Lloyd Sherman Responds to Tom Blakeman’s, “A New Plan for HSVPOA”
Editor’s note: Lloyd’s article is uploaded below as a pdf for your convenience. You may also wish to refer to and/or download “A New Plan for HSVPOA” by Tom Blakeman. Tom’s article can be found by clicking here.
Additionally, in Mr. Sherman’s response, he also refers to his article regarding Discovery Packages, titled, “The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.” Click here to read this article.
* * *
Lloyd Sherman’s Response to Tom Blakeman’s , ‘A New Plan for HSVPOA’
Click on the arrows at the top of the pdf to enlarge the document.
By Lloyd Sherman, December 10, 2020
Response-to-New-Plan-by-Lloyd-Sherman-12-10-20* * *
Thank you for reading. Be sure to bookmark this website. Click here to visit the Hot Springs Village People Facebook Group.
Elmo Wiggins
12/11/2020 — 7:10 am
Thank you for your dissection of Tom’s plan. Tom has given HSV some very good ideas and the board (GM) should entertain some discussion regarding their value.
What doesn’t make sense, and is woven into most of your (Lloyd Sherman’s) post board writings/comments, is the concept of you and the “board majority” differing on basic issues. For property owners to fully understand this board, its machinations and what we should vote for in future elections, we need to know what happened and why.
When you were elected to the board it was LTD (Lloyd, Tucker and Dick), plus Diana currently seated. This appears to be a majority. You obviously had discussions prior to the election/seating to develop your plan. You had to have discussed (1) changing to a new law firm. (2) eliminating the CEO. (3) ending the CMP. (4) seating Marci and Dan Aylward as Secretary and Treasurer. (5) the hiring strategy and then actual job offer for a new GM; as well as many other issues facing the new board on day one.
What went wrong and why? Who changed and moved away what you all had agreed upon and why? This is more valuable information for Villagers to understand. Who should we trust (or not) and why?
Lloyd E Sherman
12/11/2020 — 1:39 pm
All I can say at this point is it wasn’t me that changed direction, but somewhere along the way and pretty much in conjunction with the hiring of the new GM, the change began and then escalated into the majority shifting. I believe the change was done unwittingly, and not intentional, but it was clear the direction was changing and I was now a minority as Diana was last year. I regret that I could not stay the course that many wish I should have, but my effectiveness had been compromised for several reasons. No need to complain about spilt milk as I am sure the majority doesn’t see it that way. I will continue to make myself available to anyone who wants to discuss what I see as the underlying issues, but trying to put them in writing will only result in more criticism and nothing will be resolved. Candidates who wish to hear what I have to say before they run or during their campaign are welcome to reach out to me and I will provide them with my unvarnished truth. However, I don’t believe the board now posses any real change agents and I quickly arrived at the same conclusion about our new hire, which I personally consider a mistake and not what the Village needed to fix the myriad of issues we have. This does not reflect badly on what he brings to the table, but he also does not know what he does not know. Until people who can be considered a subject matter experts are allowed to do deep-dives into every amenity and operation, not much is likely to change. That is not to say some areas won’t improve, but the overall problem will not be resolved until this is allowed to happen and it is incumbent on the board to make that happen. I do not see the appetite on this current board to make that happen and would be pleased to be proven incorrect.
Elmo Wiggins
12/11/2020 — 1:49 pm
Thank you!
Gene Garner
12/14/2020 — 2:38 pm
Lloyd, Step Four seems to indicate our only solution to the golf subsidy is increased play. Please tell us how many golf courses can we support with less than 20,000 residents in the 25 mile area around HSV. Keep in mind golf has lost many players in the last 10 years and the pandemic has drastically cut back on disposable income.—Gene
Lloyd E Sherman
12/15/2020 — 9:17 am
I am not a subject expert on golf and without spending time analyzing the metrics and recommendations of those who are, I don’t think we know how many are needed. The reality is we have excess capacity on our courses and the answer is to increase revenues. We can’t operational fix the golf problem. Repurposing a course might be an answer dependent upon what it was repurposed for but I’m pretty sure those living on a course will object to that avenue. We have a golf committee and three highly paid managers in golf and why they continue to not come up with answers is a mystery to me. From reading minutes of meetings it seems like information sharing instead of actual work to fix the issue. In fact, if you look at next year’s budget and after seeing increased revenues in golf this year and reduced costs, we project we will be back at a $2 million loss again next year. Somehow the logic of this escapes me. We have a revenue problem here to even support our ongoing operations, let alone the huge infrastructure backlog. This year I saw almost no appetite for even discussing revenue streams. Lack of attention to the revenue issue, combined with no appetite to ensure all amenities and operations are operating at optimal levels through independent “deep-dives” the Village will eventually be faced with alternative choices. It is not a matter of if, simply a matter of when. What has happened during the pandemic is a phenom and should not be counted on happening into the future.
Ray Lehman
12/16/2020 — 3:36 pm
Lloyd,
This is the first I’ve seen of Tom’s plan. I have a few observations on the plan and your comments.
STEP 4 Generate Significant New Revenue
As part of my discovery as the Chair of the Marketing Committee and liaison to the Golf Committee was the stunning “policy” of allowing players to bring their own food and beverages onto the courses. Why would any golf organization want to harm the income production of the restaurants on the courses? Who made that decision and why is it still in place. This needs to be fixed ASAP.
The Golf amenity is contributing financially this year and will continue to until we get past COVID. Folks are stuck at home restricted somewhat in the ability and desire to engage in other activities. Golf provides a much safer activity because of social distancing and it is outdoors. What happens when COVID is in the rearview mirror?? What changes are being implemented NOW to prepare for the certainty of reduced play?
STEP 5, 6, and 7 Marketing
The board approved my request to elevate the status of my Marketing Sub-Committee to a Board report committee. With that, a new Charter was written and is still in place that requires the Marketing Committee to “The purpose of the Marketing Committee is to assist and advise the HSVPOA Marketing Department in all aspects of internal and external marketing of the Village inclusive of the various amenities both current and future with the goal to increase revenue and ensure we both protect and enhance the reputation and recognition of Hot Springs Village. If for any reason, now or in the future, the Board wishes to cease and rescind this Standing Board Committee, the committee shall remain intact and fall back under the Finance & Planning Committee as a subcommittee thereof.”
On August 31, 2020, the Board of Directors sent to the Committees a letter titled Clarification of Committee Duties and Responsibilities. The letter was written in consultation with the BOD and the GM but without any input from the committee members themselves. In that letter, the BOD stripped the Marketing Committee and all other committees of their position of oversight of the various Property Owners Association departments and managers. In essence, making the committees defenseless and toothless in their interaction with the POA. As you recall all but one Committee Chair addressed the BOD with our concerns and asked the BOD to rescind the letter and reenter discussion including the BOD, the GM, and the Committee Chairs to resolve the issue. The BOD declined the Committee Chair request. This is the major reason I stepped down as the Marketing Committee Chair. Why volunteer my time when the purpose of the position has been neutered?
Lloyd, Based on your comments within Tom’s Plan it appears you were in the minority while the majority of the BOD stripped the POA oversight responsibilities from the Committees. The BOD announced today a decision made in a closed executive session the BOD members may no longer answer emails to the BOD without permission from the Chair and/or Vice-Chair. There were no comments on what drove this decision and what issues the decision fixed.
We are indeed returning to the policies of the previous management the oversight capabilities of the Committees. Today the board made another egregious
team.
Ray Lehman
Lloyd E Sherman
12/17/2020 — 6:04 pm
Ray – One of the many reasons that I stepped down and out was because a shift back to the POA was in full speed ahead. As you know, I have felt for a long time that committees are underutilized and we haven’t taken advice from subject matter experts. I was all in favor of making all committees board-level committees, who I thought was going to be accepted in their roles of helping the board ferret out information and provide recommendations. There is no way this work can be done at the board level and the board needs the assistance of the committees to get anything accomplished. However, Mr. King and it now appears several board members are asleep at the wheel, or just rolled over, and committees are being once again ignored. Then you have those who just use excuses like the board doesn’t know what the committees are doing. How lame of an excuse is that? So, yes we are headed back into exactly the same waters I thought we had sailed through and were now on smooth seas. No focus is really being given to “a revenue plan.” It certainly wasn’t a priority in the development of the budget, nor do I see an appetite, or even the ability, of anyone in a position to do something about it to even have a clue. I was saddened to see what started out as such a great year of change come to pretty much a screeching halt. Now the only “revenue plan” that appears to be on their minds is an assessment increase and good luck with that until some very basic issues are resolved. We need change agents and I don’t see any of those types available at this time.
Raymond Godfrey Lehman
12/17/2020 — 6:51 am
In an earlier message attached to this topic, I said the BOD established a new email policy in that BOD members may not respond to emails without approval from the Chair or Vice-Chair. Below is a clarificaton from Dick Garrison.
Mr. Lehman
The most misused words in HSV are “I heard.”
In trying to better respond the multitude of emails we receive as a BOD, we decided we needed a procedure that would insure three things:
1. The proper BOD member would respond. For example, if the question was of a golf nature, I should be the one to respond and inform the golf committee which I liaison if appropriate.
2. The second concern is that the respondent speak for the BOD as a whole and not individually.
3. And, lastly, responses were falling through the cracks because we thought others would respond and no one was responding.
The obvious solution was for the Chair or the Vice-Chair to assign the person to respond, a policy that we recently put into effect.
I take exception to your comment that the BOD is separating itself from the property owners.
I hope this answers your question.
Sent from my iPad
Dick Garrison
Lloyd E Sherman
12/17/2020 — 6:25 pm
I found the need to go into an Executive Session to deal with an issue of this nature to be somewhat puzzling. The position of the Chair has always to be the spokesperson for the board, and the Vice-Chair in his/her absence. With any chain-of-command also comes the option of delegation, so why the need for an Executive Session? Unless of course, members of the board were putting out bad or uninformed information. At any rate, it still seems odd to me. Mr. Garrison also took exception to and resented an email I sent through to the board where a voting member of the board leaked a memo I had sent only to the other five voting members of the board, about concerns I had with Mr. King’s performance, directly to Mr. King. Which offended me and should have been grounds for dismissal from the board. I received the most unacceptable chastisement and defense posture response from Mr. King to one of his bosses that would have gotten him immediately fired in the real world. That was the final straw for me. I now didn’t know who I could trust as no one admitted they had done it when it had to be one of the five remaining. Mr. Garrison was offended that I might suggest that he was the one who had done it. I only asked for that person to step forward. I singled out no one. So while it is necessary to have a procedure for who and how property owner input should be responded to and who should do it, it certainly didn’t take the action of an Executive Session to make what should already have been in place happen.
Mr. Denger was obviously fired up about something as he pressed the issue as to what else was discussed in the Executive Session. Ella was correct when she stated that only actions taken from an Executive Session are required to be disclosed. However, the other items discussed were revealed and I became even more perplexed. Why would discussions about a bonus for Mr. King be discussed? He best not have gotten one as that would have to be disclosed. He was not entitled to one and was told so during the interview and agreement phase of the negotiations. Why the need to discuss a strategic plan in an Executive Session? The entire need for the Executive Session smells of the days of old when only subjects involving “personnel issues” and “legal matters” were to be discussed behind closed doors but then any actions taken were to be shared with the property owners.
Raymond Godfrey Lehman
12/18/2020 — 6:43 am
The BOD has moved to the “days of old”. It is time to show up at the BOD meetings and ask pointed questions.
Tom Blakeman
12/18/2020 — 8:09 am
Yes, good idea. But if these are the new ”days of old” there will be no answers. Just like before.
Gene Garner
12/18/2020 — 12:04 pm
Does anyone still believe a Board of Directors, made up of Villagers, is an effective way to govern HSV? The resulting infighting, petty squabbles and lack of focus is expensive, time consuming and frustrating. We see this same sad story played out time and time again with different actors, as the Directors come and go. We Property Owners are the big losers because of this dysfunctional system, both financially and patience wise.
Instead how about a “true democracy” where all Property Owners have the chance to vote their opinions? I know many Villagers see this idea as radical but how much longer can we continue to waste our money and time with an idea that just doesn’t work?—Gene
Phil Lemler
12/19/2020 — 8:04 am
Gene – I agree that there should be an “electronic” voting method for Villagers and some large, impactful decisions (like the CMP) should be voted on by property owners. However, most marketing, operational and other decision-making should remain with people who have the experience and data to make sound decisions!
Gene Garner
12/19/2020 — 9:27 am
Phil I agree. The day-to-day operations should be handled by the people that have the experience/training and are doing the job now. I think most POA employees do an excellent job and deserve more credit than they get—they are not the problem.
The problems– the geothermal HVAC that didn’t work, the “Luxury RV Park that never materialized, the $6 million unneeded water plant expansion, the CMP, the CEO contract etc. were all implemented without Property Owner input. These money losing and unpopular decisions were approved and promoted by Boards that didn’t understand the basic questions or the “law of unintended consequences”.
If we could let the BOD know how we feel about these impactful and expensive decisions before they’re set in stone, they’d have another important ingredient to consider before making another possible misstep. It’s also possible that some of the Owners may have dealt with these situations before and could offer some insight to a solution.
Because of the secrecy that surrounds the BOD we don’t know what’s going on until the question has been decided. If we voted on a question, we’d be more inclined to support the final decision and less likely to blame the BOD if it didn’t work out.–Gene
Phil Lemler
12/19/2020 — 9:54 am
Gene – I agree!
Tom Blakeman
12/19/2020 — 5:19 pm
POA/BOD would likely buy Dominion voting machines. 🙃
Moe
12/19/2020 — 6:23 am
Am I wrong to feel like we are doomed?????
Phil Lemler
12/19/2020 — 8:05 am
Moe – you are only “doomed” to having to pay higher assessments!
Lloyd E Sherman
12/19/2020 — 6:07 pm
In the absence of revenue and marketing plans, the future does look bleak. Given the state of the environment the POA finds itself in, new rooftops are not going to solve the revenue issue we face. Also in the absence of a Board or GM without revenue and marketing plans, the fallback is to put it off on the property owners via an assessment increase. I don’t see this happening anytime soon because the reality is that many property owners don’t believe all that can be done, is being done.
IT IS WAY PAST TIME TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!
One concept I had planned on bringing to the table in 2021 was that of forming our own county. There are precedents for doing this in the US and it could well satisfy our revenue requirements for years to come. Of course, the counties of Saline and Garland would fight tooth and nail to ensure this didn’t happen. Estimates are that the Village contributes some $17 million a year to these counties through taxes, etc. Think what would happen if we now got those tax dollars back to fund our police, fire, etc. Of course, you could also accomplish this by converting to a municipality as Bella Vista has done, but the gates would need to come down and our roads would become public and that would create yet another level of bureaucracy to deal with. This in my estimation is not the answer as it destroys what makes HSV the place that it is.
We would obviously need guidance and direction through this process, but I believe the Rose Law Firm could help with that process.
So I suggest some of you out there start giving this some thought and help me pass the word and see if we can get some energy behind the concept of making the boundaries that form Hot Springs Village become its own county.
Gene Garner
12/20/2020 — 9:29 am
Lloyd, your idea is really “out of the box” and while it may be possible, it would require a lot of hard work and money to come to fruition.
One example of the red tape that’s involved is Arkansas Code Annotated §14-14-201, Title 14 Local Government, County Government, Boundaries, Power to change.
(a) The power to change county boundaries is inherent in the General Assembly, subject to express constitutional restrictions.
(b)
(1) No county now established shall be reduced to an area of less than six hundred square miles (600 sq. mi.) nor to less than five thousand (5,000) inhabitants; nor shall any new county be established with less than six hundred square miles (600 sq. mi.) and five thousand (5,000) inhabitants.
(c) No part of a county shall be taken off to form a new county, or a part thereof, without the consent of a majority of voters in the part to be taken off.
In other words to form a new county requires the approval of the General Assembly and a new county has to be at less 600 square miles (384,000 acres) in size with 5,000 or more inhabitants with a majority of the new inhabitants approving the formation.
Since all of Arkansas’ land is located in established counties, to form a new county requires taking land from Garland and Saline Counties—which might meet some opposition since they will be losing a significant revenue source.
I’m sure there’s more involved than the above and Rose Law can advise the BOD of the other problems, but just a casual search reveals it’s a very complicated operation.—Gene
Tom Blakeman
12/20/2020 — 3:03 pm
Complicated and expensive or not it is still a great idea. I’m sure the AR General Assembly has approved many more less obviously valid ideas and plans than this one. The real end game for us of course is simple repatriation of all or most of those property tax dollars going out our door. Perhaps the two counties would like to repatriate 2/3 of their windfall every year rather than fight us and run the risk of losing 100%. But if we don’t make an attempt we are guaranteed to keep getting zero. “The way we’ve always done it”.
Keith Keck
12/20/2020 — 9:44 pm
Lloyd/Tom,
For reference. In 2019, HSV property owners in Saline County paid the following property/personal property taxes to County Operations:
1) County General: $1.036M
2) County Road: $622K
3) County Library: $352K
TOTAL: $2.010M
The remaining $8M in property/personal property taxes collected by Saline County was for Fountain Lake and Jessieville Schools.
I do not have the exact figures for Garland County taxes; however I would expect the majority (80%) of the property/personal property taxes collected went to schools.
Tom Blakeman
12/21/2020 — 7:35 am
Seems to me that as a private county HSV ought to be able to educate 500 kids for less than $18 million or whatever that 80% number is between Garland and Saline. $36,000 per student is pretty high.
Lloyd E Sherman
12/21/2020 — 1:17 pm
Sure Gene, go ahead and confuse the issue with facts. That is not permitted in the Village! LOL
Tom Blakeman
12/20/2020 — 11:18 am
The county secession idea has great merit. Money wise it is our only real solution. But I’d go even farther. Some thoughts:
1. First we need a board of directors that truly takes back the day to day 100% control of the POA – and keeps it. Until that happens nothing else can occur.
2. Then the board needs to do away with all the dysfunctional bylaws, rules, oaths, policies, etc. which handcuff board members, prevent their expression of dissension, allow staff to plead “interference”, allow broad members to kick other members off the board or allow employees to bring ‘grievances’ against the board, etc. The only way a board member should be removed is by a referendum of the property owners.
3. Next is a total reorganization of our structure. The board needs to be expanded to 9 or 11 members each of whom is paid a stipend and has a direct hands-on, day-to-day Village management responsibility. Each would have control of a POA function, e.g, Treasurer-Finance-Accounting, Golf, Human Resources, Marketing, Legal & Real Estate, Information Technology, Recreation, Public Utilities, Procurement & Contracts, Engineering & Projects, etc. Each would also have a dual role with a specific village constituency, e.g., At Large, (probably a few of these) West Side, East Side, Non-Resident, Townhomes/Condos/Timeshares, Commercial, maybe some others. This would then be a real working board elected for their skill sets and by their specific constituency. The board President (forget this ‘Chairman’ BS) would replace the GM and would actually be elected to this position – by the property owners – along with the Vice President and all the others. And the short cycle, revolving door system needs to also be replaced. Terms need to be lengthened and consistent. Every year elections needs to go away along with the 1,2 and 3 year terms they perpetuate. How about one election every 2 years, with 4 year terms.
4. Concurrently most of the currently existing and dysfunctional committees, many filled with perennial retreads and having virtually no authority need to be scrapped. Those that remain must only exist for a finite purpose with an expiration date and have some authority, more of an ad hoc Task Force type thing. Example: Create a Secession Task Force. Other task forces would only exist if the function Director (e.g., Marketing) or Board President wanted one to help with a specific need. And the majority of the board agreed.
5. If you think about it, the structure I propose would be much more like traditional county governments and much less like a corporation. And we all know our so-called not for profit corporation model isn’t working.
Tall order. All of it. The county secession and my proposed structure re-formation (most of it anyway) would require a property owner vote. I can’t wait for the nay-sayers and Deep Village status quo proponents to shoot arrows and call me an arm chair quarterback. Or worse.
Elmo Wiggins
12/21/2020 — 6:44 am
Tom – the problem is we can’t find board members (Item #1) that are capable of doing (item # 2-5). Secondly, some (this post and in your 40 page plan) of your suggestions (not all) are operational “train wrecks”. By the way, I am not a nay-sayer or “Deep Village”. I congratulate you on your continual attempts to inject a new strategy into HSV. It is just that some of your ideas look good on paper but in the real world are not functional. Please keep trying! I think we should get a firm handle on deferred maintenance, raise assessments to what they need to be and re-organize Village management with a board and POA operational structure that makes sense; and implement a marketing program that works! Just my opinion!
Tom Blakeman
12/21/2020 — 7:23 am
Elmo, any idea that isn’t pursued is only an idea. Items 1-5 would work if they were not just discarded out of hand by those who simply don’t have the vision and will to implement them. The only proven operational train wreck we can quantify is our current system.
BTW, most of my 40 page paper was fact based and most every example does work in other places, just not here. Reason is that we have no one willing to make it happen. It is just so much easier to keep on doing what has been failing for 40 years and cry for money in assessments and fees.
Elmo Wiggins
12/21/2020 — 7:46 am
Tom – as I stated “I congratulate you on your continual attempts to inject a new strategy into HSV”. The problems are that the strategy has to make sense and be realistically feasible. Yours is not!
For example, your suggestions that the POA board actually “manage” the Village with the President/Chairman as GM. REALLY?
You have a succession of “Chairpersons” who were completely incapable of acting as GM. You have a list of board members (go back as many years as you would like) who were (as a group) too inexperienced to manage HSV or even individual departments.
My God, the last couple of board get togethers they spent most of the time arguing over whether having staff investigate deferred maintenance was “research” or “process”. Then the talks stalled at who will notify board members of election results. And, there was “should staff members on committees get to vote”. You cannot operate HSV with this kind of organizational inexperience where we beat around insignificant (in the grand scheme) issues and get nothing done. I mean “Buddy’s Buffet” and “Keeping the lights on” are at the top end of the typical board’s capabilities. The Village will continue to elect board members (whether or not you elect 9 or 11 and even pay them) who have good ideas but no experience.
This, Tom, is a train wreck!
John Szczepaniak
12/20/2020 — 2:06 pm
I agree that nothing much will change ( except assessments) unless there is a massive change as Tom suggests. However, I see a greater chance of a snow storm in July then any of his ideas get accepted or implemented.
Moe
12/24/2020 — 6:17 am
Sadly I think John is right. Nothing is going to change. Incompetence abounds. Politics abounds. Insanity abounds.
Accept that this is what we are.
Absent some dramatic event, nothing will happen that will improve HSV. Nothing.
Sad but true.
I am depressed and saddened by the ineptitude of our board and many of the POA employees.
None of this is rocket science, and yet, it seems as though none of these people can figure out what to do.
Methinks it is time to move on.
Elmo Wiggins
12/24/2020 — 7:26 am
The HSV management model is broken. Think about it, 90%+ of all past board members have probably NEVER managed, directed or set responsibilities for a CEO/GM of a $50 million+ organization. We have middle managers, entrepreneurs, realtors and accountants who give the GM his/her “marching orders”, yet most (directors) are mired in the implementation whatever “good ideas” got them elected and the politics that anchor their philosophies. Don’t get me wrong, these are good people with good intentions but ill equipped to do the job.
Add to that, a myriad of ineffective committees (again good people, with good intentions in a bad structure) without clear objectives who are worthy but misused and a constituency of residents who voice their perspectives and opinions without the underlying data to understand what is transpiring.
The model is so broken, and dis-functional, that eventually directors attack each other or resign. The failing Village continues on for another year until the Villagers again elect more of their neighbors, well-intended with good ideas, but no experience. And. the insanity continues!
And, this broken management model moves on without specific and detailed plans.
We can raise assessments, become a municipality, become a county, close golf courses or whatever you want, but until we fix the management model, nothing will improve.
Eventually, the current GM will resign and the current group of directors (who have never managed or hired a GM/CEO for this size of entity) will hire another and so on!
RE-read Moe’s post. He is on to something!