I received the following response from Anderson, Board Community Liaison.
It has been three weeks, and no answer from anyone on this board. This both is, and isn't Anderson's fault. It is a problem for him in general because he sits in his board seat meeting after meeting, and just votes with the flow. Also, if he can't get the rest of this board to assist in the response, he should write and tell me just that, but then he should bring that fact to the board table during his Community Liaison Report. Why? He and every board member at that table should be reviewing information, and when they vote, be so sure that in their independent review of the situation, that they are willing to stand and answer as to what guided them to vote on the issue. If he won't answer, and his peers on the board won't answer, then it is a clear indicator, of their integrity, commitment to administer under our governing documents, in the best interest of the association, and according to sound business and ethical practice. Historically, this group votes according to what the others are doing. No real questions, they just vote with the group, and feel they don't have to answer to anyone. In fact, it looks like collusion. If they won't answer, claim they vote independently, there must be a collusive fairy that deposits the same notion of vote, in each of their heads.
The questions relate to conflict of interest. Each of the board members who voted to give President Walton the Gate House "Fix" contract, violated independently, our Conflict of Interest. How could seven board members all forget it, or the words contained within it, vote yes, unless there is collusion? Legal Chair Garrison, spoke to me before the March meeting, and told me he was big enough to admit he has made a mistake. Yet, at the board table, at one point, he states it was only a $1,400 contract. He appears to minimize intentionally. This was never just about a $1,400 contract. They discussed giving President Walton drainage contracts last spring. John Walton said at that time, that he liked the idea of a in house contractor. This appears to have been the opening of the door to a whole lot more, at the expense of conflict of interest, sound business practice, and denial of our governing documents.
Will the board answer? I doubt it. Will they continue to stage events against me for questioning them? Probably. No, Legal Chair Garrison, I don't have a persecution complex, you and the board's actions speak louder than words, or aspersions cast to make yourself feel better.
