At the emergency board meeting this evening, (August 3rd, 2007) the minutes of the July 21st and July 28 meeting were read. Jay S. Jump made a motion to accept the minutes. It was seconded by Margot Rach.
Linda Schindler made a counter motion to not accept the minutes as she felt that they left out critical information. It was seconded by George Cordier.
As to the first motion to accept the minutes, the motion was defeated. Jump and Rach were for acceptance, Cordier, Graf and Schindler opposed.
As to the second motion to not accept the minutes, the motio was passed. Cordier, Graf and Schindler approved, Jump and Rach opposed.
Until such time as the minutes are approved, I have taken them down from the website.
I will comment more on what happened this evening tomorrow.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
RCW Information
After the post about the honeymoon being over, I received a large amount of response. Some favorable, some not favorable. Many of you were curious as to what the actual law on the matter is and wanted to know where you could learn more. I am posting the link to the RCW's on this post for your perusal.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.38
Good luck!
Jay
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.38
Good luck!
Jay
Airport Volunteers?
I posted an email to the blast list looking for volunteers, but I thought I would post something here as well.
Joe is our only maintenance personell at this time and I figure he has to be busy taking care of all of us. I thought we would take some of the pressure off him and do some of the regular ongoing maintenance ourselves.
If you are interested in volunteering to work at the airport to handle some of the routine maintenance like mowing and keeping the runway free of debris, please email me directly at jumpj@Jumplawgroup.com or sevenbayshoa@jumplawgroup.com.
Once I have a roster of people I will put together a party. . .er, I mean meeting.
Jay S. Jump
Airport Plat Representative
Joe is our only maintenance personell at this time and I figure he has to be busy taking care of all of us. I thought we would take some of the pressure off him and do some of the regular ongoing maintenance ourselves.
If you are interested in volunteering to work at the airport to handle some of the routine maintenance like mowing and keeping the runway free of debris, please email me directly at jumpj@Jumplawgroup.com or sevenbayshoa@jumplawgroup.com.
Once I have a roster of people I will put together a party. . .er, I mean meeting.
Jay S. Jump
Airport Plat Representative
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Honeymoon is Over
Well, I thought it would take longer, but it is clear that the board has splintered, not even three weeks into the year. The new board was elected on July 14, 2007. By July 28, the gloves came off and the ethics became questionable.
Let me advise you what has happened.
If you weren't aware, Stephen Davis resigned from the board on July 14, 2007. He was replaced by Rick Graf - who was the elected alternate.
Joe Brinkman has been hired as one of our maintenance personell. The other position has been offered to Jed. He has demanded more money that was originally offered. It appears the board is willing to give it to him.
On July 21, 2007, the board met to deal with the ongoing crisis of not having an office manager or staff. During that time, I advised the board of actions that had been dealt with by the previous board.
There were two property issues that invovled the improper trespass on a Seven Bays Easement and a homeowner who wanted to receive approval on an addition that violated a setback requirement.
The previous board had advised the homeowner who violated the easement to remove the offending trespass and had denied the building addition for the other homeowner until such time as he could comply with the setback requirements.
Of course, the homeowners sensed a new board and prevailed upon the new members to take up the issue again. During the discussion on the setback application, the board voted again to decline approval until the owner could comply with the setback requirements.
The easement issue was a little more complicated. Linda Schindler is presently on the board. Her husband, Daryl Schindler was involved in the construction of the wall that is the trespass onto the Seven Bays Easement. I spoke up on the 21st of July and asserted that Linda had to be removed from the discussion because she had a conflict. The board discussed it and Linda agreed to remove herself from the discussion. Because of other business, the board did not get around to addressing the easement matter with finality. The last act of the previous board with regard to this matter was to direct that the offending trespass be removed.
One week later, on July 28, 2007, the board met again. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the meeting and it was clear that the remainder of the board took full advantage of this fact.
I give you now the letter I wrote to the board this morning. I asked for their prompt reply, but no one but Margot Rach has responded. With Margots permission, I will post her reply shortly.
It has been my pledge since I took office that sunshine is the best policy. I think that the homeowners have the right to know what is going on in their association.
We presently have no water license hanging in the office. Seems that this would be more important than getting Phase II. I cannot sanction expansion of our system when we don't even have the ability to maintain our present one.
But for now, let's simply address the behavior your board, or rather, a few on your board have taken. I give you now my letter to the board asking them to explain their behavior and the justification they have for their actions.
Linda,
I am deeply disturbed not only by the tone of your email's yesterday, but the imperiousness of them.
None of these matters are settled or closed.
Initially, I must point out the hypocrisy of your actions where you indicate that you have no conflict with regard to the Bennett Property Issues. You have indicated in your email yesterday that "you saw no conflict". The issue of conflict is not for you to judge otherwise, we would have leaders who are absolutely corrupt. You have stated "I am fully aware of my duties as a Board member.". Allow me to point out to you RCW 68.34. This statute lists your duties and responsibilities as a board member. You owe a duty to the homeowners which you breach and the board in it's entirety breaches when it allows conflicts to taint the decision making process.
Linda you have a conflict with the Bennett property. You are married to Daryl Schindler. It was Daryl who was involved in the building of the offending wall that has taken over the easement. It was your husband who approached the Seven Bays Homeowners Association with the threat of a lawsuit over the issues with the Bennett Property and it was your husband and you who came to my house to discuss the Bennett Wall for two hours in early July. It was your husband who approached Paul Kochman after that meeting and stated that the board was opening up a can of worms. How do you think that you are not in conflict here.
I further find it terribly hypocritical that you stood up in the July 14 community meeting demanding full disclosure of all the relationships of the people who were running for election, standing on the moral high ground of ethical conduct, and yet you fail to remove your self from the debate over the Bennett property. Further, it was improper of you and the board to change positions between July 21, 2007 and July 28, 2007 when I was not present. It was decided on July 21, 2007 that you would not be involved in the Bennett debate. The conflict was addressed and the issue was resolved. You don't have the opportunity to reopen that discussion a week later. You don't get to decide the following week that the conflict doesn't exist.
Let us turn now to your statement that the Bennett matter is 'settled'. It is not settled. Very simply, the board does not have the legal authority to waive the easement trespass and I doubt that the community would be in favor of the board voluntarily giving up property which it has received no compensation for. Seven Bays was granted it's status because of the design of the property and the lots. In that approval process, the short plat process, easements were drawn. That short plat was approved by the County. The board does not have the legal authority to waive this easement or to 'accept' the wall. In doing so, the board has acted outside the scope of it's legal authority.
Your statement that the 'wall was approved by three board members even had I not voted' is inaccurate. Margot Rach's vote was to deny the wall should it violate any safety, health, or welfare issues. Those easements were drawn for safety, health, and welfare issues as an operative component of the authority granted to the State and County to regulate land use. As the taking of the easement violates these rules, Margot did not vote in favor of the easement being 'accepted'. Indeed, she voted entirely opposite.
Thus, there is no quorum because you are conflicted, and George Cordier and Rick Graf were the only two people who actually voted for the acceptance of the easement violation. The vote is illegal and improper. Your actions and the actions of the president, in permitting this conflict, have exposed the board and Seven Bays to severe legal liability. Setting aside the fact that is smacks of unilateral action on the part of the board when the previous board had already taken lawful and permissible steps to deal with the Bennet easement issue. Your rush to judgment, in view of the conflict, only smells of further corruption and hypocrisy. I dare say the citizens of Seven Bays should have serious questions about your conduct as a board member.
Now, allow me to turn to your second proposition of yesterday that the Ripley matter is 'settled'. The Ripley matter is not settled. The previous board sent Mr. Ripley a letter stating that he needed to comply with the setback requirements as pertaining to Seven Bays. On July 21, 2007, this action was ratified by the new board. On July 28, 2007, the action was ratified again. Mr. Ripley's design is rejected until such time as it complies with the setback requirement.
Yesterday, you advised me via the email listserv, that you, George Cordier, and Rick Graf had a discussion and you are for granting the variance. To quote with precision, you stated, "George, Rick and I are for the variance as we cannot see that allowing it will worsen accessibility at all and feel if there was a lawsuit, we would be hard pressed to justify it. Therefore, the Ripley property is approved."
Now, let's take this apart for a moment. I don't recall a meeting being called, I don't recall there being a discussion about it on our local listserv, I don't recall Robert's Rules of Order being followed. What I see when I read that quote is, a unilateral and arbitrary action was taken, no notice was provided, and you decided on your own, without advice or discussion, that you can do as you please. Setting aside the fact that the board has no legal authority to waive any setback requirements, you, George, and Rick, do not have any authority to take actions on your own without notice to the rest of the board. Nor do you get to return to topics once they have been settled and voted upon.
If you advised Mr. Ripley that he was permitted to build, I suggest you immediately remove that permission. The board is already on record that the Ripley application was denied until he can comply with the setback requirements. You acted unilaterally and without justification to override that decision. When Mr. Ripley is handed an enforcement action from the County or is sued by one of his neighbors, he is going to rely on the permission that you gave him. The homeowners association will be sued and I should think that the insurance policy will not choose to cover you under its E&O policy as you acted outside the scope of your authority.
As this is going out to our local listserv, George, you bear a large amount of responsibility for these unilateral, arbitrary, and capricious actions. The homeowners elected you based upon your representations at the community meeting. The unethical conduct of the board members falls to you as you are the one who sanctions such behavior and not conducting yourself in an appropriate manner.
Allow me to point out what you have accomplished by taking this unethical and inappropriate actions with regard to your decision of the past two days. (1) You have exposed yourselves to personal liability, (2) You have exposed the Seven Bays Homeowners Association to liability (I'm sure the members want another lawsuit to pay for and deal with), (3) You have sent a message to the homeowners that rules need not be followed, building packets and excavation permits can be disregarded. There are no rules to follow here at Seven Bays, you can build and do as you please because the board will take no action to enforce the rules and will even act outside the scope of it's own authority to facilitate illegal actions. I look forward to when homeowners come back and sue Seven Bays because they relied on the board's 'waiver' as a grant of authority to avoid the legal building requirements established by the State and County, (4) Should you enagag e in any enforcement action, the homeowner will have a selective enforcement argument because of the lackadaiscal and arbitrary actions of the board.
I suggest you without delay reign yourselves in and answer immediately to the homeowners. I suggest you fully disclose your unethical behavior and withdraw yourself from consideration in these matters.
I look forward to your prompt and immediate response from all of you.
Jay S. Jump
Airport Plat Representative
Seven Bays Board Member
528 2nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
(253) 479-2041
jumpj@jumplawgroup.com
Let me advise you what has happened.
If you weren't aware, Stephen Davis resigned from the board on July 14, 2007. He was replaced by Rick Graf - who was the elected alternate.
Joe Brinkman has been hired as one of our maintenance personell. The other position has been offered to Jed. He has demanded more money that was originally offered. It appears the board is willing to give it to him.
On July 21, 2007, the board met to deal with the ongoing crisis of not having an office manager or staff. During that time, I advised the board of actions that had been dealt with by the previous board.
There were two property issues that invovled the improper trespass on a Seven Bays Easement and a homeowner who wanted to receive approval on an addition that violated a setback requirement.
The previous board had advised the homeowner who violated the easement to remove the offending trespass and had denied the building addition for the other homeowner until such time as he could comply with the setback requirements.
Of course, the homeowners sensed a new board and prevailed upon the new members to take up the issue again. During the discussion on the setback application, the board voted again to decline approval until the owner could comply with the setback requirements.
The easement issue was a little more complicated. Linda Schindler is presently on the board. Her husband, Daryl Schindler was involved in the construction of the wall that is the trespass onto the Seven Bays Easement. I spoke up on the 21st of July and asserted that Linda had to be removed from the discussion because she had a conflict. The board discussed it and Linda agreed to remove herself from the discussion. Because of other business, the board did not get around to addressing the easement matter with finality. The last act of the previous board with regard to this matter was to direct that the offending trespass be removed.
One week later, on July 28, 2007, the board met again. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the meeting and it was clear that the remainder of the board took full advantage of this fact.
I give you now the letter I wrote to the board this morning. I asked for their prompt reply, but no one but Margot Rach has responded. With Margots permission, I will post her reply shortly.
It has been my pledge since I took office that sunshine is the best policy. I think that the homeowners have the right to know what is going on in their association.
We presently have no water license hanging in the office. Seems that this would be more important than getting Phase II. I cannot sanction expansion of our system when we don't even have the ability to maintain our present one.
But for now, let's simply address the behavior your board, or rather, a few on your board have taken. I give you now my letter to the board asking them to explain their behavior and the justification they have for their actions.
Linda,
I am deeply disturbed not only by the tone of your email's yesterday, but the imperiousness of them.
None of these matters are settled or closed.
Initially, I must point out the hypocrisy of your actions where you indicate that you have no conflict with regard to the Bennett Property Issues. You have indicated in your email yesterday that "you saw no conflict". The issue of conflict is not for you to judge otherwise, we would have leaders who are absolutely corrupt. You have stated "I am fully aware of my duties as a Board member.". Allow me to point out to you RCW 68.34. This statute lists your duties and responsibilities as a board member. You owe a duty to the homeowners which you breach and the board in it's entirety breaches when it allows conflicts to taint the decision making process.
Linda you have a conflict with the Bennett property. You are married to Daryl Schindler. It was Daryl who was involved in the building of the offending wall that has taken over the easement. It was your husband who approached the Seven Bays Homeowners Association with the threat of a lawsuit over the issues with the Bennett Property and it was your husband and you who came to my house to discuss the Bennett Wall for two hours in early July. It was your husband who approached Paul Kochman after that meeting and stated that the board was opening up a can of worms. How do you think that you are not in conflict here.
I further find it terribly hypocritical that you stood up in the July 14 community meeting demanding full disclosure of all the relationships of the people who were running for election, standing on the moral high ground of ethical conduct, and yet you fail to remove your self from the debate over the Bennett property. Further, it was improper of you and the board to change positions between July 21, 2007 and July 28, 2007 when I was not present. It was decided on July 21, 2007 that you would not be involved in the Bennett debate. The conflict was addressed and the issue was resolved. You don't have the opportunity to reopen that discussion a week later. You don't get to decide the following week that the conflict doesn't exist.
Let us turn now to your statement that the Bennett matter is 'settled'. It is not settled. Very simply, the board does not have the legal authority to waive the easement trespass and I doubt that the community would be in favor of the board voluntarily giving up property which it has received no compensation for. Seven Bays was granted it's status because of the design of the property and the lots. In that approval process, the short plat process, easements were drawn. That short plat was approved by the County. The board does not have the legal authority to waive this easement or to 'accept' the wall. In doing so, the board has acted outside the scope of it's legal authority.
Your statement that the 'wall was approved by three board members even had I not voted' is inaccurate. Margot Rach's vote was to deny the wall should it violate any safety, health, or welfare issues. Those easements were drawn for safety, health, and welfare issues as an operative component of the authority granted to the State and County to regulate land use. As the taking of the easement violates these rules, Margot did not vote in favor of the easement being 'accepted'. Indeed, she voted entirely opposite.
Thus, there is no quorum because you are conflicted, and George Cordier and Rick Graf were the only two people who actually voted for the acceptance of the easement violation. The vote is illegal and improper. Your actions and the actions of the president, in permitting this conflict, have exposed the board and Seven Bays to severe legal liability. Setting aside the fact that is smacks of unilateral action on the part of the board when the previous board had already taken lawful and permissible steps to deal with the Bennet easement issue. Your rush to judgment, in view of the conflict, only smells of further corruption and hypocrisy. I dare say the citizens of Seven Bays should have serious questions about your conduct as a board member.
Now, allow me to turn to your second proposition of yesterday that the Ripley matter is 'settled'. The Ripley matter is not settled. The previous board sent Mr. Ripley a letter stating that he needed to comply with the setback requirements as pertaining to Seven Bays. On July 21, 2007, this action was ratified by the new board. On July 28, 2007, the action was ratified again. Mr. Ripley's design is rejected until such time as it complies with the setback requirement.
Yesterday, you advised me via the email listserv, that you, George Cordier, and Rick Graf had a discussion and you are for granting the variance. To quote with precision, you stated, "George, Rick and I are for the variance as we cannot see that allowing it will worsen accessibility at all and feel if there was a lawsuit, we would be hard pressed to justify it. Therefore, the Ripley property is approved."
Now, let's take this apart for a moment. I don't recall a meeting being called, I don't recall there being a discussion about it on our local listserv, I don't recall Robert's Rules of Order being followed. What I see when I read that quote is, a unilateral and arbitrary action was taken, no notice was provided, and you decided on your own, without advice or discussion, that you can do as you please. Setting aside the fact that the board has no legal authority to waive any setback requirements, you, George, and Rick, do not have any authority to take actions on your own without notice to the rest of the board. Nor do you get to return to topics once they have been settled and voted upon.
If you advised Mr. Ripley that he was permitted to build, I suggest you immediately remove that permission. The board is already on record that the Ripley application was denied until he can comply with the setback requirements. You acted unilaterally and without justification to override that decision. When Mr. Ripley is handed an enforcement action from the County or is sued by one of his neighbors, he is going to rely on the permission that you gave him. The homeowners association will be sued and I should think that the insurance policy will not choose to cover you under its E&O policy as you acted outside the scope of your authority.
As this is going out to our local listserv, George, you bear a large amount of responsibility for these unilateral, arbitrary, and capricious actions. The homeowners elected you based upon your representations at the community meeting. The unethical conduct of the board members falls to you as you are the one who sanctions such behavior and not conducting yourself in an appropriate manner.
Allow me to point out what you have accomplished by taking this unethical and inappropriate actions with regard to your decision of the past two days. (1) You have exposed yourselves to personal liability, (2) You have exposed the Seven Bays Homeowners Association to liability (I'm sure the members want another lawsuit to pay for and deal with), (3) You have sent a message to the homeowners that rules need not be followed, building packets and excavation permits can be disregarded. There are no rules to follow here at Seven Bays, you can build and do as you please because the board will take no action to enforce the rules and will even act outside the scope of it's own authority to facilitate illegal actions. I look forward to when homeowners come back and sue Seven Bays because they relied on the board's 'waiver' as a grant of authority to avoid the legal building requirements established by the State and County, (4) Should you enagag e in any enforcement action, the homeowner will have a selective enforcement argument because of the lackadaiscal and arbitrary actions of the board.
I suggest you without delay reign yourselves in and answer immediately to the homeowners. I suggest you fully disclose your unethical behavior and withdraw yourself from consideration in these matters.
I look forward to your prompt and immediate response from all of you.
Jay S. Jump
Airport Plat Representative
Seven Bays Board Member
528 2nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
(253) 479-2041
jumpj@jumplawgroup.com
Saturday, July 21, 2007
July 21st Board Meeting
We decided to meet again quickly after assessing the situation last week. It was determined that given the current employment crisis, the board needs to be as proactive as possible. Today the board elected to bring Jed back to Seven Bays. It was 4/1 decision to offer Jed a new job.
Getting to the point of the actual motion took several hours of vigorous debate not so much about Jed, but about the budget, employment issues, and coming to the realization that the labor budget was going to be stretched thin.
In facing this debate, the board recognized a hard reality. The days of being able to pay cut rate amounts to employees were gone and the difficult of hiring new staff means that they have to be paid a sufficient amount in order to show up to work.
Joe is learning his new job and doing well. If you seem him out there, make sure to tell him that you appreciate his hard work. It's not an easy position to be in and he has the weight of the world on his shoulders as he goes from 0 to full steam ahead in 7 days.
The board also began to explore the issue of complying with the State mandate of our meter requirements and how to handle the installation of everyone on a water meter. None of the solutions are pretty, but the board did ask the serious questions.
Clearly, we are going to need the help of the resident's of Seven Bays. If you are available to volunteer at the office to answer phones and take messages, we can surely use you. Be sure to add your name to the volunteer list that we have on the home page of the website. You can bet that we are going to count on your assistance over the next few months.
Where do we go from here? Well we have some loose ends to tie up on the Phase I water tank issue. We have to stablize our employment status and then we can begin the serious work of moving forward with creating a long term plan and goal for Seven Bays.
The Board has some serious issues to deal with to keep Seven Bays running. It isn't going to be pleasant or pretty. Sometimes we have to be careful what we wish for as we become victims of our own success. There is no guidebook or cheat sheet to work from, the board is essentially starting from scratch. The board appreciates the patience you have shown as well as your support.
Remember the next meeting is August 17, 2007. If you want to be able to voice your opinion, make sure you come to the meeting.
Getting to the point of the actual motion took several hours of vigorous debate not so much about Jed, but about the budget, employment issues, and coming to the realization that the labor budget was going to be stretched thin.
In facing this debate, the board recognized a hard reality. The days of being able to pay cut rate amounts to employees were gone and the difficult of hiring new staff means that they have to be paid a sufficient amount in order to show up to work.
Joe is learning his new job and doing well. If you seem him out there, make sure to tell him that you appreciate his hard work. It's not an easy position to be in and he has the weight of the world on his shoulders as he goes from 0 to full steam ahead in 7 days.
The board also began to explore the issue of complying with the State mandate of our meter requirements and how to handle the installation of everyone on a water meter. None of the solutions are pretty, but the board did ask the serious questions.
Clearly, we are going to need the help of the resident's of Seven Bays. If you are available to volunteer at the office to answer phones and take messages, we can surely use you. Be sure to add your name to the volunteer list that we have on the home page of the website. You can bet that we are going to count on your assistance over the next few months.
Where do we go from here? Well we have some loose ends to tie up on the Phase I water tank issue. We have to stablize our employment status and then we can begin the serious work of moving forward with creating a long term plan and goal for Seven Bays.
The Board has some serious issues to deal with to keep Seven Bays running. It isn't going to be pleasant or pretty. Sometimes we have to be careful what we wish for as we become victims of our own success. There is no guidebook or cheat sheet to work from, the board is essentially starting from scratch. The board appreciates the patience you have shown as well as your support.
Remember the next meeting is August 17, 2007. If you want to be able to voice your opinion, make sure you come to the meeting.
Care to Comment?
Several people have asked if they could blog on here as well. You are welcome to post any comments you wish. Do try to keep them constructive please and observe the rules of etiquette. At the bottom of each post is a link that will allow you to post a comment on the post that has been created. Anyone may comment at their leisure.
Thanks!
Jay
Thanks!
Jay
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The First Board Meeting
Our first board meeting was held yesterday, Monday, July 16, 2007. Attending were myself, George Cordier, Rick Graf, Margot Rach, and Linda Schindler. The meeting was called to order at 8 a.m.
First on the discussion list was getting someone to work for Seven Bays. George had indicated he had been speaking with Jed who had quit Seven Bays a few months earlier. Apparently, Jed is interested in returning to Seven Bays. The board discussed what role Jed should play in Seven Bays.
Joe Brinkman had been contacted the previous day by both George and myself and we both invited him to join us around 8:30. Joe showed and we discussed his qualifications as a maintenance manager. After showing Joe the job description he still wanted to apply and it was decided that Joe would be a good person to have on board. He started yesterday.
After excusing Joe the board took up discussion on how much to pay Joe and what his title should be. This created a discussion about how Seven Bays should be managed. The two views expressed were a return to having the 'maintenance manager' be in charge of everything v. having an 'business manager' run the day to day operations of Seven Bays with maintenance staff working with the business manager. The issue was left unresolved and Joe was hired as maintenance personell rather than a maintenance manager. The lean in the end was to let Joe demonstrate his ability to become the manager and the allow him to evolve into the role.
Having accomplished this goal and averting the crisis facing Seven Bays, we next turned to issues that needed to be addressed. I informed the board about the continuing issues with the new water tank being built. George was going to address the issue this week. We also discussed the pending water meter issues, the need for a second lagoon, and the plan for putting the roads on a continuous cycle of preventative maintenance.
The first meeting was a productive one, all the parties worked together although there are an incredible diversity of views on the board. It will be interesting to see how the relationships develop.
The next board meeting is this Saturday at 9:00 a.m.
First on the discussion list was getting someone to work for Seven Bays. George had indicated he had been speaking with Jed who had quit Seven Bays a few months earlier. Apparently, Jed is interested in returning to Seven Bays. The board discussed what role Jed should play in Seven Bays.
Joe Brinkman had been contacted the previous day by both George and myself and we both invited him to join us around 8:30. Joe showed and we discussed his qualifications as a maintenance manager. After showing Joe the job description he still wanted to apply and it was decided that Joe would be a good person to have on board. He started yesterday.
After excusing Joe the board took up discussion on how much to pay Joe and what his title should be. This created a discussion about how Seven Bays should be managed. The two views expressed were a return to having the 'maintenance manager' be in charge of everything v. having an 'business manager' run the day to day operations of Seven Bays with maintenance staff working with the business manager. The issue was left unresolved and Joe was hired as maintenance personell rather than a maintenance manager. The lean in the end was to let Joe demonstrate his ability to become the manager and the allow him to evolve into the role.
Having accomplished this goal and averting the crisis facing Seven Bays, we next turned to issues that needed to be addressed. I informed the board about the continuing issues with the new water tank being built. George was going to address the issue this week. We also discussed the pending water meter issues, the need for a second lagoon, and the plan for putting the roads on a continuous cycle of preventative maintenance.
The first meeting was a productive one, all the parties worked together although there are an incredible diversity of views on the board. It will be interesting to see how the relationships develop.
The next board meeting is this Saturday at 9:00 a.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)