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.