As reported earlier, a non canal lot owner suggested that I listen to the tape of the December 2015 Board Meeting, specifically the resident comment section, at the end of the meeting. A canal lot resident questioned whether there were plans for a maintenance dredging. The back and forth between the board, and resident make the question quite complicated, and the answers from two of the board members, both revealing, concerning, disheartening, and extremely complicated. In fact, it makes me pause, as to how I feel about reporting it. It leaves me, speechless in the moment, distrustful, disappointed, and upset with every level of our community governance. You see, we should all be involved, and so you, and I, also need to be held responsible.
I not only listened to the tape, but I transcribed it, and that is a very slow process for me, and I've yet to take my scribbling to type. I also need time to think. I do know some things for sure.
*We as individuals, have failed each other as community neighbors.
*If there is truth in what I heard, our Water Amenities Committee, and the Canal Sub Committee have failed us miserably, and may have kept things from us.
*Our Board Members in general, have failed us for the fact that they have not demanded that certain proposals be brought to the board table, and demands made on the Water Amenities Committee.
*Personally, I gained respect for Garrison, and DeMarchi, on a few points, on others I don't trust them.
*Many of us, in apathy have failed to attend meetings, vote, or make ourselves heard during resident comments, letters to the board, and by using the member speaker spots allowed in our governing documents.
*We have failed to demand that legal papers, prepared by unclean hands, be identified as such, and taken off the table, as credible rulings, to be used as guidance in our governance.
*There are not so subtle threats, claimed not to be threats to canal lot owners, and distortions of fact, and actions.
STAY TUNED. THE ARTICLE WILL BE UP IN A FEW DAYS - IT IS COMPLICATED.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD ABOUT MORE ERRORS IN OUR WPA FINANCIAL REPORTS
The following, is a letter to the board, that has been provided to The Wedgefield Examiner. As always, I have removed the resident's name.
| |||||||
Thursday, January 21, 2016
TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON JANUARY 21. NEXT, A NON CANAL RESIDENT HAS ASKED ME TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE OF THE DECEMBER WPA MEETING, NEAR THE END OF THE MEETING, DURING RESIDENT COMMENTS, TO THE BOARD'S ANSWER TO A CANAL LOT OWNER WHO ASKS ABOUT A MAINTENANCE DREDGING. I'LL REPORT SOON. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES, AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE, FOR YOURSELF
APOLOGY TO A BOARD MEMBER, REPEAT OF THE ARTICLE THAT CAUSED THE BOARD MEMBER TO WRITE, AND A FINAL COMMENT
The apology from the Wedgefield Examiner, goes out to Board Member, Anderson. I've provided his letter, sent to The Wedgefield Examiner on December 9th. I had shut down the Wedgefield Examiner at about the same date as his letter was sent. I had a relative coming in who I serve as guardian for. My time needed to be spent on that visit, and all the family visits, I had throughout the holiday period. I missed the December board meeting, due to the visit, and just stayed closed until the January meeting. I appreciate the time, attention, and thought, put into the response by Anderson. Please note: Normally, as promised I would protect the identity of the letter writer, however, it is written in such a manner, that there was no way to blank out areas to protect the writer's identity, without destroying the letter's message.
In an effort to provide complete information. I have # 1) Reprinted the article that he responds to. # 2) I have provided Anderson's letter. #3) I've provided my thoughts, after reading the letter.
#1, Reprint of "There Is A Surprise Benefit To Hiring Real Experts On Our Current Road Projects", published on December 7th
The Wedgefield Examiner provides the following information to the best of my ability. To confirm for yourself, listen to the tape of the WPA Annual Meeting on The Wedgefield Times, or the WPA website, when, and if, they make it available. There haven't been any recordings posted on their website since July of 2015, and no minutes posted since June 2015 (The board's attempt at dumbing down the membership????) Thank you Wedgefield Times for providing your recordings. DON'T MISS THE P.S. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE. I ALMOST FORGOT THE BEST PART OF THE STORY.
Anderson, Roads Chair, reported during the WPA Annual Meeting, that there was approximately $10,000 in savings on the current road project. It seems that with professional contracted engineering oversight, that once the actual work began, that it was noted that some contracted process requirements could be eliminated, resulting in the savings, that will be applied to future additional road projects.
Anderson does a great job as Roads Chair. He always brings his proposals to the table with a plan that includes professional contract engineering, professional development of request for proposal (specs, terms, etc.), professional review of bids & contract development, and professional contract work oversight. He is the ONLY board member who does this. The others claim expertise, their own, and savings, leaving us with a hodgepodge of paper trail (lack of documentation on bidding, contracting, etc.), and poor end result projects. Additionally, some projects come to the board table several times, often with a change in the board person taking responsibility for the project. Such was the case with the gate house (2 years, three bidding processes (?????) and McMillin & DeMarchi, each taking the helm at varying times), the Wedgefield Drainage Project (same two vying for the leadership role), and the pond project (same two at it again). What is the common thread? Each time, they are the self proclaimed experts, will save us money, have the best idea, and contractors, and the paper trail is a mess. What else is common? The declaration from the board table that they couldn't get three bidders, and no one wants to work in Wedgefield. Surprisingly (NOT), when Anderson puts his project in the hands of professionals, we don't have these problems, or declarations, or change of board member in charge. In fact, we have solid management and great project results.
Remember the TV program, The $64,000 Question? Well, here's a question, sometimes it is the $100,000+, the $20,000+, the $10,000+, etc, question. Here it is - IF YOU ARE ANDERSON, WHY WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, AND VOTE YES, ON ANY PROJECT, PARTICULARLY LARGE SUM PROJECTS, WHEN THE BOARD MEMBER PRESENTING THE PROPOSED MOTION, HADN'T MET EVEN THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU CONDUCT YOUR PROJECTS, IN YOUR ROLE AS BOARD MEMBER, PROTECTING OUR ASSETS?
There is a second integrity question, $64,000+ question for the rest of the board, in fact two. (1) If you feel Anderson's project management requirements are sound, how is it that you don't apply them to your projects? (2) If you feel that you all are experts, don't need to go to the expense of professional services, even though not doing so defies what the experts who wrote the reserve study recommend in several places in the document - hire professional engineering, bid & contract development & oversight - WHY DO YOU VOTE YES ON THE ROAD PROJECTS? There is NO integrity, or consistency, in this board's approach to sound governance (??????)!
Members, let yourself off the hook in one declaration from this board. So many of these board members have declared that no one wants to work in Wedgefield, and that is why they can't get bidders. It isn't you, or me. It is this board's hap hazard way of doing business.
P.S. If the savings is approximately $10,000, and my notes are correct. The money saved is about 2 times more, than the engineering and oversight services cost!
#2, Anderson's Letter:
To wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com 12/09/15 at 10:41 AM
I read your piece about the current road project and wanted to clear up a few things and explain my thinking on engineering and professional oversight of projects in general.First,phase one was re configured from a mill and remove, to a mill in place procedure. This was recommended to us by Coastal Asphalt as a cost savings after work began and it was realized that the condition of the base was acceptable to be re-used. This resulted in a savings of $30,394.00 for Phase I alone, and we expect a similar savings during the second phase of work that is currently under way.
I would also like to explain my thoughts about the hiring of professionals to oversee our projects. Your article calls into question why we approve it on road projects but not other projects. When I first took over the road committee I was given a list of contractors that I called and had several come out to look at our issues. It seemed each had a different idea of how those repairs needed to be executed. The inconsistencies were apparent in the estimates we received, in which the prices varied wildly. It became apparent to me the only way to do this was to have everyone bidding on the same process. That is when I began to look into hiring an engineering firm to help.We have used Earthworks on both of these projects, and I (not all board member agree) have been mostly satisfied with their oversight relative to what they are charging us. If for nothing but the consistent bid specifications and the bidding process, I feel it is worth every penny.
Now as far as why we do not use some sort of similar oversight on other projects, it is simply in my opinion, most of the time not cost effective. Take for example the gate house project. The hiring of an architect to draw specs and solicit bids for a project that small would be ridiculous. The cost of this would likely be more than the repairs. We do use professionals on our projects when it makes sense to do so. Al DeMarchi and the drainage committee had engineering involved in the Wedgefield Drainage project from a few years ago. The Water Amenities Committee used professional help to acquire the permits for the new docks. For the most part our volunteers do a good job and to categorize these projects as a fiasco is unfair and undermines any future goodwill. Projects like the gatehouse repair are not urgent and can afford to be put on the back burner when other, more important issues, arise,
While I don't always agree with you, I do respect you and what you are trying to accomplish. At the end of the day we all want the same things. We are only trying to do the right things for the betterment of Wedgefield Plantation even when we disagree about the method in which it is done.
Respectfully,
Adam Anderson
# 3, My thoughts:
First, again, I respect the thought, and genuine effort put into the response. I understand the points made. I obviously value expert involvement, and realize the potential costs. I further realize that the dock project had engineering experts involved. In fact, if research was done, you would find writings thanking, and praising the Water Amenities Committee for a job well done on the first dock project. As to "For the most part our volunteers do a good job and to categorize these projects as a fiasco is unfair and undermines any future goodwill. Projects like the gatehouse repair are not urgent and can afford to be put on the back burner when other, more important issues, arise,", I stand with my opinion, and documented writings regarding the 2nd dock project, gatehouse, and even the Wedgefield drainage project. Readers will have to go back to the writings, time and space limit the repeat of numerous articles. The second dock project may have had engineering, but the committee failed to have the old dock pulled up on the landing, cut up, and hauled away, as contracted. The board hid the truth, except for one, failed to question the committee chair month after month, and sat back while 2-3 on the board treated the questioning board member like an imbecile, without saying a word, and in the mean time, some on the committee, and board went after the questioning board member's private life associations, and had that person removed from membership in a private recreational club. In the case of the gatehouse, the board violated a standing Conflict of Interest document that each and everyone had signed, and awarded a contract to the President of our association. The board again sat back, and watched as a board member verbally abused, and called the only board member who questioned conflict of interest, moronic. The board member who claimed to have issued a request for proposal with sealed bids, and proper contract, on my review, did not have any of the above, that would pass any sniff test. Additionally, not one board member would answer, when I wrote the board, and asked them individually, how anyone could have signed the conflict of interest, and awarded the contract to the President. Later, after asking our President in writing how he could have bid, and accepted a contract (wasn't one), he did not answer, even though I repeated the question, for weeks. He returned the contract, was paid for the windows he purchased, and they sat, for two years, during which time two different board members claimed to have drawn specs, etc., and when quotes were provided, made fun of the bidders, and didn't award a contract to any of them. I could be wrong, but I believe the contractor for the Wedgefield Drainage Project, wrote the specs, and we were forced to add a wing wall, and our board experts, poured cement, and gravel into the poorly functioning bulk head, as it washed soil into the canal, to the point that the WPA had to pay to have it removed. With these kind of episodes, fiasco is a great word, and it would seem, that we could afford to pay real experts, to handle this business. Seeking professional help for engineering, specs, and contract development, etc. is suggested several times, by the experts, in the reserve study.
In an effort to provide complete information. I have # 1) Reprinted the article that he responds to. # 2) I have provided Anderson's letter. #3) I've provided my thoughts, after reading the letter.
#1, Reprint of "There Is A Surprise Benefit To Hiring Real Experts On Our Current Road Projects", published on December 7th
The Wedgefield Examiner provides the following information to the best of my ability. To confirm for yourself, listen to the tape of the WPA Annual Meeting on The Wedgefield Times, or the WPA website, when, and if, they make it available. There haven't been any recordings posted on their website since July of 2015, and no minutes posted since June 2015 (The board's attempt at dumbing down the membership????) Thank you Wedgefield Times for providing your recordings. DON'T MISS THE P.S. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE. I ALMOST FORGOT THE BEST PART OF THE STORY.
Anderson, Roads Chair, reported during the WPA Annual Meeting, that there was approximately $10,000 in savings on the current road project. It seems that with professional contracted engineering oversight, that once the actual work began, that it was noted that some contracted process requirements could be eliminated, resulting in the savings, that will be applied to future additional road projects.
Anderson does a great job as Roads Chair. He always brings his proposals to the table with a plan that includes professional contract engineering, professional development of request for proposal (specs, terms, etc.), professional review of bids & contract development, and professional contract work oversight. He is the ONLY board member who does this. The others claim expertise, their own, and savings, leaving us with a hodgepodge of paper trail (lack of documentation on bidding, contracting, etc.), and poor end result projects. Additionally, some projects come to the board table several times, often with a change in the board person taking responsibility for the project. Such was the case with the gate house (2 years, three bidding processes (?????) and McMillin & DeMarchi, each taking the helm at varying times), the Wedgefield Drainage Project (same two vying for the leadership role), and the pond project (same two at it again). What is the common thread? Each time, they are the self proclaimed experts, will save us money, have the best idea, and contractors, and the paper trail is a mess. What else is common? The declaration from the board table that they couldn't get three bidders, and no one wants to work in Wedgefield. Surprisingly (NOT), when Anderson puts his project in the hands of professionals, we don't have these problems, or declarations, or change of board member in charge. In fact, we have solid management and great project results.
Remember the TV program, The $64,000 Question? Well, here's a question, sometimes it is the $100,000+, the $20,000+, the $10,000+, etc, question. Here it is - IF YOU ARE ANDERSON, WHY WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, AND VOTE YES, ON ANY PROJECT, PARTICULARLY LARGE SUM PROJECTS, WHEN THE BOARD MEMBER PRESENTING THE PROPOSED MOTION, HADN'T MET EVEN THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU CONDUCT YOUR PROJECTS, IN YOUR ROLE AS BOARD MEMBER, PROTECTING OUR ASSETS?
There is a second integrity question, $64,000+ question for the rest of the board, in fact two. (1) If you feel Anderson's project management requirements are sound, how is it that you don't apply them to your projects? (2) If you feel that you all are experts, don't need to go to the expense of professional services, even though not doing so defies what the experts who wrote the reserve study recommend in several places in the document - hire professional engineering, bid & contract development & oversight - WHY DO YOU VOTE YES ON THE ROAD PROJECTS? There is NO integrity, or consistency, in this board's approach to sound governance (??????)!
Members, let yourself off the hook in one declaration from this board. So many of these board members have declared that no one wants to work in Wedgefield, and that is why they can't get bidders. It isn't you, or me. It is this board's hap hazard way of doing business.
P.S. If the savings is approximately $10,000, and my notes are correct. The money saved is about 2 times more, than the engineering and oversight services cost!
#2, Anderson's Letter:
To wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com 12/09/15 at 10:41 AM
I read your piece about the current road project and wanted to clear up a few things and explain my thinking on engineering and professional oversight of projects in general.First,phase one was re configured from a mill and remove, to a mill in place procedure. This was recommended to us by Coastal Asphalt as a cost savings after work began and it was realized that the condition of the base was acceptable to be re-used. This resulted in a savings of $30,394.00 for Phase I alone, and we expect a similar savings during the second phase of work that is currently under way.
I would also like to explain my thoughts about the hiring of professionals to oversee our projects. Your article calls into question why we approve it on road projects but not other projects. When I first took over the road committee I was given a list of contractors that I called and had several come out to look at our issues. It seemed each had a different idea of how those repairs needed to be executed. The inconsistencies were apparent in the estimates we received, in which the prices varied wildly. It became apparent to me the only way to do this was to have everyone bidding on the same process. That is when I began to look into hiring an engineering firm to help.We have used Earthworks on both of these projects, and I (not all board member agree) have been mostly satisfied with their oversight relative to what they are charging us. If for nothing but the consistent bid specifications and the bidding process, I feel it is worth every penny.
Now as far as why we do not use some sort of similar oversight on other projects, it is simply in my opinion, most of the time not cost effective. Take for example the gate house project. The hiring of an architect to draw specs and solicit bids for a project that small would be ridiculous. The cost of this would likely be more than the repairs. We do use professionals on our projects when it makes sense to do so. Al DeMarchi and the drainage committee had engineering involved in the Wedgefield Drainage project from a few years ago. The Water Amenities Committee used professional help to acquire the permits for the new docks. For the most part our volunteers do a good job and to categorize these projects as a fiasco is unfair and undermines any future goodwill. Projects like the gatehouse repair are not urgent and can afford to be put on the back burner when other, more important issues, arise,
While I don't always agree with you, I do respect you and what you are trying to accomplish. At the end of the day we all want the same things. We are only trying to do the right things for the betterment of Wedgefield Plantation even when we disagree about the method in which it is done.
Respectfully,
Adam Anderson
# 3, My thoughts:
First, again, I respect the thought, and genuine effort put into the response. I understand the points made. I obviously value expert involvement, and realize the potential costs. I further realize that the dock project had engineering experts involved. In fact, if research was done, you would find writings thanking, and praising the Water Amenities Committee for a job well done on the first dock project. As to "For the most part our volunteers do a good job and to categorize these projects as a fiasco is unfair and undermines any future goodwill. Projects like the gatehouse repair are not urgent and can afford to be put on the back burner when other, more important issues, arise,", I stand with my opinion, and documented writings regarding the 2nd dock project, gatehouse, and even the Wedgefield drainage project. Readers will have to go back to the writings, time and space limit the repeat of numerous articles. The second dock project may have had engineering, but the committee failed to have the old dock pulled up on the landing, cut up, and hauled away, as contracted. The board hid the truth, except for one, failed to question the committee chair month after month, and sat back while 2-3 on the board treated the questioning board member like an imbecile, without saying a word, and in the mean time, some on the committee, and board went after the questioning board member's private life associations, and had that person removed from membership in a private recreational club. In the case of the gatehouse, the board violated a standing Conflict of Interest document that each and everyone had signed, and awarded a contract to the President of our association. The board again sat back, and watched as a board member verbally abused, and called the only board member who questioned conflict of interest, moronic. The board member who claimed to have issued a request for proposal with sealed bids, and proper contract, on my review, did not have any of the above, that would pass any sniff test. Additionally, not one board member would answer, when I wrote the board, and asked them individually, how anyone could have signed the conflict of interest, and awarded the contract to the President. Later, after asking our President in writing how he could have bid, and accepted a contract (wasn't one), he did not answer, even though I repeated the question, for weeks. He returned the contract, was paid for the windows he purchased, and they sat, for two years, during which time two different board members claimed to have drawn specs, etc., and when quotes were provided, made fun of the bidders, and didn't award a contract to any of them. I could be wrong, but I believe the contractor for the Wedgefield Drainage Project, wrote the specs, and we were forced to add a wing wall, and our board experts, poured cement, and gravel into the poorly functioning bulk head, as it washed soil into the canal, to the point that the WPA had to pay to have it removed. With these kind of episodes, fiasco is a great word, and it would seem, that we could afford to pay real experts, to handle this business. Seeking professional help for engineering, specs, and contract development, etc. is suggested several times, by the experts, in the reserve study.
ASSESSMENTS HELD IN ESCROW ACCOUNTS - WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?
This month, the board reported that a resident who is upset with the lack of maintenance on a vacant lot on his street, has written the board advising that until the situation is remedied that he/she will hold their assessment in an escrow account. Vice President/Legal & Compliance Chair (conflict of check and balance in the board structure), Garrison notified the resident by letter, that the board levied the assessments, and the resident was required to pay according to our governing documents, or fines would be imposed, and necessary collection steps taken.
Where would a resident get the idea that they could settle a dispute over maintenance by holding their assessment in an escrow account? Why, from Mr. Garrison himself. QUICK HISTORY: During the heat immediately following the WPA Board's vote to assess, fund, and dredge. Mr. Garrison (then resident), along with two others, not only authored, and signed a letter to residents advising them to hold their assessments from the board, by placing them in accounts that they had arranged/ discussed, with Anderson Bros. Bank. Basically, they/he were advising residents to ignore, hold hostage the funds necessary to complete a project, and vote of a duly elected board.
This resident, and you, should be insulted, and concerned that we have a board member - let alone one that holds the chairs of Legal, and Compliance, who appears to demonstrate here that he is quite comfortable speaking out of both sides of his mouth, at the expense of sound judgment, and apparent trust that you won't remember, or don't care.
I thank the resident for bringing this situation to the board, who appear to sway and vote, without thinking, investigating our governing documents, and voting with their independent thought, in the best interests of the association. Why does he have all this power? It starts with our President, who has the authority to name committee chairs, and bleeds on through this entire board. You ought to be concerned, not just on this issue, but so many others.
Does the resident have a real issues? Probably! I've been writing about property maintenance - both built lots, and vacant, for several years. This association looks like our neighborhood is in decline. Can you hold your assessment payment if your board is failing to follow the governing documents? I'm not sure. I have thought at times, of taking it to Small Claims court. In some respects, our governing documents relating to appearance and maintenance, are a promise to the person buying property here - the reason we bought here, and pay assessments. Yet, I have documentation of just how far this board will let things slip, to the point of slip shod, trailer park appearance.
If the resident persists, could a battle go their way? They, and you, will have to judge for yourself. I would suggest that you follow the twisted real life, Wedgefield legal tale of the last standing canal lot owner, and the could appear corrupted results. Who was the Legal Chair who guided this mess? Garrison.
Before I add the article, I've added pictures of just what this board will allow in maintenance deviation, when it is a fellow board member, or board member's interest.
BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO READ, PLEASE NOTE THAT IT MAY BE A LITTLE MESSY, I'M FED UP.
I've prepared the following information to the best of my ability. To verify for yourself, please go to The Wedgefield Times (as soon as it is available), and listen to the tape of the WPA 2015 Annual Meeting, visit the WPA office, and ask to review the 2 Beverly documents, and read the article ""
We'll start with some questions that can't be answered, unless your board opens up, and handles the situation with honesty, integrity.
*Is forgery on a official document a crime?
*If forgery is a crime, and it is committed against your association, should your board make the members aware, and follow it up with a proper OPEN investigation, and refer it to the proper authorities?
*Why would a board go quiet, under the board table, on litigation, where it appears forgery took place, when the issue contained in the litigation, has rocked, and shredded our community twice?
*Why haven't you been following this board's actions, researching for yourself, and calling members of this board on their actions?
Here we go! During the annual meeting, where we are advised that this is the one time during the year that we can participate, DURING the meeting, people asked various questions from the floor, respectfully raising their hands, waiting for acknowledgement from the board table, giving their name and address, and presenting their question, or information, and getting feed back from the board. I did all of the above. One of my comments/questions related to the Beverly documents, requesting answers as to why the membership was not kept informed.
I explained that I had reviewed the two documents. It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments. The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed. From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees. It appears, one member paid. We’ll call him A. That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”
During the annual meeting, I asked why we had to go, almost a year and a half later, and get a second ruling, from the SAME referee (both sides of the litigation have to pay the referee), when we had won? At one point in my questioning, our Legal Chair, said something about not wanting to talk about it. I said, we had a right to know. It was explained that Hal L. Beverly, had NEVER SIGNED the document. I reviewed the document. His name is typed in, and the signature is in ink, and this document came from the WPA legal file. Who gave the board the document? Who DID sign the document? Who told the board it wasn't Beverly's signature? When was the board informed? Why did this board vote in October of 2014 to go back and pay Beverly, again, for a new order, reversing half of the old order? Why didn't your board notify the membership, and the solicitor, and the authorities, that they had a forged signature, on a document that was intended to serve as a legal decision, on an issue that has torn this community apart with each dredging? Why didn't the board give resident "A", his money back, when they knew they had pressured the member, with a false ruling?
Where are you? Why are you allowing this corrupt, blind eye, governance of our community?
Where would a resident get the idea that they could settle a dispute over maintenance by holding their assessment in an escrow account? Why, from Mr. Garrison himself. QUICK HISTORY: During the heat immediately following the WPA Board's vote to assess, fund, and dredge. Mr. Garrison (then resident), along with two others, not only authored, and signed a letter to residents advising them to hold their assessments from the board, by placing them in accounts that they had arranged/ discussed, with Anderson Bros. Bank. Basically, they/he were advising residents to ignore, hold hostage the funds necessary to complete a project, and vote of a duly elected board.
This resident, and you, should be insulted, and concerned that we have a board member - let alone one that holds the chairs of Legal, and Compliance, who appears to demonstrate here that he is quite comfortable speaking out of both sides of his mouth, at the expense of sound judgment, and apparent trust that you won't remember, or don't care.
I thank the resident for bringing this situation to the board, who appear to sway and vote, without thinking, investigating our governing documents, and voting with their independent thought, in the best interests of the association. Why does he have all this power? It starts with our President, who has the authority to name committee chairs, and bleeds on through this entire board. You ought to be concerned, not just on this issue, but so many others.
Does the resident have a real issues? Probably! I've been writing about property maintenance - both built lots, and vacant, for several years. This association looks like our neighborhood is in decline. Can you hold your assessment payment if your board is failing to follow the governing documents? I'm not sure. I have thought at times, of taking it to Small Claims court. In some respects, our governing documents relating to appearance and maintenance, are a promise to the person buying property here - the reason we bought here, and pay assessments. Yet, I have documentation of just how far this board will let things slip, to the point of slip shod, trailer park appearance.
If the resident persists, could a battle go their way? They, and you, will have to judge for yourself. I would suggest that you follow the twisted real life, Wedgefield legal tale of the last standing canal lot owner, and the could appear corrupted results. Who was the Legal Chair who guided this mess? Garrison.
Before I add the article, I've added pictures of just what this board will allow in maintenance deviation, when it is a fellow board member, or board member's interest.
The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information to the best of my ability, from review of records, and my notes, taken during a scheduled visit at the WPA. While the law covering records review, provided the ability to have copies of requested documents, I did not request copies, as my board, your board, have denied them in the past. To confirm the detail provided below, I suggest that you write the board, and request a date and time to review The orders -2, signed by Referee Beverly, in 2013 and 2014, regarding the litigation, against the canal lot owner who refused to pay the dredging assessments.
I visited the office today at the scheduled time, and was provided most of the detail that I had requested. I’d like to thank Board Member Cline, for her efforts in gathering the documents, and arranging for a comfortable place to review, at what has to be a very busy time. In this article, I will focus on two documents in particular, two orders, signed by Chip & Hal Beverly. The orders focus on the litigation of members, at times one, at another two, who failed to pay their canal related dredging assessments. Both live on the canals, and to protect their rightful privacy, will be titled A & B members.
It should be noted that these cases have been hanging, almost since the beginning of the dredging, which took place in 2010. Details of which each owed, is insignificant to this particular article. It appears to me, to become and issue of principle, sound judgment, and open honest governance.
I am not a lawyer, so bear with me. It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments. The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed. Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment. Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.
“Therefore, I find that the plaintiff acted with proper authority when it maintained and assessed the canal assessments”
#13 of the order. “Regarding the assessment of fees, section 3331-302 (15) of the South Carolina Code (2006) states in Part, “(E) every corporation has…the same powers as an individual…to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out it’s affairs including without limitation, power…to impose dews, assessments, and admission and transfer fees upon it member… “The Covenants and By-laws of the Plaintiff run with the land and are binding upon all persons, firms, and corporations owning any interest in the lands within Wedgefield Plantation Association. The language of Article IV of the By-laws, particularly Sections 2 and 4 give the Plaintiff wide discretion in levying Individual Assessments and using the Individual Assessments. For the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desireable in the opinion of the board of directors for the general benefit of the subdivision.”
#11 “The Master Deed and By-laws, together provide among other things that 1) The owner of each lot shall be personally liable to the Assoc. for the payment of all regular and individual assessments levied by the Association and shall be personally liable for interest.”
From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees. It appears, one member paid. We’ll call him A. That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”
Go back to my letter to the board. I requested documents that would have showed me what was happening after order one, and before order two. They weren’t provided. I asked for all related invoices, defendant lawyer, or member correspondence, etc. They might have provided insight to the road traveled. We can’t rely on the minutes of meetings, in my humble opinion they have been sanitized. I attend most board meetings, and for the most part, little to nothing was said from the board table, between the two orders. The next order relative to this case, is signed almost a year and a half later, and reverses the decision regarding Individual Assessment - $5,000 to canal lot owners, only.
The second order is signed on October 30, 2014, by CHIP Beverly, Special Referee Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment. Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. VALIDITY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE I find that the Board of Directors’ decision to levy an annual assessment increase is an intra vires act and the purpose for the increase (canal dredging) is within the sound business judgment of the Board. It is reasonable for the Board to construe canal dredging as a preservation of property values, safety, and aesthetic appeal of the subdivision. It matters not that the canals are not Association common area property because the dredging could still be construed as a benefit to the association at large. WPA is entitled to judgment and foreclosure against the Defendants in the annual assessment Increase, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of collection, and interest.
B. Validity of the five thousand dollar Individual Assessment The association is bound to follow the covenants and its own bylaws. Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass’n V. Pellzer, 292 S.C. 343, 348, 356 S.E. 2d 411, 414 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987) (reversing judgment against a homeowner for non payment of assessments on the basis that the association had no authority to levy flat fee annual maintenance charges where the governing documents required charges to be based on property values).
In addition to Annual assessments, the By-laws for WPA provide that individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by the Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. The Restrictions themselves do not mention individual assessments.
The strict parameters for which an individual assessment may be levied indicate that the board was without express authority to levy individual assessments for the purpose of canal dredging. Individual Assessments are limited to costs for keeping up lots. Clearly the canals are not within the bounds of individual lots. As it relates to the Individual Assessment of Five Thousand Dollars, I find for the Defendants.”
After I took my notes, and went home, I sat and reviewed my notes. I am still left wondering about too many things. First, notice Chip & Hal Beverly. I assumed two people, maybe in a partnership. I asked myself why our board after the first order, would go back and pay again. They had won! Both assessments stood. I went to the computer and looked for Hal & Chip Beverly. It isn’t two people. Hal’s nick name is Chip. What would cause a board to go back to the same person, who gave an opinion, justified it, and they won, who is now writing a new opinion on Individual Assessment, and they lose a large part? My only thought is that someone, or more, who moves the board HERD around, convinced them, that they had to do it.
There is a larger HERD, led by some on this board, - members, enough of them, that we have such apathy, that we don’t question, we don’t go review documents, we take half truths, reports from the board table that have little or no information – long absences with no updates, and let it be.
One of the two members sued, paid the $5,000. One was robbed because he believed he had to, or lose his home. It could appear, that the second, had contacts on the board, and was involved with their Agenda. If this one didn’t have to pay, why did the other, and what about the 78 other canal lot owners who paid. I forget myself. When word got out that one didn’t have to pay, and some of us asked for our money back , it was stated that the time had run out for us. No one, would answer as to what law, etc. This board answers to no one, just dances to the music of their own hidden agenda. I believe that we deserve answers to just exactly how the second ruling was allowed to happen. Garrison & DeMarchi, during a board meeting October 2014, with little or no information provided, kept calling Beverly a judge, like a judge, the power of a judge, when actually he was a referee, who each side would have had to pay him his fees. No judge calls for a board to vote, on an outcome! We were paying this judge?????, for a second time to violate his first ruling. This should have gone to court if the member & his lawyer wouldn’t pay, after the first settlement.
Before I finish, I should note that Beverly died. I’ve nothing against him. I resent this board’s denials of fact by hiding information that should be available under the law, failing to offer full – if any information at meetings, and individual board members who sit by raise their hands and vote yes, either without demanding information, or turning a blind eye to the great deviance of the actions of this board,, that robs us of good, sound, fair governance.
Write the board, and ask to see these documents, ask where all the documents are? Ask individual board members how they could have voted for this second go around, with a REFEREE that wrote the first one, and was about to turn the first order up side down..
We'll start with some questions that can't be answered, unless your board opens up, and handles the situation with honesty, integrity.
*Is forgery on a official document a crime?
*If forgery is a crime, and it is committed against your association, should your board make the members aware, and follow it up with a proper OPEN investigation, and refer it to the proper authorities?
*Why would a board go quiet, under the board table, on litigation, where it appears forgery took place, when the issue contained in the litigation, has rocked, and shredded our community twice?
*Why haven't you been following this board's actions, researching for yourself, and calling members of this board on their actions?
Here we go! During the annual meeting, where we are advised that this is the one time during the year that we can participate, DURING the meeting, people asked various questions from the floor, respectfully raising their hands, waiting for acknowledgement from the board table, giving their name and address, and presenting their question, or information, and getting feed back from the board. I did all of the above. One of my comments/questions related to the Beverly documents, requesting answers as to why the membership was not kept informed.
I explained that I had reviewed the two documents. It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments. The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed. From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees. It appears, one member paid. We’ll call him A. That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”
During the annual meeting, I asked why we had to go, almost a year and a half later, and get a second ruling, from the SAME referee (both sides of the litigation have to pay the referee), when we had won? At one point in my questioning, our Legal Chair, said something about not wanting to talk about it. I said, we had a right to know. It was explained that Hal L. Beverly, had NEVER SIGNED the document. I reviewed the document. His name is typed in, and the signature is in ink, and this document came from the WPA legal file. Who gave the board the document? Who DID sign the document? Who told the board it wasn't Beverly's signature? When was the board informed? Why did this board vote in October of 2014 to go back and pay Beverly, again, for a new order, reversing half of the old order? Why didn't your board notify the membership, and the solicitor, and the authorities, that they had a forged signature, on a document that was intended to serve as a legal decision, on an issue that has torn this community apart with each dredging? Why didn't the board give resident "A", his money back, when they knew they had pressured the member, with a false ruling?
Where are you? Why are you allowing this corrupt, blind eye, governance of our community?
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
MORE TO COME ON THE WPA JANUARY 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING, BUT I COULDN'T RESIST THIS BIRDS EYE VIEW OF SAME OLD, SAME OLD
During resident questions at the end of the meeting, a resident stated that there was a truck without a license plate parked in the area at the end of Governor Johnston, where the WPA has a gate, and grounds' storage area, that had been there for over 6 weeks. Here comes the cast of characters! Board member/Grounds Chair, McMillin jumps in and states that the truck belongs to the grounds vendor, and that it broke down, and they promised to get it out of there. He further states that he has called them many times, each time they have promised to remove it. So similar to the hide and seek of the dock adventure. Board member, Cline does the right thing, and suggests that a letter be sent immediately notifying the vendor that unless it is removed by a date two weeks out that it will be towed. Thank you Cline. Vice President/Legal Chair/Compliance Chair, Garrison agrees (Go back to his role in the dock adventure. He appears to say the right thing in the moment, but only goes back to the moment when questioned.) McMillin asks if he could just CALL THEM????? How has that been working for him (Depends on legitimate intention.)? Garrison states a letter should be written giving them 7 days, and that if they have to tow it, it won't be difficult to recoup the cost (vendor).
The point is same old, same old. Favored people (Grounds' vendor) aren't held to appropriate standard, certainly not in keeping with what would be reasonable if this board held to sound business practice in representation of the membership. This board won't uphold our governing document standards in benefit of the membership, and property value maintenance, and dance to fool us, rather than protect our property values. The theatrical face, and farce - faked surprise & resolution, don't cut it, without REAL follow through.
Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)