BEFORE WE BEGIN, PERHAPS PRESIDENT WALTON AND YOUR BOARD SHOULD SEEK A LEGAL OPINION, FOR THE ACTIONS THEY HAVE TAKEN AGAINST A RESIDENT, PRIOR TO THE DISCUSSION AT THE APRIL BOARD MEETING. CONTRARY TO YOUR NEW POLICY, I HAVE ALL THE RECORDS I NEED, TO SHOW YOUR SHOOT FROM THE HIP DISCRIMINATION, AGAINST ME AS A RESIDENT.
WE CONTINUE WITH MORE OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. QUESTIONS ARE IN RED. BOARD MEMBER ANSWERS ARE IN BLUE. COMMENTS ARE IN BLACK.
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?
McMillin answers the question. "Al DeMarchi took this project on his own, with no direction or input from me. I felt it was an unnecessary repair."
COMMENTS: First, unlike many of the other board members, in this case, McMillin, truly answers the question. His answer clearly opens the can of worms, the numerous problems, not only of the whole gate house fix, but the general operative of this board. They have no consistency in operation on any level. McMillin is the Grounds Chair. If this was to come under Grounds, McMillin should have met with his committee, made a proposal to the board, from his committee. Note, McMillin has no committee. Skip past that mess, look to line of authority, and for the second time in several months (DeMarchi mysteriously is in charge of the storm clean which is clearly under Grounds. McMillin stated his upset during a board meeting.), DeMarchi, who has more titles that Carter has little liver pills, jumps over the authority of McMillin, and drops his pet project, under McMillin's chairmanship/authority, and brings not only a project, but a suspect project for a number of serious reasons to the board table, AND YOUR BOARD VOTES WITHOUT QUESTION AS TO WHY DE MARCHI IS IN CHARGE. What is worse, is that President Walton, named contractor of the gate house fix, sits by and let's it all happen, over and over again. Legal Chair/Vice President Garrison, doesn't question this, and during the October meeting, ignores requests from a sitting board member, to seek legal opinion. Why does DeMarchi have so much power?
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.
McMillin answers the question. "There have been several verbal requests to alter the driveway. A resident mentioned it at last month's meeting during the comment portion."
COMMENTS: If, there are residents who have verbalized a need for a change in the parking lot, why haven't they been told to write their concerns to the board? Put it in writing has been what residents have been told in the 10 years I've lived here. No one has written the board. If there were concerns, how many resident requests does it take for the board to consider spending our funds? Why do some have to put their concerns in writing, and beg for answers, and for others a phone call will do it. Calls can't be documented. As far as the resident who brought it up at the end of the March meeting, it was a board member's wife, who plays games there at night with 6 people. Again, why not in writing, and how many residents would it take?
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 a 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?
President Walton answers the question. "This policy is currently under review and will be discussed at next month's meeting."
COMMENTS: President Walton fails to answer the question at all. Why? First he was copied, as all board members were, when DeMarchi pulled SC state law out of a hat several months ago, and sent me state law, regarding record review and copies, when I had made a request. In fact, at that time, I requested a meeting with the President and Legal Committee, and wanted to know what other resident they had applied SC state law to, regarding records review and copies. DeMarchi, in the presence of President Walton and Legal Chair Garrison, initially, DENIED SENDING IT TO ME (lied), despite the fact that I carried his email, sent from the office, copied to every board member. When I sent the next request (six months later) I made sure I followed the state law as to the number of days required to give notice of record review, and blatantly asked in writing, for the records to be reviewed, the reason for the request, and copies of those records, as I might feel I needed. I received the following from Anderson, Community Liaison, on March 8, 2014, "No copies will be made for, or by any resident, regarding invoices or office documents. This applies to the Board members, as well". Anderson had copied the entire board. You'll note above, that I asked Anderson to name names, and tell me who exactly contributed that language, to the response sent to me. He didn't answer the question. In my case, one time state law applies, the next time it doesn't, and clearly policy has been established, because the entire board allowed this to go out to a resident. President Walton, you failed to answer the question, the horse was out of the barn. You allowed policy to go out, without discussion, I can only guess that it was because, I wanted copies of records regarding your award of contract, in denial of the Conflict of Interest, every one of you signed. It looks sir, like you fail to answer because you appear to be culpable in too many areas of this fine mess. You fail to uphold the responsibilities of president, or board member.
Perhaps, President Walton, you should request that your Legal Chair, take DeMarchi's email to me, holding me to state law, and Anderson's ridiculous, discriminating response to me on March 8th, to the Board Attorney of Record, and get an opinion in writing, prior to the April board meeting. THE INFORMATION, AND DOCUMENTATION, NOTED ABOVE WILL BE SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, early next week. They may, or may not act on it, but you have openly violated the very state law, YOU forced on me over six months ago. I only can hope that they notice that you went so far in your March 8, email, that you removed the right of EVEN board members to have copies. It is worth my time and effort to write them, after all, you have violated a state law.
