I'm confused; help me out here Dave W.

Yesterday, posted this in a thread and i really want an answer from someone better versed in numbers than me:

For those of you in the room, or who watched it live stream, or now have watched the video play back, there was one uncomfortable moment that stood out. A former board member who had quit leveled some fairly nasty remarks against the board president. I won't bore anyone with the details, but one of President Foster's answered stunned me.

I had to go back and watch/listen to make sure i heard it correctly. The Former board member suggested the treasurer wasn't being given all of the financial data she wanted or needed. I had heard rumors that was the case and i simply refused to believe it as being true.

In that i am not a numbers guy, i will turn to our own Dave W (G d V) and ask him for an answer to the comment that made absolutely no sense to me, none. The board president indicated Treasurer Borski had been putting her requests for financial records in writing and after conferring with the director of finance, "they felt they had supplied her with a fair amount of the information she had requested."

His answer took my breath away. Really? Freaking really? Why in God's name would the treasurer have to request any of the financial information in writing to the president? And, why would the board president have to check with the director of finance regarding what information they should share with her?

I guess i am easily confused, because when a board member is named the treasurer, all of that financial data should be available; not just what the the board president and director of finance deems her worthy of receiving.

Help me out here Dave, something seems amiss.

The more i thought about this, the more the question ran through my head: Why should any RCSC board member not have access all financial information? Is it really at the discretion on the board president and the director of finance what numbers a board member/treasurer gets to see? How can they be expected to do their job with only selected information?

 

And another question for Dave...

Board Policy 7 says:

1. Management shall approve all bids for Capital or Repair & Maintenance projects under $25,000 without the consent, review or approval by the Bid Commission, provided that such expenditure is within the annual budget that has been approved by the Board of Directors. Management will seek to secure three (3) competitive bids on projects of $25,000 or less and will maintain record of such bids by project.

So my question would be, if management is going to spend, say, $10,000 dollars on a specific item, does that item need to be specifically specified and identified within the budget or would that item just be covered under some sort of "miscellaneous" fund within the budget and the Members never knowing what that item was?

 

Bill,

I admit I was stunned by this situation and I thought it was a bad dream.
Times have sort of changed since I fought off dinosaurs on the way to a work session, but seriously the RCSC didn’t have a Director of Finance per se. Actually Jan had all the financial info and if I wanted more info it fell into one of two categories, she opened her cabinet and gave me what I wanted or, two she would obfuscate the crap out of an explanation making me believe why did I ask the question. This category revolved around the “cash carry forward” money or as I called it, the Brigadoon money which only appeared when Jan needed it for some purpose. There were other oddities that would crop up like accounts receivable being written off but not knowing what they covered.
The good news is that the Brigadoon money, which turned out to be money from differed maintenance has been brought to daylight and has been spent over the past couple of years for intended purpose and has prompted the creation of a Five year plan regarding maintenance with a dedicated employee in charge of updating and planning.
I will say that I have always received a copy of the audit report since leaving the Board. Formerly I had to file a request but it was mailed to me. Now, Kevin sends me an email saying it is either available or attaches the file for me to print since I have a printer that works.
As to Anita’s situation, I really didn’t have any views other that I am appalled by this but then I don’t know what she has requested and why, although the request would give me a good idea where she is going.

Sorry this isn’t much help but the best I can do at the moment.
D

 

Tom,
A little history on BP 7, with my career background I thought the original BP 7 was crap and written by someone who had no idea what they were doing. So while on the Board at that time, one Sunday afternoon in between the end of football season but before Spring Training I sat down and rewrote the entire policy to reflect various procedures, qualifications for contractors and for the surety bonds posted. I reviewed it with Chris Herring, whose bailiwick this was at the time and with some tweaks this was what we submitted to the entire Board for approval.

That said, the particular section you are talking about I gleaned from my career what were referred to as Lines of Authority, which meant that the underwriters were given amounts of obligation we could approve without seeking approval from management. These were based on lines handled, experience and knowledge. An example would be I handled bonds filed in the various state and Federal courts as that is what I was hired for and then became head of the department when my mentor retired. Now, I had large lines of authority because I was well versed in the area and the other underwriters were scared every time I went on vacation. I had no authority on contractor performance and labor and material payments bonds as I had little (a ton more to come) knowledge or experience in this line.
So, when this particular section was discussed by the Board the question was should we convey but rather how much. The theory was to allow management to make decisions without coming to the Board with every rinkydink job that comes up. This was c. 2014 and I thought the amount was too low and the Board will end up raising the amount every year. I wanted $50,00 but actually wanted the line to be 100,000.

To the best of my knowledge this figure has never been discussed in talks of increase, although I heard a rumor (unfortunately) that the Board wants to increase this number with the revised policies this year. Currently I would be looking at something in the neighborhood of at least $500,000. It just makes good business sense.

To dig deeper into your question, you must understand these would be contingency items or what I call the bomb behind the door that goes off when you least expect it. So are they placed in the budget in advance, not per se, because you don’t know they are going to manifest. On the other hand there is an amount in the budget probably labeled contingency or some thing like that. If it was on the Capital improvement fund for 2027 and became a problem in 2026, there would be a shifting of money in that fund. There will always be a paper trail on these types of work and not “buried” in the budget in some sort of paranoia fantasy. This is why you should listen closely to management reports on projects be they the proverbial bomb such as recently at Lake View or Capital improvement projects which can be more that new lawn chairs. Finally you can always ask at Board meeting have there been any work performed that was not in the or the 5 Year Plan.

I know I am a man of many words but I hope I have answered your question., if not, feel free to follow up and will do my best.

 

Bill, When I was Treasurer, I would walk into Kevin's office and chat about the information knowing that he was duty bound to report all conversations to Bill Cook. I did not involve the President or Vice President because they did not speak the language unless there was something that needed a deeper dive. He and I both spoke the language of finance and accounting, so it never took long to cut to the quick. I had him develop a five-year forecast and, much to his dismay, simplified his excel model a bit. I am sure he was concerned about losing his job so I stayed away from sensitive subjects that I could figure out on my own.

So here is my speculation on the CJR attack. It was probably initiated by AB. I have no respect for anyone on the board right now, so it is hard to "pick sides". My guess is AB, like CJR who publicly stated so, wants to provide the players club with their wish list and the data is not supporting it. Therefore, AB decides to go after golf data which TF wants to keep her out of and he starts to intervene. Now CJR, WHO IS NOT ON THE BOARD, would have no way of knowing any of this EXCEPT IF AB COMPLAINED TO HER THAT SHE WAS NOT GETTING THE DATA SHE WANTS. Hmmm. The plot thickens.

Then CJR plays the gender card. Let me be perfectly clear on this, in my and many others opinion CJR passed herself off as an expert on things she was clearly not an expert on. She also made it known in her "tearful" exit speech that she regrets she will not be on the board to see the building of a special purpose sloped floor theater building. And she wants to talk about bias?

So here we are again. One town hall before most of the members are back to tell the membership what the board decided on Mountainview and then 9 days later, the board votes to approve moving on to the design phase and waive a second reading. Sound familiar? Same play different actors.

 

I am giving up all my soaps after reading this thread.

 

Thanks to everyone who chimed in; and in part, carptrash is spot on as our financials have truly been an ongoing soap opera.

Dave is right, Jan had the single most unique accounting structure/strategy i have ever witnessed (i'm being very kind here). When Bill Cook came in and took over, he did a much better job but clearly he saw his goal was to protect the former GM and the current board as he soft-sold everything. When he left and Kevin McCurdy took the interim role, the financial revelations were staggering.

For the first time in years it appeared we were making true headway and the disclosures were as close to transparency as i had seen. John Fast was on the board as much of this was unfolding and i expect his background helped pave the way. In fact, only where there is absolute transparency will there ever be that level of trust we so often here about.

Which is exactly why President Foster's words were so damning/daunting. In my mind, board members should have every expectation they get whatever financials they need or want to do their job. It should not, SHOULD NOT be up to the president to decide what they get or don't get. I don't know the back story that triggered the rant by the former board member, but i had heard rumors that was the case and releasing financials wasn't being done as openly as it should be. I simply refused to believe the rumor to be true until President Foster confirmed he was picking and choosing what he gave the treasurer (i still find that impossible to get my head around).

All of which brings me full circle to a long standing complaint against organizational structure. For whatever purposes, boards tend to rely on a hierarchy that grants greater power and control to officers. There's no question, the documents afford differing titles specif duties and tasks. That said, the boards make-up of nine members is one member/one vote. For any/every board member to be able to do their job, only getting some of the information or precluding them from small group decisions sets them up to fail. It also makes them regret/resent taking on said responsibilities.

Suffice to say: The real reason board training is critical so all nine of them understand how it's supposed to work. Clearly, we are missing the mark.

 

Oh, come on; this puts any soap to shame...

 

John, while your “speculation” stated as opinion is not legally libelous, it does cause damage to the persons you criticize good names.
Reprehensible, in my opinion.

• Speculate
speculate vb

-lat·ed
-lat·ing
vi
:to theorize on the basis of insufficient evidence NOTE: A jury is not permitted to speculate on a matter about which insufficient evidence has been presented in reaching its verdict.

vt
: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

 

With all due respect, I think "reprehensible" is a little too strong of a term?!?

John, who served on the Board, does have insight to the workings of the Board that none of us are privy to.

All I'm saying, and it's just my opinion, John's speculations come from the well founded expieriences he had while serving on the Board.

 

Last night i got an email from a friend who had read John's remarks and his "speculation." I suspect i got it because i liked his comment. To be clear, what i liked was his opening paragraph. In my response, i stated so and like my post above, i took the position the most transparency i have seen from a financial perspective from the RCSC was during Kevin's interim status and while John was on the board. No idea how related the two were, but his admission he could walk in and ask the director of finance anything struck me as exactly how a board member should be allowed to get the information they need to do their job.

The rest of this discourse was indeed, speculation. I have no idea how or why the former board member put the boots to the board president. I did ask later and was told she was moving out of Sun City soon, so who knows. I also mentioned i heard there were rumors about the treasurer not getting the information she requested, but they were just that, rumors.

It wasn't until i heard the board president admit he was picking and choosing and that he was now getting her a fair amount of what she wanted; that was when i lost my stuff. That might have been one of the dumbest admissions from the dais i have ever heard. I'm still waiting for some/anyone to clarify how or why the board president/director of finance gets decide what numbers other board members get?

Tom's remarks about board member's experiences often being reflected in their remarks fits the ongoing narrative about board training. The dysfunctional behavior should scream loudly to those sitting in those board positions. Sadly, i don't get the sense there is any real urgency to fix what's broken and just keep trudging along.

The board has had a truly busy summer, epic from my historical perspective. That said, the results are yet to be seen. The coming town hall sessions will be the real test, in my opinion. The first up is the Mountain View remodel. I am excited to see what they come up with. One of the more contentious issues has been fixed sloped floor seating or allowing retractable seats that provide more options for use. It strikes me that at least one of the options should show us the costs for a multi purpose structure.

We'll see eh?

 

EO - When I connect the dots that is what I see happening and I posted it as my opinion. You and I are free to like or dislike anyone's opinion. As one commentator said, she had never seen any organization put so much effort into keeping information secret. In the absence of information, one is left to connect the dots. I find it reprehensible that CJR publicly made the accusations she did. Again, that is my opinion, and you are free to disagree with it.

 

John,
I agree with you, bringing these types of accusations to a public meeting was not an acceptable solution to try and resolve this issue. It would appear to be more of a vindictive action, with the attempt to embarrass those still on the board.
Those of us who have served previously know how hard it is at times to have a conducive working group. There can be differences of opinion and disagreements, but would be best served during board meetings. It would apper that achieving a solution from within the confines of the boardroom was not an option in this particular situation. Perhaps collaboration with other members could have found an acceptable solution? Probably not, and I am sorry this led to the resignation of a board member.
Reading and listening to a President of a Board clearly state the information was not offered freely to a sitting board member is quite disturbing. Parsing information in a way that makes those needing the full sprectrum of data unavailable is ignoble. These actions were abetted by a person on the management staff. In not offering the information in a manner that should have been afforded a sitting board member makes this person culpable was well.
This goes beyond board training needs. This is clearly a case of not honoring the position of being a board member and severely questions the position of the board president. I beleive if you clearly read the definition of fiduciary duties and then apply what has been gleaned about board actions, there is some strong concerns about the board leadership.
I know that asking for a halt to the upcoming meetings, especially the vote on Mountainview, until all of the outstanding concerns have been addressed and resolved won't happen. Things will get pushed through without care or concern about what is going on in that boardroom. The integrity of the board and the reputation of Sun City are diminished, and then we wonder why the members don't care anymore and can't get the community participation active within the white walls.

 

Revealing Linda McIntyre’s reply that’s within John Fast’s comment post above:

“John:

I've been thinking about your post for the last 24 hours and I've decided I have to speak up. The comment made by CJR at the recent Exchange was surprising to many; however, your posted comments added more fuel to the fire. I'll admit, I had to take some time to think about if or how I would respond. I haven't been on TOSC for weeks (or months), but this deserved comment.

Your "speculation" is both misguided and misplaced. Speculation is just that. You've decided that you have information to make bold statements about something that I am pretty confident you have little or no direct knowledge about. First, to my knowledge, you haven't attended a BF&A Committee meeting since you left the Board before your term expired. Second, to my knowledge, you have no direct knowledge of what information AB has requested, in what format, during what time period and/or for what purpose. Third, to my knowledge, you have no idea what experience AB has that makes her qualified to act in her position.

What else was wrong? The assumption that AB could not, or did not, directly seek out information from the Director of Finance and/or that she does not or cannot "speak the language." This is not just disrespectful of her and her position, it is condescending and arrogant on your part. If you took the time to check her credentials (she made public statements when she ran for the Board (twice), or asked her, you might recall she has a 40 year carerr in University financial operations, likely handled more money and financial matters than anyone in the RCSC organization has dreamed of managing. She has negotiated contracts with vendors and financial institutions, served on two state-wide bid commissions for the State of WI, participated in search and screen committees {for Chancellors, Vice-Chancellors and Deans), developed a freshmen orientation program for parents, served on the negotiating team for an NFL contract for the Jacksonville Jacquars summer camp at UW-Stevens Point,and served on the Board of Directors for Midwestern Conference for student financial business officers (a six-state consortium). That's just a tiny piece - there's a lot more - it's hard to put 40 years on paper. My point is: AB knows her way around. Her vast experience can apply to every aspect of Board responsibilities. A

But, your speculation that AB initiated the "attack" by CJR went too far. I am confident that allegation is without merit. And further, there has never been any indication in ANY meeting that AB "decides to go after golf data and TF wants to keep her out of it." I think it's time to step back from such inflammatory statements. An apology to all parties would be appropriate. BF&A is working hard to try to keep the budget in line for the membership. Your comments are not helpful to our efforts, the work of the Board or of RCSC in general, AND they have no basis in facts - just pure speculation - or worse yet, assumption. And you know what happens when you "assume."

 

All of the above begs this one simple question:"Are all board members treated as equals?"

I can answer that from a personal perspective (while serving on the board), and from an outward look inward of late. While i was on the board (2012-2014), even though in the minority and never an officer, i felt an equal. The board clearly didn't like or even appreciate many of my comments, but i always felt i access and the ability to speak my mind.

After leaving and watching from the sidelines, i saw the documents changed, the hierarchy became more entrenched with the control centered clearly in the hands of the general manager and the board officers. Worse yet, as the general manager became less involved (as retirement drew near), the board officers became more the arbiters of what was needed by the community.

Serving in the minority of any board is challenging. Serving as a board member where one is not treated as an equal sucks. Any time one volunteers and is treated like a second class citizen, it's easy to become angry and removed from the process of a truly self-governed community.

Here's the oddity, the same tendencies apply for those volunteering to serve on committees and to some extent those who attend meetings and speak up.

Sitting in the cheap seats, it has become abundantly clear, the cadre of "good old boys" appear to be forgetting the importance of "all board members being treated as equals." I am more than certain they would tell me i am full of you know what, but rather than asking me, try asking those board members who are sitting next to you and asking how equal they feel?

 

I am more than certain they would tell me i am full of you know what, but rather than asking me, try asking those board members who are sitting next to you and asking how equal they feel?
Or, ask a former Board member.

That's an easy question for me: NO.

Jean

 

I can't help but to think back too the Sue and Dale show during their reign on the Board. Rather than simply outvoting those Director's in opposition, we'll call a Special Executive Session and vote that person off the island!

That was a disgusting display of how power can go to your head!

 

EO (Linda McIntyre?)

Clearly you find this discussion personally upsetting. One of the detriments of having legal and financial training and experience is you become very adept at connecting the dots when things don't add up.

Thank you for your extensive clarification of AB's experience. According to her Board candidate information, she was Director of Revenue, Liability and Parking at the University of Wisconsin -Stevens Point. None of the many details you provided are listed in the sheet. Perhaps you can tell me where I can verify the information you provided? The only other information I recall her telling me is that she pursued and attained a BS degree in Communication, Public relations and Corporate Communications that took 27 years. I found this level of perseverance admirable.

You are incorrect that I have not attended a BF&A meeting since I left but are correct that I do not have first-hand knowledge of what financial information AB is requesting. I will make sure she is asked the question of what information she feels is being withheld from her at the next exchange. CJR made a very serious accusation about information being withheld from AB and I find it very difficult to understand how someone who is not on the Board would be aware of this internal board matter unless a board member disclosed it to her. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how she became aware of the information and why she chose to confront TF with it.

The other thing CJR did was assert a sex discrimination charge against TF for conduct after she left the board. You can mince words all you want, but that indicates to me someone is getting ready to sue RCSC. Again, perhaps you can enlighten me on how CJR would be privy to information regarding internal board matters after she left the board? I will be sure to have that question asked of AB as well.

With the answers to these two questions the truth should be known. With all due respect I hope this concludes this conversation.

Respectfully,

John Fast

 

From the 2023 & 2024 Board of Directors Candidate Resume' for Anita Borski:

B.S. degree in Communications, Public Relations and Corporate Communication,
Over 35 years of experience as Director of Revenue, Liability & Parking Service at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
Served on statewide committees related to revenue collection to meet Federal and State reporting requirements.
Reviewed bid submissions for various services or construction projects.
Responsible for a $3.5 million annual budget.
Representative on the Faculty/Staff Senate Governance Committee.
Member of NACUBO, a professional organization for University Business Officers

Hmm? You decide if she's qualified to serve as RCSC Treasurer!