Friday, December 6, 2013
MORE QUESTIONS ARISE REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONTRACTING & PROCUREMENT, INTEGRITY, AND CODE OF ETHICS
If you haven't read the article immediately following this one, please read it before you proceed. I'm sick of this board's lack of ability to conduct business in an open, ethical manner. I'm sick of them not answering residents through legitimate correspondence, playing god (small "g" on purpose because it is an insult to the standard), and arrogantly handling business in a dictator style, and treating members as though they aren't smart enough to see what the board doing. If you've read the previous article you'll note for yourself that your entire board - minus one, ignored the "Conflict of Interest", that each and everyone of them signed. The second document - our own WPA document, that they have failed for forever to follow, even though they all signed it, is the Code of Ethics. This was supposedly so important that they had a signing of the Code of Ethics, AT THE BOARD TABLE. I'm surprised they didn't each receive a signing pen like the president of the US does. Every time they have been reasonably questioned by a board member on issues such as conflict of interest, they have abused the questioning board member - read the transcripts and listen to the tapes. At one point Garrison called the questioning on conflict of interest moronic. It is MORONIC that anyone would accept anything that comes out of their mouths, when they fail to live up to documents that they signed!
De Marchi's email to me calling for a retraction did nothing but send the mind to wondering why he protests too much. If anything, it has caused further questions to arise out of the whole conflict of interest, regarding President Walton bidding and your board awarding him the contract to fix some aspects of the gate house. The reasonable question, now moves to the bidding and contracting itself. It is a question, not a statement of fact. The blog is the only vehicle left. Your board won't answer questions, make it difficult to review records - if they will allow it, and the questioner is demonized for asking. Here's the question: Was there conflict of interest in the bidding process for the gate house contract itself - even before the award? You'll have to decide. If it generates the question in your mind maybe you'll write and ask. If you don't question and document, then you put wind beneath the wings of their poor, convoluted governance.
Think about the lead up to the contract award. It appears your board doesn't have an approved bidding list. A list of qualified vendors who they have checked credentials, insurance, previous performance, etc. That would be good business. We are told that the bid package was sent to three vendors. I won't name the company that De Marchi noted in his email. Read it for yourself. We'll call it company "B". De Marchi tells us that he had worked for company "B". To my knowledge, company "B" hasn't bid on projects before. When all is said and done (read the numbers), Walton's bid is very low, and company "B", is very high. Since there was no approved bidding list to send requests for proposal to, was this a staged set up to give Walton the award? Just asking? Was the pricing staged? It could easily appear to be that. Just asking - not accusing anyone. It looks bad. So, your board has ignored strong standard procurement, two of the very documents they approved at the board table - Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, the advise of the experts that prepared the Reserve Study and constantly advise them to get outside vendors to handle the contract process and oversight and to seek engineering services, and awarded a contract to our president.
This whole thing, as so many others, looks tainted, shabby, and unethical. Who is responsible? Everyone on that board, minus one. In regard to contracting, if they ever answered anyone, they'd sing their favorite song, "no one wants to work in Wedgefield". Several years ago, a board sang a similar song and we paid one vendor over $700,000, built an office without a public - at the board table vote, and paid a "builder", who had to use someone else's license. As we approached a new election, Mc Millin verbally made contracting part of his platform. When he was first elected, he proved over and over again that plenty of contractors were willing to work here - even on small $400 contracts. Do we ever hear him go after this contracting mess now? No. You see, it could appear he gets what he wants when he cooperates and keeps his mouth shut like he did when your board approved one of his contracts that has all of us partially paying for individual lot mowing.
Who amongst you will ask the questions and start to resolve this board regime and stop conflict of interest, intimidation at the board table, and bring ethics and strong governance, back to Wedgefield's board table?
P.S. I finished this article and pushed the publish button and took a break. Do you think the questions are "hard" on this cohesive board and some of the individual board members? Think about this. Much of this relates to contracting and contract awards and doing business openly and honestly. Do the questions make you feel like there should be distrust of action and motive? Possibly you don't attend the miserable monthly meetings, follow up with questions, and want the best for the place you call home. In regard to contracting, I went to the office to review one of DeMarchi's first drainage projects in the Enclave. There was NO written requests for bids with specs. I reviewed the bids. There were two. One was a known contractor in good standing - Great Lawns. Their bid was TWENTY DOLLARS more that the winning bid. As I reviewed the second bid there were scratch outs on the typed bid with figures changed that brought the bid which was originally higher than Great Lawns, to $20 LESS. Just one example. You be the judge as to whether any thing looked SUSPICOUS to the average person.
De Marchi's email to me calling for a retraction did nothing but send the mind to wondering why he protests too much. If anything, it has caused further questions to arise out of the whole conflict of interest, regarding President Walton bidding and your board awarding him the contract to fix some aspects of the gate house. The reasonable question, now moves to the bidding and contracting itself. It is a question, not a statement of fact. The blog is the only vehicle left. Your board won't answer questions, make it difficult to review records - if they will allow it, and the questioner is demonized for asking. Here's the question: Was there conflict of interest in the bidding process for the gate house contract itself - even before the award? You'll have to decide. If it generates the question in your mind maybe you'll write and ask. If you don't question and document, then you put wind beneath the wings of their poor, convoluted governance.
Think about the lead up to the contract award. It appears your board doesn't have an approved bidding list. A list of qualified vendors who they have checked credentials, insurance, previous performance, etc. That would be good business. We are told that the bid package was sent to three vendors. I won't name the company that De Marchi noted in his email. Read it for yourself. We'll call it company "B". De Marchi tells us that he had worked for company "B". To my knowledge, company "B" hasn't bid on projects before. When all is said and done (read the numbers), Walton's bid is very low, and company "B", is very high. Since there was no approved bidding list to send requests for proposal to, was this a staged set up to give Walton the award? Just asking? Was the pricing staged? It could easily appear to be that. Just asking - not accusing anyone. It looks bad. So, your board has ignored strong standard procurement, two of the very documents they approved at the board table - Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, the advise of the experts that prepared the Reserve Study and constantly advise them to get outside vendors to handle the contract process and oversight and to seek engineering services, and awarded a contract to our president.
This whole thing, as so many others, looks tainted, shabby, and unethical. Who is responsible? Everyone on that board, minus one. In regard to contracting, if they ever answered anyone, they'd sing their favorite song, "no one wants to work in Wedgefield". Several years ago, a board sang a similar song and we paid one vendor over $700,000, built an office without a public - at the board table vote, and paid a "builder", who had to use someone else's license. As we approached a new election, Mc Millin verbally made contracting part of his platform. When he was first elected, he proved over and over again that plenty of contractors were willing to work here - even on small $400 contracts. Do we ever hear him go after this contracting mess now? No. You see, it could appear he gets what he wants when he cooperates and keeps his mouth shut like he did when your board approved one of his contracts that has all of us partially paying for individual lot mowing.
Who amongst you will ask the questions and start to resolve this board regime and stop conflict of interest, intimidation at the board table, and bring ethics and strong governance, back to Wedgefield's board table?
P.S. I finished this article and pushed the publish button and took a break. Do you think the questions are "hard" on this cohesive board and some of the individual board members? Think about this. Much of this relates to contracting and contract awards and doing business openly and honestly. Do the questions make you feel like there should be distrust of action and motive? Possibly you don't attend the miserable monthly meetings, follow up with questions, and want the best for the place you call home. In regard to contracting, I went to the office to review one of DeMarchi's first drainage projects in the Enclave. There was NO written requests for bids with specs. I reviewed the bids. There were two. One was a known contractor in good standing - Great Lawns. Their bid was TWENTY DOLLARS more that the winning bid. As I reviewed the second bid there were scratch outs on the typed bid with figures changed that brought the bid which was originally higher than Great Lawns, to $20 LESS. Just one example. You be the judge as to whether any thing looked SUSPICOUS to the average person.
