5) Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison, how could you have failed to seek a legal opinion, feigned lack of understanding of board member McBride's questions of conflict of interest, after you had signed the Conflict of Interest?
The answer is provided by Garrison. "This was addressed at the March meeting."
COMMENTS: The questions were sent prior to the March meeting. You'll have to listen to the tape yourself. Garrison's answer during the March meeting does not address the heart of this question. The question, to him and the others, is how sitting at that board table during the October 2013 meeting, what was their position - motive, in ignoring, failing to even mention at the board table, why they INDIVIDUALLY, voted WHILE disavowing a document, each and everyone of them signed? It could appear their individual signatures to a document committing them to adhere to their own stated principle, is not worth the paper it is applied to. Technically, it is a lie, to their written agreement and promise to all of us. During the March 2014 meeting Garrison said he had sought legal opinion (When he wouldn't, after being asked to at the October meeting.), that there was no conflict according to SC law, or the bylaws, and perhaps at some point the board would entertain bringing the Policy Manual in line with the other two. You, listen to the tape. Too little, too late. In his various roles on the board Garrison, should be above it all, and serve as the guiding light to legality. He appears to be selective, dependent on the issue, to seek legal opinion, until pushed to a brink. All should be reminded that the Policy Manual has been changed regularly to accommodate the whims of project, by this board. Moreover, it should be remembered that there was a time in our history when our governing documents ruled. There was no question about SC law, until it was inserted in 2010 for a recall, under state law, with one of the main drivers - Garrison. It has since opened the door to the games played often, particularly within this very document. It has allowed this board to twist and turn, sometimes apply our governing documents, other times state law, dependent on their project, or in some cases, whether they like a resident, or not. They've thrown state law at me regarding copies and records review, then didn't appreciate the freedom it gave me, and pulled it back - nothing less than selective governance. Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison, you failed to answer the question.
6) Community Liaison Chair Anderson, how could you put your name to correspondence that denied the right of a resident, any resident, AND Board Members themselves, copies? Who on the board contributed to that correspondence and what governing documents, laws, etc. did you or they site? Have you as a board member been voting with proper review of documents?
The answer is provided by Anderson. ""As community liaison, I simply gather the information and prepare the response. Many times the information to the letter I send out are from the committee chairperson of the department involved in the question asked."
First, Anderson fails to answer the question. The question was very specific. Additionally, his answer might lead one to believe that it indicates his willingness to allow answers to residents to go out under his name, without his review, or approval. Who is he covering up for? Why would a adult, business professional, allow the answer I received regarding records and copies, which denied me and BOARD MEMBERS, rights under the very state law, that Treasurer/Compliance Chair DeMarchi, had sent me in another one of his unprofessional snits? The above answer is ridiculous, obvious avoidance, and illustrates yet another Board Member, who is willing to play in this board's shell game.
7) Board Member DeMarchi, can you explain why calls had to be made to your home, to secure records that a resident had been INFORMED BY THE BOARD, were ready for review, and yet you had them, at home? The lack of professionalism and integrity in the records that were provided, could indicate more problems for this Conflict of Interest issue, why weren't the records in the office? Could you explain why the bidding process appears so pour for the gate house fix?
The answer is provided by DeMarchi. "The office staff called my residence to verify the specifications for the work to be performed on multiple jobs. I maintain a copy of all my correspondence with the office. The fact, as was explained to you at the time, was the information was in the office and was in a file on the other computer in the office."
COMMENTS: Board Member DeMarchi, LIES on several levels when he states, "The fact, as was explained to you at the time, was the information was in the office and was in a file on the other computer in the office" I had requested in writing the following records regarding the board's "gate house fix": the requests for proposal, bids, and contracts. I received written correspondence from Anderson Community Liaison that the records I had requested were waiting and ready for my review. I still have a phone message on my machine from Secretary Cline informing me that records were ready and waiting for my review. I took a resident witness with me to the office. Vice President/Legal Chair Garrison was in the office when I was presented with the records I had asked to review. He was present when I stated that the files presented did not contain the request for proposal. It appears that key members of this board, who advised me in writing and on a taped message, had never verified that what they stated was true, or you and the others, never intended for me to review those records. The paid staff person NEVER told me that the file was stored on another computer. That would have been ridiculous. Would you have allowed me to review the file from that computer? She did phone your home. She then informed me that the record was coming through on the machine. Remember I have a resident witness to all of this. When I asked where the contract was, I was initially told that it was probably at President Walton's for his signature. Again, a call was made to you and I was handed President Walton's bid and advised that that was the contract. There was no contract date, terms of payment, or LINES FOR SIGNATURE, OR DATE OF SIGNATURES! You as a representative of that board, with all your committee and officer titles, allowed me to believe, based on what was presented that those documents, were the fine legal records, of you, others, and our President's work, on the gate house fix! Every board member had been sent a copy of Anderson's correspondence telling me ALL THE REQUESTED RECORDS were AVAILABLE for my review, and now a blatant lie follows, written with arrogance, and apparent assurance from your cronies on the board, that you will get away with it.
NEXT ARTICLE - MORE QUESTIONS, BOARD ANSWERS, AND COMMENTS
