So, what was it? What went terribly wrong in the process of negotiating with the Boulevard Gaming Group?

It’s evident that Trumpets Working Group and the Board were working at cross purposes from one another. While the TWG sought to bring the Community the best qualified restaurant operator, one that would be welcomed and supported by the Community, the Board and their chief negotiator Mike Dixon clearly had different objectives in mind. The Board’s failure to communicate those objectives to the TWG contributed greatly to the breakdown of the negotiating process. While that communications failure was one contributing factor, the Board’s negotiating agenda, which was kept under raps and literally hidden from Community view, acted as a deal killer for the selected, preferred restaurant operator, the Boulevard Restaurant Group.

One can easily get the impression that our negotiators screwed up. I for one believe that they did. After all, were they not charged with the responsibility of bringing our homeowners a restaurant operator for the Trumpets space? Indeed, that was their duty and they failed miserably. The problem was, while well intended, our negotiators had little actual experience in the leasing process. According to Flory Del Sangro, Boulevard’s operator at their Las Vegas Blvd. establishment, it was clearly evident that our group did not know what they were doing. One example cited was the absence of a proposed lease after 60 days, when that document should have been available from the very beginning. Sadly, it was evident that we did not know what we wanted or even how to go about getting what we wanted. But that was only part of the problem.

Take, for example, basic rent. Instead of setting forth a proposed figure, any figure that would be subject to negotiations, which any lessor would be expected to do, someone from the negotiating group had apparently contacted Boulevard and asked them what they wanted to pay. What does that tell you? It is ludicrous for anyone to take seriously, as some seem to indicate, Boulevard's initial so called demands on the Board as final or even suggestive. Those so called demands were in response to a potential lessor who was simply unprepared or unwilling to address those issues in a proper manner, with a propose lease, as Boulevard has pointed out in their letter.

Making matters even worse, our negotiators were more than willing to make that transition from an interested party to our actual restaurant operator as difficult as possible. They were clearly throwing roadblocks in the way. What were those roadblocks? 

1. Negative attitude.  The most significant roadblock was one of negative attitude on our part. Our chief negotiator Mike Dixon made his disdain for Italian cuisine of the type prepared by the Boulevard restaurant clearly known. According to one Boulevard principal, Mike Dixon was overheard saying that Sun City Anthem does not want an Italian restaurant. What was that all about? It should come as no surprise that Boulevard was in fact an Italian restaurant in the traditional sense. However, Boulevard did in fact offer a variety of American favorites, such as sandwiches, burgers, seafood, pork ribs, chicken and sirloin steak.
2. Wrong cuisine.  Mike Dixon told Boulevard that Sun City Anthem wanted Boulevard to offer a continental cuisine. Hello! In other words, while Mike seemingly understood who Boulevard was (a restaurant offering Italian cuisine), he was telling Boulevard that we were not interested in their cuisine and wanted them to offer a cuisine they were not prepared to offer. And where did Mike get his direction from? Was the Board attempting to scuttle what the TWG had recommended and the community had approved? It seems that Mike was telling Boulevard to be something they were not. While Mike might have preferred white and creamy sauce versus tomato sauce as a topping, was he speaking for the community or for himself?
3. Wrong negotiator.  While Mike Dixon may have many fine qualities, he was not the Board’s best choice to interface with a prospective restaurant operator. While Mike might disagree, I believe his demeanor coupled with his negative and offensive attitude interfered with rather than enhanced our ability to secure a positive lease outcome. One critical factor alluded to but not mentioned is the need for us to develop a positive and respectful atmosphere during the negotiating process. That did not happen. What did happen, though, was the clear understanding on Boulevard’s part that the relationship between the parties would have deteriorated even further if they had gone forward as our restaurant operator. In fact, Bill Goff, Boulevard's president, in his letter of withdrawal alluded to that very communications problem (#4). If Dixon was barely tolerable during negotiations, would he be any more agreeable in overseeing future restaurant operations? Not likely. That prospect posed a real problem for Boulevard, as it would for any potential operator that Dixon did not welcome. The Board needs to understand that to preclude a repeat of the same outcome.
4. Who was in charge?  It was difficult for Boulevard to know whether Mike Dixon was speaking for the Board or whether he was reflecting his own attitudes and preferences when he was going out of his way to disdain Boulevard's cuisine and disrespect their dining offerings. From Boulevard's perspective, one gathers that Mike Dixon was very successful in scuttling the negotiations.   
5. Catering and the Women’s Club.  The next hurdle was the issue of catering. Most everyone will acknowledge that the restaurant operation by itself is a poor profit center. Combine that prospect with our history and isolated location and you will begin to get some understanding of the importance of catering to a restaurant’s bottom line no matter who you are negotiating with. Most residents already know that our kitchen facility had been well designed to meet catering opportunities in Hanneman Hall. Knowing that catering income is "the" important factor for any prospective operator, how and why did we manage to make that an issue? So just what catering opportunities did our chief negotiator offer Boulevard? Instead of 7 days a week, as in the case of our prior operator, S&D Café V, who claimed that even with 7 days a week they couldn’t make it financially, Mike was suggesting a reduced schedule, something like 3 days a week, Friday-Sunday.  What a blow that must have been. Indeed, in one swift blow there went roughly 5,000 catered meals a year for just one of our Clubs. What was that all about? To strip a prospective restaurant operator of that catering opportunity was simply a dumb idea. No restaurant operator would ever agree to such a proposal. Well, we do not need to look too far to ascertain the major, if not the sole beneficiary of that decision, the Women’s Club. Despite their denials, Women’s Club preferences played a key role in the Board’s decision to limit the restaurant operator catering opportunities to the weekends. It’s meaningless to suggest, as Women’s Club representatives wrote to advise me, that their Club took no position on the matter and did not vote on the matter. Apparently, they did not have to. I am led to believe that had negotiations proceeded further, this issue alone could easily have evolved into a deal breaker.
6. Other issues.  One should read carefully what Boulevard's Bill Goff wrote in his letter. He adroitly alludes to a number of related issues that must be addressed before we engage in the selection process a second time.

Favil West, our de facto leader for a number of years, has written me to reiterate what he had recommended a while back. His suggestion is to take the entire leasing process as far away as possible from the Board and the politics and go through a commercial leasing broker who has experience in restaurant leasing. Clearly, we do not want to repeat what we have just gone through.

The Board is going to have to decide whether they are prepared to meet the Community’s desire for a restaurant or not. Do we really need a workshop or meeting for the Board to make up their minds? Clearly, their initial strategy for bringing us that restaurant was fraught with problems and issues that they brought on themselves. The Community already decided what was needed. Did the Board fail to listen? The Board needs to act and act decisively.   

Ron Johnson, 17 July 2008