ARTICLE UPDATED AFTERNOON OF 5/22. UPDATES APPEAR AT THE END IN RED. ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE EMAIL LIST NAMED TO A COMMITTEE - DE MARCHI'S COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE. SHOULD THE BOARD HAVE ASKED FOR A WRITING SAMPLE?

I was unable to attend the WPA May Board meeting.  I have not had the time to date to listen to the tape of the meeting.  It is rumored from a reliable source, that another member of the recipients of Mrs. Z's email list has been appointed to a committee - Compliance.  I wasn't surprised, in one sense because this board does operate in "old boy's network" style, "I'll wash your back, you wash mine."  Remember Mrs. Z's email message advised her readers to send letters to the office complimenting De Marchi.  My next thought was disheartening, not fearful, and yet dismayed.  Some of these board members have staged events against that awful Wedgefield Examiner, with claims that printing transcriptions of their own words and actions at the board table, is cause to lowering property values.  Their claims roll like water off a ducks back, due to their own documented, public,  behavior. We all need to consider the source of these two faced claims.  The appointment of this individual is the third appointment to that very committee, from Mrs. Z's email list.  The very committee that will make recommendations to the board regarding conflict of interest.

ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS THE EMAIL AND LIST AND YES, THE NEW APPOINTEE IS ON THE LIST.  COMMENTS FOLLOW

 

Did your board and these email recipients forget the role this newly appointed individual has played in the brutal treatment of residents, fellow board members, persecution of two female board members in an attempt to throw them off the board - publicly threatening them with prison time,  his letter to the Georgetown newspaper using his board position without approval of the board, etc.  I'll review the tape to see who voted for him.  Both Garrison and McMillin were on the board during most of these actions.

 

Is it a far fetched notion to ask him for a writing sample?  I don't think so.  I'd ask him for one in particular.  In fact, I'll guide the board so that they can review it for themselves.  Board, please go to the Correspondence File for 2009.  You will find a unsigned "fairy tale", that was stuffed in the office drop box, in the dark of night, that is evil, sick, and frightening.  The new member of De Marchi's Compliance Committee wrote it, and was so gutless, he didn't sign his creativity.  How do we know he wrote it?  It was so ugly and despicable that it was part of the evidence in a lawsuit.  I was present when it was presented to him and he admitted writing it.

 

I fear for our community.  Mrs. Z had no thought to previous hard working board members.  She gathered together most of the people on this email list, collected money from them, sued a board and each of the board members individually, impacted those board members lives for four long years, and was unable to prove anything.  A few of the people on this list have personally told me, and others, that they were lied to during the lawsuit period.  Is this just more two faced operation by these people who obviously continue to follow her directions?

 

Mrs. Z, during the lawsuit period and since has been running/advising certain board members, varying over the years, without sitting on the board, or holding committee seats.  The very person who was approved to sit on De Marchi's Compliance Committee, and was a WPA board officer at the time, took my resident request to Mrs. Z, and two other board members who are on this list, for her advice.  You'll note "Fred", who was Legal Chair at the time, says, "If you have not already given to Madelaine.  Let's do this instead."  Notice, who the email is sent to.  It wasn't the entire board, just Mrs. Z's select few.

 

 

 



The following is a portion of an article I wrote a few years ago.  The reason it is printed is that it contains quotes from  previous board members (Use to taking advice from Mrs. Z and are on the email list above.)  This time they are being questioned by a resident who is upset that they are using WPA funds to pay the Board Attorney of Record, for dealings with Mrs. Z, who was suing the board at the time.



 The action this board took at the May meeting looks questionable.  I'll listen to the tape and see how McMillin and Garrison voted.  In the mean time we'll wait and see who else on Mrs. Z's list is appointed to a committee.  With rare exception, our committees, if they even have members, are stacked with these people.  At least three of our committees are chaired by DeMarchi.   It could look as though Mrs. Z is now advisor to De Marchi, if so, how comfortable should you be with that?  Remember, he is included in the email list.

UPDATE:
I've listened to the tape of the May WPA Board Meeting, regarding the appointment of the 3rd person from Mrs. Z's email list to the Compliance Committee.  As noted above, I wondered how Garrison and Mc Millin would have voted on this issue, since they served on the board, during the time that this individual did these things.  Both were involved in the lawsuits, so beside their board table knowledge, it should be noted that they were suing each other.  Both voted for this individual to be named to the Compliance Committee.  Is this the only place where governance is involved that your record  doesn't speak for itself?  I hope so.  Knowing all these things, many other too numerous to write about, these two knowingly voted to put this individual on this important committee.  Classic example of how the "good old boys network" operates. 

DeMarchi said this about compliance during the May WPA Board meeting, "We will monitor policy and we will amend it.  We will change it.  We will present it to the board for approval, and things like that."  Should you trust him, or his appointees to do this?  I don't think when you take the "taint", of what has been presented into consideration, that you should.  Should you trust a board composed of members who have participated in these types of activities, to spend your money, for the common good?  I don't think so.  When I stated earlier that I wanted to see the votes of Garrison and McMillin, because they were aware, I let the rest off too easy.  The vote was unanimous.  There were eight board present.  McBride was absent.  I know for sure that John Walton and  Adam Anderson were aware.  They were kept updated with documentation, during the period of time, when the lawsuits were in place.  President Walton and DeMarchi also have observed, or had documentation at their finger tips,  benefit of many of the actions of these individuals.  Garrison's vote didn't surprise me, after all he named one of the people on the Legal Committee, who co- authored with him, letters to residents telling them not to pay their association dues, because of the dredging. Now they are hounding them legally for following their advice.

It is ugly and can appear to be self serving, and yes, corrupt.