By Former Board Director, Frank Leeming, April 13, 2020
POA board wrestles over job descriptions, spending authority and fiscal policy at work session
The new board of directors continued its campaign today to regain control of the Property Owners’ Association by wrangling with staff over language outlining various duties.
Tension focused on a proposed job description for the POA treasurer. For the first time, the new board has named a treasurer – Dan Aylward – who is not a staff employee.
CEO Lesley Nalley expressed fear a non-staff treasurer would interfere with POA employees, particularly with CFO Liz Mathis. She wants to ensure the separation of duties. and that the treasurer’s actions do not interfere with future audits.
Aylward said the treasurer should be able to have access to all POA records.
The meeting debated the proposed “unencumbered access” language.
Director Tucker Omohundro said the language should be simplified so it says the treasurer should be given access to whatever information he wants, and if he is denied, he can come back to the full board. This approach is likely to be adopted at next Wednesday’s regular monthly meeting.
Board chair Diana Podawiltz said the board needs to know what reports are currently being gathered by staff so it can determine which ones it wants to see.
Changes proposed in the job description for board chair and vice-chair will not be adopted. At Chuck Alvord’s request, the POA’s attorney will be asked about defining the board/corporate secretary’s duties. He grappled with Podawiltz on the secretary’s duties. Like the new treasurer, this board has appointed a non-staff person to be its secretary.
“Not everyone knows what the secretary is supposed to be doing,” Diana said. “That’s why I’d like to see it spelled out.”
That may work for this board, Alvord said, but the next board may want the role changed and then the bylaws would have to be changed again.
Nalley, who attended the meeting remotely, agreed with Alvord.
In the end, the board agreed the language should be left alone, and more detail could be spelled out elsewhere. To see the proposed job descriptions, click here.
* * *
The board next turned to procurement and contract policies. There has been criticism about earlier boards giving Nalley too much authority – the power to approve purchases up to $50,000 without board approval. Nalley pointed out that power is spelled out in her contract.
Podawiltz said “a lot of things have changed” since her contract was approved.
It would be “dangerous” to “take that responsibility away from staff,” Nalley told the board.
Podawiltz said spending control is ultimately the board’s responsibility. To see the proposed procurement policy, click here.
“We need to get a better handle on our finances,” Omohundro said.
Treasurer Aylward, who often spoke so softly he could not be heard, suggested a limit of $10,000 would give the board an opportunity to review more spending before it takes place.
Mathis said all purchases and work orders for more than $10,000 are put out for bid. She said her staff works hard to get the lowest prices.
* * *
When discussion turned to a proposed new fiscal policy, Mathis agreed it was a good idea to consolidate the many policies.
Podawiltz pointed out everything revolves around finances and the budget. Rebuilding the Balboa Golf Course is a perfect example, she said. “This is something we have to deal with,” she asserted.
The directors emphasized the importance of transparency and timely reporting of financial information.
To see the financial policy the board was discussing, click here.
The POA’s new Finance and Planning Committee has its first meeting at 4 p.m. tomorrow. It will be broadcast on the POA’s YouTube channel – Click here.
* * *
The last two work sessions have given property owners the best opportunity in years to see their government in operation. The meetings, which have been “attended” by between 150 and 200 viewers, have shown a good give and take between directors and staff as they drive toward a consensus.
* * *
If you’re keeping track, the number of new coronavirus cases reported in Arkansas rose on six of the last 14 days. Governor Asa Hutchinson said last month Phase One of re-opening the state should not begin until there were 14 consecutive days of declining numbers. His plan was based on federal guidelines.
By Former Board Director, Frank Leeming, May 13, 2020
Click here to sign up for Frank’s email list.
***
Editor’s note: Thank you for reading. Click here to go to the home page to bookmark this website so you don’t miss any updates.
Click here to visit our Private Facebook Group.
|
Julie
05/13/2020 — 8:40 pm
The little “ceo” should not be permitted to spend another dime of our money.
Linda
05/14/2020 — 9:38 am
Agreed
Robert Busse
05/14/2020 — 8:51 am
I like the idea of the BOD taking back a significant amount of control and knowledge about the spending of our money. $50,000 may not be much in today’s world, but when it is scarce and things are getting put off or not done because of insufficient funds, the BOD certainly should have some say and knowledge of spending. Glad to see they are taking back a lot of involvement in the way our precious dollars are being spent.
Jim Bryan
05/14/2020 — 9:08 am
I appreciate the BOD making oversight of financial activities a priority.
It is my hope Ms. Mathis’ comment regarding her staff working hard to get the “lowest prices” was a misspeak and what she really meant was they work to get the “best value” for the Village.
It is well known the lowest price doesn’t necessarily provide the product or service desired. I previously battled with a procurement organization that didn’t understand that I didn’t want “cheap”, I wanted “value”.
The financial policy is well thought out and should lead us to a fiscally stable future. The necessary oversight and controls assure we don’t waste or spend beyond our means.
Andy Kramek
05/14/2020 — 9:24 am
Wow! The degree of pushback was unbelievable. The question is, was any of it justifiable?
I confess I can’t see why someone having read-only access to financial data would have any affect on audits. By definition ‘read-only’ means that nothing can be changed.
Why is the CEO always going on about her “contract”? Spending limits are not part of an employment contract – they are a matter of Corporate Policy not a condition of employment!
Not sure where Mr Alvord is coming from either. He seemed to have some serious issues with what the other members of the Board were proposing in several areas – not least the job descriptions.
All in all, a little frustrating, and a bit worrisome. Clearly the “staff” are determined to continue their opposition to anything resembling change and show little sign of willingness to work with the Board.
Something has to give, and soon. Either the Board has to back down or the Staff have to get on board (no pun intended). Given the clear mandate for change that the new Board had from property owners it had better not be the former!
Richard W.
05/14/2020 — 9:31 am
I am hoping that our new BOD has plans, secret or otherwise, to remove Lesley Nalley from her CEO position. And when I say “remove” I mean terminate her employment contract with the result being no association with Hot Springs Village whatsoever. The timing of her removal is particularly relevant to any request by our Leadership to increase HSV monthly assessments. If we need to wait another year – so be it. But no assessment increases until she is GONE!
Let me be absolutely clear about my intent: Not one dime, not one supportive vote for ANY assessment increase until Lesley Nalley is history.
NOT ONE DIME!
Tom Blakeman
05/14/2020 — 4:59 pm
Seems to me the question is whether or not the board, right now, has the 6 votes needed to terminate ceo as required by the terms of her contract. Tom Blakeman
Linda
05/14/2020 — 9:40 am
Agreed
Lorri Street
05/14/2020 — 7:28 pm
I concur with you Tom. IMHO we may NOT have 6 unified Board members to oust Nalley. I say this with a bit of background insight on the current Board members…with the exception of Dick Garrison. I personally have some reservations about Chuck Alvord. Again…just my opinion.
Andy Kramek
05/15/2020 — 9:11 am
Yes, Lorri, I have the same doubts as you. Feels like there may not be the necessary 6 votes for terminating the CEO. Especially since Mr Alvord, during the work session, seemed to be at odds with the others on several of the topics. I was surprised when he was appointed as I had always thought he was, at least, tacitly pro-CMP. However, I am sure the Board did their research so I am probably incorrect. Possibly their leaving the 7th seat empty for now was to give time to see how things shake down. They still have the opportunity to bring another person on to the Board.
PS: Thank you, Joe, for adding the opportunity to edit posts after they are visible.
Moe
05/14/2020 — 7:34 pm
Any board member who thinks the little “ceo” should stay should not be on the board.
Period.
kilroy
05/15/2020 — 5:48 am
“My CONTRACT, “My CONTRACT” Is this a governing document too? Might as well be the nameplate we put on her office door. Are we to forever going to be doing our HSV business around “My contract” Everything the board wants to do is a two step and a dosey doe around it.
Andy Kramek
05/15/2020 — 9:19 am
Agreed. This is a complete nonsense. I was amazed to hear that her $50,000 spending limit is “in my contract”. That is total nonsense! Spending limits for Officers are not conditions of employment, they are matters of Corporate Policy and are always subject to change and revision by the Board. Makes me wonder if this fabled contract is actually legal. Some of the things that are, apparently, in it are clearly well outside the bounds of normal business practice.
steve bylow
05/15/2020 — 8:22 am
Thanks for the last two articles. In my opinion it is great that BOD and POA are asking great questions and challenging one another – the fact that folks don’t agree does not bother me.
The fact that the new BOD has been very aggressive but not reckless is impressive.
The fact that the new BOD are now the active decision-makers with excellent legal counsel is reassuring.
Steve
Tom Blakeman
05/15/2020 — 4:58 pm
4:57 pm. Waiting patiently for the Friday late afternoon POA eblast. Hoping it includes notice of ceo termination. Will I be disappointed, again?
Tom Blakeman
05/15/2020 — 5:57 pm
Just got the E-Blast. . . . You guessed it!
Still clinging to hope. Regular BOD meeting next week. Maybe. . .
EX-Corporate Manager
05/17/2020 — 8:38 am
I’m as eager as anyone to see Lesley Nalley removed from office. However, no one is asking the very pertinent question of “how much will it cost us?”
I would require definitive dollar amounts before making any attempt to remove her. Simply put, if it’s too expensive, then let the Board show its spine and relegate her to a windowless office and let her serve out her time. Then simply do not renew her contract and send her packing.
This is not rocket science. It’s simply a matter of economics and informed financial planning.
We have a Board now that appears to be “taking control.” That’s what we really need and if Lesley must remain with us for another year, let it be a financial decision, not one of emotion.
Andy Kramek
05/17/2020 — 9:47 am
Actually I asked that very question, just over 10 days ago in my article here:
https://hotspringsvillagepeople.com/andys-back-writing-again/
Gene Garner gave some very insightful answers and estimated the range of costs.
However, the big issue remains her, apparently cast-iron, contract that lays down in minute detail her duties, spending limits, and specifically blocks any change of any sort unless she agrees to it. So if, by “taking control’ you mean that the Board could somehow diminish Ms Nalley’s role, control or power, without first breaking her contract, I fear you may be mistaken.