Illuminating Paths for HHP Board of Directors Improvement
and the art of putting lipstick on a pig
In our very first issue, posted May 2nd, we were quite critical about the 2024 Resident Opinion Survey. We suggested the survey’s construction and language were biased, and we criticized the total absence of any option to actually articulate an opinion, even to log a brief comment. We agreed with an observation posted on Next Door — It does not appear that the board is actually interested in our opinions but rather interested in forwarding their individual agenda. We were especially critical of question # 26 asking us to rank capital improvement projects with absolutely no data on cost, timing or even scope of the projects (possible dog park?). Overall, we saw this as a relatively worthless exercise pretending to be significant and most likely constructed to validate decisions the Board and management have already made. Nevertheless, we all completed our respective surveys.
Imagine our surprise now, suddenly slathered in heartfelt gratitude and appreciation from the Board and management and confronted with our gross underestimation of the overarching power of this survey. It turns out that our “invaluable input” provided “crucial insights” guiding the Board and management to serve our “needs and aspirations.”
We have also, it seems, “illuminated paths for improvement” and “laid the foundation…..that will directly benefit our collective well-being.” Most importantly, “we can embrace the outcomes of the survey and harness its insights to propel us towards a future that aligns with our shared values and aspirations.” Wow! This is sounding like the most meaningful accomplishment of my life, maybe even deserving of a participation trophy and orange slice.
But we’re inclined to question whether such glorious results can possibly be birthed from a survey where our ranking of that one key issue — capital projects — was not based on under-girding information because none was provided. It’s clear that the Board will proceed with some version of a Plantation House – we’ll likely never know what the plan will be until it’s unveiled. But it’s interesting to review the history of that ominous 2024’s question #26 by comparing questions from the 2021 Resident Opinion Survey to see how we got here.
· Question #27 on the 2021 survey simply asked this yes or no question — Once the Dolphin Head Rec Area renovation project has been completed in its entirety, would you be in favor of replacing/renovating the Plantation House as the next Board-approved project? Of 1609 responses 1142, 71%, voted yes.
· The 2024 survey shaded this result by saying, The results of the 2021 Resident Opinion Survey designated the Plantation House to be the next Capital Improvement Protect to be considered. That’s not an altogether accurate reflection on what the 2021 survey said. The 2021 survey, as you have seen, offered no alternative choices.
· The 2021 survey also asked, in question #34, What other amenities/facilities would you be in favor of adding to the Plantation in the future? Pickleball courts were selected by 655 respondents, a dog park by 636, and a band shelter by 501.
It looks suspiciously like the developers of the 2024 survey, who clearly favor a Plantation House project, took their shaded interpretation of the 2021 yes-no question #27 along with the popularity of a dog park and band shelter to add a little flavor to 2024’s question #26 with the “possible dog park and/or band shelter” tease to help us recognize our “needs and aspirations” for a new or renovated Plantation House. Not surprisingly, more residents selected the Plantation House as their first choice for replacement/renovation with almost 42% of respondents rating it their favored.
We did notice something else relevant in the 2021 survey that apparently did not seem to provide any “crucial insights” to the developers of the 2024 survey or to the dampen Board/management bias for a new Plantation House project.
· Question # 26 of the 2021 survey asked, Do you feel the SL (Spring Lake) Tennis facility adds value to your property? An impressive 80% answered “yes.” In fact, the same question has been asked and answered “yes” by more than 80% of respondents on every Resident Opinion Survey since 2012 (not included in 2024). Hmmm – residents overwhelmingly value the Spring Lake Recreation Area Sports Complex.
This question from 2021 (and 2018, 2015 and 2012) might have stimulated the Board’s and management’s attention to the Spring Lake tennis facility, specifically the addition of the pickleball courts favored by 46% of respondents as a desired amenity on the 2021 survey. And the Board/management may have also noticed, at some point in their budgeting and auditing activities, that the Spring Lake Tennis facility apparently actually makes money – exactly $116,467 on $389,656 revenue against $273,199 in expenses as detailed in the audited 2023 Statement of Financial Position!!
Imagine, if you will, that the 2024 survey had presented the Spring Lake capital project option, which most respondents ranked third, as one having ongoing income-producing potential, enhancing community property values by expanding the Spring Lake facility and satisfying 2021’s survey result pegging pickleball as a desired amenity. Is it possible or likely some residents may have made a different decision on which project might best promote our “collective well-being,” opting to elevate a project that will likely pay for itself over time? Isn’t this the sort of information that should be extracted from tri-annual surveys? Has our Board even considered this financial angle, or how residents value the Spring Lake facility, or how many respondents in 2021’s survey expressed having pickleball courts as an amenity? How would we know?
I should be perfectly clear that our group has no universal objection to a project replacing or renovating the Plantation House. Our objection, as always, is in having no information about cost, timing or scope for any of the projects, the manner the entire survey was structured and the clear bias for the Plantation House option. Maybe the bias for the Plantation House project is because the Board/ management is anxious to finally have a Board Meeting room with space for association members (you and me) to attend meetings and the technology for live-streaming its meetings? Probably not.
In fairness, it is easy to be critical of our Board and management operating in darkness, and we’ve already explained how a customary perpetuation of this system through the nominating committee and Board elections works. But the more difficult truth is that we have settled for this system of closed governance long enough to allow it to go somewhat unnoticed and appear normal. Our readers often express surprise at the little inconsistencies we identify, and it genuinely seems that our elected representatives can’t even visualize what openness and transparency might look like even as they claim it as an ongoing goal. Remember the recent decision against setting up individual email accounts for Board members we detailed in a previous post? We’re going to keep trying to leverage some changes to this fossilized system, but there will be much resistance so we’ll need your help.
We’ve been told that the best way to communicate with the Board is to use the one-size fits all email address that includes Peter. I sent an email on June 17th. After not receiving a response, I dropped off a hard copy for Carlton Dallas two weeks later. . . Still nothing. Crickets. . . .
HHP will never have PB as long as the current board and GM are in place. I know for certain that the decision to not have PB was made long before this survey was sent out. I told people what the solution was back with the STR vote. You are spitting into the wind.