Jerry's Board Update #21
Navigation: SCHHCA > Board
Index > McQuaid Index > Board Update 21
Previous Next
Board Update #21
by
Jerry McQuaid
We had a Board of Directors Meeting this morning, the first
ever to be televised. Marilyn Fletcher and her team did a great job.
It will be rebroadcast Friday and Wednesday, Oct. 25 and 30 at 4 p.m. if you
want to see it in living color. The whole event was staged much more
professionally than in the past, thanks to the decision to televise.
One item in Steve O'Donnell's report that bears mention is
that the focus groups established to review Safety and Service Team Operations
and front gate organization and traffic patterns have met and that no changes
will be made at this time.
All three of the new board-appointed committees, i.e., Master
Plan, Property and Grounds, and Business Technology have met and are under way.
In terms of the five proposals presented for board vote:
- Lower Mailbox-This policy was greatly toned down from what
was presented at the last board meeting in response to resident input.
No residents spoke for or against and it passed unanimously. This was
a great example of how resident input can make a difference in the new board
meeting format.
- Process for Board-Appointed Committee Appointments-The
proposed process standardizes how the committees fill openings, puts
incumbents and new candidates on an equal footing in the appointment process
and gives the board a for meaningful role to play by asking the committees
to nominate more qualified candidates than they have openings.
Resident opposition to this proposal centered around the difficulty of the
schedule which starts the process in the Summer and the new role of the
board, that is, actually making selection decisions rather than simply
approving the selections made by the current committee. I feel that
the sharing of power between the board and the committee as proposed in the
new process is appropriate. The committee still has the balance of
power since they control the list of nominees-the board must choose from
their list. It's a better process than what is in place today where
all incumbent members have to do is say they want reappointment. I
supported it and it passed unanimously.
- Board-Appointed Committee Term Limits-The proposal was to
impose a limit of two consecutive two year terms on members of
board-appointed committees in order to encourage broader participation from
residents and to answer criticism that the current system tends to make them
"closed" or part of a "good old boy" network. Term
limits would be waived if there were not an adequate number of candidates to
fill the openings and the incumbent wished to continue. The whole
system would start up in November 2003 and would only apply to committee
members appointed after that date. No residents spoke on this issue.
Ed Wiler and Steve Koehl opposed the proposal and expressed concern over the
loss of key experience and demoralization of capable members who wanted to
go on serving. I supported the proposal. First of all, with the
community growing, we need to make room for more residents to participate
and turnover on the committees can bring new ideas and be a very healthy
thing. With five years to plan for it, I'm sure we can make provisions
to make sure that key experience gets passed along to new members. It
passed 4/2 (Ken Hull only votes in case of ties).
- Golf Fees-The proposal was to support the recommendation
made by the Golf Advisory Committee to allow residents who run out of rounds
this year to purchase additional rounds at the same fee per round that they
have been paying for this year only. All other members of the board
but me opposed this. They argued that changes in the system in midyear
are inappropriate and that such a change would not be fair to the golfer who
purchased too many rounds (like me!) and want some kind of credit.
Members of the Golf Advisory Committee spoke in favor of the approach as
simply a good business decision that would generate revenue for golf
operations. I supported the proposal. The golf advisory
committee is very representative of the SCHH golfing community and I want to
support them when I can. I also believe it's good business. I
don't know how to treat players who want money back and players who want to
spend more money fairly. I came down on the side of a good business
decision and was voted down 5/1.
- Common area encroachment-This proposal seeks to
formalize the relationship where residents have taken over adjacent
Community Association property to treat as their own. It provides a
grandfathering relationship which assures that whatever they have done meets
design guidelines and holds the Community Association harmless and promises
to return the area to original condition if the property changes hands.
There was resident opposition to this proposal. One objection was that
this situation was brought about by inadequate enforcement and there is no
provision for enforcement to prevent this from happening in the future.
Another was that returning the property to original condition was
unreasonable. Steve Koehl made a motion to table the issue for further
study and it died for lack of a second. I voted for this. I
didn't like it but I did it. This is a mess for which there probably
is no palatable solution. Therefore, I opted to get the Community
Association out of the "legal wilderness." If we can find a
better solution, fine. Meanwhile, let's get legal.
Finally, after the meeting adjourned, Claudette Sarsfield
spoke about the lack of an amenity plan and, specifically, about Ken Hull's
decision to rescind the previous commitment to build a Neighborhood Recreation
Center in Argent III. She pointed out that commitments to the Argent III
center had been made five separate times, most in writing. She presented
Ken with a petition with over 1000 signatures requesting him to reconsider and
incorporate the center in the amenity plan for the community. Clo was
applauded like she was receiving an academy award indicating resident support
for her position. Ken responded that he is prepared to release an amenity
plan shortly but declined to deal with any questions about specific amenities.
It was a full meeting and approximately 2/3 of the residents
stayed the distance including questions. The process is working.
Jerry
Material supplied by Jerry McQuaid, WWW
editor Steve Koehl. Revised: March 22, 2004.