Capital Allocation Process(?)

Thanks for digging this out FYI, clearly i was wrong on this motion. It's why i said "if memory serves me." I wasn't sure what the comment and no vote was that triggered Kat's remark. Seems to me it was in the fall that Denny approached me to post his letter on the Advocate's page. Perhaps someone recalls when the incident that triggered the outrage by Director Nichols was?

 

Yes - those darn others. Yes - You are wrong. Defer and deflect, wash, rinse, repeat... Losing more credibility (in my opinion at least) with each passing comment...

 

No Bill - You made the accusation you back it up. Oh, once again you can't. McCarthyism is alive and well in Sun City.

 

Not trying to get in the middle of this, just hoping you guys can work this out and stop accusing one another!

You both have great minds and a wealth of knowledge...find a way to work in collaboration!

 

Boys, boys, boys! Please go outside and solve your issues out there. As a mom would say, "Don't bother me, or the rest of us, about it until there is blood."

 

Nothing to solve here gang, i indeed mistook the month the incident took place and what triggered it which was why i said "if memory serves me." I knew it wasn't as John suggested at the April meeting but later in the year. So, i went digging through the minutes and it turns out to have been something said at the Sept meeting. Funny thing is there's nothing in the September minutes, however, the October meeting included Kat's statement in the minutes.

Here it is in total:
"President Fimmel stated that she wanted to speak about an incident that happened at last month’s Board Meeting where she made a comment about Director Nichols and Technology. He was bothered by my comment and at the break he came over to me and resigned his position as Chair of the Technology Committee. The following morning with Director Nichols sitting next to me I asked the Audio-Visual engineers to edit out those 20 seconds of the film. I mistakenly believed that I was keeping Director Nichols from further embarrassment. Shortly thereafter I realized that some members might think that I moved the 20 seconds to protect myself. I have written enough about transparency and the members have said enough about transparency that it didn’t take a second for me to realize that I needed to contact the Audio-Visual engineers to have them restore the recording. Please know with clarity that this is the first, last and only time that I have requested that a recording be edited. All of you who have followed the Board this past year know that we are focused on transparency, ownership and accountability. I am holding myself personally accountable for the decision I made in this matter. Nothing is more important to me than having your trust and respect, that is why I am addressing this issue in this manner today.
Thank you for your time."
Link to the minutes here.

Her statement in Oct is exactly what i would expect from someone who made a mistake in Sept. Your turn barrister; did you forget the incident or were you just playing your same old tired word games? McCarthyism indeed...go swill another cocktail.

 

Bill, Oh so now after after publicly spouting off falsehoods and being confronted with facts you shrink back to quoting another carefully prepared statement. Just like the library statement - Right? Her statement is also, based on what I know to be true, false. Does that even matter to you? Do you care? Do you want to see the facts or only shape them to your narrative? Funny how someone who cares so deeply about someone's "embarrassment" would only respond after Director Nichols wrote a letter to everyone on the Board. Give me a break Eugene.

 

The later it gets in the evening, the more incoherent you become John. Wonder why? Oh wait, the stories are legendary about the late night missives that rambled on and on. Don't bother wasting your time responding John. I could care less about all of your legal training and the amazing things your body language coaches taught you. If you were half as good as you thought you were you would have stayed on the board and made a difference.

You didn't. You "resigned." Please note how i acquiesced and used your terminology as opposed to mine. You're welcome.

 

Really Bill? The person so proud of grammar skills and writing ability. Just how much less could you care? A tad? A little bit? A lot? I am amazed that no matter what you must be right, no one should counter what you have to say, and you always want the last word. It's classic NPD.

 

To clarify what I said about services. Actually, yes, we may have about 30% of the most senior folks living in there homes here that actually may need some services and are too afraid to ask. I do worry about these folks. I have them living all around me in my neighborhood. These silent folks can no longer get to the Rec center. They have given up joining clubs and can't make it to church. I am just thinking about many of these folks during my day and trying to be some kind of help to them in small way. We are all heading in that direction folks, and I think some of this in-fighting over clubs and fun activities gets to be a little hard to take for me.

 

Bill, we may disagree on points but we both have thoughtful measured arguments. John Fast’s vision of the Board and associated entities is the RCSC run like Microsoft or Google with his triangles, mission statements, governance boards, etc. Myself and probably you have suffered through this corporate bull shit. He knew my feelings on the financial statements and what was wrong, certain aspects of the policies and by laws were deficient. I knew they were deficient and spent one meeting a week plus homework for nine months to get screwed by the Board, which the current Board thinks maybe some of our ideas weren’t all that bad.

We are not tax shelter or some other vehicle. Now you know why I hate MBAs, which actually stands for Mostly Bullshit Attitude.

Have a positive day.

 

Geoffrey, I think we agree that the financials need to be presented in a more understandable and robust fashion. The conceptual framework for financial planning was only intended as an aide to understanding the hierarchy of information (What supports what). I completely understand your frustration with respect to serving on the bylaw's committee and having the proposal rejected. Others feel the same way. (Same with the SAC) I think it is important to have a process in place that assures consistent high quality decisions are made. In this regard I am aligned with Gary Osier and his excellent article in the Independent. I cannot allow myself to be dragged into the gutter that Bill Pearson is trying to put me in when he makes vicious attacks and still be of value to the community. I still think he has the best interests of the community at heart even though we may disagree on how best to move forward into the future. Thanks for being engaged in the process!