Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A QUICK REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER 17 WPA BOARD MEETING AND POSSIBLY ANOTHER MYSTERIOUS SECTION ADDED TO THE POLICY MANUAL
The member attendance for this meeting equaled the number serving and present on the board - 9! Thanks were given to the election committee and the people who decorated for the holidays. Minutes from the October regular board meeting were approved and the minutes to two "open meetings" called by the board. A reserve account will be opened at a new bank (more to follow).
Overall the meeting moved quickly and without the usual drama.
What was interesting was that as almost every committee chair gave their report they also sought approval for committee members for 2014. We'll analyze the members approved for each committee later on. De Marchi gave a Compliance Committee report for the first time in months. He sought to change language under petty cash. He did not name, or list, committee membership as many of the others did. What is the treasurer of the organization - finance chair, member of several committees, doing serving as Compliance Chair? Look at the conflict alone of the treasurer - finance chair, bringing a proposed change to the policy manual to the board for a vote.
A quick review of the current policy manual and those from 2002 and 2006 brought more questions than answers. Shouldn't the list provided by the board on the website that lists the approved changes to the manual include the fact that Audit Committee was removed and a brand new one added - Compliance? Will Compliance end up having the same strange undocumented appearance that the Confidentiality Agreement had? We'll see as we look into it after the new year.
More to follow on the December meeting after the new year.
Overall the meeting moved quickly and without the usual drama.
What was interesting was that as almost every committee chair gave their report they also sought approval for committee members for 2014. We'll analyze the members approved for each committee later on. De Marchi gave a Compliance Committee report for the first time in months. He sought to change language under petty cash. He did not name, or list, committee membership as many of the others did. What is the treasurer of the organization - finance chair, member of several committees, doing serving as Compliance Chair? Look at the conflict alone of the treasurer - finance chair, bringing a proposed change to the policy manual to the board for a vote.
A quick review of the current policy manual and those from 2002 and 2006 brought more questions than answers. Shouldn't the list provided by the board on the website that lists the approved changes to the manual include the fact that Audit Committee was removed and a brand new one added - Compliance? Will Compliance end up having the same strange undocumented appearance that the Confidentiality Agreement had? We'll see as we look into it after the new year.
More to follow on the December meeting after the new year.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
IN WEDGEFIELD HOPE DOESN'T SPRING ETERNALLY - MEET YOUR 2014 OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS - SAME OLD, SAME OLD - IT MAY BE A LANDMARK YEAR - MAYBE WE'LL HAVE RISEN TO THE HEIGHT OF TOTAL DYSFUNCTION
You know the old saying hope springs eternal? At the advent of a new year you'll often hear that phrase. With the annual meeting comes a reorganization meeting. The board elects new officers. The president of the new board has the privilege of naming committee chairs. Hope for change, even in the circumstance where we only really got one new board member, went out the door when you review the new officers - nothing changed, and committee chairs - minor cosmetic change in two areas.
PRESIDENT: Walton, VICE PRESIDENT: Garrison, TREASURER: De Marchi, SECRETARY: Cline. Nothing changed. Once again your board elected Walton president. Walton, as president, has the power to name the committee chairs. Little changed in the committee chairs. New board member, Keith Johnson was named ARC chair. Adam Anderson was named Community Liaison. Johnson has served on ARC for some time. Anderson replaces Barrier as Community Liaison. It shouldn't be a big job because your board hasn't answered residents in well over a year and infrequently before that. When we had a management company whose responsibility was to answer residents, certain board members strangled the process to the point that no one got answered.
The point is that this board let Walton return to a job he has failed to handle. His record speaks for itself. As president, he should provide oversight to his board and their committee responsibilities. The president should distance himself from sitting on individual committees, receive information and recommendations from them, and work with the chairs through scheduling their reports on the agenda, noting motions to come to the table for a board vote, etc. In his role of board and committee supervisor, if he stays out of committee membership, he observes with clean hands. Instead, Walton has placed our governance in a incestuous position and exhibited total disregard of the benefits of true committee structure.
Incestuous? Yes. Your board doesn't publish the names of the individuals serving on committees. I'm going to have to rely on memory. If there is an error, please let me know and I'll will print a correction. For the most part, your board stacks the committees with board members, rather than building committees in the true spirit of committees, that is the inclusion of new faces, ideas, etc. Yes, our committees are incestuous, and built to keep out more people and their ideas, monitoring and contributing to our governance. Take a look at the committees. They are loaded with board members and our president's participation, rather than supervision.
ARC: Walton, De Marchi, Johnson
LEGAL: Garrison, Walton, De Marchi, (one resident)
FINANCE: De Marchi, (3 residents)
ROADS: Anderson (unsure whether any others are on the committee)
DRAINAGE: De Marchi, Walton, (unsure if others are on the committee)
WATER AMENITIES: Mc Millin, Anderson, Walton (John), Johnson, (some residents) Should be noted that McBride had served on this committee but was thrown off the committee when he brought the dock in the canal issue to the board table.
GROUNDS: Mc Millin (No one else, I called the office about this committee a few months ago.)
WELCOME: McBride (Has resident participation.)
COMPLIANCE: De Marchi (Uncertain if he has anyone left on this committee. No reports in months.) Note the committees De Marchi sits on and the fact that he is the treasurer and this is just a big NO, NO!
COMMUNICATION: Cline
This committee set up, failure to list committee members, failure to post committee meeting reports, etc., just leads to secret deals, and poor governance, while taking away the power and benefits that real committee structure provides.
President Walton fails to oversee because he is in the middle of it all, rather than supervising it. He has allowed chairs to remain in place who fail, not only to serve, but fail to perform at all - COMMUNITY LIAISON. He sits by, or participates in the ugliness that takes place at the board table almost monthly, and speaks often in behalf of motions, that at times violate our governing documents.
Hope doesn't spring eternal for 2014 in Wedgefield.
PRESIDENT: Walton, VICE PRESIDENT: Garrison, TREASURER: De Marchi, SECRETARY: Cline. Nothing changed. Once again your board elected Walton president. Walton, as president, has the power to name the committee chairs. Little changed in the committee chairs. New board member, Keith Johnson was named ARC chair. Adam Anderson was named Community Liaison. Johnson has served on ARC for some time. Anderson replaces Barrier as Community Liaison. It shouldn't be a big job because your board hasn't answered residents in well over a year and infrequently before that. When we had a management company whose responsibility was to answer residents, certain board members strangled the process to the point that no one got answered.
The point is that this board let Walton return to a job he has failed to handle. His record speaks for itself. As president, he should provide oversight to his board and their committee responsibilities. The president should distance himself from sitting on individual committees, receive information and recommendations from them, and work with the chairs through scheduling their reports on the agenda, noting motions to come to the table for a board vote, etc. In his role of board and committee supervisor, if he stays out of committee membership, he observes with clean hands. Instead, Walton has placed our governance in a incestuous position and exhibited total disregard of the benefits of true committee structure.
Incestuous? Yes. Your board doesn't publish the names of the individuals serving on committees. I'm going to have to rely on memory. If there is an error, please let me know and I'll will print a correction. For the most part, your board stacks the committees with board members, rather than building committees in the true spirit of committees, that is the inclusion of new faces, ideas, etc. Yes, our committees are incestuous, and built to keep out more people and their ideas, monitoring and contributing to our governance. Take a look at the committees. They are loaded with board members and our president's participation, rather than supervision.
ARC: Walton, De Marchi, Johnson
LEGAL: Garrison, Walton, De Marchi, (one resident)
FINANCE: De Marchi, (3 residents)
ROADS: Anderson (unsure whether any others are on the committee)
DRAINAGE: De Marchi, Walton, (unsure if others are on the committee)
WATER AMENITIES: Mc Millin, Anderson, Walton (John), Johnson, (some residents) Should be noted that McBride had served on this committee but was thrown off the committee when he brought the dock in the canal issue to the board table.
GROUNDS: Mc Millin (No one else, I called the office about this committee a few months ago.)
WELCOME: McBride (Has resident participation.)
COMPLIANCE: De Marchi (Uncertain if he has anyone left on this committee. No reports in months.) Note the committees De Marchi sits on and the fact that he is the treasurer and this is just a big NO, NO!
COMMUNICATION: Cline
This committee set up, failure to list committee members, failure to post committee meeting reports, etc., just leads to secret deals, and poor governance, while taking away the power and benefits that real committee structure provides.
President Walton fails to oversee because he is in the middle of it all, rather than supervising it. He has allowed chairs to remain in place who fail, not only to serve, but fail to perform at all - COMMUNITY LIAISON. He sits by, or participates in the ugliness that takes place at the board table almost monthly, and speaks often in behalf of motions, that at times violate our governing documents.
Hope doesn't spring eternal for 2014 in Wedgefield.
Friday, December 6, 2013
MORE QUESTIONS ARISE REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONTRACTING & PROCUREMENT, INTEGRITY, AND CODE OF ETHICS
If you haven't read the article immediately following this one, please read it before you proceed. I'm sick of this board's lack of ability to conduct business in an open, ethical manner. I'm sick of them not answering residents through legitimate correspondence, playing god (small "g" on purpose because it is an insult to the standard), and arrogantly handling business in a dictator style, and treating members as though they aren't smart enough to see what the board doing. If you've read the previous article you'll note for yourself that your entire board - minus one, ignored the "Conflict of Interest", that each and everyone of them signed. The second document - our own WPA document, that they have failed for forever to follow, even though they all signed it, is the Code of Ethics. This was supposedly so important that they had a signing of the Code of Ethics, AT THE BOARD TABLE. I'm surprised they didn't each receive a signing pen like the president of the US does. Every time they have been reasonably questioned by a board member on issues such as conflict of interest, they have abused the questioning board member - read the transcripts and listen to the tapes. At one point Garrison called the questioning on conflict of interest moronic. It is MORONIC that anyone would accept anything that comes out of their mouths, when they fail to live up to documents that they signed!
De Marchi's email to me calling for a retraction did nothing but send the mind to wondering why he protests too much. If anything, it has caused further questions to arise out of the whole conflict of interest, regarding President Walton bidding and your board awarding him the contract to fix some aspects of the gate house. The reasonable question, now moves to the bidding and contracting itself. It is a question, not a statement of fact. The blog is the only vehicle left. Your board won't answer questions, make it difficult to review records - if they will allow it, and the questioner is demonized for asking. Here's the question: Was there conflict of interest in the bidding process for the gate house contract itself - even before the award? You'll have to decide. If it generates the question in your mind maybe you'll write and ask. If you don't question and document, then you put wind beneath the wings of their poor, convoluted governance.
Think about the lead up to the contract award. It appears your board doesn't have an approved bidding list. A list of qualified vendors who they have checked credentials, insurance, previous performance, etc. That would be good business. We are told that the bid package was sent to three vendors. I won't name the company that De Marchi noted in his email. Read it for yourself. We'll call it company "B". De Marchi tells us that he had worked for company "B". To my knowledge, company "B" hasn't bid on projects before. When all is said and done (read the numbers), Walton's bid is very low, and company "B", is very high. Since there was no approved bidding list to send requests for proposal to, was this a staged set up to give Walton the award? Just asking? Was the pricing staged? It could easily appear to be that. Just asking - not accusing anyone. It looks bad. So, your board has ignored strong standard procurement, two of the very documents they approved at the board table - Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, the advise of the experts that prepared the Reserve Study and constantly advise them to get outside vendors to handle the contract process and oversight and to seek engineering services, and awarded a contract to our president.
This whole thing, as so many others, looks tainted, shabby, and unethical. Who is responsible? Everyone on that board, minus one. In regard to contracting, if they ever answered anyone, they'd sing their favorite song, "no one wants to work in Wedgefield". Several years ago, a board sang a similar song and we paid one vendor over $700,000, built an office without a public - at the board table vote, and paid a "builder", who had to use someone else's license. As we approached a new election, Mc Millin verbally made contracting part of his platform. When he was first elected, he proved over and over again that plenty of contractors were willing to work here - even on small $400 contracts. Do we ever hear him go after this contracting mess now? No. You see, it could appear he gets what he wants when he cooperates and keeps his mouth shut like he did when your board approved one of his contracts that has all of us partially paying for individual lot mowing.
Who amongst you will ask the questions and start to resolve this board regime and stop conflict of interest, intimidation at the board table, and bring ethics and strong governance, back to Wedgefield's board table?
P.S. I finished this article and pushed the publish button and took a break. Do you think the questions are "hard" on this cohesive board and some of the individual board members? Think about this. Much of this relates to contracting and contract awards and doing business openly and honestly. Do the questions make you feel like there should be distrust of action and motive? Possibly you don't attend the miserable monthly meetings, follow up with questions, and want the best for the place you call home. In regard to contracting, I went to the office to review one of DeMarchi's first drainage projects in the Enclave. There was NO written requests for bids with specs. I reviewed the bids. There were two. One was a known contractor in good standing - Great Lawns. Their bid was TWENTY DOLLARS more that the winning bid. As I reviewed the second bid there were scratch outs on the typed bid with figures changed that brought the bid which was originally higher than Great Lawns, to $20 LESS. Just one example. You be the judge as to whether any thing looked SUSPICOUS to the average person.
De Marchi's email to me calling for a retraction did nothing but send the mind to wondering why he protests too much. If anything, it has caused further questions to arise out of the whole conflict of interest, regarding President Walton bidding and your board awarding him the contract to fix some aspects of the gate house. The reasonable question, now moves to the bidding and contracting itself. It is a question, not a statement of fact. The blog is the only vehicle left. Your board won't answer questions, make it difficult to review records - if they will allow it, and the questioner is demonized for asking. Here's the question: Was there conflict of interest in the bidding process for the gate house contract itself - even before the award? You'll have to decide. If it generates the question in your mind maybe you'll write and ask. If you don't question and document, then you put wind beneath the wings of their poor, convoluted governance.
Think about the lead up to the contract award. It appears your board doesn't have an approved bidding list. A list of qualified vendors who they have checked credentials, insurance, previous performance, etc. That would be good business. We are told that the bid package was sent to three vendors. I won't name the company that De Marchi noted in his email. Read it for yourself. We'll call it company "B". De Marchi tells us that he had worked for company "B". To my knowledge, company "B" hasn't bid on projects before. When all is said and done (read the numbers), Walton's bid is very low, and company "B", is very high. Since there was no approved bidding list to send requests for proposal to, was this a staged set up to give Walton the award? Just asking? Was the pricing staged? It could easily appear to be that. Just asking - not accusing anyone. It looks bad. So, your board has ignored strong standard procurement, two of the very documents they approved at the board table - Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, the advise of the experts that prepared the Reserve Study and constantly advise them to get outside vendors to handle the contract process and oversight and to seek engineering services, and awarded a contract to our president.
This whole thing, as so many others, looks tainted, shabby, and unethical. Who is responsible? Everyone on that board, minus one. In regard to contracting, if they ever answered anyone, they'd sing their favorite song, "no one wants to work in Wedgefield". Several years ago, a board sang a similar song and we paid one vendor over $700,000, built an office without a public - at the board table vote, and paid a "builder", who had to use someone else's license. As we approached a new election, Mc Millin verbally made contracting part of his platform. When he was first elected, he proved over and over again that plenty of contractors were willing to work here - even on small $400 contracts. Do we ever hear him go after this contracting mess now? No. You see, it could appear he gets what he wants when he cooperates and keeps his mouth shut like he did when your board approved one of his contracts that has all of us partially paying for individual lot mowing.
Who amongst you will ask the questions and start to resolve this board regime and stop conflict of interest, intimidation at the board table, and bring ethics and strong governance, back to Wedgefield's board table?
P.S. I finished this article and pushed the publish button and took a break. Do you think the questions are "hard" on this cohesive board and some of the individual board members? Think about this. Much of this relates to contracting and contract awards and doing business openly and honestly. Do the questions make you feel like there should be distrust of action and motive? Possibly you don't attend the miserable monthly meetings, follow up with questions, and want the best for the place you call home. In regard to contracting, I went to the office to review one of DeMarchi's first drainage projects in the Enclave. There was NO written requests for bids with specs. I reviewed the bids. There were two. One was a known contractor in good standing - Great Lawns. Their bid was TWENTY DOLLARS more that the winning bid. As I reviewed the second bid there were scratch outs on the typed bid with figures changed that brought the bid which was originally higher than Great Lawns, to $20 LESS. Just one example. You be the judge as to whether any thing looked SUSPICOUS to the average person.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
DE MARCHI WANTS A RETRACTION. WE'LL LOOK AT THE FACTS AND WHERE HE GOES TO TRY AND JUSTIFY OUR BOARD'S MISERABLE OPERATING AND VOTING METHODS. DID HE ACTUALLY BY PASS THE POLICY MANUAL HE ALL BUT AUTHORED ???
The Wedgefield Examiner is back after a Thanksgiving break. As the blog was being closed for the break, I came across an email from De Marchi. The email was sent to my private email address regarding The Wedgefield Examiner. It was sent from De Marchi's private email address. You'll note as you read it that he signs off as a private individual, but speaks about an action of the board, along with what he feels is inaccurate information regarding some of his transactions as a resident who also conducts business. It was some what humorous that he responded at all, as he claims he NEVER reads the blog. My private email address is available for friends, family, and the board, if they are corresponding to me as a resident. The Wedgefield Examiner has an email address for individuals who want to comment on articles: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com In the future I would expect that De Marchi, or anyone else, email any comments about the blog to that address. I've retyped De Marchi's email below (copy of actual on file).
"SUBJECT: The law and other errors
Read the law! According to the SC Non Profit Corp. Act, if the board approves the work, there is no conflict.
Also, just for clarification, I have never sold a lot in Wedgefield as your blog contends. The homes I constructed were done under Brinson Enterprises license and I, as an employee of the company, worked as a construction supervisor.
Do you ever get tired of distorting the facts? I am anxious to see if you print a retraction regarding the facts you misstated. I sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it. Please let me know if you ever have a change of heart.
Respectfully,
Alan A. De Marchi"
COMMENTS:
In regard to his "READ THE LAW", I am sick of how far DeMarchi and others on this board will reach in an attempt to convince you they did the right thing! This board has an attorney of record who ignored state law when he advised the 2011 board that the 2011 Recall effort should not proceed under the same state non profit law that the 2010 Recall was allowed, in the courts. Within the last year when I requested reviewing records, De March sent me an email holding me to the time lines of state law. When I asked for a meeting with the board and wanted to know whether we would all be governed under our own documents or the state law, or whether the state law was just being applied to me, De Marchi told me he never sent the email. I was able to provide the email that had been authored by him and he had advised the office to send it to me. Looks like he'll revert to state law if he has dug himself into a deep hole.
There are statements similar to the one he quotes regarding the board's power in our own governing documents. Basically, they say decisions of the board are final. I have two issues with his methods. First, what he quotes does not remove the true meaning of conflict of interest. It just says the board has power. It doesn't say there was any principle, or true governance under the concept and meaning of conflict of interest. He appears to be referring to the situation of our then president, receiving funds to do work from his business and receive assessment dollars for work on the gate house.. It is conflict of interest. Some might call it nepotism in this cohesive board situation.
The biggest insult to any one's intelligence is that DeMarchi chaired the group that updated our policy manual. Every board member has signed a conflict of interest statement. Did he forget that in his staged offense? I would hope not because DeMarchi and this board shoved a lot of things down our resident throats as he worked "cleaning up" the policy manual. Go to the WPA website and review the policy manual. The table of contents IV, 1.02 states, "A "Conflict of Interest Statement" form is to be signed by each Director". See Appendix IV-2. Read the entire "Conflict of Interest Statement". I'm not going to retype, or post the entire document. Item # 2 on the document states: "We recognize that Board Members have outside business, professional and personal interests. Board Members, however, may not profit in any way in their outside business, professional or personal interests from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association. During Board meetings, members must disclose any conflict of interest involving an issue before the board, and abstain from discussion or voting on the issue." Where's compliance? I forget myself, DeMarchi is compliance. No retraction on conflict of interest.
Next, DeMarchi seeks clarification and retraction on facts about whether he sold lots in Wedgefield. First, remember that he appears to refer to articles that I have written about drainage contracts for the Enclave. DeMarchi, not only bought and built on the lot he currently lives on, but he bought additional lots. Go back and read transcriptions on this blog, of WPA meeting tapes, go listen to the tapes of the last several months regarding DeMarchi's statements about drainage and the Enclave. Several times he states that every body was wrong about drainage before him.. The engineering company, previous board's etc. At the same time he won't get real engineers involved in cleaning up these so called mistakes. According to him, he and President Walton have expertise and know just what needs to be done. The Wedgefield Examiner has repeatedly asked how much expertise DeMarchi could have if he bought into what he himself says was a bad drainage situation, not once, but at least three times - at least 3 lots. The Wedgefield Examiner has said that he bought and sold. Now just as noted above on conflict of interest, he parses words - seeks to right himself with outlandish reach. He did buy more than one lot. I have personally been introduced to people by De Marchi, who he stated and they stated, that he had built their homes. If De Marchi wants clarification, according to him, he never sold the lots, that the homes he built were on. Well, in his world that may remove principle and tarnish, but not in the usual principled world. I've had three homes built in my life time. The on site construction supervisor was the go to person for me, the company who sold me the lot and housing construction contract, and also kept permits from the larger governing entity legit. I would still call that selling. Did he reassure the purchaser that this was a great house plan and everything was in great shape and move in ready? Did he assure the county and city permitting entities that everything was to code? Did he reassure his employer that everything was moving forward to a positive out come? Did he meet the requirements of the WPA? Well then, he was the front line person who continued to sell to all entities, including our new resident buyers. Wait, maybe he told them that drainage was all wrong, always had been, and that they would have problems! If he was that honest, he should have it documented and I'll retract then, not now.
DeMarchi "sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it". Mr. DeMarchi, Board Member De Marchi, I will work with a board, and have worked with many, when the board has principle, follows the governing documents in all cases, and each individual board member votes with principle, and according to the governing documents at all times. Right now, just in the instances you harp righteously on in your email, your indignant, misplaced, arrogant, righteousness, I wouldn't waste my principled, informed, experienced time! Who are the biggest board offenders in the instances that DeMarchi brings up? Top of the list: DeMarchi, Garrison, President Walton. Why? Because when a single board member - McBride, has tried to bring sense and governance to the drainage and conflict of interest discussions and votes, he has been disrespected, and harassed at the board table, by these three. In the case of the gate house, our conflicted President, told the board he would pull his bid, and DeMarchi said he wouldn't accept the withdrawal, and on weak principle the motion passed. I don't have time to discuss the weakness of all the other board members who sit by month after month and let it all happen, and go as far as to forget what they signed. It appears to be a twisting of words and lack of principle and good governance, by most of them.
"SUBJECT: The law and other errors
Read the law! According to the SC Non Profit Corp. Act, if the board approves the work, there is no conflict.
Also, just for clarification, I have never sold a lot in Wedgefield as your blog contends. The homes I constructed were done under Brinson Enterprises license and I, as an employee of the company, worked as a construction supervisor.
Do you ever get tired of distorting the facts? I am anxious to see if you print a retraction regarding the facts you misstated. I sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it. Please let me know if you ever have a change of heart.
Respectfully,
Alan A. De Marchi"
COMMENTS:
In regard to his "READ THE LAW", I am sick of how far DeMarchi and others on this board will reach in an attempt to convince you they did the right thing! This board has an attorney of record who ignored state law when he advised the 2011 board that the 2011 Recall effort should not proceed under the same state non profit law that the 2010 Recall was allowed, in the courts. Within the last year when I requested reviewing records, De March sent me an email holding me to the time lines of state law. When I asked for a meeting with the board and wanted to know whether we would all be governed under our own documents or the state law, or whether the state law was just being applied to me, De Marchi told me he never sent the email. I was able to provide the email that had been authored by him and he had advised the office to send it to me. Looks like he'll revert to state law if he has dug himself into a deep hole.
There are statements similar to the one he quotes regarding the board's power in our own governing documents. Basically, they say decisions of the board are final. I have two issues with his methods. First, what he quotes does not remove the true meaning of conflict of interest. It just says the board has power. It doesn't say there was any principle, or true governance under the concept and meaning of conflict of interest. He appears to be referring to the situation of our then president, receiving funds to do work from his business and receive assessment dollars for work on the gate house.. It is conflict of interest. Some might call it nepotism in this cohesive board situation.
The biggest insult to any one's intelligence is that DeMarchi chaired the group that updated our policy manual. Every board member has signed a conflict of interest statement. Did he forget that in his staged offense? I would hope not because DeMarchi and this board shoved a lot of things down our resident throats as he worked "cleaning up" the policy manual. Go to the WPA website and review the policy manual. The table of contents IV, 1.02 states, "A "Conflict of Interest Statement" form is to be signed by each Director". See Appendix IV-2. Read the entire "Conflict of Interest Statement". I'm not going to retype, or post the entire document. Item # 2 on the document states: "We recognize that Board Members have outside business, professional and personal interests. Board Members, however, may not profit in any way in their outside business, professional or personal interests from their association with Wedgefield Plantation Association. During Board meetings, members must disclose any conflict of interest involving an issue before the board, and abstain from discussion or voting on the issue." Where's compliance? I forget myself, DeMarchi is compliance. No retraction on conflict of interest.
Next, DeMarchi seeks clarification and retraction on facts about whether he sold lots in Wedgefield. First, remember that he appears to refer to articles that I have written about drainage contracts for the Enclave. DeMarchi, not only bought and built on the lot he currently lives on, but he bought additional lots. Go back and read transcriptions on this blog, of WPA meeting tapes, go listen to the tapes of the last several months regarding DeMarchi's statements about drainage and the Enclave. Several times he states that every body was wrong about drainage before him.. The engineering company, previous board's etc. At the same time he won't get real engineers involved in cleaning up these so called mistakes. According to him, he and President Walton have expertise and know just what needs to be done. The Wedgefield Examiner has repeatedly asked how much expertise DeMarchi could have if he bought into what he himself says was a bad drainage situation, not once, but at least three times - at least 3 lots. The Wedgefield Examiner has said that he bought and sold. Now just as noted above on conflict of interest, he parses words - seeks to right himself with outlandish reach. He did buy more than one lot. I have personally been introduced to people by De Marchi, who he stated and they stated, that he had built their homes. If De Marchi wants clarification, according to him, he never sold the lots, that the homes he built were on. Well, in his world that may remove principle and tarnish, but not in the usual principled world. I've had three homes built in my life time. The on site construction supervisor was the go to person for me, the company who sold me the lot and housing construction contract, and also kept permits from the larger governing entity legit. I would still call that selling. Did he reassure the purchaser that this was a great house plan and everything was in great shape and move in ready? Did he assure the county and city permitting entities that everything was to code? Did he reassure his employer that everything was moving forward to a positive out come? Did he meet the requirements of the WPA? Well then, he was the front line person who continued to sell to all entities, including our new resident buyers. Wait, maybe he told them that drainage was all wrong, always had been, and that they would have problems! If he was that honest, he should have it documented and I'll retract then, not now.
DeMarchi "sincerely wish you would work as diligently with the board as you do against it". Mr. DeMarchi, Board Member De Marchi, I will work with a board, and have worked with many, when the board has principle, follows the governing documents in all cases, and each individual board member votes with principle, and according to the governing documents at all times. Right now, just in the instances you harp righteously on in your email, your indignant, misplaced, arrogant, righteousness, I wouldn't waste my principled, informed, experienced time! Who are the biggest board offenders in the instances that DeMarchi brings up? Top of the list: DeMarchi, Garrison, President Walton. Why? Because when a single board member - McBride, has tried to bring sense and governance to the drainage and conflict of interest discussions and votes, he has been disrespected, and harassed at the board table, by these three. In the case of the gate house, our conflicted President, told the board he would pull his bid, and DeMarchi said he wouldn't accept the withdrawal, and on weak principle the motion passed. I don't have time to discuss the weakness of all the other board members who sit by month after month and let it all happen, and go as far as to forget what they signed. It appears to be a twisting of words and lack of principle and good governance, by most of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)