No surprises

There have been recent high impact “substantive” decisions or proposals made reflecting this board break-down. This is okay because it reflects the vote of the Lake membership at large, ie. they won. What is not okay, and what was attempted to be addressed by two minority members at the director’s meeting Thursday (May 23), was the current steering committee practice of providing board packets with new proposals at the executive committee meeting which starts at 6 p.m. to be acted upon for the 7 p.m. board meeting. In the past two to three years this has included proposals of a “substantive nature” – committee dissolutions, last month’s age restrictions for access to Lake amenities and changes to how the Lake handles investments. According to Ida Swenson and Charles Harrelson, historically the board was provided packets for the monthly meeting at least six days in advance, allowing for study, reflection and no surprise. This would also allow members of the Lake community time comment on matters before the board.
Directors Swenson and Harrelson proposed to revert back to the previous practice for board packets which allows for the entire elected board to participate as fully engaged members. If the steering committee is so convinced that their proposals are the right path, they should not be afraid to allow for minority opinion. Sometimes that actually enhances the result, as with the age restriction proposals that now have become a proposal for a code of conduct. The steering committee and staff might say that the system worked, ie most recently the age restrictions and its first reading. But, it didn’t really. The steering committee sprung a surprise; they were caught and faced with a very large public outcry resulting in a withdrawal of the proposal. The investment proposal, which also had a first reading at the April board meeting flew under the radar until the May 23 meeting when an audience member, surprised by what was happening, asked when the community would be allowed to make comment. Palamountain said the time for comment was during the comment period, which had already passed. But, it is hard to comment on something that you don’t know is there.
By the way, the Swenson/Harrelson proposal was defeated by three (Palamountain, Bauserman, Cummings) to two (Swenson, Harrelson) with one abstention (Johnson). Altschul was absent.
Also, by the way, the board is looking for public comment regarding a code of conduct for the public amenities. I suggest “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Non specific, but pretty much covers everything.