More Skullduggery from the Board

 By now, any member paying even a little attention knows how the Board views the Owners:

There have been more recent examples of the Board's lack of candor:

Example #1: In its power grab in the governance document vote, the Board asked for--and received--the power to increase the "capital contribution" as often and as high as it wishes--with no limiting principle whatsoever. Just the way the Board likes things. 

Immediately after the vote, the Board announced that the capital contribution would be increased by 50 percent from $40,000 per property sale to $60,000 per property sale. The Board obviously had this planned ahead of time, yet decided not to tell the Owners what it planned to do. Why is this important? 

First, if you haven't figured it out yet, the capital contribution is a "tax" on selling Owners. I'm confident that the Board will gaslight that it's the "buyer" who pays the capital contribution. In a narrow sense, that's true--but they're paying for it with by reducing the sales price that they are willing to pay. Think about it. The buyer cares about the total price that they pay (i.e., the sales price of the property plus other costs of acquiring the property). If the buyer doesn't care about the amount of the capital contribution, why don't we simply raise it to $100,000? $200,000? There's no such thing as a free lunch. If it was such a good idea, why didn't the Board disclose its intentions before the vote?

And second, the capital fund is a slush fund for the Board to use to subsidize spending overruns. If the cost of the amenities exceeds $21 million, will there be another vote or will the Board just help itself to whatever excess may have accumulated in the capital fund? I don't recall seeing any commitment to have another vote if the current "list price" is overtaken by events.

Example #2: The "list price" of the amenities package has increased by about 34% (excluding contingencies) and has been delayed by at least six months (according to the Board's current estimates). No one appears thus far to have been held accountable for the botched amenities execution. Will anyone be held accountable in the future? Not only do the Owners not know the answer to this question--but six of the nine Board members don't have access to "confidential salary information" (pro tip--compensation is how people are held accountable everywhere else in our country). Although I doubt if that By-Law is enforceable (generally speaking, By-Laws can't pre-empt state law which requires Board members to exercise due care in governing the Club), I doubt if any of the Board members will insist on receiving the information they need to do their jobs.

Now it turns out that in addition to being late and well over budget, the scope has also been changed:

It seems that the renovations to the Nicklaus clubhouse have disappeared from the current project. So the $21 million current "list price" is for a smaller project that the original $16.5 million list price. The bait and switch tactics of the Board continue in full force and effect.

This back door price increase is par for the course for this Board.

Perhaps if the Board spent more time being open and honest with the Owners and less time scheming to increase its power, hiding the ball from the Owners, and creating a bureaucracy that would fit into any socialist paradise, we'd all be better off. My questions for the Board are:

• Why haven't you posted the "maximum price contract" to the Owners? There are quite a few owners with backgrounds in the law (although none of them are on the Board) and in the contracting business. It would be interesting to hear what those folks had to say about the "maximum price contract."
• The Nick renovations are part of "Phase 2" of the amenities upgrade. Huh? Why weren't the Owners told that the current amenities boondoggle is just Phase 1? I understand that maintaining our Club is like painting the Golden Gate Bridge--when you're done painting you need to start over. But perhaps the Board should be open about future plans.
• Who was held accountable for the botched execution of the amenities thus far? Who will be rewarded or punished based upon whether the current promises of the Board prove to be accurate?
• Just by playing the golf course, using the dog park, and driving around the community, it's obvious that we have significant maintenance needs. Will those continue to be deferred or ignored?

The bottom line is that most members joined here because of the excellent (and readily accessible) golf courses and the natural beauty of our club. We stray from those two core competencies at our peril.