Read the email from DeMarchi. Once again, a board has called on state law, to circumvent our own governing documents. It is a dramatic leap and could appear to desperate. Why? In 2010 a Concerned Citizen weighted board circumvented our governing documents to recall two board members who were suing them. That board brought their own attorney in as attorney of record. In 2011 when residents attempted to use the same state law to recall 5 board members, the Concerned Citizen legal chair on the board, fired their attorney because he gave approval to the new group's effort to move forward with their recall, and hired a new attorney of record, Moody. Moody said our by-laws stood. We've operated with Garrison, as legal chair, and Moody, with no written opinions, etc., which is questionable. Now, without using state law, for about 2 years, your board, through DeMarchi, desperately leaps to it again. What causes the desperation? It must be something in the files. Additionally this board may make this move because they have failed to live according to the 2011 by-law change and failed to even include it in our published by-laws for almost two years. They've even pulled the policy manual down. IS ALL OF THIS DESPERATION? COVER UP?
It certainly isn't about protecting you as an individual. Read through my requests. Not one of them involves reviewing individual personal information. Here are the items I requested for review:
*The signed contract for the Reserve Study
*The completed draft copy of the Reserve Study & our president's comments and
changes to the draft, if they exist as of today's date
*Review materials/documents submitted to the reserve study contractor that
allowed them to perform their work
*Review materials utilized to determine the current assignment of our reserves,
implemented in the last 12 months
*The Request for bid specs of the drainage work to be done on Francis Parker &
Joanna Guillard (first project, reported to be completed).
*The Contract for the above drainage project
*The bidders response for the now completed drainage project
*The Insurance and certification & references of the vendor who completed the
drainage project
*Invoices and payments made to the drainage vendor
*Review a copy of the proposed & approved by-law from the 2011 annual meeting
REASON FOR REQUEST OF REVIEW OF RECORDS: I am concerned about the financial
decisions being made leading up to the assignment of our reserves, the fact that
you denied access to the draft of the reserve study to a board member, the
foundation of the reserve study itself - the information provided to the vendor,
and drainage work being contracted while our drainage chair claims those before
him for 6-7 years had been wrong. You are expending my member funds and I have
a right to view these documents.
I would also like to review the contract for the replacement of dock # one at
the landing - recently completed, and the file that would show who approved
payment on the invoice and payment for the completed work.
Purpose of request: Members were told that the contractor would pull the old
dock onto the shore, as part of the contract and expense for completion. Yet,
the old dock resides in the canals. I've gone back and listened to the tape of
the meeting when the motion to contract was discussed and approved by this
board. I've transcribed the tape to the best of my ability. I want to review
what the contract said, compared to what the committee chair said would be done,
and whether the contract was written and work completed, and exactly what we
paid for, and who signed off for payment. It appears there are discrepancies.
It can't be what I said to Kathy (our staff person) when she notified me via email that she had a doctor appointment and couldn't be there at the time I requested. This is what I emailed back to Kathy.
First, Kathy I hope all goes well with your appointment. I would be happy to
change my appointment to Friday at 10:00. I have appointments later in the day
on Thursday.
As you can clearly see it isn't about personal records or a unreasonable demand to hold to an appointment that couldn't be met. It can only be about my questions, my transcription of their words, and the possibility that the records will reveal that they haven't been telling the truth, or they are embarrassed about how they conduct our business. It also looks like discrimination.
So we are left with the few lines of DeMarchi.
"Please inform Ms. Claveloux of the following. Since she wishes to follow all rules and regulations. See highlighted items. SC Title 33, Article 16 Code of Law."
"Since she wishes", could indicate a number of things. She drives this. She has caused me to act this way. I'm focusing on "her/she", not the dictates of my governing rules, my responsibility, what would I answer to "any" member, what are the ramifications of what I'm about to do, but I, my all knowing and powerful self, am going to get her.
"She wishes to follow all the rules and regulation". What, doesn't he? I think not. As usual, it could appear - he will, and maybe your board will, continue to make the rules and regulations up, for their convenience. Could you be next? Try it, write them and question, or disagree, ask them to at least identify the rules you are expected to follow. Ask them whether they are following ANY rules. Ask them what is in the files that would cause the board to condone this type of behavior????? Could they define the consistent rules for all members? I don't think it is in their agenda.
At this point with the language I've quoted above, the lack of authority or immediate addressing of the issue by our president, the language of DeMarchi's statement looks like it was contrived to discriminate against me. I want to review records and they appear to be afraid of what I'll find.
