THE QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED IN RED. BOARD ANSWERS ARE IN BLUE. COMMENTS ARE IN BLACK.
11.) Board Member DeMarchi, why is the storm debris contract signed two weeks after you stated the contractor started?
Board member DeMarchi answers. "The contract was drawn up the initial authorization, under an emergency situation, after the plantation was allowed sufficient time to gather the debris and place it along the curbs. The original price was based upon $50.00 per ton. After the first week, and the disposal/dump fees were suspended, a fix price bid was requested from S & W Siteworks. An assessment was made based upon the first weeks collections and it was agreed that there was approximately 425 to 450 tons of debris. A contract was agreed upon and signed at an open board meeting, called after the three day notice requirement, for $14,000. Total tonnage was 423. tons and the final cost was $13,980. The first 101.67 tons cost $4,080.00 or $40.12 per ton, which was less than the original agreement. The remaining 321.83 tons cost $9,900.00 or $30.76 per ton.
The work was excellent according to resident comments. It took less than three weeks to complete. The roads were cleared of all debris on 2/14/14 and 2/15/14. The condo area roads were cleared first. The crews lost 2 1/2 days to rain, and 1/2 days to attend a co-workers funeral. Also, during the cleanup, the crews were pulled off work to cut overhanging limbs that were reported as dangerous."
COMMENTS: The question really isn't answered as to how we can expend association dollars, without even a brief statement of work, begin date, and payment arrangements. How will an auditor look at this? This association has been wracked with law suits. Some of the chief documents considered by all parties were contracts. Who signed them? When were they signed? Were invoices paid according to contract? A contract could have been developed to start the work and amended as the need occurred.
DeMarchi appears to have negotiated a great price. He stayed with the relevant changes in pricing, and negotiated in the association's best interest. It simply would have been better if the contract memorialized it.
12) Board member DeMarchi, why did the debris clean up start at your front door, rather than on the major roads that we All have to travel on? I'm aware that the contractor staged in your area, but quite frankly, the contractor had to cover these miles at one time or another to get the job done. Is this apparent, selfish, direct benefit to you, who directed this project, another conflict of interest?
Board member, DeMarchi answers the question. "Work was started on Francis Parker Road because S&W Siteworks was performing work on Francis Parker, and the 84,000 lb. track hoe was not able to drive on the roads. It was utilized to compact loads of debris to minimize the number of trips to the landfill. All other equipment and trailers were parked at the end of Joanna Guillard so as to not obstruct traffic.
After consulting with condo residents, on Thursday, 2/13/14, it was requested that the condo be cleared last in an effort to provide time for the condo residents to get debris to the curb. It was never my intent to slight the condo residents as you suggested in your inflammatory blog.
COMMENTS: DeMarchi skirts the answer. In the end, if the equipment was too heavy to be used on the roads, all roads had to be cleared, so the expense shouldn't have been any more, by end of contract, wherever they started. The actions by this board, including DeMarchi, leading up to the start of this project, are questionable. Once again, DeMarchi is in charge, stepping over another board member. McMillin, Grounds Chair, reported at the March meeting that this responsibility had been taken away from him. He appeared upset. The debris clean up should have fallen under his committee. I listened to the tape of the board meeting the evening of the storm. McMillin is at the meeting and offers to start making calls, there and then. There was no discussion during that meeting that DeMarchi would be taking over. DeMarchi does mention S&W during that meeting. As of the March board meeting, it appears no one told McMillin, who made the decision, and why it was made. Additionally, during the March board meeting, McMillin himself, criticizes where the project started, saying, "they started at the most remote area of the association." No one answers McMillin at the March board meeting table.
If these decisions were made by the condo residents, there were no reports for the condo owners at the February, or March meetings.
I've reviewed the resident comments. There were few, and for the most part they came from the residents in the area that you took care of first.
As to the "inflammatory blog", I ask DeMarchi, since the people who provided positive comment, were pretty much the same people assembled with the March resident speaker, and one was manager of another website, others promoters of newspaper articles, and mass printings to residents, have you ever called what they do, "inflammatory"? Can you ignore behavior, when they sing your song?
It looks bad with the change of command. Then the commander starts at his own front door. Every board member signs a Code of Ethics that states, "Directors shall act with scrupulous good faith and candor. They will avoid even the perception of conflict of interest, favoritism and acting out of self interest." That didn't happen here, and DeMarchi can't run it around the flag pole, and explain it away.
13) Board member DeMarchi, is it true that after S&W left that there was still debris left in the condo area? If so, who had to pay Great Lawns? Will S&W "eat that expense"?
Board Member DeMarchi answers the question. "The condo association paid $700 to GLOG to move debris to the curbs for pickup. The clean-up crew was not responsible to get debris to the curb. In addition, S&W hauled away debris that was placed in the parking areas in front of cars and not accessible for the large equipment. Much of the debris was moved through manual labor to make it available for mechanical pick-up.
S&W Siteworks is not responsible for the condo resident's election to pay GLOG to move storm debris."
COMMENTS: Again, we don't have condo reports at the February or March board meetings. I've been provided information that differs from DeMarchi's. Due to the abuse that is heaped on anyone who attempts to bring the truth forward. We'll leave it, as DeMarchi reports it.
14) Legal Chair Garrison, since our previous attorney of record's license has been suspended, it could cause doubt regarding the critical opinions he gave regarding a number of important issues, and you have failed to get most opinions in writing, how will anyone be able to examine those opinions, and verify their validity?
Board Member Garrison answers the question. "The fact that the former board attorney is under suspension in no way necessarily negates any previously rendered opinions. If the board feels a need to seek additional clarification regarding previous opinions or recommendations, I'm sure that the board will request the present attorney to render an opinion. When the board has requested written opinions they have been provided. Those opinions are in the office and available for review."
COMMENTS: The comments are short and sweet. It is difficult to verify whether there are questions regarding former opinions. Most are not in writing. How would one be able to review and make that request. Now, board members can't even have copies to review if they existed. They don't trust each other enough to provide the records. This is a lost cause. Go back and listen to the tapes of meetings. When asked if the opinion will be in writing, or opinion will be sought at all, Garrison often responds with, "I'm not inclined to do that".
