Here are my responses to two recent posts by David Berman on his blog:

1.  David Berman added to his blog about the Trumpets Lease that says:

“Board member Bob Frank asked if the proposed minimum monthly rent of $6,500 would cover SCA’s costs. Both Forgeron and Board Treasurer Shirley Cheri said that Hernandez will also be responsible for payment of his utilities, and that the rent is at least enough to cover all of SCA’s expenses, including the amounts needed to fund the restaurant’s reserve accounts. Forgeron added that because of the resident interference, the proposed rental amount includes a concession of what had originally been sought.”

Translated = NO!  The proposed rental amount has been reduced. Current lease plans are for SCA homeowners to continue to LOSE MONEY! The “negotiating team” is planning to “indemnify” the lessee against losses, but NOT the SCA homeowners!

Do we now know why there has been much double-talk and secrecy, and why no deal has been announced before the board voting is over?

Is there anyone left who is confused about why I have questioned the common sense and ethics of the Board Presidents and Treasurers who have controlled the leasing of our extremely valuable restaurant facilities for the past four years?

———————

2.  There are too many deceptions and outright false statements in David Berman’s (DB) blog about yesterday’s discussions on the restaurant lease fiasco to deal with them all. But, here is one item that shows how easy it is to discredit DB’s spinning:

DB said: “Bob Frank, reminding the audience that he had opposed making the restaurant open to the public, said that residents should be surveyed on that subject.”

Berman’s statement is false. He took words out of context from my comments on multiple agenda items, and I have the recording to prove his deception. For example, concerning:

- PUBLIC ACCESS: My comments were made concerning Agenda Item XII.C.3 where the Finance Committee (FC) was recommending spending over $70,000 for replacing kitchen equipment–BEFORE we have finished negotiating a lease agreement!

This FC recommendation came:

(1) after the board had already spent $150,000 last Fall to repair and replace Trumpets furnishings and equipment for the New Years Eve party;

(2) after about $50,000 was spent over a year ago to clean, refurbish, and replace Trumpets premises and equipment; and

(3) without requiring a business case by RMI to show why the repair or refurbishment of existing equipment items would not be a much better SCA option than buying all new equipment for the next lessee.

I have said in the past (when it was still possible to have a members and guests only policy for Trumpets) that I could continue to support the developer’s “turn-key” approach to equipping and maintaining the restaurant premises and equipment.

But, once the board majority had established the policy for public access using a commercial lease, I could no longer support the past policies of fully equipping the kitchen.  SCA can no longer justify a policy of owning, maintaining and providing everything to a restaurant operator. Members should not be forced to continue to pay assessments to maintain such very expensive restaurant equipment used to produce external profits for a lessee.

- MEMBER SURVEY: My oft-repeated requests for a member survey about the Trumpets lease was made during discussions of Agenda Item XVI.A. They were proposed to resolve the year-long, highly contentious issue of whether, or not, the board has the unilateral authority to sign a long-term restaurant lease without member agreement. The issue is easily resolved, and the results would replace the obsolete restaurant survey data taken in 2007.

A current member survey about the proposed lessee and its food service offerings could be included at little to no cost in one of the routine mailings to members. It could be completed in less than 60 days. History proves that thousands of members might quickly respond to a trumpets survey. And, since trumpets is not projected to be in operational before October 2009 (2 years after the last lessee was removed), there is time to consult with our membership.

However, the board majority has refused to conduct such a survey, and the Board has produced no reasonable rational for refusing to take such a logical action. That kind of practical business/marketing approach could keep members informed and significantly increase the likelihood of future lease success. The results could also provide critical feedback on whether the proposed lessee is likely to get support from most members.

Both the Board and the lessee should be highly interested to know if a CURRENT survey of CURRENT members does or does not show high member interest and intended support of the proposed lease. The risks of failure to BOTH parties is very high if NO survey is conducted–while they continue to fly blind with insufficient and/or erroneous information.

Bob Frank
SCA Director