The transcription follows. I 've transcribed it to the best of my ability. My advice - go to The Wedgefield Times, and listen to the Secretary's Report, yourself.
"Last item, an apology to the residents regarding the Confidentiality Statement. I made an error. I got confused in reading through documents between the Conflict of Interest and the Confidentiality Statement, but this Confidentiality Statement was originally submitted to this Board several years ago. It was resubmitted before I was ever on this Board, in September of last year. At that time it was put on a document here - letterhead, but it was never voted on and incorporated. That Confidentiality Statement was not Incorporated until January for first reading. ........(can't quite understand) in February of this year. (I assume voted on.) It was my error in responding that that document had existed prior, in the manual. It's resurfaced in the manual, but is not a specific document. It has been subsequently approved by the Board. So I apologize for the error of my ways."
I wrote the Board over two months ago and asked to see the historic document and the folder, it was found in, prior to DeMarchi's apology. As you know they didn't respond. I wrote them and set my own appointment. One, I wasn't provided the file it was "FOUND IN". Two, I was presented a copy of the Confidentiality Statement printed on WPA letterhead, with a paper attachment with two dates: 2009 and 2011. I was told that the Confidentiality Agreement was presented to the 2009 Board. In 2011 it was placed on letterhead.
I was a member of the 2009 Board and served as Secretary and Community Liaison. Admittedly, I haven't asked to see the 2009 correspondence file. I would have handled anything that came into the office during January through October of 2009. Without accusation, my recall is that it either was attached to a Compliance Committee Report, or possibly came in as a piece of correspondence, maybe from Mr. DeMarchi. It was during that time that he submitted his percentage allocations for reserves. I have no idea whether he used those percentages for the plan he submitted for Board approval this year, but they used his formula. He was also a member of the Compliance Committee, that issued the report.
I'll speak for myself, but the Compliance Committee Report was a disappointment to me as a member of the 2009 Board. The committee found irregularities, but basically did not want to take action. Really, they had gone through files that had provided information that the 2008 Board had built the office, removed monies from reserves, without a vote, at the Board table. So if this document was part of that report , it was ignored. The 2009 Board took no action on confidentiality. Check the 2009 Board Minutes.
I have reviewed the 2011 Board Minutes and found that no action was taken on the Confidentiality Agreement. When & why then, was it placed on letterhead?
Additionally, when your 2012 Board prepared to vote on the Policy Manual, they were told there was little or no changes, rather an assembly of Policy Manual documents, chronicled, and substantiated through review of minutes, etc.
My point is, the under pinning of the existence, the relevance, the necessity of this document, as it related to approval, were either lies, wishful relevance toward a plan to silence, or just a poor unintentional tool added to our governing document foundation, to silence, anyone outside of the Board agenda.
The misuse, and abuse of this ill begotten document, is compounded by two relevant points. First, who has broken the pledge of silence regarding the intent of the document to protect individual resident financial information? Several of your Board Members have broken it when reporting from their Board chairs, or in the Wragg. What has happened to them? NOTHING! THEY WON'T TALK ABOUT IT - ANOTHER OF MY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
Second, it is compounded by more unsubstantiated, untrue, information. Legal Chair Garrison, when asked about legal ramifications to residents who signed it, and possible lawsuits, sought a legal opinion that said volunteer committee members were covered by the Board insurance. I reviewed the policy during my visit to the office. I'm not an expert. I did not find it. What really continues to bother me is that another resident, during their office visit ,was told weeks and weeks ago by President Walton, that he was calling the insurance company himself. He did not reveal the answer to the resident, nor did he report on it during the July Board Meeting. Did the Board tell him, "it was confidential"?
Additionally, I want you to remember that when your Board sat at second reading to approve corrections to the policy manual, they had a list of changes to refer to, went to the pages in the manual and found that they had been corrected and added, before a vote. YOUR BOARD SHOULD WALK THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BACK TO THE BOARD TABLE AND VOTE TO REMOVE IT, AND CLEAN UP THIS MISGUIDED, MISUSE OF A DOCUMENT THAT HAS MORE LEAKS, THAN ANY WHITE HOUSE, ESPECIALLY SINCE MANY OF THEM HAVE FAILED TO USE IT ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE DOCUMENT.
Think about it. In the past, Board and committee members who dealt with individual resident financial information were advised not to reveal it. Residents who served on the Election Committee were advised that they should not reveal individual resident voting. The ballot count was to be announced during the Annual Meeting, from the Board table. Secure credible volunteers, who perform their jobs with integrity. Don't throw a document at them that lacks integrity and reeks of poor structure and misuse.
Read the attached attorney opinion. Anyone knows your Board can and should set policy. We should expect that they will vote with complete knowledge and integrity. It doesn't appear that that was the case with the Confidentiality Agreement. Was the attorney informed that the Board was going to use it for silencing committee members about more than individual financial information? WHY IS THIS OPINION NOTED, "VIA HAND DELIVERY ONLY"?
HERE IS THE LEGAL OPINION:
WHAT DO YOU THINK? SEND YOUR THOUGHTS TO wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Be sure and note whether you want your name published with it.
