Response to Jim Rich's Posting

Jim -- I seems to have hit some nerves with you.
Yes, I do have a "burr" under my saddle -- it is called being offended by the Board's lack of meaningful communication with the owners. I frankly don't know if they all know what they are doing (not the overarching decision to hire, but at the level of consequences of their decision and, GOD Forbid, those pesky "unintended" consequences). I believe, as others do, that the Board hasn't shown that they do know. Transparency, forthrightness, open-mindedness and amenability to the concerns of owners are qualities I would like--and expect even though I get disappointed--from my Board members. So lynch me for that!
My "attack" on the Board reflects my wanting to be on record with saying how upset I am with the Board's handling of this matter. Unlike what you suggest, I am not opposed to hiring Legum & Norman. I just think everyone should know what this entails and the true costs -- both gross and net costs. By the way, you will see that I credit L&N with the $89,000 saving as one of the "value-added" aspects of outside management.
The Board is altering 10% of the operating Budget. Lynch me for thinking that that is important to owners, expecially if the replacement system has an open-ended cost structure. You know how owners love to have those increased fees!!! Doubly so when it is unexpected!!!
To the extent I am mixing fact and fiction -- that is a result of the Board's lack of transparency. I'd love to have the real numbers to work with. Could even become an advocate for the L&N contract if I knew what the cost implications were. But to paraphrase Mason Williams "Believeing in something isn't enough, you NEED to know what it is." I mean, what is so hard about telling the owners what the contract will cost--both gross and net. What is so hard about owning up to the impact on the present management structure. After all, the DeLeon and Stang analysis clearly shows the elimination of the bookkeeping position. No one has claimed that that is a personnel matter and shouldn't be discussed. Au Contraire, the Board and others have used the savings from eliminating the bookkeeper position to reduce the overall cost of the L&N contract. It seems a bit unfair to let one side raise the elimination of a position and not the other side. But then, fairness isn't everyone's suite in this decision process. Since the Community Manager will have the same responsibilities as our Manager, what is wrong in asking if the Elizabeth will retain that position? What is good for the goose is suppose to be good for the gander!
Love your "cowboys getting all liquored-up at the saloon as some agitator stirs them into a frenzy so they can go lynch someone they don't like". But, if you'll just "put your bottle and rope down" Jim, you will see that I have not proposed the Board reject the Legum and Norman contract, just that they postpone accepting the contract until such time that they know -- and I guess I should have spelled out that they tell the owners" the whole story. If this is "agitating", then so be it.
You are all wrong about my mixing up cost analysis and personnel matters. Cost analysis in the understanding of the components (line items of a budget IS NOT an operations activity. It is a policy activity. I don't know of any budgets that say hire so-and-so, fire so-and-so. But if the budget reflects a decision to "contract out", yes that will ultimately have personnel reamifications. The fact that the logical outcome of contracting out means personnel changes, does not justify a prohibition on talking about the policy/management. You are arguing that the owners have no right to know what the budget implication of the Board's actions are. I can't disagree with you more. By the way, I have had 20 years as a Budget Analyst for federal agencies, as an OMB Budget Examiner, and as a Budget Policy Analysis for the House Budget Committee. I think I know something about budget proposals. The way budget proposals are put forth is by line items, such as the "Administrative Staff" line item in our Budget. What action the Board takes regarding who constitutes personnel is absolutely a Board matter, as you point out Jim, but what is in the Budget is a matter for all owners. That is why the budget is handled in open meetings and why it is distributed way before the Board takes action on it. What the Board is doing is making a major revision to our Budget--whether or not you want to acknowledge that.
So Jim, take a breath, reread your excellent paragraph about how professionals do business and think about how you have conducted yourself on this matter--especially when identifying the "rantors". I am sure the best you and I can do is "agree to disagree" on who is liquored up, wanting to lynch individuals.
See you tonight at the OK Corral. Molly Frantz