The Wedgefield Examiner is back after a Thanksgiving break. As the blog was being closed for the break, I came across an email from De Marchi. The email was sent to my private email address regarding The Wedgefield Examiner. It was sent from De Marchi's private email address. You'll note as you read it that he signs off as a private individual, but speaks about an action of the board, along with what he feels is inaccurate information regarding some of his transactions as a resident who also conducts business. It was some what humorous that he responded at all, as he claims he NEVER reads the blog. My private email address is available for friends, family, and the board, if they are corresponding to me as a resident. The Wedgefield Examiner has an email address for individuals who want to comment on articles: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com In the future I would expect that De Marchi, or anyone else, email any comments about the blog to that address. I've retyped De Marchi's email below (copy of actual on file).
"SUBJECT: The law and other errors
Read the law! According to the SC Non Profit Corp. Act, if the board approves the work, there is no conflict.
Also, just for clarification, I have never sold a lot in Wedgefield as your blog contends. The homes I constructed were done under Brinson Enterprises license and I, as an employee of the company, worked as a construction supervisor.
Do you ever get tired of distorting the facts? I am anxious to see if you print a retraction regarding the facts you misstated. I sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it. Please let me know if you ever have a change of heart.
Respectfully,
Alan A. De Marchi"
COMMENTS:
In regard to his "READ THE LAW", I am sick of how far DeMarchi and others on this board will reach in an attempt to convince you they did the right thing! This board has an attorney of record who ignored state law when he advised the 2011 board that the 2011 Recall effort should not proceed under the same state non profit law that the 2010 Recall was allowed, in the courts. Within the last year when I requested reviewing records, De March sent me an email holding me to the time lines of state law. When I asked for a meeting with the board and wanted to know whether we would all be governed under our own documents or the state law, or whether the state law was just being applied to me, De Marchi told me he never sent the email. I was able to provide the email that had been authored by him and he had advised the office to send it to me. Looks like he'll revert to state law if he has dug himself into a deep hole.
There are statements similar to the one he quotes regarding the board's power in our own governing documents. Basically, they say decisions of the board are final. I have two issues with his methods. First, what he quotes does not remove the true meaning of conflict of interest. It just says the board has power. It doesn't say there was any principle, or true governance under the concept and meaning of conflict of interest. He appears to be referring to the situation of our then president, receiving funds to do work from his business and receive assessment dollars for work on the gate house.. It is conflict of interest. Some might call it nepotism in this cohesive board situation.
The biggest insult to any one's intelligence is that DeMarchi chaired the group that updated our policy manual. Every board member has signed a conflict of interest statement. Did he forget that in his staged offense? I would hope not because DeMarchi and this board shoved a lot of things down our resident throats as he worked "cleaning up" the policy manual. Go to the WPA website and review the policy manual. The table of contents IV, 1.02 states, "A "Conflict of Interest Statement" form is to be signed by each Director". See Appendix IV-2. Read the entire "Conflict of Interest Statement". I'm not going to retype, or post the entire document. Item # 2 on the document states: "We recognize that Board Members have outside business, professional and personal interests. Board Members, however, may not profit in any way in their outside business, professional or personal interests from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association. During Board meetings, members must disclose any conflict of interest involving an issue before the board, and abstain from discussion or voting on the issue." Where's compliance? I forget myself, DeMarchi is compliance. No retraction on conflict of interest.
Next, DeMarchi seeks clarification and retraction on facts about whether he sold lots in Wedgefield. First, remember that he appears to refer to articles that I have written about drainage contracts for the Enclave. DeMarchi, not only bought and built on the lot he currently lives on, but he bought additional lots. Go back and read transcriptions on this blog, of WPA meeting tapes, go listen to the tapes of the last several months regarding DeMarchi's statements about drainage and the Enclave. Several times he states that every body was wrong about drainage before him.. The engineering company, previous board's etc. At the same time he won't get real engineers involved in cleaning up these so called mistakes. According to him, he and President Walton have expertise and know just what needs to be done. The Wedgefield Examiner has repeatedly asked how much expertise DeMarchi could have if he bought into what he himself says was a bad drainage situation, not once, but at least three times - at least 3 lots. The Wedgefield Examiner has said that he bought and sold. Now just as noted above on conflict of interest, he parses words - seeks to right himself with outlandish reach. He did buy more than one lot. I have personally been introduced to people by De Marchi, who he stated and they stated, that he had built their homes. If De Marchi wants clarification, according to him, he never sold the lots, that the homes he built were on. Well, in his world that may remove principle and tarnish, but not in the usual principled world. I've had three homes built in my life time. The on site construction supervisor was the go to person for me, the company who sold me the lot and housing construction contract, and also kept permits from the larger governing entity legit. I would still call that selling. Did he reassure the purchaser that this was a great house plan and everything was in great shape and move in ready? Did he assure the county and city permitting entities that everything was to code? Did he reassure his employer that everything was moving forward to a positive out come? Did he meet the requirements of the WPA? Well then, he was the front line person who continued to sell to all entities, including our new resident buyers. Wait, maybe he told them that drainage was all wrong, always had been, and that they would have problems! If he was that honest, he should have it documented and I'll retract then, not now.
DeMarchi "sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it". Mr. DeMarchi, Board Member De Marchi, I will work with a board, and have worked with many, when the board has principle, follows the governing documents in all cases, and each individual board member votes with principle, and according to the governing documents at all times. Right now, just in the instances you harp righteously on in your email, your indignant, misplaced, arrogant, righteousness, I wouldn't waste my principled, informed, experienced time! Who are the biggest board offenders in the instances that DeMarchi brings up? Top of the list: DeMarchi, Garrison, President Walton. Why? Because when a single board member - McBride, has tried to bring sense and governance to the drainage and conflict of interest discussions and votes, he has been disrespected, and harassed at the board table, by these three. In the case of the gate house, our conflicted President, told the board he would pull his bid, and DeMarchi said he wouldn't accept the withdrawal, and on weak principle the motion passed. I don't have time to discuss the weakness of all the other board members who sit by month after month and let it all happen, and go as far as to forget what they signed. It appears to be a twisting of words and lack of principle and good governance, by most of them.
