Commitments Not Kept

This is the first of a series of articles intended to convey information about how Eastman is actually managed.  Considering new proposals from Eastman through a historical lens may give the reader a perspective of what to expect and whether the ECA will keep its stated commitments, which seem well intended.  Recent history will show that one should be cautious.

In 2004 the ECA Board understood that the community was upset over the fact that much of the operational expense of the golf course was being paid for by the community members, while only 15-20% (at the time) of the people were golfers.  As a result they approved board policies that seemed to address the issue.  Henceforth, the operational expenses would be revenue neutral over a five year period.  That policy, extracted below, is still part of board policy, as updated November 2013.

Whereas, the Board of Directors recognizes that the Eastman Golf Course is a major amenity of the Association;

Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Directors, Golf Committee and the Staff will be guided by the following Policy Statements:

1. The golf course will be available for the enjoyment of the members of Eastman Community Association, their guests and the public.

2. The golf course will be operated and maintained in a manner to continue its rank as one of the top quality courses in New Hampshire.

3. The operations and maintenance budget of the golf amenity will be managed to achieve at least a revenue neutral position over a given five (5) year consecutive period including cost allocations for overhead and facilities, and accumulated actual surpluses and/or deficits.

4. The Long Range Plan for Eastman and the Annual Capital and Operating Budgets will reflect the expenditures necessary to retain the Golf Course status as described in this Policy Statement.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, October 25, 2004

Amended by the Board of Directors, February 10, 2006

Attested:

Kenneth H. Ryder, Secretary

Has the Board followed its own policy, which is intended to show the community that it is being responsive and responsible?  Sadly it has failed to do so.  In the first place it has removed from the accounting system all cost allocation for overhead and facilities from the expenses of the golf course.  Overhead (General Manager’s time, Assistant GM’s time, accounting time, billing, etc., even benefits of the full-time employees who work on the golf course) has been moved to General and Administrative category.  Thus, one cannot even tell how much the real operational costs are.

In the second place, if the Board had followed its stated policy, the requirement that the golf amenity be managed to achieve at least a revenue neutral position over a given five (5) year consecutive period, the commitment to the community would not have been met even once since the Board adopted this policy.

The message here is quite clear – caveat emptor.

Contributed by Guest Editor Phil Schaefer