Residents, we are approaching the time when we will vote by proxy, or by ballot at the annual meeting. Three of our candidates currently serve on the Board. Their actions and votes are a matter of record. The Wedgefield Examiner will review the actions and votes at the Board table of each of the candidate board members - Anderson, DeMarchi, and Walton (John). They enter the record at different times. DeMarchi was elected for one year. His record starts in December 2011. Walton (John) and Anderson's appear later in the year as they were each appointed after the resignations of Huggins and Walters. The review of their performance will be reported month by month. Each time a month is reported the article will note which of the candidates were involved. I will publish this preface with each of the monthly reports.
My work has been difficult but I think that it is important to look to the records. At first I thought I could just review minutes. That wasn't possible because in my humble opinion, they have been sanitized. They don't include discussion, or closed executive meetings that are suppose to be open. I've had to go back in time to articles on the blog that include transcriptions of the tapes from monthly meetings, to notes taken at executive meetings - few were open and some closed after residents arrived.
In all cases I have transcribed tapes to the best of my ability. The notes that I have taken "other meetings" where there wasn't a tape, have been taken to the best of my ability, in an effort to report what occurred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE JANUARY 17, 2012 BOARD MEETING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIDATE/BOARD MEMBERS: DeMarchi, Anderson (Anderson had been appointed to the Board prior to this meeting.)
Today we are able to look back at approved minutes. Normally the minutes from the December meeting would be approved at the January meeting. The December minutes are presented to the board members at the board table. Approval will take place at the February meeting. Advance notice: prepare yourself for our report for February. There are issues. We'll wait until then. It is confusing enough.
The now approved January minutes provide the following quote under the Secretary's Report. "Minutes of the meetings will be brief and reflect the accomplishments the meeting." In the Preface I state that as I was preparing this series of articles that I felt the minutes had been sanitized. This quote provides you the beginning concept of sanitation of the minutes. If you listen to the tape of the January meeting you will find that true discussion is eliminated. You don't know who voted yea or nay. What is worse is that you don't know who stood up, asked questions, and refused to rubber stamp this self called "cohesive board." As we move through month by month it is blatant. I hold all of the Board responsible for this happening. For purposes of review of board member/candidates action I hold DeMarchi responsible. I won't hold Anderson responsible in January because it is his first meeting, but DeMarchi is secretary. I will hold him responsible now because it is an indication of how he has performed throughout his tenure.
The approved, sanitized, minutes state the following. "A motion was made by Al DeMarchi, and seconded by Jason Barrier to send attorney Moody a letter outlining his specific contact with the board." I had to go to the tape to hear discussion. Mc Bride brought a lot of discussion to the table regarding this motion. Briefly he tells the Board that two board members should always meet with the attorney. He feels that it is important that two board members hear what the attorney said. Additionally he feels each board member may have varying questions regarding the subject discussed based on what the attorney says. President Watlton says it is time to trust the board. I'll agree with Walton, but for my own reason. It is time to trust the board to do the right thing, but they can't be trusted because they want to sing "let there be peace". McBride wants to know who will have access to the attorney. It will be the Legal Chair, or a committee member. We'll discuss the committee member later because there is a motion on a new committee member later on. Anderson remained silent. DeMarchi appears to push McBride's suggestion aside. In fact if you listen to the tape no one supports McBride. This is one of the problems of this joined at the hip board. Your sanitized minutes don't even tell you who voted on this motion. The following is another quote from the minutes regarding the motion. "Motion passed. Secretary to draft letter for board approval and signature". We'll go back to "trust the board" later.
The next issue requires the following quote from the minutes. "Bob Garrison made a motion for Bob Nichols to serve on Legal Committee. Al DeMarchi seconded, motion passed." Guess it was unanimous but we don't know. So candidates DeMarchi and Anderson appear to have voted for this. Now remember committee member Nichols could contact the attorney with Garrison's approval. What is the problem?
For over two previous years we experienced board leadership under dueling lawsuits. Real day to day governance was set aside while we existed with most of the Board, on one side of one of the lawsuits, trying to remove, diminish, or get control of legal. Thankfully, with the November 2011 election and the settlement of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas the majority of the Board members are not involved in a suit, one against the other. We now only have two involved in the counter suit - Garrison and McMillin. Yes, McMillin is suing Garrison.
If you remember, the Legal Chair appointment was so important to the Concerned Citizen element of the 2011 Board - Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Barrier, and Walters that they removed Walton as President, made Wilson president, and named Huggins Legal Chair. In October 2011 they passed a motion to have Board Attorney Moody, begin to investigate legal action on some of the aspects contained in the Zieske, Wilson, Thomas lawsuit. They were prepared to use our association funds to continue their battle.
Garrison has a long recorded history with the Concerned Citizens. He was one of the Board organizers of the 2010 recall. He was part of the Board that publicly humiliated and attacked two female Board Members with threats of arrest - who were cleared of their unfounded accusations, and was one of the authors of a 2010 letter to residents recommending they put their $175.00/yr. and if applicable their $5,000 assessments in an escrow account.
In fairness, at later points in recent history it can appear that Garrison has moved more to the middle, but just when you breathe a sigh of relief, he goes the other way.
In the least, he is still under a lawsuit brought by some residents in the community (former Board Members sued during the Zieske, Wilson, Thomas lawsuit), and a fellow Board Member -McMillin. President Walton's appointment of Garrison, with a field of "untouched by the lawsuits" Board Members makes no sense.
Now in January, as Legal Chair, he nominates Bob Nichols, fellow co-author of the 2010 letter to residents recommending putting assessments in escrow.
We needn't spend more time here. Beyond these observations. There is one that is more significant. The Concerned Citizens, fall to this phrase when all else fails, "it is precedent". In regard to the Legal Committee, precedent is that until the appointment of two residents by McBride to the Legal Committee in 2011, there were no residents on the Legal Committee. At one time there was somewhat of a subcommittee who assisted the Legal Chair, in a clerical function, comparing WPA individual property records to county records. They did not have access to the Board Attorney, or attend meetings with the attorney.
Why should a resident, with the same status as you and I, be allowed to have preview of legal information and advice, that you and I don't? Why, should any individual, who we as a body, haven't elected, have that privilege?
We will never move forward if we continue to build bridges to lawsuits, hide information from the public, and make suspect appointments that interfere with good, sound governance.
When Anderson and DeMarchi voted did they serve the best interests of the community? I don't think so.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our third article in the series will cover February 2012 - coming soon.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
The approved, sanitized, minutes state the following. "A motion was made by Al DeMarchi, and seconded by Jason Barrier to send attorney Moody a letter outlining his specific contact with the board." I had to go to the tape to hear discussion. Mc Bride brought a lot of discussion to the table regarding this motion. Briefly he tells the Board that two board members should always meet with the attorney. He feels that it is important that two board members hear what the attorney said. Additionally he feels each board member may have varying questions regarding the subject discussed based on what the attorney says. President Watlton says it is time to trust the board. I'll agree with Walton, but for my own reason. It is time to trust the board to do the right thing, but they can't be trusted because they want to sing "let there be peace". McBride wants to know who will have access to the attorney. It will be the Legal Chair, or a committee member. We'll discuss the committee member later because there is a motion on a new committee member later on. Anderson remained silent. DeMarchi appears to push McBride's suggestion aside. In fact if you listen to the tape no one supports McBride. This is one of the problems of this joined at the hip board. Your sanitized minutes don't even tell you who voted on this motion. The following is another quote from the minutes regarding the motion. "Motion passed. Secretary to draft letter for board approval and signature". We'll go back to "trust the board" later.
The next issue requires the following quote from the minutes. "Bob Garrison made a motion for Bob Nichols to serve on Legal Committee. Al DeMarchi seconded, motion passed." Guess it was unanimous but we don't know. So candidates DeMarchi and Anderson appear to have voted for this. Now remember committee member Nichols could contact the attorney with Garrison's approval. What is the problem?
For over two previous years we experienced board leadership under dueling lawsuits. Real day to day governance was set aside while we existed with most of the Board, on one side of one of the lawsuits, trying to remove, diminish, or get control of legal. Thankfully, with the November 2011 election and the settlement of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas the majority of the Board members are not involved in a suit, one against the other. We now only have two involved in the counter suit - Garrison and McMillin. Yes, McMillin is suing Garrison.
If you remember, the Legal Chair appointment was so important to the Concerned Citizen element of the 2011 Board - Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Barrier, and Walters that they removed Walton as President, made Wilson president, and named Huggins Legal Chair. In October 2011 they passed a motion to have Board Attorney Moody, begin to investigate legal action on some of the aspects contained in the Zieske, Wilson, Thomas lawsuit. They were prepared to use our association funds to continue their battle.
Garrison has a long recorded history with the Concerned Citizens. He was one of the Board organizers of the 2010 recall. He was part of the Board that publicly humiliated and attacked two female Board Members with threats of arrest - who were cleared of their unfounded accusations, and was one of the authors of a 2010 letter to residents recommending they put their $175.00/yr. and if applicable their $5,000 assessments in an escrow account.
In fairness, at later points in recent history it can appear that Garrison has moved more to the middle, but just when you breathe a sigh of relief, he goes the other way.
In the least, he is still under a lawsuit brought by some residents in the community (former Board Members sued during the Zieske, Wilson, Thomas lawsuit), and a fellow Board Member -McMillin. President Walton's appointment of Garrison, with a field of "untouched by the lawsuits" Board Members makes no sense.
Now in January, as Legal Chair, he nominates Bob Nichols, fellow co-author of the 2010 letter to residents recommending putting assessments in escrow.
We needn't spend more time here. Beyond these observations. There is one that is more significant. The Concerned Citizens, fall to this phrase when all else fails, "it is precedent". In regard to the Legal Committee, precedent is that until the appointment of two residents by McBride to the Legal Committee in 2011, there were no residents on the Legal Committee. At one time there was somewhat of a subcommittee who assisted the Legal Chair, in a clerical function, comparing WPA individual property records to county records. They did not have access to the Board Attorney, or attend meetings with the attorney.
Why should a resident, with the same status as you and I, be allowed to have preview of legal information and advice, that you and I don't? Why, should any individual, who we as a body, haven't elected, have that privilege?
We will never move forward if we continue to build bridges to lawsuits, hide information from the public, and make suspect appointments that interfere with good, sound governance.
When Anderson and DeMarchi voted did they serve the best interests of the community? I don't think so.
Let the record stand, speak for itself. You'll have to decide as we move through the votes and actions of end of 2011 through current 2012, and who you'll vote for. Our third article in the series will cover February 2012 - coming soon.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
