March Report / Meeting Highlights
Minutes were approved, the Toll Brothers Development Company presented a few facts about their neighboring development as a courtesy.
During the discussion of seventh order of business (page 5 of minutes) during a back and forth exchange between the working majority (Kannat-Gapinsky, Klein and Jacob) and Supervisor Page (Supervisor Lansdale was not present in the beginning) it became clear that no consensus existed that there was a need for an internal audit. It became clear that given existing controls and existing annual audit processes the working majority was satisfied. The additional expense, for a CDD of our size, was unjustified according the GMS and the working majority. The motion for an internal audit was voted down.
During the discussion of the eighth order of business (page 9 of minutes) another back and forth exchange between the working majority (Kannat-Gapinsky, Klein and Jacob) and Page/Lansdale minority (Supervisor Lansdale arrived late) around the issue of hiring a Human Resources Consultant to help the board set goals, objectives, and bonus performance criteria became muddled as to scope and deliverables. This issue is a lingering dispute due to the aggressive agenda of Page/Lansdale to micro-manage the general manager through the review process. Where the working majority are content with operational outcomes and budget performance being sufficient to evaluate the general manager the dissenting minority seeks to impose greater specificity because of subjective trust issues they have with the other board members, general manager and staff.
During the discussion of the ninth order of business (page 13 of minutes) another back and forth exchange began between the working majority (Kannat-Gapinsky, Klein and Jacob) and Page/Lansdale minority (Supervisor Lansdale arrived late) about the proposal bid process. Because of subjective trust issues the dissenting minority have with the General Manager, the painting contract bid process has been used to suggest inappropriate actions where none existed. Per the CDD attorney the process was legal, performed properly under the preview of the General Manager and scaled appropriately to the size of the project (dollar value < $195,000). The insistence of Supervisor Lansdale to borrow heavy bureaucratic procedures and rules are inappropriate for this size community. You can read the one and one back and forth as Supervisor Lansdale argues his points to no common sense conclusion all the way to page 36. The discussion ended with the motion to NOT accept procurement policy procedures.
April Report / Meeting Highlights
Minutes were approved.
During the discussion on the sixth order of business, Board Direction and Discussion of Human Resources Services Related to Goal Setting, Performance Evaluation Process and Incentive Program, Supervisor Page presented a new proposal, along with the two prior ones from DCSI and Stafftime on HR consulting services. After a long extended back and forth discussion on what would be done and delivered by the consulting services, it became clear that Supervisor Page was unsuccessful in communicating what value would be gained by the consulting. This was underscored by this extract from the April minutes, Page 10 April Minutes.
Ms. Kannatt-Gapinski stated I got this today in between meetings for work. I haven’t really had a chance to look at it and I got the other proposal on Friday afternoon. I am not prepared to do a whole lot of commenting on it.
Ms. Page asked so could we direct the District Manager to come up with the scope? Ms. Kannatt-Gapinski asked, “Jim, do you have enough information to be able to develop a scope?”
Mr. Perry responded I have been listening for 25 minutes and I don’t know where you are at.
Eventually the scope was narrowed to update the performance evaluation tool and to authorize GMS to solicit revised proposals by motion.
Board approved motion to develop an internal policy for public records requests. This was a result of the additional costs incurred by the district by Supervisor Lansdale physically printing board related e-mails rather than e-mailing them to the District Manager.
During Staff reports, Supervisor Lansdale continued his micro-management approach and it was illustrated over an extended discussion on outsourcing tennis court maintenance, at an expense of $500 a month, rather than hiring new part-time staff to perform the function. Supervisor Lansdale asked for copies of the bid document for this task. The General Manager said that bid document were unnecessary and it was a simple work for hire transaction. You can read the exchange from pages to 16 to 18. Two significant quotes are important to highlight.
“Ms. Klein stated and you should be able to take an explanation from your General Manager and not ask for paperwork to back up all that he does. He does a lot and I’m tired of constantly badgering him for documentation. It makes you sound like you are some righteous person at a meeting when you are adding a lot of bureaucracy to a person who is very busy already.”
“Mr. Mooney stated if it wasn’t a good business decision then we wouldn’t be doing it. It is a pretty straight forward calculation to work out how much we were currently paying our employee to do that function and could we get it done cheaper. The answer was yes.
Mr. Lansdale stated I would imagine that you have that documentation.
Mr. Mooney stated I don’t need any documents to work that out.
Mr. Lansdale asked can you provide me the documentation that shows that?
Mr. Mooney responded I haven’t gotten any documentation. I just told you that.
Mr. Lansdale asked then how did you make your decision?
Mr. Mooney responded I have a brain.
Mr. Perry stated this item was discussed with Mr. Mooney. If you take the 75 hours on a monthly basis for that one position times the current minimum wage, it is far in excess of the $500 a month. That is a global basis way of looking at this. This type of service our firm provides to another District. They are not quite as extensive as this but in discussions with Mr. Mooney I told him if he could get this guy to work for that dollar amount on a monthly basis then it was a very good deal.”
GM Report Highlights April – Details are included in the April minutes.
Most departments are ahead of budget in both revenue and expense categories meaning solid financial performance with a few exceptions due to weather related impacts (Swim Team, Tennis revenues are affected by weather especially this past winter). Child watch’s cancelled holiday camp due to low signups had an impact as well. The revenue side should improve as the weather stabilizes.
The rest of the meeting proceeded as usual except for a commotion during the Supervisor’s Request (Eleventh order of business, page 31-35).
Supervisor Page complained bitterly regarding not being able to put on the Agenda, a revisit of the Internal Audit Proposal, which was voted down by motion in the last meeting in March. She complained that Jim Perry, District Manager would not put the item on the Agenda and that a Supervisor should be able to put any request on there. However a long-standing board rule stated that no item could be put on the formal agenda once it was voted down. A vigorous back and forth on the issue ensued with the other Supervisors explaining the reason for the rule and that the Supervisor request section of the meeting was the appropriate time to present NEW information on old items. In essence, you can add it to the agenda but informally to present new information and thus get it discussed and maybe revoted on. However, Supervisor Page was not prepared to present NEW information but her focus was on complaining about not being able to put the item on the agenda.
A video extract of the tail end of the exchange, minus the audience roar against Supervisor Page’s statement on not representing some members of the audience, is included here.