2024 BOD Election: Time for Change – Let’s be real with facts!!!

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #4815
      rsfposter
      Participant

      Thanks for your perspective, and some background that is new to me, some thoughts here…

      • The PPP loan discussion has been hashed and rehashed to conclusion. It’s time to move on and especially since two of the Board Members in position when the Board was in power are part of that faction that constantly stirs the pot and friends of the authors.

      Agree

      • It should be noted that 100% of the Golf Course renovation was financed and paid for BY GOLF CLUB MEMBERS. Not a dime was paid by RSFA Members

      Agree

      • What has transpired from the renovation is a significant increase in the average home value in the Ranch compared to neighboring communities, an increase in transaction activity, an increase in the interest in joining the Golf Club.  The reason – Golf Course Renovation that no RSF Association Members paid for…

      Sure the renovation made for a more attractive course, but correlation is not always causation with regard to Covenant home values and transactions vs competing areas like Fairbanks, Crosby, etc. Can you share specific granular data? The ‘new members’ section of The Divot is quiet over the last year so don’t get the sense there is a sustained boost in membership from the renovation.

      • Member Assessment rate increase has been documented for months!! It had been at 14c for years. Anyone heard of “inflation”?

      The total assessment = property value X rate. The property values and resulting revenue to the Association have increased as a result of inflation, so inflation is already reflected in the property values. Any base rate increase needs to be justified by reasons other than inflation.

      • It should be noted that over 40% of the revenue at the restaurant is from Non Golf Club Members… Why should all the loses of this community benefit be solely borne by the golfers?

      Agree it’s a community asset, though given over 60% of members are non golf the 40% of revenue is low, which I guess is expected in the sense that a number of restaurant bookings are after golf rounds, so golf members will over index.

      • OD Scott Thurman, golf club member, repeatedly states in all BOD meeting of his fiduciary responsibility being to the RSFA ahead of the Golf Club. To the surprise of many at the Golf Club he was the one passing a motion during a BOD Meeting to reduce a planned contribution on Restaurant Losses by the RSFA which had been proposed at $500K to $300K. Director Gamboa has taken several stances that are RSFA first over Golf Club first even though he is a Golf Club Member.

      Thanks for pointing this out. I’m glad to hear Thurman and Gamboa have very clearly put their RSFA interests first but I’m dismayed the other golf member directors haven’t been more clear and overt about their fiduciary duty to RSFA wide interests first. I hope golf member candidates this year make a pledge on fiduciary duty to RSFA wide interests first.

      Overall I think the tone of Golf President Neal in his Divot columns and other public communication is divisive and aggressive.

      His personal jab at a member who chose to circulate a petition wasn’t professional and turned me from being agnostic to wanting more explicit fiduciary commitments to RSFA wide interests.

      Just call out an opinion on the petition, not the member.

      Fact is RSFA Golf Club is not a traditional private club given its intertwining with a broader HOA and community where a majority are not golf members. So there is a built in conflict that puts otherwise well meaning residents against each other on certain issues.

      Personally my opinion is softening up the rhetoric against allowing non golf members some limited access to golf would go a long way to mending fences.

      Take a data and open fact driven look at limited access for non golf members as a way to increase golf club revenue and profit to further reinvest in the club. That’s probably not full reinstatement of 6 and 12 packs a la 2018, but there’s ground in between.

      If the club is accepting tee times from Inn at RSF guests (which by the way competes with the club restaurant), there must be a viable way to allow RSFA members to have some transparent, limited access to the course. That broader access might also help with restaurant profitability and support of the golf club.

       

       

       

       

      • This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by rsfposter.
      • This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by rsfposter.
    • #4814
      TruthInRSF
      Participant

      It is quite saddening to have a communication vehicle who claims to be serving the whole community (the RSFPost) be so biased and let “fake news” be published without constraints. Insane!

      Let’s just start by highlighting two key facts:

      1 – Why would the editor of the RSF Post publishes a series of articles that are definitely pointed the day before Board and Candidate Forums and take the extra step to alert the entire community of the existence of these articles vs. letting RSFA members discover them on their own? The editor knows that no one would go to the Post on such a short time span so traffic needs to be driven there. Could we call this “Election Interference” since the authors of the article are clearly advocating voting for non Golf Club Members (who by the way are first and foremost RSFA Members…)?

      2 – The “Editor’s Note” comment:  I encourage golf club members who may — or may not — have an alternative point of view to share it with the RSF Post to ensure readers receive a balance of perspective – why specifically call out “golf club members”? Isn’t it a clear indication of bias? If it was not then the Editor should have shared “I encourage all Association Members who may – or may not…”

      Notwithstanding, since the Editors elected to turn off the ability for registered members to comment directly within the article the only “open” recourse is to create a forum thread or a counter article (and who knows if it will be timely published…).   I would suggest to the Editors to send a similar blast suggesting that comments have been made and the deadline to publish and article likely having passed then a Forum response was the only way to go. Even better, the Editor should place a link at the bottom of the article to reference this post.

      So, let’s talk about content and facts:

      • The PPP loan discussion has been hashed and rehashed to conclusion. It’s time to move on and especially since two of the Board Members in position when the Board was in power are part of that faction that constantly stirs the pot and friends of the authors.
      • It should be noted that 100% of the Golf Course renovation was financed and paid for BY GOLF CLUB MEMBERS. Not a dime was paid by RSFA Members… Furthermore, 100% of the expenses incurred were presented to the RSFA Finance Committee, the RSFA Board and approved at the Board level. What has transpired from the renovation is a significant increase in the average home value in the Ranch compared to neighboring communities, an increase in transaction activity, an increase in the interest in joining the Golf Club.  The reason – Golf Course Renovation that no RSF Association Members paid for…
      • Member Assessment rate increase has been documented for months!! It had been at 14c for years. Anyone heard of “inflation”?
      • With the Golf Club representing 46% of the revenue to the Association and by far the lion share of the contribution to bottom line results (the Golf Club being the best run asset of the Community), it seems reasonable that RSFA Members on the Board also be Golf Club Members and representation be proportionate to the contribution to the community, no? If not, think of a Board without any Golf Club Members that would vote to turning the whole thing into the “world’s biggest dog park” (which I think has been advocated by an author of the article). Would that further increase property value as the Golf Course renovation has?
      • The article talks about the losses at the Restaurant… Well, first of all it is NOT the “Golf Club Clubhouse”… It should be noted that over 40% of the revenue at the restaurant is from Non Golf Club Members… Why should all the loses of this community benefit be solely borne by the golfers? The article also complains that “RSFA Directors need to represent the entire membership” – well, BOD Scott Thurman, golf club member, repeatedly states in all BOD meeting of his fiduciary responsibility being to the RSFA ahead of the Golf Club. To the surprise of many at the Golf Club he was the one passing a motion during a BOD Meeting to reduce a planned contribution on Restaurant Losses by the RSFA which had been proposed at $500K to $300K. Director Gamboa has taken several stances that are RSFA first over Golf Club first even though he is a Golf Club Member. So let’s be real…
      • On the RSFA Restaurant Renovation… did you know that the Golf Club House Committee which had a seat at the table with the Association Staff on discussion about renovation has been kicked out of all involvement in the renovation discussions? Where is the nonsense that the Golf Club is driving the request? Are you aware that the Golf Club takes on the expense of maintenance of the RSFA building  and also covered the fumigation that took place?

      We could go on and on. It’s about time that

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.