 |
| WATCHDOG © 2011 |
Woah! How embarrassing! The Watchdog is so relieved the folks in the community opted to not attend tonight's Finance Committee Meeting. While the Chair was prepared to sit down and do some serious business 3 out of the 5 committee members were not so inclined.
Sadly, on a night when the next year's budget could have been laid out with the exception of some final numbers due the end of this month the time spent from 1810 to 1840 was spent discussing perceptions of the staff. Such comments like the staff is like some 'step and fetch' bunch of people, or, 'if they were mine I'd "bitch slap" them' was indulged at a committee level. The chair did not bring the discussion back to topic although after a bit he did say 'by the way the Finance Committee adjourned 20 minutes ago.' Perhaps the most dismaying demonstration of unprofessional behavior was from the President/CEO of the organization who shared her own negative thoughts about something she was unhappy with the office staff for not doing. Instead of listening to the complaints of the one member and kindly saying she would definitely take her concerns seriously and follow up on the report privately with the staff which is proper business practice she merely added her own complaints to the conversation which led the original complaining member to ask 'aren't you her boss' which was a lead in by the member to the comment about 'bitch slapping'.
I don't know when things went wrong in this world that mature adults, seniors, can get together in a business setting and make such comments as were made. I do know that the racial undertones with the statement made about 'step and fetch' made the Watchdog very uncomfortable. The demeaning reference to the staff should have been corrected by someone on the Committee as inappropriate; instead it laid the ground work to continue the complaint session for an extended period of time.
The last 18 minutes of the hour was turned back to the reason for the meeting, the business of the Finance Committee and then adjourned again because 'the board is having an executive session at 7', according to the President.
On the matter of the Finance Committee Meeting for July, it seemed the Chair came prepared to try and get the first steps of the budget process initiated. It seemed however not everyone was on his page. He deferred the conversation to the August Finance Committee Meeting when the 3rd quarter figures would be out and they would have a better handle on the current budget and whether or not it is working out.
Lastly, and not least of all, there was some passionate discussion on whether or not to assess a higher assessment fee to those who have vacant lots as a means to raise revenues to compensate for those lots where nuisance tree removal may be required. The discussion started out with a suggested $50 fee and quickly moved to $100. The discussion ended after the Chair rationally stated that 'we must be fair' and 'if the amount collected doesn't really address the problem then why do it?' It is true there should be a revenue source for those 'emergency' tree removals the previous Board approved for the Budget but to penalize those who live off island and do not understand what kind of problems may exist or how to treat them may create an adverse situation. A systematic review of vacant lots with over growth, especially of a dangerous nature should be developed; perhaps letters suggesting the best way to manage the situation with a statement that if left poorly managed the Association may impose a 'management' fee of up to $XXX. This might be a feasible and reasonable solution. One the Watchdog would have supported had it been suggested while still part of the Board. But a blanket penalization fee for all vacant lots not being maintained by an undetermined standard may present a huge problem for some Board someday.
The 'salary and wages' portion of the budget was discussed quickly. When the 2011 budget was approved there was 7.5 employees. Today, 6; according to the President, SOON to be reduced. Yet, a new position is being advertized which when filled will 'add' not 'subtract' from the total number of current employees. [Granted, it may be less salary] Even if they terminate one position they are merely renaming that position and redefining the job requirements and then filling the position! The Watchdog admittedly is not a 'numbers' person but 6 + 1 - 1 is still 6, no?
We will reserve judgement on the Budget to next time when the committee meets to discuss the Budget again.
No comments:
Post a Comment