Total Pageviews

Friday, April 18, 2014


I asked President Walton the following question.  "President Walton, when did the board meet and discuss policy for copies to residents?  If they haven't met, how did you allow that letter to go out to the resident?  Was this just retaliation by you and the board because too many questions were being asked about conflict of interest, or were you afraid of what they would see in the records of DeMarchi's bidding process?"

The question was asked several weeks prior to the April 15th board meeting.  The answer arrived prior to the April board meeting.  Here is President Walton's written answer, which was sent to the entire board.  "This policy is currently under review and will be discussed at next month's meeting."  That should have been the April meeting.  I was there, and it didn't happen.

Whether they discussed it or not, President Walton and your entire board have a problem.  It appears that they put the cart before the horse, and made up their minds to issue the following to my request for copies.  March 7, 2014, Community Liaison Anderson, writes, "No copies will be made for or by any resident regarding invoices or other office documents.  This applies to the board as well."  The question to President Walton, and the rest of the board remains the same.  Where is the policy written? We'll call it the Anderson March 7, 2014 policy, although it was sent to the entire board.  What date, what meeting did this, or any other board discuss, and vote to approve this policy, in a public meeting?  They can't answer the question, because it never happened.

I've written agency/authority, and provided my request to review and copy records according to state law, Anderson's March 7, 2014 answer, my question to President Walton, and his response. I also have had a verbal conversation with an advocate.  I will write the board, provide state law, the very state law DeMarchi sent to me six months ago,  and set a date and time according to the law.  Your board shouldn't have to respond.  I'll appear at the designated time.  They'll need to respond in writing, if they are going to deny a resident in good standing, and provide the policy they are using to refuse.  We'll go from there. 

This board appears to be vindictive without support of law or policy, clueless, arrogant, above the law, and just plain lawless.  President Walton lied in writing to me. Your board, each and everyone, is either covering, protecting, or feel they are above it all.

Here is the state law provided to me by DeMarchi.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014


Eight board members and six residents attended the April WPA Board Meeting. I was one of the six.  We are running today, but I hope to get the first article out this evening.

In some cases, we were left with more questions than answers, from this meeting.

1)  President Walton had told me the copy policy would be discussed at this meeting.  It didn't happen.  Why?

2)McMillin reported that he had made a profit on the lot maintenance.  He asked who had said that it was being subsidized.  We will review what he had to say, his figures, and the comments of Garrison and DeMarchi.

3)  There is a pot hole question.  Who fixed the first pot hole?  Where was it?  You'll have to guess for now, but it wasn't the one near the front entrance with the big cone in it.

4)  What will happen to delinquent accounts that have reached the stage of foreclosure?

5)  We'll ask again how many people it takes to complain, before your board spends money on the revamp of the office parking lot.

6)  Why has your board turned to handling monthly, non emergency agenda items, at specially scheduled "open meetings"?

There are more, but it is time to move to my yard.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014


On April 7th, the Wedgefield Examiner posted a article regarding a open board meeting scheduled on April the 9th.  We stated that as long as they had called the meeting, posted a notice near the front gate, and on the website, they should have posted a agenda.  Later, on April 7th, after all their previous postings, the WPA board posted the following agenda.

Notice the agenda items.  Why wouldn't all, but one, of these items be discussed at our regular monthly meeting?  First, why not post the agenda, when you post the meeting?  Then, what about the extension for the bulkhead, pot holes - been there months - if not years, 2 new members to the Compliance Committee, and the Grounds Contract, couldn't wait for an open meeting?  Meeting attendance is down, but those residents who care know to hold the 3rd Tuesday of the month for the WPA monthly board meeting.  As residents, we should be able to view our board members in discussion, and vote.  These so called, frequently called, open meetings, have even less attendance than the regular monthly meetings.
The only real reason to call a meeting, may have been discussion of legal matters which may have pertained to delinquent accounts.  Even then, your board could have handled that issue, at the regular monthly meetings, without disclosing the names of individuals.  Quite frankly, with the moves of this board, the Legal Committee Chair and committee, this board should put legal discussions out in the open.   We are paying for legal advice, with our association assessment dollars, and receiving poor service.  Legal Chair Garrison, could easily bring a report to the table from his committee.  In fact, the committee is composed of board members, with the exception of one.  Who are those board members?  They are DeMarchi, Garrison, and President Walton.  The same group who didn't feel a need to seek legal opinion on conflict of interest, and who recommended hiring an attorney, who stated he didn't have experience working with associations.
Where's the agenda for tonight's meeting.

Saturday, April 12, 2014



11.)  Board Member DeMarchi, why is the storm debris contract signed two weeks after you stated the contractor started?

Board member DeMarchi answers.  "The contract was drawn up the initial authorization, under an emergency situation, after the plantation was allowed sufficient time to gather the debris and place it along the curbs.  The original price was based upon $50.00 per ton.  After the first week, and the disposal/dump fees were suspended, a fix price bid was requested from S & W Siteworks.  An assessment was made based upon the first weeks collections and it was agreed that there was approximately 425 to 450 tons of debris.  A contract was agreed upon and signed at an open board meeting, called after the three day notice requirement, for $14,000.  Total tonnage was 423. tons and the final cost was $13,980.  The first 101.67 tons cost $4,080.00 or $40.12 per ton, which was less than the original agreement.  The remaining 321.83 tons cost $9,900.00 or $30.76 per ton.

The work was excellent according to resident comments.  It took less than three weeks to complete.  The roads were cleared of all debris on 2/14/14 and 2/15/14.  The condo area roads were cleared first.  The crews lost 2 1/2 days to rain, and 1/2 days to attend a co-workers funeral.  Also, during the cleanup, the crews were pulled off work to cut overhanging limbs that were reported as dangerous."

COMMENTS:  The question really isn't answered as to how we can expend association dollars, without even a brief statement of work, begin date, and payment arrangements.  How will an auditor look at this?  This association has been wracked with law suits.  Some of the chief documents considered by all parties were contracts.  Who signed them?  When were they signed?  Were invoices paid according to contract?  A contract could have been developed to start the work and amended as the need occurred.

DeMarchi appears to have negotiated a great price.  He stayed with the relevant changes in pricing, and negotiated in the association's best interest.  It simply would have been better if the contract memorialized it.

12)  Board member DeMarchi, why did the debris clean up start at your front door, rather than on the major roads that we All have to travel on?  I'm aware that the contractor staged in your area, but quite frankly, the contractor had to cover these miles at one time or another to get the job done.  Is this apparent, selfish, direct benefit to you, who directed this project, another conflict of interest?

Board member, DeMarchi answers the question.  "Work was started on Francis Parker Road because S&W Siteworks was performing work on Francis Parker, and the 84,000 lb. track hoe was not able to drive on the roads.  It was utilized to compact loads of debris to minimize the number of trips to the landfill.  All other equipment and trailers were parked at the end of Joanna Guillard so as to not obstruct traffic.

After consulting with condo residents, on Thursday, 2/13/14, it was requested that the condo be cleared last in an effort to provide time for the condo residents to get debris to the curb.  It was never my intent to slight the condo residents as you suggested in your inflammatory blog.

COMMENTS:   DeMarchi skirts the answer.  In the end, if the equipment was too heavy to be used on the roads, all roads had to be cleared, so the expense shouldn't have been any more, by end of contract, wherever they started.  The actions by this board, including DeMarchi, leading up to the start of this project, are questionable.  Once again, DeMarchi is in charge, stepping over another board member.  McMillin, Grounds Chair, reported at the March meeting that this responsibility had been taken away from him.  He appeared upset.  The debris clean up should have fallen under his committee.  I listened to the tape of the board meeting the evening of the storm.  McMillin is at the meeting and offers to start making calls, there and then.  There was no discussion during that meeting that DeMarchi would be taking over.  DeMarchi does mention S&W during that meeting.  As of the March board meeting, it appears no one told McMillin, who made the decision, and why it was made.  Additionally, during the March board meeting, McMillin himself, criticizes where the project started, saying, "they started at the most remote area of the association."  No one answers McMillin at the March board meeting table.

If these decisions were made by the condo residents, there were no reports for the condo owners at the February, or March meetings. 

I've reviewed the resident comments.  There were few, and for the most part they came from the residents in the area that you took care of first.

As to the "inflammatory blog", I ask DeMarchi, since the people who provided positive comment, were pretty much the same people assembled with the March resident speaker, and one was manager of another website,  others promoters of newspaper articles, and mass printings to residents, have you ever called what they do, "inflammatory"?  Can you ignore behavior, when they sing your song?

It looks bad with the change of command.  Then the commander starts at his own front door. Every board member signs a Code of Ethics that states, "Directors shall act with scrupulous good faith and candor.  They will avoid even the perception of conflict of interest, favoritism and acting out of self interest."  That didn't happen here, and DeMarchi can't run it around the flag pole, and explain it away.

13)  Board member DeMarchi, is it true that after S&W left that there was still debris left in the condo area?  If so, who had to pay Great Lawns?  Will S&W "eat that expense"?

Board Member DeMarchi answers the question. "The condo association paid $700 to GLOG to move debris to the curbs for pickup.  The clean-up crew was not responsible to get debris to the curb.  In addition, S&W hauled away debris that was placed in the parking areas in front of cars and not accessible for the large equipment.  Much of the debris was moved through manual labor to make it available for mechanical pick-up.

S&W Siteworks is not responsible for the condo resident's election to pay GLOG to move storm debris."

COMMENTS:    Again, we don't have condo reports at the February or March board meetings.  I've been provided information that differs from DeMarchi's.  Due to the abuse that is heaped on anyone who attempts to bring the truth forward.  We'll leave it, as DeMarchi reports it. 

14)  Legal Chair Garrison, since our previous attorney of record's license has been suspended, it could cause doubt regarding the critical opinions he gave regarding a number of important issues, and you have failed to get most opinions in writing, how will anyone be able to examine those opinions, and verify their validity?

Board Member Garrison answers the question.  "The fact that the former board attorney is under suspension in no way necessarily negates any previously rendered opinions.  If the board feels a need to seek additional clarification regarding previous opinions or recommendations, I'm sure that the board will request the present attorney to render an opinion.  When the board has requested written opinions they have been provided.  Those opinions are in the office and available for review."

COMMENTS:   The comments are short and sweet.  It is difficult to verify whether there are questions regarding former opinions.  Most are not in writing.  How would one be able to review and make that request.  Now, board members can't even have copies to review if they existed.  They don't trust each other enough to provide the records.  This is a lost cause.  Go back and listen to the tapes of meetings.  When asked if the opinion will be in writing, or opinion will be sought at all, Garrison often responds with, "I'm not inclined to do that".

Friday, April 11, 2014


8)  Board Member McMillin, can you explain who put board member DeMarchi  in charge of the gate house project, when the vote took place under Grounds?  Why weren't you in charge?
McMillin answers the question.  "Al DeMarchi took this project on his own, with no direction or input from me.  I felt it was an unnecessary repair."
COMMENTS:  First, unlike many of the other board members, in this case, McMillin, truly answers the question.  His answer clearly opens the can of worms, the numerous problems, not only of the whole gate house fix, but the general operative of this board.  They have no consistency in operation on any level.  McMillin is the Grounds Chair.  If this was to come under Grounds, McMillin should have met with his committee, made a proposal to the board, from his committee.  Note, McMillin has no committee.  Skip past that mess, look to line of authority, and for the second time in several months (DeMarchi mysteriously is in charge of the storm clean which is clearly under Grounds.  McMillin stated his upset during a board meeting.), DeMarchi, who has more titles that Carter has little liver pills, jumps over the authority of McMillin, and drops his pet project, under McMillin's chairmanship/authority, and brings not only a project, but a suspect project for a number of serious reasons to the board table, AND YOUR BOARD VOTES WITHOUT QUESTION AS TO WHY DE MARCHI IS IN CHARGE.  What is worse, is that President Walton, named contractor of the gate house fix, sits by and let's it all happen, over and over again.  Legal Chair/Vice President Garrison, doesn't question this, and during the October meeting, ignores requests from a sitting board member, to seek legal opinion.  Why does DeMarchi have so much power?
9) Board Member McMillin, why are you investigating reworking the parking and drive in front of the office, when on review of the correspondence file, not one resident, has complained about it?  Is this for the convenience of the board?  If so, perhaps you could park in the back lot.
McMillin answers the question.  "There have been several verbal requests to alter the driveway.  A resident mentioned it at last month's meeting during the comment portion."
COMMENTS:  If, there are residents who have verbalized a need for a change in the parking lot, why haven't they been told to write their concerns to the board?  Put it in writing has been what residents have been told in the 10 years I've lived here.  No one has written the board.  If there were concerns, how many resident requests does it take for the board to consider spending our funds?  Why do some have to put their concerns in writing, and beg for answers, and for others a phone call will do it.  Calls can't be documented.  As far as the resident who brought it up at the end of the March meeting, it was a board member's wife, who plays games there at night with 6 people.  Again, why not in writing, and how many residents would it take?
10) President Walton, when did the board meet and discuss policy for copies to residents?  If they haven't met, how did you allow that letter to go out to a resident?  Was this just retaliation by you and the board because too many questions were being asked about conflict of interest, or were you afraid of what they would see in the records of DeMarchi's bidding process?
President Walton answers the question.  "This policy is currently under review and will be discussed at next month's meeting."
COMMENTS:  President Walton fails to answer the question at all.  Why?  First he was copied, as all board members were, when DeMarchi pulled SC state law out of a hat several months ago, and sent me state law, regarding record review and copies, when I had made a request.  In fact, at that time, I requested a meeting with the President and Legal Committee, and wanted to know what other resident they had applied SC state law to, regarding records review and copies.  DeMarchi, in the presence of President Walton and Legal Chair Garrison, initially, DENIED SENDING IT TO ME (lied), despite the fact that I carried his email, sent from the office, copied to every board member.  When I sent the next request (six months later) I made sure I followed the state law as to the number of days required to give notice of record review, and blatantly asked in writing, for the records to be reviewed, the reason for the request, and copies of those records, as I might feel I needed.  I received the following from Anderson, Community Liaison, on March 8, 2014, "No copies will be made for, or by any resident, regarding invoices or office documents.  This applies to the Board members, as well".  Anderson had copied the entire board.  You'll note above, that I asked Anderson to name names, and tell me who exactly contributed that language, to the response sent to me.  He didn't answer the question.  In my case, one time state law applies, the next time it doesn't, and clearly policy has been established, because the entire board allowed this to go out to a resident.  President Walton, you failed to answer the question, the horse was out of the barn.  You allowed policy to go out, without discussion, I can only guess that it was because, I wanted copies of records regarding your award of contract, in denial of the Conflict of Interest, every one of you signed.  It looks sir, like you fail to answer because you appear to be culpable in too many areas of this fine mess.  You fail to uphold the responsibilities of president, or board member.
Perhaps, President Walton, you should request that your Legal Chair, take DeMarchi's email to me, holding me to state law, and Anderson's ridiculous, discriminating response to me on March 8th, to the Board Attorney of Record, and get an opinion in writing, prior to the April board meeting.   THE INFORMATION, AND DOCUMENTATION, NOTED ABOVE WILL BE SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, early next week.  They may, or may not act on it, but you have openly violated the very state law, YOU forced on me over six months ago.  I only can hope that they notice that you went so far in your March 8, email, that you removed the right of EVEN board members to have copies.  It is worth my time and effort to write them, after all, you have violated a state law.


Thursday, April 10, 2014



5)  Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison, how could you have failed to seek a legal opinion, feigned lack of understanding of board member McBride's questions of conflict of interest, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?

The answer is provided by Garrison.  "This was addressed at the March meeting."

COMMENTS:  The questions were sent prior to the March meeting.  You'll have to listen to the tape yourself.  Garrison's answer during the March meeting does not address the heart of this question.  The question, to him and the others, is how sitting at that board table during the October 2013 meeting, what was their position - motive, in ignoring, failing to even mention at the board table, why they INDIVIDUALLY, voted WHILE disavowing a document, each and everyone of them signed? It could appear their individual signatures to a document committing them to adhere to their own stated principle, is not worth the paper it is applied to.  Technically, it is a lie, to their written agreement and promise to all of us.  During the March 2014 meeting Garrison said he had sought legal opinion (When he wouldn't, after being asked to at the October meeting.), that there was no conflict according to SC law, or the bylaws, and perhaps at some point the board would entertain bringing the Policy Manual in line with the other two.  You, listen to the tape.  Too little, too late.  In his various roles on the board Garrison, should be above it all, and serve as the guiding light to legality.  He appears to be selective, dependent on the issue, to seek legal opinion, until pushed to a brink.  All should be reminded that the Policy Manual has been changed regularly to accommodate the whims of project, by this board.  Moreover, it should be remembered that there was a time in our history when our governing documents ruled.  There was no question about SC law, until it was inserted in 2010 for a recall, under state law, with one of the main drivers - Garrison.  It has since opened the door to the games played often, particularly within this very document.  It has allowed this board to twist and turn, sometimes apply our governing documents, other times state law, dependent on their project, or in some cases, whether they like a resident, or not.  They've thrown state law at me regarding copies and records review, then didn't appreciate the freedom it gave me, and pulled it back - nothing less than selective governance.  Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison, you failed to answer the question.

6)  Community Liaison Chair Anderson, how could you put your name to correspondence that denied the right of a resident, any resident, AND Board Members themselves, copies?  Who on the board contributed to that correspondence and what governing documents, laws, etc. did you or they site?  Have you as a board member been voting with proper review of documents? 

The answer is provided by Anderson.  ""As community liaison, I simply gather the information and prepare the response.  Many times the information to the letter I send out are from the committee chairperson of the department involved in the question asked."

First, Anderson fails to answer the question. The question was very specific.  Additionally, his answer might lead one to believe that it indicates his willingness to allow answers to residents to go out under his name, without his review, or approval.  Who is he covering up for?  Why would a adult, business professional, allow the answer I received regarding records and copies, which denied me and BOARD MEMBERS, rights under the very state law, that Treasurer/Compliance Chair DeMarchi, had sent me in another one of his unprofessional snits?  The above answer is ridiculous, obvious avoidance, and illustrates yet another Board Member, who is willing to play in this board's shell game. 

7) Board Member DeMarchi, can you explain why calls had to be made to your home, to secure records that a resident had been INFORMED BY THE BOARD, were ready for review, and yet you had them, at home?  The lack of professionalism and integrity in the records that were provided, could indicate more problems for this Conflict of Interest issue, why weren't the records in the office?  Could you explain why the bidding process appears so pour for the gate house fix?

The answer is provided by DeMarchi.  "The office staff called my residence to verify the specifications for the work to be performed on multiple jobs.  I maintain a copy of all my correspondence with the office.  The fact, as was explained to you at the time, was the information was in the office and was in a file on the other computer in the office."

COMMENTS:  Board Member DeMarchi, LIES on several levels when he states, "The fact, as was explained to you at the time, was the information was in the office and was in a file on the other computer in the office"  I had requested in writing the following records regarding the board's "gate house fix":  the requests for proposal, bids, and contracts.  I received written correspondence from Anderson Community Liaison that the records I had requested were waiting and ready for my review.  I still have a phone message on my machine from Secretary Cline informing me that records were ready and waiting for my review.  I took a resident witness with me to the office.  Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison was in the office when I was presented with the records I had asked to review.  He was present when I stated that the files presented did not contain the request for proposal.  It appears that key members of this board, who advised me in writing and on a taped message, had never verified that what they stated was true, or you and the others, never intended for me to review those records.  The paid staff person NEVER told me that the file was stored on another computer. That would have been ridiculous.  Would you have allowed me to review the file from that computer? She did phone your home.  She then informed me that the record was coming through on the machine.  Remember I have a resident witness to all of this.  When I asked where the contract was, I was initially told that it was probably at President Walton's for his signature.  Again, a call was made to you and I was handed President Walton's bid and advised that that was the contract.  There was no contract date, terms of payment, or LINES FOR SIGNATURE,  OR DATE OF SIGNATURES!  You as a representative of that board, with all your committee and officer titles, allowed me to believe, based on what was presented that those documents, were the fine legal records, of you, others, and our President's work, on the gate house fix!  Every board member had been sent a copy of Anderson's correspondence telling me ALL THE REQUESTED RECORDS were AVAILABLE for my review, and now a blatant lie follows, written with arrogance, and apparent assurance from your cronies on the board, that you will get away with it.


Tuesday, April 8, 2014


I posted my article this morning (April 8th) at about 10:30 AM.  I've provided the email from the office, which you'll note was sent early afternoon.  I've also provided the top portion of Anderson's response which is dated March 31st.  In all cases, if you have doubts about what is presented, you can verify it by reviewing the office Correspondence File. 

Why the delay in providing the answers?  This is the second time that Anderson has prepared an answer to me in a reasonable time frame, but the office has not provided it to me until after I posted a article.  Why??????

The presentation of your board's answers will require more than one article.  My questions, as sent, will be inserted, and the answers provided with comment.  It should be noted that while I thank Anderson for his efforts, the answers provided by individual board members, often avoid the question, and skirt around the issue after the fact.

1)  President Walton, why won't you answer the question as to how you could have bid and accepted a contract with the WPA to fix the gate house, after signing the Conflict of Interest, required by every board member?
Answer provided by President Walton.:  "Mr. Walton's company has withdrawn the bid."
COMMENTS:  This does not answer the question.  His answer is a result, but does not explain how he bid in the first place, after signing the Conflict of Interest.  You'll note the same approach in many of the following answers.
2) Compliance Chair DeMarchi, how could you have even entertained sending a bid to the President  of the association, after you signed a Conflict of Interest, required by every board member, doesn't that breach the responsibility of your role as Compliance Chair?
Answer provided by DeMarchi.:  "The bid was provided to Jacky Walton Construction Company.  The company has performed outstanding work for over 30 ears and was highly recommended by the residents that have utilized his services here in the plantation over the past several years.  The company is a licensed contractor and according to State Law Section 33-31-831.  Director conflict of interest, there is no conflict of interest.  The Wedgefield Plantation By-laws also state under Section 13, "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to preclude any Director from serving in any other capacity and receiving compensation thereof."  This is the FOURTH (4th) time this has been answered for you.  Please retain this copy for your records." 
COMMENTS:  First, will someone go and review the correspondence file and find me one (1), let alone 4 answers from DeMarchi or any other board member, RELATING TO BOARD MEMBERS' ANSWERS AS TO HOW THEY COULD HAVE SIGNED THE "CONFLICT OF INTEREST", and participated in a vote to give our President a contract?????  MR. DE MARCHI, if the answer to that question is in the file even once, I'LL QUIT THE BLOG.  Rudeness and gross exaggeration won't cut it.  You of all the board members, fine tuned the Policy Manual to your liking, and should have been aware.  It could appear you have selective memory.  The Board Attorney of Record, after his opinion was FINALLY SOUGHT, said you violated the very Conflict of Interest, each and every one of you signed.  Additionally, I have NEVER made any statements about the fine work of Jacky Walton Construction.  I do find the owner to be less than honorable for participating in this ridiculous situation, and acting as a coward, afraid to answer the question, and allowing you, and others to attempt to harm those who ask, and allow you, and himself, to attempt to answer with smoke and mirrors.  You didn't answer the question Mr. DeMarchi.  You've tried state law before with me regarding copies, when I followed state law in my last request, I was denied.  It is some dancing act that you have.
3) Secretary Cline, how could you have sat back and laughed during board member McBride's questioning of Conflict of Interest, during the October Board Meeting, and voted to award a contract to the President of the association, after you, yourself, signed the Conflict of Interest?
Answer provided by Cline.:  "I would have to review the tape of the Oct. 2013 Board meeting to know what I specifically laughed about.  However, I will not be spending one moment of my time to answer such request. You know why I voted the way I did as that was also on the tape."
COMMENTS:  Secretary Cline, you get what you give.  The fall - failed to answer, from the high horse you responded from, is a long way down to the ground, and you hit it with that response.  You have laughed numerous times during board meetings, at the expense of the one who questions.  Perhaps, you should listen to yourself on tape.  During the October 2013 meeting, when McBride was questioning conflict of interest, you laughed and said "at least we know where he lives". Is that your criteria?  Maybe, you should "spend one moment of YOUR time", reviewing the documents you sign.  You failed to answer the question.  Not one board member, acknowledged, or discussed the Conflict of Interest", each and everyone of you signed, prior to the vote to give the association President a contract.
4)  Board members:  McMillin, Walton (John), Anderson, Johnson, how could you have voted to award the President of the association a contract, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?
Answer provided by Anderson ONLY.:  "The discussion prior to the vote satisfied our question of any conflict.  It has become incredibly difficult to hire good contractors willing to work with our association.  Mr. Walton's firm has a solid reputation and as earned our trust.  We would have no reason believe he had any agenda other than trying to help Wedgefield. 
COMMENTS:    First, Anderson at least attempts to answer.  It isn't an answer.  No one questions Walton's firms reputation.  Anderson, like the others does not respond to the fact that he put pen to paper - Conflict of Interest, and failed to acknowledge it during that meeting, or even attempt to live up to it. As to "it has become incredibly difficult to hire good contractors willing to work with our association", that was the cry of a board that gave one almost "in house" contractor over $700,000 of our money. In 2008 McMillin, then a candidate tracked down fake businesses, who were claimed to be legitimate bidders.  During 2009, McMillin proved that he could get bidders for what ever he put a request for proposal out for.  That's a lame excuse for violating your written promise to our community.  Apparently, McMillin, Walton (John), and Johnson, are in hiding, as they failed to provide an answer.