Notes from the June Council Meeting

You may have missed the June Council Meeting either because you were away, or because you wanted to keep your blood pressure down or because you wanted to keep your breakfast down. All are valid reasons however your fearless reporter was there. You won’t see the official Council minutes posted until almost September, nearly three months after the meeting at which point you may forget what it was  all about. Here is my synopsis which you can compare to the official minutes when they come out.

In the Open Forum, Paul Hoffman said we needed more cost info on the Build Options for the Center. No answer was given, so we can assume no info will be forthcoming. (Subsequent to the meeting, I asked my Special Place Chair to ask the CRC Committee for more cost info and was flatly told by the CRC Committee Chair that no more questions would be answered.)

A correction was made to last quarter’s minutes, where Mr. Goldman stated “cross country and the pool were the most expensive amenities.” It was changed to “expensive to operate”. (A member subsequently asked to see the financials behind this statement and was told by the General Manager that the computer that had that information had crashed.)

Mr. Goldman said the flagpole has been painted. It may need replacement, which “may” need the authority of the Council. He and Bob Parker are appointing a Task Force to investigate a “walkable community”. They are working with the Upper Valley. (This was the most requested amenity (walking paths and bike paths) in the 2007 Survey and the 2010 Survey and has been in the works for at least 10 years). Mr. Goldman went on to state that “assessments have not gone up more than other communities.” (Again, no substantiation. We know that Eastman’s have gone up 10% per year for the last 10 years.) He said, “the Budget shows that wages are 50% of the total so there is not much money left for other stuff. (Yes, that is almost $2 Million for wages) He went on to say, “If we want to cut some amenities we will have to talk about it.” He claimed the issue that people keep coming back to is the 2010 Survey. People want more say in government, they value the environment, and have “little” dissatisfaction with government. (Actually less than half of the respondents felt they were adequately represented.) He spoke about the Governance Committee of 2008/2009 who had 17 recommended changes to Special Places but no support from the Bylaw Committee or the Council Executive Committee. He then went on to say that 2/3 of the Council must bring up changes to Bylaws and it didn’t happen. (That is because it never got by the gatekeepers—i.e. the Bylaw Committee and the Council Executive Committee-- so of course it never went to the Council.) Then he talked about how the community needs to come together, be civil to one another and be kind.  (I assume he includes himself and governance members who in the past months have attacked and disenfranchised community members.)

Then Mr. Ryder spoke about re-structuring staff to put in place a succession plan. We have historically gone outside to hire a general manager. Now we apparently are staying in house as these may be the only people who could possibly get a grip on how the finances work in less than a year’s time.

There was some discussion on the upcoming referendum on spending and that it was the first time one had ever been done. (Well, that is not exactly correct. When the golf course was up for sale back in 1980 the then Board “voluntarily” sent out a referendum to the owners to see if they wanted to buy it. It used to be important to listen to the community. For the last 34 years, members have had no say in spending matters.)

Comment: This is the kind of thinking that looks at the 16 yr-old Golf/Center building and decides that it would be “better” but not cost effective, to tear it down and rebuild a more efficient building. My house is also 16 years old and maybe I could sell it faster if I tore it down and rebuilt it, but then how much money would I want to lose? But if the community pitched in? The recent Center Renovation Committee, appointed by the Board/Council Chair is charged with either renovating or completely rebuilding the Golf/Center. The questions I have, with the answers that come to mind are:

Q.  Why are we thinking of spending $4-5 Million on a 16 yr old building?

A.  We are collecting a large amount of capital money which could be used to pay down some debt, however, ECA Board, Council and management want to spend it.

Q.  Who wants this?

A.  The Board, the golfers, the staff, the concessionaire. Has anyone else been asked? Based on Eastman surveys, all members want to have a say.

Q.  Who benefits?

A.  Golfers, staff, the concessionaire.

Q.  Who gets to vote on it?

A.  The Council—87 people, many of whom are golfers.

Q.  Who pays for it?

A. All the members, especially the other 80% without whom none of this would be possible.

As I read this, it occurs to me that the Council is being treated like grade school students. They are being told what is happening without requiring full disclosure and not allowing all ECA members to have direct vote. Are they really representing the community? Why are they there?