The "gate house fix", and I do mean it in the negative sense, has been on and off the table, by this board for almost two years. "FIX", was a word that I have used over time, because that is what it appears to be, by this sometimes pouting board.
It started with your board sending out a request for proposal to vendors, identified by them, including our president's firm. The proposal included three sections. The board sought quotes, for everything from windows (stage 1), to work inside to remove dry wall damaged by water, and mold clean up. The bids were opened at the board table, and it was determined that stage 1, was the stage they would consider funding. Surprise, surprise, our president's company bid was the lowest. When questioned, at the board table, as to whether awarding a contract to the president's firm was conflict of interest, Garrison, Legal Chair, called the questioning board member moronic, and refused to get a legal opinion. After months, he agreed to seek legal opinion, regarding whether awarding the president's company a contract, was in conflict of the very "Conflict of Interest", signed by each and every board member. Having reviewed the request for proposal package (?), and the contract (?), prepared by DeMarchi, it can only be called incomplete, and certainly not instruments of true business transactions.
When the board was found in conflict of interest, with the very document each had signed, our president, quit the contract. He had purchased windows, and the board reimbursed him for his expense, leaving a new contractor to deal with what he had ordered. The windows have laid around for at least a year.
Recently, the board put out another request for proposal, which again appeared to be in three stages. This time, DeMarchi's ex-boss had submitted a bid. If I recall correctly, it was the only bid. The bid was left unopened, when a board member said he felt he could get one more person to bid. A few meetings later, the second bid was opened, along with the one from DeMarchi's ex-boss. The board spoke as though they felt both bids were too high. No vendor was selected. There has been conversation that board members and volunteers, would do the work. During the conversations, some of the specific problems of the gate house came up. Water had run behind the dry wall, and under the carpet. There was mold. One board member felt that a wall should be braced, and at least half replaced.
During the January WPA Board Meeting, McMillin, regarding the gate house, stated that the board had agreed to do the work with volunteers, and that they would install gutter guards on the outside, before they worked inside. A motion was made, and passed, to spend up to $350 for gutter guards, corners, and down spouts. Garrison went on to ask about take down of sheet rock, removal of carpet and garbage, and something about a door on one side. Someone mentioned that the moisture needed to be treated.
During the resident comment section, at the end of the January meeting, a resident asked if the WPA insurance has coverage for board member, and volunteer, do it yourself projects. Legal Chair, Garrison, said that he didn't know. Really????? McMillin, responded saying, that the WPA umbrella policy covers just about everything. I believe it was stated that the board would check.
By the end of the meeting, I was left disheartened for a number of reasons. First, where are the board's priorities? They change like the direction of the wind, and often could appear to lack the best interests of the association, and it's assets. It also appears that they fail to act "as any reasonable" governing entity would, as it relates to sound business judgement.
First, almost two years ago, they wanted that gate house fixed now! Decisions, had to be made now, to the point, that every board member minus one, failed to honor a governing document, everyone had signed. When our president, gave back the contract, where speed was once needed, the project was shelved. Now, a resident has a valid question about insurance, and it probably has been shelved, so they can proceed as they want to, risking all, until they are pressured. Think that is rash judgement? I don't, their actions repeat themselves, in miserable ways. Test my opinionated judgement. Write the board, and ask them to provide you the section of the insurance policy that covers volunteers doing manual, hazardous, work? Ask them, who on the board, contacted the insurance carrier, when, what time, and who they spoke to, and what they said. I doubt they can provide any of that information, because I doubt they followed through and checked.
On January 28th, as I was coming into the gate, McMillin was out sweeping up, just outside the gate house. A trailer, full of what appeared to be dry wall pieces, was parked by the gate house. Some of the pieces of dry wall were almost black. Was it mold? It has been mentioned in the past. Would the board allow non professionals to expose themselves to mold? Probably! Would the board be so arrogant as to believe that they know how to handle mold debris, and the proper cleaning? Probably. Ask them if the insurance company was aware, because it is very doubtful. The board appears to ignore sound business judgement when they want, what they want, and they appear to think that the average resident, is too dumb, to ask, or realize it. Far fetched? No, remember DeMarchi said, "he was sick and tired of legislating for idiots, who do the wrong thing."
I have one last question. The gate house is the center piece of the front entrance, and a concrete asset of the association. I'll never understand the ridiculous, delayed path of this project. Why, over the delay period, did this board have time and money, to see to a fountain, numerous benches, and go cheap, on a concrete asset of the association, that residents, potential home buyers, and business people, have to drive by every day? The only answer that I can come up with, is that they are self serving to their own egos and projects, and view residents, as not being smart enough to know the difference.
