The Trumpets Lessee Selection Process

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?

There are many allegations of conflict of interest being lightly tossed around lately.

My detailed responses to bogus claims against me are posted at this link:

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/26/conflicts-of-interests/

Seems like this thread got of topic alittle bit, however, the HOA should not be passing up the opportunity to use community assets to improve the lives of the Community(such as reconfiguring the Restaurant to a public access area at that end, with banquet and other facilities) and using the revenue as an offset to operating costs and improvements to our facilities to keep them from falling into a state of disrepair, or to improve the energy efficiency or energy independence of the HOA properties.
New board direction should be able to resolve the number of problems the HOA has right now.

Vote for someone who knows what is going on, please.

Norm, are you thinking of " One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"--the other memborable character in that movie was Nurse Rachett, I think.

Mary Olthoff;

Nope – “Five Easy Pieces” was an “R” rated movie. I wasn’t allowed to see them unless accompanied by some one older. You were lucky.

Try again?

P.S. The name of the Jack Nicholson movie was "Five Easy Pieces".

After reading the personal comments, the only one that I can totally relate to is Rudy Ruiz.
I remember the old days of Trumpets very, very well-------prices too high, obnoxious staff, and inconsistent food---------and that is the best I can say about them. The reality of Trumpets was stuffing the facitility with loads of strange people all the time with all kinds of catering activites.
Anthem has grown and MEMBERS are using the facitlites alot now, as it should be. The parking lot is always full, and the activites are well attended.
With all the resturants within a ten minute drive, why do we need to go back to the Trumpets nightmare days of strange people crowding us out of our own club.
For goodness sake, we DO NOT NEED another resturant here that is going to flood our gates with a series of unwanted weddings.
Use the space for what is was intended-------member useage-----and forget the troublesome resturant.
Make a deal with Buckman's to expand their hours and days of dinner service. Their prices are fair, the food is good, and the staff for the most part is very friendly to residents.

Does any one remember the name of the movie that Jack Nickelson starred in long ago? This whole episode is beginning to remind me so much of that movie, but I can’t remember the title. (Another senior moment)

As just one member of about 24 on the TWG, I can only comment on a few of the points Kay Frank wrote, as I don't have knowledge of some of them.

I don't know David Moore's exact status in the community, and couldn't care less. But it certainly does not help ANY competitor for Trumpets to come onto a bulletin board such as this and comment disparagingly about one's competitors. I would file that under "dumb."

Regarding who was in the room when each competitor made its presentation, we didn't check ID's at the door, and I'd be surprised if EVERY competitor didn't have friends or supporters in the room who reported back on what they saw and heard.

This is the first I've heard about possible coaching of David Moore that resulted in a better presentation by him at the evening session. I certainly don't recall that the slides were any different at the two sessions, but I would defintely agree that the evening presentation was better focused. As far as coaching goes, I don't know who on the TWG would have gone out of their way to do that. In my own case, there was only about 75 minutes between the time the room emptied from the afternoon session until I arrived back for the evening session, and I used that time to grab a quick dinner. I don't know if any other TWG members stuck around or offered coaching to Moore, but I doubt it.

I have heard or seen nothing about a plan for Moore's group to expand into the gallery. I don't believe they made such a proposal, if I recall correctly, though, they did talk of possibly expanding outward from the current restaurant space, something the S&D people actually had been given permission to do but never acted upon. If I recall correctly, S&D had plans at one time to add some sort of bridal suite via that process.

We did NOT have a rule that if any of the Phase 2 finalists dropped out, others below them would automatically move up. Each applicant was rated and ranked on its own merits, and we had no predetermined limit. There were 11 formal applications submitted, and if we had found that all 11 of them, or any number greater than the 4 who qualified had met the criteria, then we would have recommended any and all of them. There was no predetermined number who would qualify.

Regarding financial questions, we did not deem it proper to have the public ask questions of that nature while the TWG, guided in large part by member Kathy Matson, is in the process of gathering the required financial information. We believed that the focus of the residents at the presentations should not be on the financial qualifications, which we are investigating, but on what type of facility, menu, etc., the applicants propose to give us. Much of the financial information we are gathering is confidential, involving tax returns and the like, and the proper authority, meaning the Board of Directors, will be provided with the information that is collected.

I agree with most of what Al Glickman wrote here. Any and every member of the community had a chance to participate in this process via TWG membership, and the decision to go this route was a direct reaction to the secretive, closeted process employed with the S&D arrangement. So it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. A lot of the sniping that's going on is because we have done our business in the open, and if we had decided to do otherwise, the TWG would then be attacked for THAT. In effect, many of those who criticize the Association and Board for doing things in secret are attacking the TWG for operating in the open.

One thing we learned during the process is that our restaurant premises, with its wonderful view and large kitchen, is not as desirable to prospective tenants as people might think. We are in an out-of-the-way location, and some who we reached out to told us exactly that. If we wanted to give away the store as many residents thought we did with the S&D lease, then we could get more applicants, I am sure. But it is clear that our community wants both a customer-friendly operator AND a lease that does not screw our residents.

When day is done, it will not be the decision of the Trumpets Working Group as to who the Trumpets tenant will be. We can only recommend from among those who qualified for consideration, but it's the Board of Directors who will make the determination. If, for example, those who have experienced the excellent food served by one vendor at Women's Club lunches want to make the case to the Board for that vendor, then they should lobby the Board. We couldn't qualify that vendor according to the criteria we established in our RFI document, but maybe the Board will want to take some risks with that vendor that we chose not to take. This Board, and more likely the Board that will follow, can even decide to srap the whole process and start over or try a different approach. Residents must realize, however, that as much as good food counts for the Trumpets operator we ultimately have, financial security and fiscal integrity are critical to the welfare of our Association. Kay Frank is absolutely correct that underfunded restaurants equal a high rate of business failure, and that has been an important factor in how the TWG has been doing its work. Personally, I am confident that any and all recommendations going to the Board will fully address the adequacy and certainty of the funding concerns.

My personal opinion is:

1. David Moore (head of LUVRULES Company bidder) is under-aged and not related to anyone at SCA. However, he is listed as living at the same address as Patti Shock in the SCA website address book. So, he is not a “member”.

If he is a renter, that is a CC&R violation. Perhaps he is not a renter, which brings up more conflicts of interests questions in my mind. He is listed as an instructor at UNLV, but, I hear he has not worked for them in over 4 months. He is not listed on the UNLV web site.

2. How can he use the term "our last lease holder". Does he presume to be a "member" of this community? Or, does he rent or own any SCA home?

3. How can he say that the other two competitors will "risk your health"? Is that not a libelous statement? How does he know what the other competitors submitted, or what they do in their kitchens? Was he given inside info of their presentations, or is he just psychic? Or, is just spin and dirty tricks against honorable people who are actually operating successful local restaurants, and he can not compete?

4. How can he comment on their presentations and catering plans? Did he get unfair inside information?

5. He is recommending "quick food" and showed us expensive refrigerated cases to hold food for sale. If I see a sandwich or salad in a plastic container, prepared say at 8 am, and held until it is bought at 1 pm, why is that called "fresh"? So, it may be orginally from scratch, but it is not a "fresh" serving--maybe a step up from the prepared salads in the produce section of grocery stores, but who knows? Luvrules does not have a restaurant where we can compare them with their competitors.

6. I see his quick service as self service, with no hot food, using plastic utensils and plates. Do we have to eat out of the plastic containers and bus our own tables in the gallery?

7. He wants to expand the footprint way out into the gallery--why? Was this increased space approved under the RFI, and were the other competitors given the same opportunities?

8. Is it a rumor or truth that a TWG committee member coached him on how to change his presentation to be better received at the second event in the evening? Were TWG members allowed to coach other presentations in the same way? Why?

9. We were told we would hear from 4 finalists. When one dropped out, is it true that the rules were that the next in line would move up? If so, why was the fifth one not moved up so that the community had more choices?

10. An artificial proposal deadline compressed the opportunity over the Christmas and New Years Holidays. This is the worst time of the year for food service companies to make complex proposals--unless they are out of work. We know from experience we will pay dearly for a bad selection. We deserve more and better choices, and a truly fair and open process—throughout the entire process.

11. We were not allowed to ask even general finance questions of the candidates after their presentations. Why not? Under-funded new restaurants have the highest incidence of business failure. Luvrules is a very high-risk, proposed venture. They should have been eliminated from the competition after discovering they did not have a viable restaurant with a proven track record.

12. Many of our volunteers on the TWG have been unfairly constrained by faulty committee policies and biased leadership. Patti Shock and Mike Dixon should apologize to the TWG members for wasting so much of their time and efforts. The process and its results have not improved the trust of our members.

Kay Frank

Ron,
I don't know if you were at the Town Hall meeting the other day, so I'll paraphrase some of my comments at that event and also give you some other thoughts (please bear with the length):

Please everyone, remember when and why the TWG was formed. At the time, the community had zero trust in the BOD, wanted other people to be in charge of anything Trumpets related, and did not want to spend any money on the process. Whether you like MD or the BOD or you don't, the fact that they called for an open session for all interested residents to give their ideas re: a new tenant, operation or anything else related to the Trumpets space was a good idea. About 100+/- people showed up, of which only 25+/- volunteered to stay around afterwards and then give of their time to work on the situation. Luckily, this group includes several people with either substantial restaurant operational experience, strong financial backgrounds and/or real estate and lease negotiation experience. Therefore, the TWG, as constituted, is not just a "rag tag" bunch of residents.

You are correct in the assertion that the BOD has let the TWG work pretty much on its own with very little BOD interference (with the exception of one particular member-guess who-who wants all information gathered as it occurs and feels that only the board should control the process).

The process started with the TWG deciding to make all meetings open to the public, with no secrecy, so nobody could complain. Of course, very few outsiders actually showed up and people still complain. We put out a survey to obtain resident preferences. Of course, the minute the survey came out many people said that it was a terrible survey, but I guess that's just how it is in SCA. Despite that, over 1,800 responses were received. The overiding sentiments were for a reasonably priced restaurant with good food. What a surprise! The TWG then made it our goal to find a restauranteur first, whho could also do catering, rather than a caterer who would also operate the restaurant. You may not feel that the RFP or RFI was done correctly, but we did make this point abundantly clear. You may be interested to know that even before the RFI went out there were several expressions of interest received. Virtually all of them were from caterers who saw a great profit potential rather than from people more interested in running the restaurant. There is no doubt that our insistance on "restaurant first" limited the number of responses we received.

The process resulted in numerous tours of the facility, but only a limited number of actual Phase 1 submissions. Our group went through the submissions, ranked them based on completeness and potential viability, and came down to 4-5 "reasonable" candidates for Phase 2. Some dropped out after they did not want to submit all of the detailed information requested at that point, and we eventually got down to the three remaining candidates. We are now working to answer all questions, both ours and theirs, relating to what we want, what they want, financial stability, etc. We will again rank the three remaining candidates based on all information received, the presentations, etc. and put the complete package (with all documentation received from ALL of the candates and our ranking criteria and rating sheets) and send it to the BOD. At that point the TWG is finished. A separate lease negotiating team will then be put together. As I understand it, this team will include one or two board members, two highly competent members of the TWG, a representative from the Finance committee, an outside lease specialist, and an attorney that specializes in this area (not from the J. Leach firm). The BOD can then either select one candidate, try to negotiate with more than one, or just reject them all.

The TWG has worked hard, but is certainly not perfect. We may have made mistakes. When our former chairwoman revealed up front that she knew one of the applicants, she offered to resign from the TWG. We did not let her do so. Upon reflection, we probably should have let her resign, since perception has resulted in people calling this a tainted process. Of course, this is totally untrue. Neither I nor anyone else that I am aware of has been unduly influenced in our deceision making, and the person in question never actually had a vote on anything. Now, many say that SCA should have hired an outside consultant to find us a new tenant. My questions are 1) can you imagine the outcry in the community if the BOD would have taken control of the process and then spent money to hire an outsider? 2) Given our restrictions on "restaurant first" do you think an outsider would have done much better? and 3) You say that we could get three or more "qualified" applicants. Does anybody really know exactly what a qualified applicant is? Everyone has their own idea of what they would like to see up here, but no two people actually agree on what that is.

Now, my final thoughts on catering, about who should make the final choice and my philopophy in general. The survey included a question about catering being allowed and it received a substantial affirmative vote. Therefore, B. Frank's contention that "a majority don't want catering" is incorrect. If catering is available to the operator they will undoubtedly be able to make more money. I feel that as long as the operation of the restaurant is not affected and we have a lease that gives us a percentage of gross sales, then "the more they make, the more we make". To me, both on site and off site catering is OK. The kitchen is large enough to accomodate it. On site catering will be subject to the control of RMI for scheduling, will be charged for separately (set up, use of facilities, etc.), and the costs will be passed through to the end users as part of the contracted price. This will increase "gross sales" and profitability. Also, this makes the catering available to all SCA clubs and residents, hopefully at a discounted price. Of course, no operator should have an "exclusive" for on site catering. A selected list of other preferred caterers should be available for all SCA related events. Off site catering is even better for SCA on a potential income basis. No usage of facilities and, as long as there is only a single operating entity (this must be mandated in the lease structure) and the P&L can easily be audited, it represents pure profit for both the operator and, to a smaller extent, SCA. Right now the BOD has the final say on who the bid should go out to, if any bid is made. Some say the residents should vote. I contend that the majority of the residents are completely uninformed and don't even know who the three candidates are. Those residents who came to the presentations know a little bit more and have their individual preferences (unfortunately, all you ever really hear publically is if someone does not like a candidate or their food, but you never hear anything positive about anything from anyone). The same few hundred residents probably came to all three presentations. Therefore, the general public does not have enough information and probably has not earned the "right" to pass judgement over the hard work of all who have been actively involved in the process.

Myself, I only want to end up with the best restaurant that we can find. One that meets most resident expectations and provides food and service good enough to create a positive relationship in the community and insure repeat business from the residents. I don't really care if one of the applicants knew somebody or did not previously have a Las Vegas presence. This was never a requirement. I am not presently pre-disposed to any of the remaining three candidates. Each must meet all tests including food quality, financial stability and resident friendly programs. If not, they will not get my vote.

Thanks for the venue to express my thoughts,
Al Glickman

Never having commented in the past, I commend Ron J
for his continuous service of enlightenment to the
community.....My curiousity is the lack of numbers
of potential applicants for the operation of the
Trumpets restaurant....is it indicative of a possible flaw in soliciting committee procedure... Without personal opinion on the existing applicants, it not unreasonable to anticipate a lease demand for 'a public access for catering operations'. However, this consideration could be
equated or limited as a percentage of the total
'non public access business'. This would provide
an operator incentive to increase the restaurant
business dollar volume to increase 'public access'
permissibility.

While Jack Yocum is correct to point out the valued contribution of our volunteer homeowners working on the Trumpets Working Group, one is tempted to look askance when two of the top three candidates raise serious questions of why they made the list. Admittedly, that may be a little harsh. Our adroit and political savvy former Board president, Favil West, had counseled that homeowners should not have gotten involved in the selection process. His advice, ignored, while favored by some members of the TWG, was to put that responsibility in the hands of an independent, third party professional commercial real estate broker with experience in restaurant leasing. The Board chose not to do that. As a result, we now have what we appear to have and the question is why?
The placement of the flashy, high-end contender LuvRules deserves some further scrutiny. That offering is being heavily promoted by the unemployed David Moore who had no experience in owning or operating a restaurant. Why was that particular offering even on the list of the top three contenders for the operations of Trumpets? The answer to that question may tell us why we ended up with the Trumpets Working Group. As it turned out, the TWG was headed up by Patti Shock, who also happened to be a close personal friend of David Moore and presumably an interested party in the LuvRules Trumpets proposal, based on their UNLV association. Key Board officers were apparently aware of this relationship but did not see a problem. On March 5th (or earlier) the TWG announced the names of the three top contenders, which happened to include LuvRules. On March 6th, Patti Shock announces her resignation from the TWG. That announcement was attributed by David Berman to have resulted from pressure on her to resign or a potential conflict of interest (involving her association with David Moore), which had existed for some time.

In my opinion, Ron did a great job of focusing not only on the selection process, but on the “micro management” aspect of the selection process. To me it seems a bit odd that this beautiful site did not garner any more than three viable candidates. Having said that, I think Ron J is right. We are now left with only two of the candidates that have demonstrated any ability to conduct a large operation in a business like manner. The two seem to be The Boulevard Group and Alba Brothers. My personal pick is The Boulevard Group, but I’m sure many will disagree.

I think the point is ---- We don’t have enough applicants. Why not try again? Are we certain that there are no suitable suitors in the Las Vegas Area that can not top this selection of only two viable candidates?

Rudy,
I'm guessing you haven't lived here very long, or never went to Trumpets in its heyday (and yes, there was one).

The first few years we were here, Trumpets was a great place to take visitors. The food was good, and the view stupendous. Prices weren't too high, either. We'd go there a few times a year by ourselves, just to relax and look out on the valley, thinking about how lucky we were to live here.

Lunch was reasonable with the SCA discount, so I'd sometimes go with a girlfriend.

Do I miss it? You betcha. Sure, I've found other places to eat, as you pointed out, there are plenty. But I'd love another restaurant at Anthem Center. I know I'd go, and so would many others.

I don't understand how Boulevard or Alba cannot be seen as a major risk.

What makes anyone think they are different from our last lease holders?

AND WHO wants another Italian restaurant up here?

You know why there are so many italian restaurants?

Because any idiot can open a can or a box and say they are actual restaurateurs...

Also, LUVRules menu pricing is right in line with Boulevard.

And unlike the competitors, LUVRules food is made from scratch with wholesome ingredients.

So, the question is simple...

Do you want to take a risk with your health...
or with your empty restaurant space.

Also, Boulevard is clearly interested ONLY in catering. Just eat at their restaurant and see how you like their food...

See how good you feel.

Finally, why would Alba brothers be interested in Cannibalizing their own restaurant business... they are right down the street????

I don't understand.

I have not been carefully following the restaurant selection, so I will not comment on the candidates. However, I would like to critize Ron Johnson for trying to stir up discontent. Your article starts off in and early paragraph with a line,"That failure suggested to me the solicitation/selection process was possibly flawed ...". Then in the very nest paragraph, you say, "Ironically, the flawed process must rest not solely with the efforts of the TWG ...".
I would like to point out that just because it suggests to you that the process may be flawed, it does not mean that it was flawed. By so asserting, you are merely trying to stir people up. You should take a more positive attitude. Everyone had a chance to get on the committee. If you don't like what they done, you can certainly express you opinon about the candidates, but you back off critizing the committee. I, for one, am gratful that we had a group of dedicated folks willing to put in the time to put out an RFP and select a winner. I didn't volunteer to help them and I am surely not going to be so critical of their actions.

Please be more positive in the future. We don't need any more discontent and bitterness in this community.

I am still having trouble figuring out why we have to have a restuarant on our premises. I can understand why Pulte did it, but that was then, this is now. We have more restuarants within a 5 mile radius than we can visit in a year and that's without going to the same one twice.

Our Home Owners Assn. should not be in this kind of venture at all. As anyone can see by all of the turmoil on any given issue in our Assn., this will just be another divisive issue. Who needs it? Do we really require a restuarant in the club house.? I think not. Think about it.