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.
______________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2012 BOARD MEETING
-------------------------------
BOARD MEMBER /CANDIDATES: Anderson, DeMarchi
We'll go straight to the minutes. "Approved December 2011 - motion passed 6 ayes & 1 nay, John McBride requested his report be attached to the minutes, not accepted." First, thank you Secretary DeMarchi for including the ayes and nay. It becomes a little complicated but it is important. During the December meeting McBride read his report, a legal report from a meeting he and other board members attended with the attorney. It should have been read into the minutes, and provided. It is not. The report is important. It speaks to your entire board wanting to cover and not deal with the facts so they can sing joined at the hip - "let there be peace" at the expense of open, honest, governance. McMillin and Barrier are absent. Your board did not want to deal with the facts presented in McBride's document. Residents, this is a lynch pin moment that provides insight into the inner workings of your board. It is a hinge moment that carries and defines their governance model throughout the year. They count on you not attending meetings, not listening to the tapes of meetings, not reading the minutes - such as they are. We all want peace, but not at the expense of good, open, governance. We can have peace and good governance if our board is competent in presenting the detail without threats but plain open, honest discussion and representive voting. We elect nine members of our community as individuals to represent us using their individual knowledge, business sense, common sense, and to bring governance decisions to open discussion and vote as individuals. If they don't have the backbone to stand up and tell us how it is, they don't belong at the board table. Anderson and DeMarchi vote for minutes, excluding McBride's report. They are two of the board that voted in January to send a letter to the attorney noting who has access to the attorney. McBride had said he wanted two board members to be present at all attorney meetings. These two candidates - DeMarchi and Anderson ignored him. Why? Could be they don't want more reports like this. I do. Don't you? I want to know what some are willing to cover up - literally at our expense, using our assessment dollars to pay illegitimate legal fees. The report is provided at the end of this article.
Back to the minutes - the secretary's report (DeMarchi). "The Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality statement are ready to sign." We aren't going to spend a lot of time on this. It becomes more of an issue in reports on other meetings. It should be noted that DeMarchi and Anderson voted on these after two readings. Later we will hear an apology from DeMarchi on the origins of the Confidentiality Agreement. Month after month you will see your board break this agreement. The very agreement they want you to sign as a volunteer or committee member. They break the Conflict of Interest every time they ignore and treat McBride with indifference and ridicule month after month.
As we finish reviewing the February minutes you'll note that a resident asks "A question on what will be done by the Board if the confidential statement is broken by a board member." I have written the board and asked. We have never had an answer. I'll answer. NOTHING! What makes me say that? It has happened every month at the board table and at least once in the Wragg. Nothing happened to them. The great tedious rule and policy makers. The treasurer broke it in a published report provided at the August meeting. When a board member mentioned it she said she would work to change it and then said, "blog away Madeline'. I have and I will continue to. If your next question is what would happen to a committee member or volunteer who broke it, it could go either way with this fickle board. They ignore their errors, cover and hide important detail like McBride's report, but you, they could find issue with you. Candidates Anderson and DeMarchi condoned all this with their votes.
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 fourth article in the series will cover March 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.
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 fourth article in the series will cover March 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.
MC BRIDES REPORT PAGE ONE
MCBRIDES REPORT PAGE TWO
