested (3 board slots & 3 candidates) received the following votes out of the 214 cast: Garrison - 164, Keith Johnson -194, Jacky Walton -169. That must mean that each of the following numbers represent the number of residents who took the time to write in "NO" next to the individual candidate names: Garrison - 50 NO, Johnson - 20 - NO, Walton - 45 - NO. A recommendation follows in the article for those who took the time to take this extra step and send a message to the individual candidates.
*By-Law Amendment # 1, restricting the power of the board to enter into loans, etc., above $15,000 passed. 142 votes were required to pass. 151 voted in favor, 63 opposed.
*By-Law Amendment # 2, requiring that the board contract the services of a certified Public Accountant failed. 142 votes were required to pass. 127 voted in favor, 87 opposed.
THE CONCERNS:
First, slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted. This is down from over 50% in 2012. This board that fails to answer residents, fails to provide review of records for review by residents, recently failed to post meeting tapes on the WPA website for 10 months, failed to appropriately file and include the last by-law amendment for over two years and failed to live by it in the interim, fails to acknowledge actual costs of our "accounting function", forces us to pay for services to individual lot owners out of general funds, finds accounting records in private individual resident homes, fails to hold to their own votes, accepts poor contracting and individual board member self interest projects, contracts - conflict of interest - with not only a board member (self gain) but contracts with our president for services, abuses certain board members who question and fail to capitulate to their poor standards, appoints individual board members with poor records to chair positions etc., HAS CREATED THIS APATHY. Residents must be left feeling that they won't be heard and there is no road to good governance, or exit from bad governance.
Some residents have stated that they didn't bother to vote because they couldn't vote for these guys. When advised to at least make a statement on principle and write "NO" next to their names, they said they couldn't because there were people on the election committee who would note how they voted. They said they golf with some of those members, or certain board members would find out how they voted and those board members help them in their homes, with their boats, yards, etc. They need them. The question is one of principle. Why would you want people in your life helping you, who violate your principles and standards, for a game of golf, cards, social group, or work on your home projects? Where is individual integrity of principle? If you feel retaliation might occur, why wouldn't you want to make things better at the heart of your day to day life - your HOME and your neighborhood? Even in these circumstances, why are you willing to sit by and watch them not only abuse individual board members - your former friends at the board table, and assist them in pulling them from social circles in our near (here) and greater community (outside the gates)?
Does that sound hard? Look at a simple, relevant example, of how far the individual CURRENT board members have fallen in principle and decency, let alone good governance, and integrity of action and word. In 2011 there was a recall effort, under the state law used in the 2010 recall. We won't take the time now to go into detail. The basic fact is that SIX of the CURRENT BOARD were so appalled by the behavior and governance of five of the 2011 board, Garrison being one of them up for recall, that they signed petitions to call for a special meeting and REMOVE them, solicited signatures from other residents, and helped with the planning. Yet, five of the six who have tenure of 1- 4 years, have supported Garrison in votes, kept quiet while he called a questioning board member moronic, and overall attempted to make an elected board member look like a fool. I'd hate be one of you who might call them friend and expect that they would do the right thing in a desperate situation. They were elected for governance, nothing else. That is the only reason. What reason could you possibly give for allowing Garrison to be legal chair, vote to appoint one of his cohorts who authored letters to residents telling them not to pay their assessments - starve a board - to a committee, and then allow him month after month to come to the board table without written legal opinion, and vote his recommendation?
Some say, I'm not the kind to stand up and argue a point? While that is somewhat gutless, all it would take, whether board member or resident, is the bravery to do the right thing, by simply voting "NO", when it went against principle, good business practice, consistency, and the best interests of Wedgefield. Your board was elected to do the right thing. If they don't have the bravery to at least vote "NO" when needed, they need to resign. YOU NEED TO QUIT STANDING BY AND WATCHING THE DETERIORATION OF OUR HOMES AND COMMUNITY.
RECOMMENDATION TO THOSE WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE "NO" BY CANDIDATE NAMES: Get to the meetings, write the board even if they don't answer your questions, write and tell the board you will be coming to the office to review records because it is your right and THEY shouldn't have to go to a private residence to find all the records. When you find board votes and behaviors that are objectionable, ask to speak at a meeting and address your concern, it becomes part of the record. VOTE EVERY YEAR WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DON'T BE AFRAID WHO WILL SEE HOW YOU VOTED. Don't call people friends easily. Right now it could appear that you don't mind being part of the destruction of other people you ONCE called friend, as you sit by in silence afraid of retaliation. Don't say "I just want peace", and let people abuse those you use to call friend. Friend or not, why would you allow it to happen to anyone? I don't know of anyone who is so financially desperate that they need the free services, or social club and gatherings, that they need to sit by and watch this kind of behavior, at the expense of other of their friends or neighbors. Don't you want your friends and neighbors to have principle?
ON PRINCIPLE AND FOR THE RECORD:
Does it hurt to find out that people you formerly called "friend", worked along side in promotion of good governance, will stand by and let others you both called "mutual friends" turn on you and hurt you? Yes, it does. I'm not special, but I'm old enough to know what my principles are and I won't give them up. It would hurt me in the long term, and I couldn't live with the lack of integrity. Have I lost some of what I use to call "friends"? Not really, because I misjudged them and didn't realize how little principle they had, and how willing they were to sit back and let our home and community be harmed by "special interests". In the end, I'd want to hold to principle, character, and moral values, and call people friends who don't give them up for what one of my friends said, "is just politics".
FOR THE RECORD IS IMPORTANT. I have been sued and put through a long legal tangled process. One of the things that stands out is "THE RECORD". Our minutes are sanitized, our association records often closed to us, our very meeting tapes kept off the WPA website for months, etc., so I will continue to transcribe tapes, gather information to the best of my ability, and make it available - FOR THE RECORD.
ADDED 11/21/13:
I posted the article above on the 20th. This morning a reader sent me the following:
"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort rereading your financial statement? Of course no, what will matter then will be PEOPLE. If relationships will matter then, shouldn't they matter now?" - Max Lucado
Friday, November 15, 2013
DON'T FORGET TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTE - PLUS A RUMOR THAT HAS NO VALIDITY!
The Annual Meeting is the most important WPA meeting of the year. It will determine three individuals who will sit at the board table "in the best interests" of the association. We have opportunity to review the budget. It is really the only meeting when residents may speak during a meeting. Take time to consider whether we have been provided leadership by individuals who literally determine the quality of life where we live - Wedgefield. Have we been guided legally, ethically, and with strong business decisions? Can we trust what our board members say from meeting to meeting? Is there consistency in benefit to our residents? Does our board respond openly and honestly to our questions?
If not, put a big "NO" next to each of the candidate names. Put a big "NO" next to the by-law amendment that may be violating our covenants. Vote "YES" to bring in an accountant to manage our funds.
Don't forget to VOTE!
There is a rumor that The Wedgefield Examiner is losing interest in the blog. Not true! Family comes first. Our family has been on a year long journey with our daughter in Florence, who is in the process of adopting 3 more children. It is a international adoption. We've been helping out with errands, etc., as they go through the process. The children are siblings - two girls ages 4 and 9, and a boy - age 6. They will be home for Christmas.
If not, put a big "NO" next to each of the candidate names. Put a big "NO" next to the by-law amendment that may be violating our covenants. Vote "YES" to bring in an accountant to manage our funds.
Don't forget to VOTE!
There is a rumor that The Wedgefield Examiner is losing interest in the blog. Not true! Family comes first. Our family has been on a year long journey with our daughter in Florence, who is in the process of adopting 3 more children. It is a international adoption. We've been helping out with errands, etc., as they go through the process. The children are siblings - two girls ages 4 and 9, and a boy - age 6. They will be home for Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)