Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Dear Examiner, Board of Directors, and Edmund LaFrance,
Were you as frustrated by the October board meeting as I was? This two hour meeting, the last before the annual, left me with a very unsatisfied feeling. With no President’s report, no Vice-president’s report, no Legal, Condo, Communication, etc., we were, instead, treated to an inaccurate and snarky Community Liaison report, an over long and off topic Grounds report, a and ridiculous Welcome committee report.
According to the present Policy Manual, after a resident’s letter goes through hoops, the final response is to be authored by the Community Liaison Chair—Jason Barrier. I am not among the favored few who ever get a written response from Jason. In fact, he has told me that he will NOT respond to my questions. This attitude towards a single resident seems to be supported by the majority of the Board. 
I have written to the Board each time a member of the Board violates the Confidentiality Agreement they supported and signed. It was the attorney, Mr. Moody, who opined that , according to our By-laws, a Board member could be removed from his/her position for violating this agreement, not me. Although our By-laws do not have this provision, no one has ever questioned Mr. Moody. By the same token, NO Board member has acknowledged violating the Confidentiality Agreement.
Yes, I wrote to the Board concerning Al DeMarchi’s involvement with the recent two lot/four lot debacle. I questioned his violation of confidentiality when he mentioned the lot owner by name. I also questioned his intense involvement in resolving this issue, including ‘hours’ down at the county offices. It should not have been the job of any Board member, let alone one running for re-election, to resolve the question. It was the property owner’s job. I considered this special treatment of a single property owner pandering for votes and a violation of the Code of Ethics. I hope that each and every Board member has examined the papers that Al held up in September and is satisfied with their accuracy!
Why aren’t the changes to the Policy Manual documented at the bottom of the page?
When I asked Jacky Walton about the committee he was forming to expedite responses to residents, he looked at me as if I had two heads. When questioned further, he admitted that the committee has not been formed and has certainly not met. It frustrates me that the members of the WPA are treated so disparately! It remains my contention that ALL residents are entitled to a written response to written questions.
It is my understanding that the fiscal year starts January 1st. Looking towards next year’s budget to fund this year’s projects seems wrong!
(name removed)

2)  The board responds, and it isn't the community liaison who crafts the letter.
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:46 AM
To: (name removed)
Subject: Criminal accusations
(resident name removed):

I quote, "In the State of South Carolina, pandering is illegal. According to the criminal law of the State of South Carolina, pandering includes the following acts:
  • procuring a female for a house of prostitution
  • causing, inducing or persuading a female by threat, violence or promise to become a prostitute
  • receive anything of value to become a prostitute
  • accept money or something of value from a prostitute
  • aid, abet or knowingly participate in any of the acts listed above"
Based upon legal advice I have received, you are bordering on slander. You have wrongfully accused me of "pandering" for votes, which in South Carolina suggest some form of sexual illegalities. You have publicized this accusation in writing to the Wedgefield Plantation Board of Directors, and also posted this to an internet site for public access.
If you persist with your distortions of the truth, inaccuracies, and false criminal accusations, I will seek legal recourse against you.
I am writing this based upon the recommendations of my attorney and trust this will put an end to your accusations.
Alan A. De Marchi

3)  The resident responds back to the board writer.

Thursday, October 25, 2012


RESIDENT (name removed) ANSWERS SECRETARY DE MARCHI

 Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Mr.De Marchi,
Thank you for educating me on additional uses for the word pander. I never meant to accuse you of soliciting sexual favors. Quite frankly, that definition never crossed my mind and I apologize. 
Why did you and your attorney decide to take the sexual definition as opposed to the political when my e-mail was quite specific? Let me quote : I hate to think that this was an attempt by a member of the Board running for office to pander for votes, but that is exactly what it looks like. Pandering for votes is unethical.
There are many definitions for pander. According to several sites, the most common usage is political. In my mind, pandering, especially pandering for votes, means: 
Pandering is essentially a reaction of panic in elected officials who must either tailor their views to public opinion or risk losing their existing or potential seat.
When you pander to people, you cater to their needs because you want something from them. A good example is a politician who says what the voters want to hear, to get their votes--politicians pander to voters. The verb pander is used in a negative way to denote the behavior of someone who has ulterior motives or just wants to indulge the person to whom they are pandering.
With all of the ugliness in this Plantation since 2009, no one has interpreted ,until you, anything said to mean something sexual. You twisted what I said and used an archaic and seldom used definition for pander to threaten me. You, and others on the Board, have tried in many ways to silence anyone in the Plantation who asks questions. What are you all hiding?Threatening legal action is nothing new. You continue to be a disappointment.
I stand by my original statement:
Pandering for votes is unethical
(name removed)