NOTE: The Wedgefield Examiner is providing a review of the report to the best of my ability. I attended the meeting. Verify the information for yourself, by reviewing Grounds Report, on the tape of the meeting.
Mc Millin starts his report by providing an overview of the storm debris clean up by S&W. He appears pleased with their work. He states that he was disappointed that S&W started "in one of most remote AREAS of the plantation" (De Marchi's front yard). Later he reports that he had learned of a decision being made for someone (De Marchi) else to handle this project, and that he was offended. He made a statement equivalent to, if it happens again, they can have his job on the board.
COMMENTS: We may never know who on the board - exactly- made this decision. No one at the board table offered any explanation. You listen to the tape for yourself. Mc Millin appeared to be upset by this. This is one of the major problems with this board. They do what they want, when they want, appear to cover for each other, and move on. Most in Mc Millin's position, at any other board table, would have asked for an explanation. They don't, and it may be that each of them want the approval of the others, even those who have offended them, when their next pet project comes up. They appear to operate without any governing standards, rules, etc. Who benefited from this change in command? De Marchi. His favored contractor was hired, and started right at De Marchi's front door. De Marchi has grabbed, or been named by President Walton, to more committees and responsibilities, than any other board member. Mc Millin deserves what he got. He has participated in this type of behavior himself, and probably will continue to. None of this behind the scenes manipulation is ever done solely for the benefit of the entire association.
Next Mc Millin moves to discussion of the office parking lot. During the February board meeting, he asked the board if he could look at the cost of making changes to the parking lot. He had some ideas. He would investigate costs and get back to the board with more information. During the March meeting he said he had contacted three contractors to get some prices. Two came back with bids. One was in a envelope, in his hand. He said the other one came in by fax and he asked Kathy to get it for him. She couldn't find it. At the point he asked Kathy for it, someone on the board chuckled. He asked if he could proceed by opening the bid he had. It was determined that he couldn't. Someone on the board asked him if anyone had complained about the parking lot. There was nothing regarding this issue in the correspondence file. He said that he had had CALLS. When the board determined they wouldn't move forward at this point, Mc Millin's papers landed on the floor, and he said he just wouldn't do it then.
During resident comments De Marchi's wife stood up and said she knew of six people who play games in the office and have problems, and that they would be interested in his project.
COMMENTS: First, what kind of hap hazard bidding process does this board have? Mc Millin has one in an envelope and thought he had one on the fax machine. Second, why, with all that needs to be done in this association, did your board even allow him to believe during the February meeting, that any time, let alone consideration of money, be spent on this? It could appear as though it is a case of "I'll OK what you want, if you'll OK what I want? Far fetched? Hardly, this board played games with Mc Millin's 2013 Grounds ' contract saying they didn't want the spoil site in the contract, and they didn't want the association paying any portion of private lot mowing. Both appear in the 2013 Grounds' contract.
In the 10 years I have lived here, residents have been told to put their concerns and questions in writing. Mc Millin has received calls about this? Maybe it depends who the caller is. I'm doubtful there were calls. Mc Millin ought to get it in writing. How many people would have to complain before we spent association funds on this? If there were calls, maybe they were our board member's wife's friends. It is difficult to decide what brought Mc Millin to this project. In early 2009, when the board was trying to finish up the final phases of the new office, Mc Millin handled the parking lot project. What has changed? Six people who want to play games in the office?
Friday, March 28, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
UPDATE: MARCH 27, ANOTHER RESIDENT WRITES ABOUT -TWO EMAILS TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN. WAS HE CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT HIS HOME'S VALUE TO SEND THIS TYPE OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE WEDGEFIELD CONCERNED CITIZEN WEBSITE? DID HE ASK HIS CONCERNED CITIZEN LEADERS TO QUIT PUTTING ARTICLES IN TWO NEWSPAPERS? READ HIS EMAILS WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY A HOUSE NEXT TO HIM?
UPDATE MARCH 27, ANOTHER RESIDENT WRITES REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TWO EMAILS. Note: located after comments in red.
COMMENTS TO FOLLOW IN RED
COMMENTS TO FOLLOW IN RED
FIRST EMAIL - WRITERS NAME WITHHELD
SECOND EMAIL - WRITER'S NAME WITHHELD
COMMENTS
This male resident writer has not only displayed his own usual ugly behavior, but the behavior that has been tolerated by all of us for years, by the Concerned Citizens. He forgets the ugly rioting they brought to our meetings, their website, emails, mass mailings, and newspaper articles, when they disagreed with a board. He forgets when he says that the board is "not the U.S. government and the rules they work with are not the U.S. constitution good governance phooey", that the Concerned Citizens brought in state law at their convenience, when our own governing documents wouldn't allow them to do what they wanted to. Yet, even now, this board rejects state law when they determine, that it isn't what they want. He is correct that this board must view solid, good, governance as "phooey", because every one, but one, can sign their names individually to a governing document, feign they don't know what a questioning board member is talking about, and vote to do just what they want, when they want.
The writer suggests I help this board. Some on the board have thrown that out when they aren't happy with what I'm doing. I will not give this board one moment of my time. I will not participate in their selective, non credible governance. To this man I ask, when did I ever see you contribute anything but chaos? In the past, I've put many volunteer hours in. Non board member hours, editing the Wragg, labeling it, shorting it, and delivering it to the post office - 3 1/2 years. I've served on a board, been sued by these fools, and put up with enough. Their lawsuit proved nothing, yet they DIVIDED OUR COMMUNITY WITH IT FOR YEARS, AND published their ugly comments, within, and outside of this community. To the resident speaker at the March meeting, I ask, did you forget all that while you sat with people who have no more principle than the man who emailed?
Wedgefield resident, you must have moved here after 2009, or do not attend board meetings. This type of behavior has been going on for years, by this Concerned Citizen, and most of their group. If you had attended the March meeting, you would have understood just what kind of a staged set up resident comments were, and some on your board wrote the play.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
MARCH 27: THE WEDGEFIELDD EXAMINER WILL POST A EMAIL FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN WHO FINDS THE BLOG TO BE UGLY. WHILE WE WON'T POST THE WRITER'S NAME, WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH HE WANTS PEACE AND JUST WHAT WORDS HE USES TO BRING PROPERTY VALUES UP IN WEDGEFIELD
UPDATE: This Emalee can't contain himself. Yes, there is a second email! Will the speaker at at the March WPA meeting be able to explain how he called for the removal of The Wedgefield Examiner, while sitting shoulder to shoulder to the cheering Concerned Citizen group (little as it was), be able to sit by and tell us that he spoke in behalf of Wedgefield and this vicious group, who took us to newspapers, courts, and their own website? I don't know how, because their viciousness toward our very neighborhood continues today. There is more than one Judas amongst his group. Does this male resident really want to represent this group? He spoke with them cheering him on, whilst THEY continue to harm our community. What is worse is that they have key players on this board, and he is protecting them, while throwing accusations at The Wedgefield Examiner. Be careful who your friends are Mr. speaker, because their true colors are exposed daily, and they have caught you in the tide.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
UPDATED: AN INTERNET SEARCH, AFTER CERTAIN MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD BRING IN THEIR GROUP TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HURTING HOME PRICES IN OUR COMMUNITY
UPDATE: A resident called this morning who had not planned on attending the Board Meeting last night, but did read the article that was posted on the Wedgefield Examiner. They had two comments. First, they wish they had been invited to this staged production. Second, before their call they went on the Internet and typed in Wedgefield Plantation and Wedgefield Plantation HOA and The Wedgefield Examiner didn't appear until the 4th and 6th pages, but Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizens were front and center. Perhaps the male speaker, who was sitting with the Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizen website developer, made a mistake, and all that wrath was for her.
As reported last night, there was a staged "get The Wedgefield Examiner" last night at the WPA Board Meeting, by the Concerned Citizens. A male resident was called to speak first, went on about the effect on the home values in the community, flanked by the outraged Concerned Citizen leadership. It was said that when interested parties search the Internet for Wedgefield Plantation Association that The Wedgefield Examiner comes up. Why, Realtors have called and asked about it. This morning I typed in Wedgefield Plantation and what appeared after the golf course and association was, Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizens.
Legal Chair Garrison spoke from the board table about freedom of speech, and cast a few negative words here about The Wedgefield Examiner. Speculation and untrue, but you all should have gotten use to that by now. Remember, his involvement, resident speaker.
Board Member De Marchi spoke about the hardship caused to his family because of the present circumstances. Yet, he often refers to the helpfulness of the founder of the Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizen website. The male resident speaker spoke as though they couldn't get people to run for board, because of The Wedgefield Examiner, as he bumped shoulders with the founder of The Wedgefield Concerned Citizen website. Yet, look what The Wedgefield Concerned Citizens website has up as of today, regarding McBride, who has been elected by the residency three or four times. He has never brought Kleenex to the board table, like De Marchi did.
It could appear, that a few calls to hypocrites, possibly by the male resident speaker, Garrison, or De Marchi, brought this group together once again to declare themselves pure, and only interested in you. Same old, same old, by this group who are front page on the Internet, long before the Wedgefield Examiner, but it is the Wedgefield Examiner, not them.
As to who gets copies of office records. These are the types of things made available to Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizens.
Maybe your parents told you, I told my children, and will share it with the resident speaker in case he missed this life's lesson, "be very careful, who you associate with". Also, could Garrison, De Marchi, and the resident speaker, please check the Internet for the facts, before they stage their next event, for the good of Wedgefield. No persecution complex, just the facts!
As reported last night, there was a staged "get The Wedgefield Examiner" last night at the WPA Board Meeting, by the Concerned Citizens. A male resident was called to speak first, went on about the effect on the home values in the community, flanked by the outraged Concerned Citizen leadership. It was said that when interested parties search the Internet for Wedgefield Plantation Association that The Wedgefield Examiner comes up. Why, Realtors have called and asked about it. This morning I typed in Wedgefield Plantation and what appeared after the golf course and association was, Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizens.
Legal Chair Garrison spoke from the board table about freedom of speech, and cast a few negative words here about The Wedgefield Examiner. Speculation and untrue, but you all should have gotten use to that by now. Remember, his involvement, resident speaker.
Board Member De Marchi spoke about the hardship caused to his family because of the present circumstances. Yet, he often refers to the helpfulness of the founder of the Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizen website. The male resident speaker spoke as though they couldn't get people to run for board, because of The Wedgefield Examiner, as he bumped shoulders with the founder of The Wedgefield Concerned Citizen website. Yet, look what The Wedgefield Concerned Citizens website has up as of today, regarding McBride, who has been elected by the residency three or four times. He has never brought Kleenex to the board table, like De Marchi did.
It could appear, that a few calls to hypocrites, possibly by the male resident speaker, Garrison, or De Marchi, brought this group together once again to declare themselves pure, and only interested in you. Same old, same old, by this group who are front page on the Internet, long before the Wedgefield Examiner, but it is the Wedgefield Examiner, not them.
As to who gets copies of office records. These are the types of things made available to Wedgefield Plantation Concerned Citizens.
Maybe your parents told you, I told my children, and will share it with the resident speaker in case he missed this life's lesson, "be very careful, who you associate with". Also, could Garrison, De Marchi, and the resident speaker, please check the Internet for the facts, before they stage their next event, for the good of Wedgefield. No persecution complex, just the facts!
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
THE WPA MARCH 18 BOARD MEETING ENDS WITH STAGED RESIDENT COMMENTS, ALL ABOUT THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER. WISH YOU COULD HAVE ATTENDED BECAUSE THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER PREDICTED IT CORRECTLY IN TWO AREAS. ABOUT 15 CONCERNED CITIZENS BEHAVED AS BLACK "POTS", AS IN "THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK" PRESIDENT WALTON, AND EVERY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO VOTED TO GIVE HIM THE GATE HOUSE CONTRACT, WERE IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ACCORDING TO THE BOARD ATTORNEY OF RECORD. PRESIDENT WALTON, WITH DREW HIS CONTRACT.
Tonight, the number of people attending the board meeting doubled to 21. The bulk of the group were Concerned Citizens. The twitter sisters were even present, and they twittered, until President Walton had to bang the gavel. During one of the reports it was mentioned that there had been a complaint about the Wedgefield Examiner. The hypocritical complainer was in the audience. I haven't identified this person, but I did provide his/her complaint earlier. Garrison went on to speak about freedom of speech, mentioned The Wedgefield Examiner, said some things that didn't apply to the documented articles provided here. When we reached the point of resident comments, a male resident spoke about how The Wedgefield Examiner was splitting the community and harming real estate values. He sat in a row of chairs which contained the very first developer of not only the first website, but the mass mailer of ugly messages to all residents in 2009 - 10, condoner of one president's video taping of special residents at board meetings (Garrison was on that board), and a supporter of the slugger president at the court house as he plead guilty, the very person who put Wedgefield in the newspapers, after leading a golf cart parade of Concerned Citizens carrying ugly signs for the photo op.
As editor of the Wedgefield Examiner, I stood up and told the group, and the board that as long as the board operated as they had been, that The Wedgefield Examiner would continue. My grandmother who often made the statement, "that's like the pot calling the kettle black", often would also say, "consider the source", and The Wedgefield Examiner did.
We have a week with Florida cousins starting Thursday AM. We will have to report on the meeting after our visit is over. We'll be back up and running after March 26. We are visiting, not running from this group of hypocrites.
Monday, March 17, 2014
FOUR NAMES KEEP APPEARING IN THE TRANSCRIPTIONS OF MEETING TAPES IN ONE YEAR PLUS QUESTIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WHO ARE THEY? WHAT ARE THEIR ROLES? HOW HAVE THEY USED THE POWER OF THOSE ROLES?
Four names come up in the one year saga of conflict of interest. They are President Walton, Garrison, De Marchi, and Mc Bride. Three appear to push the agenda of conflict of interest using the powers of their committee chair assignments, and their officer positions. They are President Walton, Garrison, and De Marchi. The fourth, McBride, has repeatedly asked questions about conflict of interest. Definitely, must not be worthy of important committee assignments. He has one, Welcome Committee.
PRESIDENT WALTON:
*Sets the agenda for meetings, after seeking possible items from board
*Conducts meetings, putting motions for a vote
*ASSIGNS COMMITTEE CHAIRS
*He is ARC Chair (now a contractor) * Note: Error, was ARC chair, now member
*Member of the Legal Committee
*Allows Executive Meeting to be called for PERSONNEL, to discuss his ability to be paid as a CONTRACTOR, UNDER HIS BUSINESS
*POWER TO SIGN CHECKS
GARRISON
*Vice President
*Named by Walton as Legal Chair, (Note: Legal Committee members are Garrison, President Walton, De Marchi, and Bob Nichols, another of the authors of "don't pay your canal assessments, put them in escrow")
*Blatantly pushes for Walton to have contracts
*Refuses to seek legal opinion on conflict of interest
*POWER TO SIGN CHECKS
DE MARCHI
*Treasurer
*Finance Committee Chair
*Compliance Committee Chair
*Drainage Chair
*Legal Committee Member
*ARC Committee Member
*Must be temporary Grounds, at times, because he made motions for both the Storm Debris Clean Up and the Gate House Fix
*Seeks the bids for Gate House Fix, no Request for Proposal available really - sends bid to Walton, we don't know how it got there
*Accepts and reviews the bids - from Walton
*Responsible for the Contract - isn't one really - with Walton
*Approves payments to contractors and his accounting dept. writes checks
*POWER TO SIGN CHECKS
MC BRIDE
* Only Committee Assignment by Walton - Welcome Committee
*Only board member who keeps questioning conflict of interest over this one year period
*Most board members have more than one committee, or sit on other committees, rather than including eligible residents. President Walton sits back and watches as Water Amenities Chair John Walton throws McBride off that committee, after he asked to many questions in the dock fiasco.
WHO did Walton give all the power? Those that squashed any questioning of this year plus drive to make him, under his business, contractor to the WPA. He has given De Marchi, who seems to accept it, he could have refused these conflicting committee assignments - and more, controls not only the bidding and contracting, but the financial, as far as payments. President Walton, leaves the table legal talk - at board meetings, to Garrison. President Walton tops it all off, gives credibility to their moves, by naming De Marchi Compliance Chair. While a board can develop a new committee assignment, and it is a new committee, because it was never in the governing documents, until it showed up after De Marchi, redid the policy manual. Having checked the motions regarding significant changes to the policy manual, your board never discussed it or voted on it. De Marchi often gives a Compliance Report, never lists the members of his committee, and never states the committee met, when he says the board is in compliance.
The board could send this issue to the Legal Committee, but it appears it is a committee of four, and President Walton, Garrison, and De Marchi, hold 3 out of the 4 votes.
Who can sign the checks, in addition to these three? Board Secretary Cline, who has laughed at various times to Mc Brides questioning. It takes two board officer signatures. That leaves Cline and one of these three, on the mess they created.
Who says residents now, can't have copies of records, checks, or invoices? These three are involved, and that new rule came swiftly, at the time I wanted to see these records. They all reviewed, Community Liaison Anderson's email to me. It was sent to all of them. It was never discussed at the board table. What's more, the same email denied copies to board members, were they too afraid for them to have the information? Why? Some of it was in De Marchi's home.
Does McBride ever stand a chance in his questioning? Not so far. This just looks staged.
I've been asking President Walton to explain. Are the other two telling him that he doesn't have to? It could appear to be all wrapped up by President Walton, by the power he vested and left stand, in Garrison and De Marchi, to make him a WPA contractor.
PRESIDENT WALTON:
*Sets the agenda for meetings, after seeking possible items from board
*Conducts meetings, putting motions for a vote
*ASSIGNS COMMITTEE CHAIRS
*He is ARC Chair (now a contractor) * Note: Error, was ARC chair, now member
*Member of the Legal Committee
*Allows Executive Meeting to be called for PERSONNEL, to discuss his ability to be paid as a CONTRACTOR, UNDER HIS BUSINESS
*POWER TO SIGN CHECKS
GARRISON
*Vice President
*Named by Walton as Legal Chair, (Note: Legal Committee members are Garrison, President Walton, De Marchi, and Bob Nichols, another of the authors of "don't pay your canal assessments, put them in escrow")
*Blatantly pushes for Walton to have contracts
*Refuses to seek legal opinion on conflict of interest
*POWER TO SIGN CHECKS
DE MARCHI
*Treasurer
*Finance Committee Chair
*Compliance Committee Chair
*Drainage Chair
*Legal Committee Member
*ARC Committee Member
*Must be temporary Grounds, at times, because he made motions for both the Storm Debris Clean Up and the Gate House Fix
*Seeks the bids for Gate House Fix, no Request for Proposal available really - sends bid to Walton, we don't know how it got there
*Accepts and reviews the bids - from Walton
*Responsible for the Contract - isn't one really - with Walton
*Approves payments to contractors and his accounting dept. writes checks
*POWER TO SIGN CHECKS
MC BRIDE
* Only Committee Assignment by Walton - Welcome Committee
*Only board member who keeps questioning conflict of interest over this one year period
*Most board members have more than one committee, or sit on other committees, rather than including eligible residents. President Walton sits back and watches as Water Amenities Chair John Walton throws McBride off that committee, after he asked to many questions in the dock fiasco.
WHO did Walton give all the power? Those that squashed any questioning of this year plus drive to make him, under his business, contractor to the WPA. He has given De Marchi, who seems to accept it, he could have refused these conflicting committee assignments - and more, controls not only the bidding and contracting, but the financial, as far as payments. President Walton, leaves the table legal talk - at board meetings, to Garrison. President Walton tops it all off, gives credibility to their moves, by naming De Marchi Compliance Chair. While a board can develop a new committee assignment, and it is a new committee, because it was never in the governing documents, until it showed up after De Marchi, redid the policy manual. Having checked the motions regarding significant changes to the policy manual, your board never discussed it or voted on it. De Marchi often gives a Compliance Report, never lists the members of his committee, and never states the committee met, when he says the board is in compliance.
The board could send this issue to the Legal Committee, but it appears it is a committee of four, and President Walton, Garrison, and De Marchi, hold 3 out of the 4 votes.
Who can sign the checks, in addition to these three? Board Secretary Cline, who has laughed at various times to Mc Brides questioning. It takes two board officer signatures. That leaves Cline and one of these three, on the mess they created.
Who says residents now, can't have copies of records, checks, or invoices? These three are involved, and that new rule came swiftly, at the time I wanted to see these records. They all reviewed, Community Liaison Anderson's email to me. It was sent to all of them. It was never discussed at the board table. What's more, the same email denied copies to board members, were they too afraid for them to have the information? Why? Some of it was in De Marchi's home.
Does McBride ever stand a chance in his questioning? Not so far. This just looks staged.
I've been asking President Walton to explain. Are the other two telling him that he doesn't have to? It could appear to be all wrapped up by President Walton, by the power he vested and left stand, in Garrison and De Marchi, to make him a WPA contractor.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
DAY 12 AND COUNTING, YOUR PRESIDENT IS HIDING, AND WON'T ANSWER HOW HE COULD HAVE BID, AND ACCEPTED A CONTRACT, ON THE GATE HOUSE "FIX" THE DETAILS OF MY DISCUSSIONS WITH A STATE AGENCY, WHO ADVISES ME TO SUBMIT MY CLAIM
UPDATED 3/17/14: DAY 13 AND COUNTING, AND NO ANSWERS FROM OUR PRESIDENT. DAY 14, TUESDAY, THE WPA BOARD MEETING, MAY, OR NOT BRING ANSWERS. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY READ THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, TAKE TIME NOW. IF HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF DURING THE MEETING ON THE 18TH, WE MIGHT JUST HAVE MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS - BUSINESS AS USUAL. WE'LL SEE. PRESIDENT WALTON SHOULD BE EXPLAINING HIMSELF, BUT YOU'LL NOTE BY THE COUNT DOWN, THAT AS GARRISON LIKES TO SAY REGARDING WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS, "HE MAY NOT BE INCLINED TO DO SO." WHAT WOULD DE MARCHI DO? HE PROBABLY HAS TO CHECK THE OFFICE RECORDS, HE KEEPS AT HOME.
President Walton, I've reviewed your Board's vanilla agenda for the March 18th meeting. Frankly, under current circumstances, with Garrison telling me, in front of my witness, that he is going to get a legal opinion regarding conflict of interest, wouldn't you think there would be a "heads up" to residents? This is important. This move alone, questions your actions, Legal Chair Garrisons, and for sure, those of Compliance Chair DeMarchi. In fact, the motives and actions of every other board member, minus one, who raised their hands and voted for you to ignore the "Conflict of Interest Statement", you all signed, are ALL in question. Will Garrison, have the opinion in hand Tuesday evening? I hope not, his precedent, has been, that he asks the board for approval to seek the attorney's opinion, because he is spending our money. If he does, it is just one more convoluted step in your role, in oversight.
Friday morning, I received a call from one of the governmental agencies, I intended to make complaint to. The agency representative, listened to the language in the "Conflict of Interest", which 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 interest from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association."
We quickly reviewed the following:
*February 19, 2013 Board Meeting: Treasurer/Compliance Chair/Drainage Chair/Legal Committee Member/ARC Member, DeMarchi's discussion of awarding President Walton a drainage contract and his recommendation that they take the discussion, behind the closed doors of an Executive Meeting, calling it PERSONNEL. Note, the expert does not define a contractor, as personnel. I call it the early secrecy of this tangled mess.
*March 19, 2013 Board Meeting: Legal Chair Garrison's discussion of awarding the President a drainage award, if residents didn't come up with some ideas regarding securing bids. McBride's questions of concern for conflict of interest.
*I advised the listener that the board appeared to drop the idea of Walton. DeMarchi secured bids, but as I reviewed the bids, SOMEONE, had changed the original figures of one of the bidders to bring it to $20 less than the opposing bidder, prior to the presentation to the board. At the board table, DeMarchi, simply told the board, that one bid was $20 less than the other, as though that is how the bids, had arrived. I can provide the transcripts of that portion of the meeting. Tapes are available for review.
*October 15, 2013 Board Meeting: DeMarchi -Treasurer/Compliance Chair/Drainage Chair/Legal Committee Member/ARC Member, brings a motion to the table, after request for 3 bids, to award President Walton, the Gate House Fix contract. McBride brings conflict of interest into discussion. His discussion is called moronic by Legal Chair Garrison. Mc Bride asks Legal Chair Garrison 3 times to seek legal opinion regarding conflict of interest from the Board Attorney of Record, and Legal Chair Garrison refuses. President Walton abstains, McBride votes no, and Legal Chair Garrison and Treasurer/Compliance Chair/Drainage Chair/Legal Committee Member/ARC Member De Marchi, along with the rest of the board, vote yes.
I note that the motion is made under the Grounds Committee Report, by DeMarchi, rather than the Grounds Chair, McMillin and the fact that when I've asked the office for a list of Grounds Committee Members, I'm told there aren't any members, who could have reviewed and made this recommendation to the board.
Note To Conversation Detail: At this point in our conversation, I inform the agency representative that while the Gate House Fix contract with the President of the Association is for a mere $1,400, I feel, and if he'll allow me to walk him through it, that if allowed to stand, it is the door opening, to many more contracts to our President Contractor, and I refer to a discussion at the board table during the February 19, 2013 Board Meeting, where Board Member John Walton says, "he likes the idea of it being done "in house", and the board tried it on drainage, let it rest, and threw it on the table with the Gate House Fix contract. I also tell him that from February 24, 2014 on, I believe this board has engaged in a cover up to the detail of what they have done. He allows me to continue with the following detail, which I can provide to him, either through documentation, or witness statements.
*My February 24, 2014 Correspondence to the Board: I request to review, "Gate House: Request for Proposal, Bids, and if work has been started, or is completed, the relating contract, and evidence of payment." I further state, "I would like to visit the office to review the files on March 4th at 11:00 AM. I also request that I be provided copies of documents, if I find that necessary during my review."
*Adam Anderson, Community Liaison's response, sent to me from the WPA office, on March 3, 2014, at 12:34 PM: Anderson states, the day before my visit, "As to your request to review and copy records, we have always tried to be as open and transparent as possible so long as the request are reasonable and do not violate the privacy of the residents or contractors involved. Someone will contact you via email to facilitate your review of the records you are interested."
*March 4, 2014, 11:00AM and "Someone", hasn't emailed me.: I email the board asking why "someone" has not informed we as to whether I can review the records. After the appointed time has passed, I receive an email from the WPA paid staff secretary, informing me there was a mistake and the records are all ready for my review. Later, I receive a phone message from Board Secretary Cline, that all the records are prepared and waiting for me. I email, the board and tell them that I want two things in writing. One a list of all the records that have been made available and a statement as to whether I will be allowed copies. The second item is for President Walton, "I'd like an answer from You, President Walton, as to how you get around, "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."
*March 7, 2014, Anderson, Community Liaison puts in writing the denial of my ability to copy records and includes board members: "No copies will be made for, or by any resident regarding invoices or other office documents. This applies to board members as well." He further states that all the records I requested are available for review during regular office hours, and I don't need an appointment. I explain to the agency advisor, that the board has never discussed this policy at the board table, this email has been shared with the entire board, and that it violates the very state law that DeMarchi sent to me six months ago.
*March 10, 2014 Visit to the office, with a member witness, due to the fact that I can't have copies: Legal Chair Garrison, just happens to be there, so he himself is witness to part of this. I receive the bid file for the Gate House Fix, and make my notes. I haven't been provided the Request for proposal file. The office paid staff searches the file drawers, checks piles of records, and phone De Marchi, (I know it is his home because she speaks his wife's name.) She talks quietly on the phone. She then comes to me and tells me it is being sent over a machine. She hands me one page with nothing but specks. Their is no cover page identifying Wedgefield Plantation Association, no date, no bids should be returned in a sealed envelope, no later than such a date and time. As I speak to the agency representative, I say it could appear that calls were made, which would remove evidence of what kind of communication De Marchi had with President Walton, in the bid process. I state, that it would seem, that in a contentious move like conflict of interest that De Marchi would have used an above board, accurate paper trail process, but didn't. I then ask to see the contract, it hasn't been provided, again despite the fact that Anderson advised me in writing, that all the files were available. Initially, the staff secretary tells me that it is probably at President Walton's for signature. She gets on the phone, talks quietly to someone, and then hands me President Walton's bid - one sheet, no lines for signature, no total contract amount, no terms of payment, nothing. I advise the agency representative again, that I can't provide copies, but that I made notes, and had my resident witness review each of the documents presented.
I make him aware that I feel that President Walton has himself breached bidding ethics in the fact that he as a board member, let alone president, reviews budgets, discusses planning of projects, and has been in every building in this association. I highlight the fact that the middle priced bidder states on his bid, "I need to inspect behind dry wall to see how much mildew is present after inspection I can then estimate the cost." I tell him the third, much higher bid, is De Marchi's former boss.
The agency representative has gotten real quiet. I further explain, that after all the ridiculous behavior that led up to this, that on the 10th, after all these months, closed Executive Meeting for Personnel when it is about a possible contractor, that Legal Chair Garrison, has informed me that he is seeking a Legal Opinion, but I don't trust it because I doubt he'll even take the Conflict of Interest Statement, and he often does not get legal opinions in writing. He asks if I'm certain that he doesn't get all legal opinions in writing. I state that I can provide transcripts from more than a few meetings where he is asked by a board member if he has the opinion in writing, and he states, that he isn't inclined to do so."
I advise him that during my visit to the office that I talk to Garrison and tell him that regarding denial of copies, the board is denying me under the very state law that De Marchi sent me, and Garrison tells me that I have a persecution complex. I remind him that President Walton does not appear to be willing to answer my question.
The agency representative tells me to submit my claim.
President Walton, I've reviewed your Board's vanilla agenda for the March 18th meeting. Frankly, under current circumstances, with Garrison telling me, in front of my witness, that he is going to get a legal opinion regarding conflict of interest, wouldn't you think there would be a "heads up" to residents? This is important. This move alone, questions your actions, Legal Chair Garrisons, and for sure, those of Compliance Chair DeMarchi. In fact, the motives and actions of every other board member, minus one, who raised their hands and voted for you to ignore the "Conflict of Interest Statement", you all signed, are ALL in question. Will Garrison, have the opinion in hand Tuesday evening? I hope not, his precedent, has been, that he asks the board for approval to seek the attorney's opinion, because he is spending our money. If he does, it is just one more convoluted step in your role, in oversight.
Friday morning, I received a call from one of the governmental agencies, I intended to make complaint to. The agency representative, listened to the language in the "Conflict of Interest", which 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 interest from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association."
We quickly reviewed the following:
*February 19, 2013 Board Meeting: Treasurer/Compliance Chair/Drainage Chair/Legal Committee Member/ARC Member, DeMarchi's discussion of awarding President Walton a drainage contract and his recommendation that they take the discussion, behind the closed doors of an Executive Meeting, calling it PERSONNEL. Note, the expert does not define a contractor, as personnel. I call it the early secrecy of this tangled mess.
*March 19, 2013 Board Meeting: Legal Chair Garrison's discussion of awarding the President a drainage award, if residents didn't come up with some ideas regarding securing bids. McBride's questions of concern for conflict of interest.
*I advised the listener that the board appeared to drop the idea of Walton. DeMarchi secured bids, but as I reviewed the bids, SOMEONE, had changed the original figures of one of the bidders to bring it to $20 less than the opposing bidder, prior to the presentation to the board. At the board table, DeMarchi, simply told the board, that one bid was $20 less than the other, as though that is how the bids, had arrived. I can provide the transcripts of that portion of the meeting. Tapes are available for review.
*October 15, 2013 Board Meeting: DeMarchi -Treasurer/Compliance Chair/Drainage Chair/Legal Committee Member/ARC Member, brings a motion to the table, after request for 3 bids, to award President Walton, the Gate House Fix contract. McBride brings conflict of interest into discussion. His discussion is called moronic by Legal Chair Garrison. Mc Bride asks Legal Chair Garrison 3 times to seek legal opinion regarding conflict of interest from the Board Attorney of Record, and Legal Chair Garrison refuses. President Walton abstains, McBride votes no, and Legal Chair Garrison and Treasurer/Compliance Chair/Drainage Chair/Legal Committee Member/ARC Member De Marchi, along with the rest of the board, vote yes.
I note that the motion is made under the Grounds Committee Report, by DeMarchi, rather than the Grounds Chair, McMillin and the fact that when I've asked the office for a list of Grounds Committee Members, I'm told there aren't any members, who could have reviewed and made this recommendation to the board.
Note To Conversation Detail: At this point in our conversation, I inform the agency representative that while the Gate House Fix contract with the President of the Association is for a mere $1,400, I feel, and if he'll allow me to walk him through it, that if allowed to stand, it is the door opening, to many more contracts to our President Contractor, and I refer to a discussion at the board table during the February 19, 2013 Board Meeting, where Board Member John Walton says, "he likes the idea of it being done "in house", and the board tried it on drainage, let it rest, and threw it on the table with the Gate House Fix contract. I also tell him that from February 24, 2014 on, I believe this board has engaged in a cover up to the detail of what they have done. He allows me to continue with the following detail, which I can provide to him, either through documentation, or witness statements.
*My February 24, 2014 Correspondence to the Board: I request to review, "Gate House: Request for Proposal, Bids, and if work has been started, or is completed, the relating contract, and evidence of payment." I further state, "I would like to visit the office to review the files on March 4th at 11:00 AM. I also request that I be provided copies of documents, if I find that necessary during my review."
*Adam Anderson, Community Liaison's response, sent to me from the WPA office, on March 3, 2014, at 12:34 PM: Anderson states, the day before my visit, "As to your request to review and copy records, we have always tried to be as open and transparent as possible so long as the request are reasonable and do not violate the privacy of the residents or contractors involved. Someone will contact you via email to facilitate your review of the records you are interested."
*March 4, 2014, 11:00AM and "Someone", hasn't emailed me.: I email the board asking why "someone" has not informed we as to whether I can review the records. After the appointed time has passed, I receive an email from the WPA paid staff secretary, informing me there was a mistake and the records are all ready for my review. Later, I receive a phone message from Board Secretary Cline, that all the records are prepared and waiting for me. I email, the board and tell them that I want two things in writing. One a list of all the records that have been made available and a statement as to whether I will be allowed copies. The second item is for President Walton, "I'd like an answer from You, President Walton, as to how you get around, "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."
*March 7, 2014, Anderson, Community Liaison puts in writing the denial of my ability to copy records and includes board members: "No copies will be made for, or by any resident regarding invoices or other office documents. This applies to board members as well." He further states that all the records I requested are available for review during regular office hours, and I don't need an appointment. I explain to the agency advisor, that the board has never discussed this policy at the board table, this email has been shared with the entire board, and that it violates the very state law that DeMarchi sent to me six months ago.
*March 10, 2014 Visit to the office, with a member witness, due to the fact that I can't have copies: Legal Chair Garrison, just happens to be there, so he himself is witness to part of this. I receive the bid file for the Gate House Fix, and make my notes. I haven't been provided the Request for proposal file. The office paid staff searches the file drawers, checks piles of records, and phone De Marchi, (I know it is his home because she speaks his wife's name.) She talks quietly on the phone. She then comes to me and tells me it is being sent over a machine. She hands me one page with nothing but specks. Their is no cover page identifying Wedgefield Plantation Association, no date, no bids should be returned in a sealed envelope, no later than such a date and time. As I speak to the agency representative, I say it could appear that calls were made, which would remove evidence of what kind of communication De Marchi had with President Walton, in the bid process. I state, that it would seem, that in a contentious move like conflict of interest that De Marchi would have used an above board, accurate paper trail process, but didn't. I then ask to see the contract, it hasn't been provided, again despite the fact that Anderson advised me in writing, that all the files were available. Initially, the staff secretary tells me that it is probably at President Walton's for signature. She gets on the phone, talks quietly to someone, and then hands me President Walton's bid - one sheet, no lines for signature, no total contract amount, no terms of payment, nothing. I advise the agency representative again, that I can't provide copies, but that I made notes, and had my resident witness review each of the documents presented.
I make him aware that I feel that President Walton has himself breached bidding ethics in the fact that he as a board member, let alone president, reviews budgets, discusses planning of projects, and has been in every building in this association. I highlight the fact that the middle priced bidder states on his bid, "I need to inspect behind dry wall to see how much mildew is present after inspection I can then estimate the cost." I tell him the third, much higher bid, is De Marchi's former boss.
The agency representative has gotten real quiet. I further explain, that after all the ridiculous behavior that led up to this, that on the 10th, after all these months, closed Executive Meeting for Personnel when it is about a possible contractor, that Legal Chair Garrison, has informed me that he is seeking a Legal Opinion, but I don't trust it because I doubt he'll even take the Conflict of Interest Statement, and he often does not get legal opinions in writing. He asks if I'm certain that he doesn't get all legal opinions in writing. I state that I can provide transcripts from more than a few meetings where he is asked by a board member if he has the opinion in writing, and he states, that he isn't inclined to do so."
I advise him that during my visit to the office that I talk to Garrison and tell him that regarding denial of copies, the board is denying me under the very state law that De Marchi sent me, and Garrison tells me that I have a persecution complex. I remind him that President Walton does not appear to be willing to answer my question.
The agency representative tells me to submit my claim.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
A 15 YEAR RESIDENT WRITES THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER
HERE IT IS:
Thanks, resident writer. Your support comes at a time when it is stressful, and the articles time consuming. I may not catch all my grammatical errors, a hazard, because Wonder Dog Brady, mascot, for The Wedgefield Examiner, can't read, or edit. He did take road trips through the plantation, during the debris clean up.
JUST ONE MORE THOUGHT FOR THE BOARD AND OUR PRESIDENT CONTRACTOR, AND FOR MANY OF YOU, WHO TOOK STEPS LIKE THIS IN THE PAST. WHEN A BOARD WON'T ANSWER, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE GATE HOUSE FIX
Having been sued, as a board member, and as an individual, by Concerned Citizens, that had members who contributed funds to their lawsuit, like the writer who wrote the board about that awful, Wedgefield Examiner, I learned a lot. There were no lengths this group, wouldn't go to, to get answers, or make their point. For instance, they wrote to the bank involved in the loan process, they wrote to residents advising them not to pay their assessments - put them in escrow (Legal Chair Garrison), and one of them wrote the WPA insurance company. Has anyone thought, that if our president and board won't answer, that the insurance company of the WPA, and the president contractor, might need to know about how this board is conducting business, and how unethical the bidding process and contractor process seems to be? Would it alarm the WPA insurance company that they obviously ignored the governing documents - Conflict of Interest, and made instant, on the spot policy, violating resident, and even board member rights under state law, to have copies? Would they be interested to know that our Legal Chair refused to get a legal opinion regarding Conflict of Interest, after being asked to do so three times at the board table, on the night of this vote? Would they be interested to know that our president won't answer, regarding this issue? These are just a few possibilities, in the case of the WPA insurance carrier.
Would the president/contractor's insurance company be interested to see what he violated in bidding ethics, forget about his oversight as president. Would they consider that he works with budgeting, project planning, and has been inside and out of these buildings? One of the 3 bidders wrote that he couldn't complete the bid until he could view the problem. Don't you think our president/contractor has seen the problem, and HAD more knowledge than the rest? Could be viewed as unethical bidding. Maybe the contractor's insurance company would like to know.
To date, I certainly have not written the insurance companies. Some of you are capable, you've done it before, and the information as to how to contact these companies, is contained in the files in the office, and every resident has a right to review them. Go see for yourself. I noted the information for myself, but haven't used it, as of today. Don't worry about whether there are ramifications to it, because what I learned through the lawsuits, there were none. Many of you know that, you helped plan who to write to. Think about it, if our president and board won't answer, then they must believe it isn't a problem, for you to use tactics, that you, yourself may have used in the past. Contact your friends in the Concerned Citizens, or even Garrison, not as Legal Chair, but as a resident like you and me, who used these very kind of tactics to get information, in the past.
Would the president/contractor's insurance company be interested to see what he violated in bidding ethics, forget about his oversight as president. Would they consider that he works with budgeting, project planning, and has been inside and out of these buildings? One of the 3 bidders wrote that he couldn't complete the bid until he could view the problem. Don't you think our president/contractor has seen the problem, and HAD more knowledge than the rest? Could be viewed as unethical bidding. Maybe the contractor's insurance company would like to know.
To date, I certainly have not written the insurance companies. Some of you are capable, you've done it before, and the information as to how to contact these companies, is contained in the files in the office, and every resident has a right to review them. Go see for yourself. I noted the information for myself, but haven't used it, as of today. Don't worry about whether there are ramifications to it, because what I learned through the lawsuits, there were none. Many of you know that, you helped plan who to write to. Think about it, if our president and board won't answer, then they must believe it isn't a problem, for you to use tactics, that you, yourself may have used in the past. Contact your friends in the Concerned Citizens, or even Garrison, not as Legal Chair, but as a resident like you and me, who used these very kind of tactics to get information, in the past.
THANK YOU CONCERNED CITIZENS! AS I REFLECT ON IT, I LEARNED A LOT FROM YOU. THE CANAL LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE CONCERNED CITIZENS, AND YOUR CLAIMS AGAINST ME AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, WERE UNFOUNDED, WHEN SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED. I DID LEARN THAT IT MUST BE OK TO DO WHAT YOU DID, BECAUSE, YOU GOT THROUGH IT UNSCATHED. I'M SURE MOST OF YOU AREN'T LIKE THAT HYPOCRITE WHO WROTE THE BOARD ABOUT THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER, YOU AREN'T LIKE THE "POT, CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK", ARE YOU?
WHY EVEN LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON COULDN'T FIND FAULT WITH YOU IF YOU DECIDE TO WRITE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, HE WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN ONE OF HIS CONCERNED CITIZEN FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, TOOK THIS VERY STEP. HE WAS ON THE BOARD, WHEN ONE OF HIS CONCERNED CITIZEN FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, WROTE THE NEWSPAPERS, IS THAT A MOVE YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE AGAIN? IT WOULD PROBABLY BE OK WITH HIM. IF NOT ASK COMPLIANCE CHAIR DE MARCHI AND YOUR PRESIDENT CONTRACTOR, ABOUT PRECEDENT
THIS APPEARS TO HOLD TRUE IN OUR ASSOCIATION GOVERNANCE
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION PRESIDENT WALTON
DAY 11 AND COUNTING. LIKE THE GROUND HOG, PRESIDENT WALTON IS AFRAID TO COME OUT OF HIDING, AND ANSWER THE HOW HE COULD HAVE BID, AND ACCEPTED A CONTRACT, AFTER SIGNING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HIS HANDLER'S IN THIS MESS, DE MARCHI AND GARRISON, HAVE SOME EXPLAINING TO DO. SO DOES EVERY BOARD MEMBER, WHO SIGNED THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, VOTED TO GIVE OUR PRESIDENT A CONTRACT, AND NOW ARE ASSISTING IN A COVER UP, BY MAKING NEW RULES FOR RESIDENTS WHO WANT COPIES OF THEIR MESS,. WILL TUESDAY'S MEETING BE THE BIG REVEAL OF THE FACTS, MESSY AS THEY ARE? IS EVERY BOARD MEMBER PREPARED TO ANSWER?
PRESIDENT WALTON IT IS DAY 11 AND YOU STILL WON'T COME OUT AND ANSWER!
ARE GARRISON AND DE MARCHI SERVING AS HANDLER'S WITH KID GLOVES BECAUSE THEY WERE THE CHIEF MOTIVATORS IN THIS MESS? BASED ON THE FACTS THAT GARRISON APPEARED TO FEIGN UNDERSTANDING OF ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNDER QUESTIONING AND REFUSED TO GET A LEGAL OPINION THEN, ALONG WITH DE MARCHI'S UNPROFESSIONAL, UNETHICAL BIDDING AND CONTRACT PAPER WORK, AND YOUR ALLOWING ANDERSON TO SEND OUT A EMAIL DENYING ME AND ALL BOARD MEMBERS COPIES OF THIS MESS, THIS COULD LOOK LIKE AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE RECORDS, TO COVER UP.
TUESDAY'S BOARD MEETING SHOULD FORCE YOU AND THIS BOARD OUT OF HIDING, AND IT WON'T BE "IN CLOVER", UNLESS YOU FAIL, ALL OF YOU, TO ANSWER LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS THAT EACH OF YOU SHOULD BE, BECAUSE YOU ALL, MINUS ONE, BROKE YOUR INDIVIDUAL, SIGNED COVENANT WITH THE RESIDENTS OF WEDGEFIELD, WITH THE "GATE HOUSE FIX" FIX, APPEARING TO BE THE APPROPRIATE WORD. RESIDENTS GO REVIEW DE MARCHI'S REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, THE BIDS, AND HIS UNUSUAL CONTRACT, WHICH TOTALLY LACKS SIGNATURE LINES, TERMS OF PAYMENT, ETC. BOARD MEMBERS, HAVE YOU BOTHERED, EVEN NOW????, TO DO DUE DILIGENCE AND REVIEW THE RECORDS? WOULD THE OFFICE, UNDER DE MARCHI'S USUAL WATCH, EVEN ALLOW IT? TRY IT, AND SEE. IT DOESN'T APPEAR YOU DID ANY REVIEW, BEFORE YOU VOTED, EVERY BOARD MEMBER, MINUS ONE, HAS SOME EXPLAINING TO DO. ARE EACH OF YOU PREPARED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, LIKE THE ONES BELOW? AS A RESIDENT IN GOOD STANDING, DESERVING ANSWERS, I'VE SENT THEM TO THE BOARD, IN CASE YOU RESIDENTS, ARE TOO AFRAID TO ASK SIMILAR QUESTIONS, DURING THE RESIDENT COMMENT SECTION OF THE MEETING. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THEY'LL EVER ANSWER THEM, IN WRITING? WHERE ARE YOU COMMUNITY LIAISON ANDERSON? YOU DIDN'T MIND ANSWERING ME AND TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS, AND YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBER RIGHTS, UNDER STATE LAW, TO HAVE COPIES?
PRESIDENT WALTON, UNDER YOUR ADMINISTRATION, WITH THE TYPE OF BEHAVIOR DEMONSTRATED BY DE MARCHI, REGARDING CONTRACTING AND BIDDING, WITH THE APPARENT BLESSINGS BY LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON, AND YOURSELF, ALONG WITH YOUR BOARD ALLOWING HIM TO RUN HIS ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT, NAMING HIM TO SO MANY COMMITTEES, WHICH COULD APPEAR TO BE A CONFLICT OF POWER AND OVERSIGHT, YOU THREE, AIDED BY YOUR COWERING BOARD COULD LEAVE US WITH THIS QUESTION............
YOU, PRESIDENT WALTON HAVE GUIDED OUR ASSOCIATION TO A MISMANAGED OVERSIGHT AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLIFF, SUPPORTED BY YOUR LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON, AND DE MARCHI WITH HIS MULTIPLE BOARD TITLES, AND HIS COMMITTEE CHAIR ASSIGNMENTS, MADE BY YOU. THE THREE OF YOU HAVE CAUSED MOST OF THE REST OF THE BOARD, TO FOLLOW WITHOUT QUESTION, OR REGARD FOR OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, AND DO WHAT THEY WANT, WHEN THEY WANT, IN GOOD OLD BOY FASHION. THE FISCAL CLIFF, MAY NOT BE FAR AWAY WITH THIS KIND OF LEADERSHIP.
Friday, March 14, 2014
THE WPA BOARD MEETING IS MARCH 18TH. THE BOARD OPENS THE MEETING TO RESIDENTS' COMMENTS. WILL YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FOR THIS BOARD? YOU MIGHT CONSIDER SOME OF THESE
Based on all the things that have happened since the last meeting, if you have been following them, you might consider these questions.
1) President Walton, why won't you answer the question as to how you could have bid and accepted a contract with the WPA to fix the gate house, after signing the Conflict of Interest, required by every board member?
2) Compliance Chair DeMarchi, how could you have even entertained sending a bid to the President of the association, after you signed a Conflict of Interest, required by every board member, doesn't that breach the responsibility of your role as Compliance Chair?
3) Secretary Cline, how could you have sat back and laughed during board member McBride's questioning of Conflict of Interest, during the October Board Meeting, and voted to award a contract to the President of the association, after you, yourself, signed the Conflict of Interest?
4) Board members: McMillin, Walton (John), Anderson, Johnson, how could you have voted to award the President of the association a contract, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?
5) Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison, how could you have failed to seek a Legal Opinion, feigned lack of understanding of board member McBride's questions of conflict of interest, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?
6) Community Liaison Anderson, how could you put your name to correspondence that denied the right of a resident, any resident, AND Board Members themselves, copies? Who on the board contributed to that correspondence and what governing documents, laws, etc., did you or they site? Have you as a board member been voting without proper review of documents?
7) Board Member DeMarchi, can you explain why calls had to be made to your home, to secure records that a resident had been informed by the board, were all ready for review, and yet you had them, at home? The lack of professionalism and integrity in the records that were provided, could indicate more problems for this Conflict of Interest issue, why weren't the records in the office? Could you explain why the bidding process appears so poor for the gate house fix?
8) Board Member McMillin, can you explain who put board member DeMarchi in charge of the gate house project, when the vote took place under Grounds? Why weren't you in charge?
9) Board Member McMillin, why are you investigating reworking the parking and drive in front of the office, when on review of the correspondence file, not one resident, has complained about it? Is this for the convenience of the board? If so, perhaps you could park in the back lot.
10) President Walton, when did the board meet and discuss policy for copies to residents? If they haven't met, how did you allow that letter to go out to the resident? Was this just retaliation by you and the board because too many questions were being asked about conflict of interest, or were you afraid of what they would see in the records of DeMarchi's bidding process?
11) Board member DeMarchi, why is the storm debris contract signed two weeks after you stated the contractor started?
12) Board member DeMarchi, why did the debris clean up start at your front door, rather than on the major roads that we ALL have to travel on? I'm aware that the contractor staged in your area, but quite frankly, the contractor had to cover these miles at one time or another to get the job done. Is this apparent, selfish, direct benefit to you, who directed this project, another conflict of interest?
13) Board member DeMarchi, is it true that after S&W left that there was still debris left in the condo area? If so, who had to pay Great Lawns? Will S&W "eat that expense"?
14) Legal Chair Garrison, Since our previous attorney of record's license has been suspended, it could cause doubt regarding the critical opinions he gave regarding a number of important issues, and you have failed to get most opinions in writing, how will anyone be able to examine those opinions, and verify their validity?
There are probably many more questions. Will you get to the meeting and get to the bottom of some of these issues?
1) President Walton, why won't you answer the question as to how you could have bid and accepted a contract with the WPA to fix the gate house, after signing the Conflict of Interest, required by every board member?
2) Compliance Chair DeMarchi, how could you have even entertained sending a bid to the President of the association, after you signed a Conflict of Interest, required by every board member, doesn't that breach the responsibility of your role as Compliance Chair?
3) Secretary Cline, how could you have sat back and laughed during board member McBride's questioning of Conflict of Interest, during the October Board Meeting, and voted to award a contract to the President of the association, after you, yourself, signed the Conflict of Interest?
4) Board members: McMillin, Walton (John), Anderson, Johnson, how could you have voted to award the President of the association a contract, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?
5) Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison, how could you have failed to seek a Legal Opinion, feigned lack of understanding of board member McBride's questions of conflict of interest, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?
6) Community Liaison Anderson, how could you put your name to correspondence that denied the right of a resident, any resident, AND Board Members themselves, copies? Who on the board contributed to that correspondence and what governing documents, laws, etc., did you or they site? Have you as a board member been voting without proper review of documents?
7) Board Member DeMarchi, can you explain why calls had to be made to your home, to secure records that a resident had been informed by the board, were all ready for review, and yet you had them, at home? The lack of professionalism and integrity in the records that were provided, could indicate more problems for this Conflict of Interest issue, why weren't the records in the office? Could you explain why the bidding process appears so poor for the gate house fix?
8) Board Member McMillin, can you explain who put board member DeMarchi in charge of the gate house project, when the vote took place under Grounds? Why weren't you in charge?
9) Board Member McMillin, why are you investigating reworking the parking and drive in front of the office, when on review of the correspondence file, not one resident, has complained about it? Is this for the convenience of the board? If so, perhaps you could park in the back lot.
10) President Walton, when did the board meet and discuss policy for copies to residents? If they haven't met, how did you allow that letter to go out to the resident? Was this just retaliation by you and the board because too many questions were being asked about conflict of interest, or were you afraid of what they would see in the records of DeMarchi's bidding process?
11) Board member DeMarchi, why is the storm debris contract signed two weeks after you stated the contractor started?
12) Board member DeMarchi, why did the debris clean up start at your front door, rather than on the major roads that we ALL have to travel on? I'm aware that the contractor staged in your area, but quite frankly, the contractor had to cover these miles at one time or another to get the job done. Is this apparent, selfish, direct benefit to you, who directed this project, another conflict of interest?
13) Board member DeMarchi, is it true that after S&W left that there was still debris left in the condo area? If so, who had to pay Great Lawns? Will S&W "eat that expense"?
14) Legal Chair Garrison, Since our previous attorney of record's license has been suspended, it could cause doubt regarding the critical opinions he gave regarding a number of important issues, and you have failed to get most opinions in writing, how will anyone be able to examine those opinions, and verify their validity?
There are probably many more questions. Will you get to the meeting and get to the bottom of some of these issues?
RESIDENTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO DECLARE GROUND HOG DAY, TODAY IN WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION, PRESIDENT WALTON HAS NOT COME OUT OF HIDING TO ANSWER THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION THAT CASTS A SHADOW ON THIS ADMINISTRATION
SORRY FOLKS, NO GROUND HOG DAY IN WEDGEFIELD, DUE TO OUR PRESIDENT'S SILENCE
UNFORTUNATELY, WE CONTINUE TO BE LEFT WITH THIS, BECAUSE PRESIDENT WALTON AND THE GUYS AT THESE DESKS, WITH ALL THEIR POWER AND CERTAINTY, WON'T ANSWER AND REMOVE THE SHADOW THEY ALL HELPED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS MESS
These three had all the answers, during the board meeting that they awarded President Walton a WPA contract. What is worse is that Cline, Anderson, Johnson, McMillin, & Walton (John), all voted, after sitting back and watching these three fail to understand where questions of conflict of interest could be coming from. Do you think they might have had informal discussions about this, without inviting board member McBride? Your board members should be thinking independently. I'm quite sure none of these board members reviewed DeMarchi's process, or paper trail, before they voted. I've seen that unprofessional, questionable mess.
Ask yourself what role McMillin played in this? The motion and discussion to fix the gate house, came under the Grounds' Report. Why did DeMarchi have this project? Look at his desk above, he's a power grabber.
RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS ADDITIONS
COMMENTS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RESIDENT'S LETTER, ARE THOSE OF THE WEDGEFIELD EXAIMINER, AND NOT A REFLECTION OF THE WRITER'S THOUGHTS.
COMMENTS: What do you think the chances are that President Walton, or Compliance Chair DeMarchi, will make this a real consideration? I'm doubtful, and even if they did, could we trust that if the added it to the Code of Ethics, and signed, that they, or anybody else on this board, minus one, would live by it? Not, a prayer, based on their actions after signing the "Conflict of Interest." They don't live up to their word.
Thank you to the resident who proposed this. We need more integrity at the board table.
LATER TODAY, FRIDAY, MARCH 14
WILL TODAY BE GROUND HOG DAY IN WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION?
During the October 2013 board meeting, when all on the board, except one, ignored, or failed to acknowledge the Conflict of Interest each and EVERYONE of them signed, and voted to award the WPA President a contract, Secretary Cline, laughed that ever present laugh, when serious questions are being asked, and said, "at least we know where he lives". Well Secretary Cline, that is no advantage now, is it? Each year, crowds flock to just where they know a certain ground hog lives, and wait for him to come out, to determine how long it will be to spring. We know where President Walton lives, but he doesn't appear to want to come out, and speak about the shadow he and this board, have cast on Wedgefield, because they lied to all of us, when they failed to live up the Conflict of Interest, they signed. How Secretary Cline, does it help, when our President won't come out and answer.
TEN DAYS AND COUNTING PRESIDENT WALTON, ARE YOU AFRAID TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF THE SHADOW YOU CAST ON INTEGRITY?
AND
THE BOARD MEETING IS NEXT TUESDAY, AT THE END OF THE MEETING YOUR BOARD TAKES RESIDENT QUESTIONS. WILL YOU ATTEND? WILL YOU ASK QUESTIONS? LATER TODAY, WE'LL POSE MORE THAN A FEW, THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER ASKING
AND
THE BOARD MEETING IS NEXT TUESDAY, AT THE END OF THE MEETING YOUR BOARD TAKES RESIDENT QUESTIONS. WILL YOU ATTEND? WILL YOU ASK QUESTIONS? LATER TODAY, WE'LL POSE MORE THAN A FEW, THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER ASKING
Thursday, March 13, 2014
A FINAL THOUGHT ADDRESSED TO THE THREE "DESKS", BUT TO THE GARRISON DESK IN PARTICULAR. WHEN YOU GO TO THE ATTORNEY FOR AN OPINION, BE SURE AND TAKE ALL THE PROPER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, GET THE OPINION IN WRITING, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY DECENCY, TAKE MC BRIDE AS A WITNESS. HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT STOOD UP TO ALL OF YOU, AS YOU ALL VOTED TO IGNORE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST DOCUMENT, YOU ALL SIGNED. HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN VERIFY WHETHER YOU DID THE RIGHT THING THIS TIME.
Residents, read the rest of today's articles or you won't know what this is about. It is almost 9:00pm and your President hasn't had the guts, or the decency to answer the question as to how he bid and accepted a contract in the Gate House FIX. Legal Chair Garrison hasn't answered. For certain De Marchi who presented lousy documents for review, won't answer. IF THEY ARE SURE THEY DID THE RIGHT THING WHY WON'T THEY? WHY WON'T ANY OF THE REST OF THE BOARD, WHO VOTED, WITHOUT OBVIOUS REVIEW OF DE MARCHI'S MESS ANSWER?
GOOD NIGHT DESKS!
THE GOVERNANCE POWER DISPLAYED ON THE NAME PLATES OF THE THREE "DESKS" MAY BE ALARMING, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THEY WERE THE THREE BOARD MOUTH PIECES AND MOVERS AND SHAKERS IN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE GATE HOUSE "FIX"
Review the responsibilities on the three desk title name plates. Realize the involvement of these three key board members, what each contributed to the discussion and award of the Gate House "Fix" contract to President Walton. These were the three mouth pieces to the motion that allowed all three to ignore the Conflict of Interest, they all signed. Look who was responsible, leading up to the vote. More to follow on 3/14. If you've followed the documented articles over the last few weeks, these are the 3 key members of the board who objected, called moronic, the questioning of conflict of interest by board member McBride. It could look like a conspiracy amongst the three, to do what they wanted to do, for months.
TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED TODAY, MARCH 13, AS IT IS 9 DAYS AND COUNTING AND OUR PRESIDENT WON'T ANSWER A RESIDENT REGARDING HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WHY, IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE?
MAYBE IF WE RECOGNIZE BOTH OF OUR PRESIDENTS TITLES
HE'LL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FROM ONE OF HIS TITLES
HERE IT IS:
PRESIDENT WALTON - WPA "PRES" & CONTRACTOR
LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON, VERBALLY ADVISES ME, THAT HE WILL GO TO THE BOARD ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO SEEK AN OPINION REGARDING OUR PRESIDENT'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WILL HE TAKE THE VERY CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT OUR PRESIDENT SIGNED AND THE QUESTIONABLE DOCUMENTS TREASURER/COMPLAINCE CHAIR DE MARCHI PROVIDED AS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT (not)? WILL HE, OR HAS HE SOUGHT APPROVAL TO DO THIS AT THE BOARD TABLE?
When I visited the WPA Office on March 10th, Legal Chair Garrison was there. He opened conversation with me. Remember, I took a resident witness with me. At some point, he told me he was going to seek a legal opinion regarding our president and conflict of interest. I told him that I found that to be a little too late, based on the fact that board member, McBride had asked him three times during the October Board meeting to seek a legal opinion. Garrison said that at that time, and as of March 10th, he did not view awarding the WPA president a contract for service, who had signed the Conflict of Interest Statement, a conflict of interest.
No one will be surprised that we didn't agree on conflict of interest. I reminded Garrison, that he himself, from the board table, months prior to the October 2013 vote to award President Walton a contract, had attempted to shove President Walton, as a contractor, down our throats. At the point that DeMarchi was starting his first Enclave drainage project, and was lamenting his inability to find bidders (I think it was fake/staged.), Garrison said that unless residents wrote the board and came up with constructive suggestions regarding securing bidders, that they just might have to work with contracting with our President. McBride brought up conflict of interest THEN.
Will Garrison do the right thing in seeking legal opinion after months, after he sat back and he, himself voted to award President Walton the Gate House FIX? I am genuinely skeptical. He hasn't shown himself to handle these matters professionally and ethically in the past. More often than not, he has stated when asked if he would get the legal opinion in writing for the board, that "he wasn't inclined to do so." Additionally, Garrison, delayed this particular question way too long, in apparent hopes, that he, President Walton, and De Marchi, would get what they wanted, when they wanted it, as usual, despite the fact that they all made a covenant with the residents of Wedgefield, when they each signed the Conflict of Interest. The papers associated with this mess, request for proposal and contract, when reviewed, further indicate unprofessional, and fake documentation of this event (Review them yourself.) Garrison, by previous action and policy, should not be going to the attorney, now or any other time, without discussion and approval from the board. How can he tell a resident on March 10th, with certainty that he is going to get a legal opinion at our expense, without a vote of the board? Your board, if they are open and honest, should stipulate that he presents the attorney with President Walton's signed Conflict of Interest, De Marchi's shady, shabby, unethical, request for proposal, and contract - not (All the contract I was presented is President Walton's unsigned bid.). He needs to lay this whole mess out that shows just what these three allowed. Every other board member, except McBride, should have the same scrutiny, as they all signed the "Conflict of Interest", and voted as they usually do, with these three.
Whether Garrison legitimately seeks a real opinion or not, this resident, has made her complaints to the appropriate parties.
No one will be surprised that we didn't agree on conflict of interest. I reminded Garrison, that he himself, from the board table, months prior to the October 2013 vote to award President Walton a contract, had attempted to shove President Walton, as a contractor, down our throats. At the point that DeMarchi was starting his first Enclave drainage project, and was lamenting his inability to find bidders (I think it was fake/staged.), Garrison said that unless residents wrote the board and came up with constructive suggestions regarding securing bidders, that they just might have to work with contracting with our President. McBride brought up conflict of interest THEN.
Will Garrison do the right thing in seeking legal opinion after months, after he sat back and he, himself voted to award President Walton the Gate House FIX? I am genuinely skeptical. He hasn't shown himself to handle these matters professionally and ethically in the past. More often than not, he has stated when asked if he would get the legal opinion in writing for the board, that "he wasn't inclined to do so." Additionally, Garrison, delayed this particular question way too long, in apparent hopes, that he, President Walton, and De Marchi, would get what they wanted, when they wanted it, as usual, despite the fact that they all made a covenant with the residents of Wedgefield, when they each signed the Conflict of Interest. The papers associated with this mess, request for proposal and contract, when reviewed, further indicate unprofessional, and fake documentation of this event (Review them yourself.) Garrison, by previous action and policy, should not be going to the attorney, now or any other time, without discussion and approval from the board. How can he tell a resident on March 10th, with certainty that he is going to get a legal opinion at our expense, without a vote of the board? Your board, if they are open and honest, should stipulate that he presents the attorney with President Walton's signed Conflict of Interest, De Marchi's shady, shabby, unethical, request for proposal, and contract - not (All the contract I was presented is President Walton's unsigned bid.). He needs to lay this whole mess out that shows just what these three allowed. Every other board member, except McBride, should have the same scrutiny, as they all signed the "Conflict of Interest", and voted as they usually do, with these three.
Whether Garrison legitimately seeks a real opinion or not, this resident, has made her complaints to the appropriate parties.
RESIDENT WRITES REGARDING TREATMENT OF "GOOD PAYING MEMBERS"
The Wedgefield Examiner, has posted more than a few articles about your board's failure to follow through in collecting our assessments, following our governing documents. For instance, WPA Covenants state, "Such assessment shall be set by the Board Directors of Wedgefield Plantation Association and payable within thirty (30) days after written notice to the grantee." Yet, this board sends assessments due January 31, but does not charge late fees on those who pay late, until after March 1st. In the end, they count on responsible residents to pay by the January 31st, resulting in providing favors to those who fail to follow the rules. After March 1st, they then began negative reporting at the board table regarding the number who have failed to pay, and the legal fees we all pay for liens on property, and foreclosure. In 2013, your board posted a negative collection, homemade sign, at the front gate for all who enter into our Wedgefield world, to see. Your board's leniency in the beginning is sending a message to residents that could indicate, their seriousness regarding collection. When they become frustrated, and collection is costly, they paint us all with the broad public brush, insulting those who do the right thing, while admonishing those they let off the hook, delayed serious action from day one.
On 2/08/14 A Resident Wrote The Following To The Board:
"Now that you have sufficiently scolded all the good paying members of WPA by your comments in the Wragg (and that is exactly what it is....a rag) maybe you should just publish the names of the delinquents after attempts to collect have failed instead of spending more money to collect. you people on the board are just like politicians...always spending someone else's money" (Note to readers: I, Madeline Y. Claveloux, did not write this letter to the board, nor did I put the person up to it (board accusation, at times). I don't know this resident.)
In should be noted that there was no indication that the board had answered this resident. Yet, when Anderson, Community Liaison, made his report during the Feb. board meeting, there was no mention of this writer. Does this board have a hidden policy that if you disagree with the board, that you don't answer, or acknowledge that a resident has brought issue to the board? It is a question that you might ask yourself, in future articles about who the board serves, and who the board determines, is worth answering. It is entirely possible considering someone on the board drew a rabbit out of the hat and declared no copies for residents, or board members, last week. Calling Legal Chair Garrison and Compliance Chair De Marchi, what written policy, or governing document, or board discussion and vote, did you pull that from (ANS: none), while trying to cover up the ridiculous contract (Not, under any standard.) and request for proposal (Never, have seen this called an RFP anywhere.), why covering up The Gate House FIX?
A FINAL NOTE: DID YOU KNOW THAT AS A RESIDENT YOU CAN SUBMIT AN ARTICLE TO THE WRAGG?
WPA POLICY MANUAL, Section VI, COMMUNICATIONS, 2.01, (b), "Letters to the Editor will be published provided they are signed and express a legitimate point of view of interest to members. Letters pushing a particulate political point of view will not be accepted. No libelous or inflammatory material shall be presented."
Residents, what do you think the chances are that the resident who wrote the board (above), didn't appear to get an answer from the board, would be allowed to submit his letter to the Wragg, and have it printed? Maybe you'll test it. I doubt that it would be printed by this board. You may have to develop your own blog or website in order to be heard. Perhaps, if you develop your own blog or website, you could call it "The Wedgefield Rag"
I know the following would never be published. When your president won't answer a serious question, and it is the story board of this board in general, you develop your own blog, and are forced to put the following up, in desperation of ever being answered.
On 2/08/14 A Resident Wrote The Following To The Board:
"Now that you have sufficiently scolded all the good paying members of WPA by your comments in the Wragg (and that is exactly what it is....a rag) maybe you should just publish the names of the delinquents after attempts to collect have failed instead of spending more money to collect. you people on the board are just like politicians...always spending someone else's money" (Note to readers: I, Madeline Y. Claveloux, did not write this letter to the board, nor did I put the person up to it (board accusation, at times). I don't know this resident.)
In should be noted that there was no indication that the board had answered this resident. Yet, when Anderson, Community Liaison, made his report during the Feb. board meeting, there was no mention of this writer. Does this board have a hidden policy that if you disagree with the board, that you don't answer, or acknowledge that a resident has brought issue to the board? It is a question that you might ask yourself, in future articles about who the board serves, and who the board determines, is worth answering. It is entirely possible considering someone on the board drew a rabbit out of the hat and declared no copies for residents, or board members, last week. Calling Legal Chair Garrison and Compliance Chair De Marchi, what written policy, or governing document, or board discussion and vote, did you pull that from (ANS: none), while trying to cover up the ridiculous contract (Not, under any standard.) and request for proposal (Never, have seen this called an RFP anywhere.), why covering up The Gate House FIX?
A FINAL NOTE: DID YOU KNOW THAT AS A RESIDENT YOU CAN SUBMIT AN ARTICLE TO THE WRAGG?
WPA POLICY MANUAL, Section VI, COMMUNICATIONS, 2.01, (b), "Letters to the Editor will be published provided they are signed and express a legitimate point of view of interest to members. Letters pushing a particulate political point of view will not be accepted. No libelous or inflammatory material shall be presented."
Residents, what do you think the chances are that the resident who wrote the board (above), didn't appear to get an answer from the board, would be allowed to submit his letter to the Wragg, and have it printed? Maybe you'll test it. I doubt that it would be printed by this board. You may have to develop your own blog or website in order to be heard. Perhaps, if you develop your own blog or website, you could call it "The Wedgefield Rag"
I know the following would never be published. When your president won't answer a serious question, and it is the story board of this board in general, you develop your own blog, and are forced to put the following up, in desperation of ever being answered.
DAY 9 AND COUNTING PRESIDENT WALTON. WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION REGARDING YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THE GATEHOUSE FIX?
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
WE AREN'T DONE WITH THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE ICE STORM DAMAGE HANDLING YET. REVIEW OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS (?????) LEAVE QUESTIONS. DE MARCHI TOLD US IF THE COST FOR CLEAN UP EXCEEDED $14,000, THE CONTRACTOR "WOULD EAT IT". IF THE RUMORS OF AN ADDITIONAL $700+ EXPENSE IN THE CONDO AREA ARE TRUE, WHO ATE THE EXPENSE - YOU AND ME, THE CONDO OWNERS, OR THE CONTRACTOR?
On February 24th, I asked to review the Storm Clean Up Feb. 2014, in the office on March 4th. Here is exactly what I asked for. "Request for Proposal, or specs for the project, requests for payment, and supporting documentation for payment, record of payment, contractor license and insurance." I was informed by Anderson, Community Liaison, last Friday that ALL the records I had asked to review had been ready since the 4th. You already know that they discriminated against me, denying my rights under SC state law, to have copies. It can't be the cost, because for all that I asked, there was a one page contract with S&W dated 2/27/14 (???????) 15 days after the storm, with DeMarchi telling us that the contractor had started, 2 days after the storm. Also remember, that on the 26th, DeMarchi went back to the board for an additional $6,000. Your board had already been meeting on the night of the storm, February 12, and added discussion of the storm damage (great), and approved $8,000, knowing it might cost more (reasonable). What legal document - contract did they work under from February 14 through the 26th, when they were clearing storm debris - in front of DeMarchi's house first?
In meetings, DeMarchi goes on and on about rate per ton, their equipment, etc.,. He sounds so knowledgeable. Yet, when the records are asked to be presented for review, there's no spec. notes, no quick comparisons, nothing. What is worse is that based on what I asked to see, was told by the board EVERYTHING was available, it appears that your board, expended around $8,000, without a contract, without reviewing any notes, or documents, on DeMarchi's word, alone. DeMarchi himself, told us that he had calculated potential expense at one point, renegotiated at a lower rate, and worked up the $14,000 contract. Where was the contract that allowed S&W to start on the Feb. 14, and renegotiate, and explain this all to the board on the 26th? No wonder, when someone on that board determined no one would have copies, it included the board. Admittedly, that was after Feb. 26th. Was that a move by some on this board, to make sure that in the future, the board wouldn't ask for documents, prior to a vote, to cover these questionable contract, and payment processes?
As reported earlier, the documents relative to the Gate House Fix, are as questionable. Where's President Walton, in oversight? Where's Legal Chair Garrison? Where's Treasurer/Compliance Chair De Marchi? Review the tapes of the meetings. Go review these documents for yourself. Three main characters pump each other up, during meetings, adding their own variations of approval. When are they going to provide the oversight that is required by our governing documents, and their roles as board members, looking out for the association's best interests?
Now a pretty valid rumor is that Great Lawns had to be hired at $700+ to do clean up in the condo area, because S&W's equipment was two big. If true, is S&W eating that cost? Are we, as Wedgefield residents? Are the condo owner's, who President Walton allowed to be last in clean up, while DeMarchi served himself first?
THIS IS WHY AS A RESIDENT I'LL CONTINUE TO FILE MY COMPLAINTS WITH AUTHORITIES, AND SAY "NOW, 8 DAYS AND COUNTING PRESIDENT WALTON, WHEN WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS IN WRITING ABOUT YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GATE HOUSE FIX?
In meetings, DeMarchi goes on and on about rate per ton, their equipment, etc.,. He sounds so knowledgeable. Yet, when the records are asked to be presented for review, there's no spec. notes, no quick comparisons, nothing. What is worse is that based on what I asked to see, was told by the board EVERYTHING was available, it appears that your board, expended around $8,000, without a contract, without reviewing any notes, or documents, on DeMarchi's word, alone. DeMarchi himself, told us that he had calculated potential expense at one point, renegotiated at a lower rate, and worked up the $14,000 contract. Where was the contract that allowed S&W to start on the Feb. 14, and renegotiate, and explain this all to the board on the 26th? No wonder, when someone on that board determined no one would have copies, it included the board. Admittedly, that was after Feb. 26th. Was that a move by some on this board, to make sure that in the future, the board wouldn't ask for documents, prior to a vote, to cover these questionable contract, and payment processes?
As reported earlier, the documents relative to the Gate House Fix, are as questionable. Where's President Walton, in oversight? Where's Legal Chair Garrison? Where's Treasurer/Compliance Chair De Marchi? Review the tapes of the meetings. Go review these documents for yourself. Three main characters pump each other up, during meetings, adding their own variations of approval. When are they going to provide the oversight that is required by our governing documents, and their roles as board members, looking out for the association's best interests?
Now a pretty valid rumor is that Great Lawns had to be hired at $700+ to do clean up in the condo area, because S&W's equipment was two big. If true, is S&W eating that cost? Are we, as Wedgefield residents? Are the condo owner's, who President Walton allowed to be last in clean up, while DeMarchi served himself first?
THIS IS WHY AS A RESIDENT I'LL CONTINUE TO FILE MY COMPLAINTS WITH AUTHORITIES, AND SAY "NOW, 8 DAYS AND COUNTING PRESIDENT WALTON, WHEN WILL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS IN WRITING ABOUT YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE GATE HOUSE FIX?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)