My colleague in internet publishing David Berman has published an excellent summary of Tuesday’s Board Book Review and there is no need for me to duplicate that effort. Click here to read David's report on The First Public Board Book Review.

However, there were some aspects of that meeting I found to be interesting, even disturbing.

 
“Slick Willy”

Not to denigrate the wonderful image we all have of the 42nd President of the United States, I could not help but think of “Slick Willy,” as he has been dubbed by many, in listening to how Roz Berman and Mike Dixon were going to “explain away” what occurred at the Finance Committee meeting on the matter of the request to purchase 3 elliptical exercise machines.

The strategy at the upcoming Board meeting, as I saw it, was to make it appear as if there was nothing untoward in the procurement process, that protocol was being followed, and that our Committees were being used in the manner intended. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While few will have any interest in this matter, I believe this issue and the resulting consequences will set a certain undesirable tone to what to expect in the future. If one understands the role of the Finance Committee in the procurement process, we learned that the function of the FC is very limited in scope. They are there to tell the Board if there are funds budgeted and available for this or that proposed expenditure. If there are such funds available, funding matters sail through routinely. If not, there is a potential snag and the Board may have to decide what to do or leave matters until another month has passed.

In performing their duties, the FC may get involved in issues such as rent, lease or purchase, frequently complaining that RMI has not provided the range of data on these various funding option they would like to see before making a recommendation. Of interest to the reader is that the Finance Committee is not charged with the responsibility of determining or evaluating Community “need.” Either there is money or there is no money budgeted for the proposed purchase. If budgeted money is available to purchase “X”, the item is expeditiously handled in Committee and moved on to the Board with a recommendation to approve the purchase. It’s that simple. In this instance, however, something went wrong, thank goodness, which should have acted as a wake up call to all concerned.

Instead, the FC decided to take a look behind the request from the Fitness Department (RMI) and concluded there were serious unresolved issues with the request. Typically, those unresolved issues, such as Community need for the 3 requested elliptical machines, are handled by Property & Grounds. While P&G had in fact reviewed and acted on this request, we now know that Mike Dixon told P&G they were wrong in doing so, which raises all kinds of issues. The implications of Mike's action, of course, is that the “decision” to purchase the three elliptical machines had already been made and P&G's services were not needed.

Apparently the FC did not get the message to approve the request and went outside of their scope of responsibility and performed due diligence on the issue of “need.” Their conclusion: repair any faltering treadmills and do not replace the 3 treadmills with 3 elliptical machines. That was an interesting and enlightened determination even though it was beyond their perview. In other words, the FC did not do their assigned job and what was expected from them since, in point of fact, there was $15,900 in the budget for the replacement of aging treadmills. However, equally true was the fact that there was no budgeted item calling for the replacement of treadmills with elliptical machines.

What readers should understand is that were it not for the “intervention” of the Finance Committee, and had they not gone outside of the scope of their “finance” mandate, the Board on Thursday would be authorizing the purchase of 3 new elliptical exercise machines to replace 3 treadmill machines. If we can believe that, serious procurement issues lie ahead.

We may hear from Roz Berman, the liaison to the FC, on this matter at the Board meeting on Thursday. If we do, do not be surprised if the “explanation” has a heavy dose of sugar coating so that you will not even recognize the underlying issue lying beneath that sweet layer of confection. 

Mr. Dixon’s efforts to rely on RMI advice on procedural matters, like Roberts Rules of Order, faltered when Community Manager Terry DaSilva was forced to completely reverse herself when she was challenged on a ruling by another Board member. Mike may have to look elsewhere when seeking advice on the rules of order.

At the Board Book Review, the Board works off of the draft agenda that was made available at the monthly Town Hall meeting held in the prior week. That is great for homeowners wanting more detail on matters to be covered at next week’s Board meeting. Since the agenda appears to be fixed in stone in advance of the Board Book Review, there was very little for the Board to do other than to agree on who is going to introduce what item, etc., at the Board meeting.

As a result, there was no flexibility or real opportunity for Board members to modify the agenda as drafted, let alone comment on the agenda items. While there may be some benefits in adopting this procedure, one has to wonder how the agenda was created in the first place and how members of the Board and their thoughts are integrated into that agenda development process.  

Roy Montambeau, Sun City’s inveterate observer on all matters political, has always sought the opportunity to observe how the Board operates in practice, the give and take among members, the struggle over ideas, the resolution of disputes, etc.  In other words, who’s really doing their job and who deserves our votes when an incumbent is seeking reelection to the Board.

While Roy spoke positively on this issue at this historic event, I think he must have been disappointed if not somewhat frustrated in not being able to achieve his goal. The Board was essentially presented with an agenda that for all practical purposes was a fait accompli by Mike Dixon. As a result, there was no real give and take over issues, no struggle over ideas, and no resolution on disputed issues. It was as if everything that had been done had been done and resolved prior to the Board Book Review meeting. That, I suggest, was by design.

Did we miss the real meeting that Roy had so desperately wanted to witness? Or put another way, are we witnessing the adoption of a very highly structured management style that does not allow for real participation among Board members in the decision-making process?

Ron Johnson, 27 June 2007