Posted below is a response from Mike Wandell to my previous two articles. The length of his response is too long for a comment, so he asked if I would post it, as is, with no commentary, as a separate article. So here it is.
I appreciate the author sharing the pageview stats for his blog; these data demonstrate that a segment of the community is viewing the content. This moved me to respond to his entreaty that,` “If anything I've written is a misrepresentation of the truth, please feel free to correct me,” and I am doing so. In some ways by posting I feel like I am ‘taking the bait.’ However, my intention is not to engage in a public-discourse-by-blog, which has been openly proposed as being the preferred method of conducting community decision making. I am concerned this medium gives disproportional weight to the squeaky wheel while foreclosing on the opportunity for committed community members to forge difficult compromises in real time.
While I believe there is great value in well vetted, contextually relevant online content, I do not believe posting rants somehow leads to more representative community decision-making (Wikipedia as opposed to Wikileaks); I am certain it does not lead to improved community harmony. I have been equally forthright in my belief that any solutions to our community’s challenges will be best determined through a process which seeks to identify our common values and use them to build consensus-based solutions (what I have referred to as ‘gives and gets’). Achieving consensus concerning shared values is a tricky proposition even when guided by an agenda, sitting face-to-face (by the way, we all have family and professional demands which make it very difficult to find the time to come together – we do so only out of a shared sense of responsibility for our community).
While I will not try to pick apart each of the author’s statements as he is fond of doing with the CA and LLC Board public disclosures, I would like to take this opportunity to point out a couple of the ‘misrepresentation(s) of the truth.’ The author states “… But neither the Board nor the Vision committee have made a sincere effort to involve the entire community in a conversation about KG's future.” With regard to the KG Vision Committee, this is completely untrue (the Boards can speak for themselves); we held ourselves to a defined process requiring regular endorsements from the community’s elected representative boards, we conducted and published a detailed survey of community attitudes (with a second planned), and we have publically detailed our progress whenever we have had the opportunity. In particular, we have constantly attempted to engage the entire community by inviting everyone and anyone to participate at any level in our deliberations. As evidenced by dismissive publically proffered comments thereto, it is obvious that the author is aware of our attempts to involve the entire community; however, rather than accurately describe our efforts, the author has chosen to misrepresent them as ‘insincere attempts,’ presumably to support discourse by blog in order to gain.
What we have not done, and what has been criticized as being old school, is neither to make our deliberations public nor to attempt to undercut the responsibilities of the elected boards. We have committed to each other to speak with one voice, leaving our personal positions at the table. We have agreed to this knowingly and forthrightly, motivated by a desire to achieve and demonstrate consensus amongst ourselves as a building block of community harmony, as well as to avoid the pitfalls of misrepresentations and misunderstanding which have frustrated previous efforts to solve our challenges.
Finally, the statement that “The VC is additionally crippled by a serious flaw...the leader of the VC is an LLC manager who has an agenda to spread the debt” is a total fabrication, apparently intended to discredit the process (presumably in favor more public vitriol such as contained herein). It is true that the LLC manager, my friend John Bennett, has provided invaluable leadership, just as each and every other member of the committee has over the past two years. However, it should be understood that it was not he but rather me who proposed this process, composed the agendas and slide decks for every meeting, and moderated the discussions. And, so far as full disclosure of any bias I might have, I am very modest investor, but I do not believe it is a secret that I am not a fan of how the LLC has managed the resort, particularly with respect to its interface with the rest of the community. However, I do respect and honor the countless hours (and time away from their families) that our representatives on all three of those boards give of themselves, because they are committed, as I am, to building a thriving, sustainable, harmonious community.
Mike is right. I am trying to discredit the VC process. After two years of this process, one of its more promising ideas is for the homeowners to buy the golf course and lease it back to the Resort. That's a process most of us can live without. As far as communication goes, the community had no clue that the Board was pursuing this "promising idea" until last week.
ReplyDeleteAs far as involving the community in the VC process, each reader need only ask themselves how many times they've been invited to comment on anything from the VC.
One thing that drives me crazy is the continual feedback from Board members, and now Mike, that a blog is a place for squeaky wheels and controversy. What I have hoped to demonstrate is that a blog is a way to explain a topic or issue to a broad audience, and to accept timely feedback on those ideas. The subject matter being discussed does not have to be controversial, it's whatever you make it.
Mike is right. I am trying to discredit the VC process. After two years of this process, one of its more promising ideas is for the homeowners to buy the golf course and lease it back to the Resort. That's a process most of us can live without. As far as communication goes, the community had no clue that the Board was pursuing this "promising idea" until last week.
ReplyDeleteAs far as involving the community in the VC process, each reader need only ask themselves how many times they've been invited to comment on anything from the VC.
One thing that drives me crazy is the continual feedback from Board members, and now Mike, that a blog is a place for squeaky wheels and controversy. What I have hoped to demonstrate is that a blog is a way to explain a topic or issue to a broad audience, and to accept timely feedback on those ideas. The subject matter being discussed does not have to be controversial, it's whatever you make it.
It is funny how John's comments are classified as a "rant" - I would have to say I think his writing has been quite balanced. Also funny how he is also construed as a "squeaky wheel" because he dared to raise his hand and pose a few questions about the intent of the LLC.
ReplyDeleteWe love our cabin and are probably one of the few that are here most weekends - that does not mean however I am prepared to continue to sit and watch the LLC try and figure out how to bail out the debt position they find themselves in by further "taxing" the homeowners. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am sure most would agree we would all do things differently knowing how the world economy has impacted all of our lives. What John has done through his blog is ask for transparency in the running of the community - nothing more or less. It is interesting how people see that as a declaration of war or some other heinous activity. Mike is correct that we are all mostly busy people - that in large reason is why we have our place here - to get away from the daily grind and actually take time to unwind with family. That said it is clear that more of us need to take more of an interest in what is happening here. We cannot continue to accept “tax increases” willy nilly – there needs to be some accountability as well. That is what I believe John is surfacing and I for one support him and thank him for taking the time to wake me up!
There are a number of us here that run sizeable businesses and probably could help both the LLC and the KG home owners look at income and disbursements and try and figure out what to prune or adjust. When we do ask for specifics it is a lot like pulling teeth – example and my own pet peeve – grooming the Xcountry trails. In the 2010 budget $43k was asked for grooming – this was 133% INCREASE over the prior year…..oh and by the way ZERO income to the community. So we started asking for details – well finally last week we got them and I for one cannot understand how the LLC translates what looks to be in the region of a $8 - $10k per annum charge into $42k??? I get there is new equipment funds, depreciation etc. but $8k to $42k – what am I missing? Would love to know – also why is there zero income?
So again – thank you John for raising your hand.