By Cheryl Dowden, January 31, 2020
The cover-up of the Marketing Sub-committee Findings Report
This is the story of a document – a simple analysis of HSVPOA marketing efforts. The document below was the document written by the Marketing Subcommittee (MSC) and submitted to the Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (CMPAC), which refused to accept it as written. (To enlarge this document, click on the “pop-out” icon located at the top right of the document. To finish reading the rest of this article after viewing the “pop-out” hit your escape key or close the page.)
***
“Summary of Findings” of the MSC as submitted to the CMPAC
[embeddoc url=”https://hotspringsvillagepeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Summary-of-Findings-of-the-CMPAC-Marketing-Subcommittee-11.09.19-pa.docx” download=”all” viewer=”google”]***
Here’s the story
The MSC is a sub-committee of the HSVPOA CMPAC. The MSC began their work in May 2019 and their “Summary of Findings” report was ready for release and presentation at the CMPAC November 8, 2019, meeting. But they were not allowed to present.
On November 15, 2019, the MSC met with CMPAC Chair, Nikki Choyce to discuss why the presentation of their report had been disallowed. The reason, as you will see below, was attempted censorship.
Finally, on December 13th at the CMPAC meeting, Pam Avila (Chair of the MSC) submitted the original “Summary of Findings” report (previously held up) to the CMPAC.)
Key Elements of that November 15th meeting:
Sitting at the MSC meeting table were the following individuals: Chairperson Pam Avila; Secretary Nancy Ornelas; Committee Member Chuck Miller; and Committee Member Ray Lehman. Committee Vice-chair Dan Aylward attended via telephone conference. Board liaison was Director Buddy Dixon and Staff liaison was Chief Member Experience Officer (CMEO), Jamie Caperton. Excused absences were committee members Diane Bielanski and Chuck Alvord.
Also in attendance was newly appointed CMPAC Chair, Nikki Choyce. There were two separate issues discussed by CMPAC Chair Choyce.
- First, was the requirement of the MSC to submit their requests, reports, etc. through the CMPAC Chairperson.
- The second was whether the charter required a written report on the “Summary of Findings“.
MSC Charter requirements re: document submission/communication
Choyce acknowledged all the hard work of the MSC. She explained that she has only been chair of the CMPAC for three days and wanted to set the tone for what was going to happen.
Choyce suggested the MSC had some communication challenges and they would work on this issue.
Choyce stressed that she expected the MSC to submit all documents and communications through her. The MSC Charter specifically says under Limitations in Sections A and F that :
A. “The [Marketing] sub-committee shall work through the CMPAC to request information from staff or other committees...”
F. “Sub-committee members are not authorized to submit minutes or unofficial reports to anyone other than the CMPAC Chairperson.“
Was a written report necessary?
As previously stated, the second issue Choyce discussed was that she felt there was no reason to compile the written report titled, “Summary of Findings of the MSC“. According to Choyce, this was not a charter requirement.
Specifically, the charter says this:
B. “Be knowledgeable about past HSV marketing programs and their outcomes.“
C. “Be familiar with current HSV marketing programs.”
The MSC produced this summary because they felt this was the best means to reflect what they had learned about past and current marketing. Working diligently for three months, the MSC laid out their historical findings in this document. The MSC felt a written report was the best way to summarize the information.
Even though the present sub-committee members had knowledge of these findings, committee members often come and go. Future sub-committee members would also need to understand this background so past mistakes were not repeated. The only way to inform future sub-committee members of the findings of the sub-committee was to document the marketing history in a written report.
Choyce says MSC shouldn’t focus on the past
Choyce did not want the MSC to focus on past mistakes and said, “In terms of setting expectations about moving forward, I think that everything that has happened in the past… let’s call that done… focus forward…the tagline of the CMP is ‘Moving Forward Together.‘”
Choyce stated that the door should be closed on anything in the past “that was NOT favorably looked upon.“
Choyce further elaborated that the MSC should “focus on the issues and not people.”
Choyce warned MSC members that if they would not focus forward that, “Unfortunately, there is only one consequence that is available to me and that consequence is that if the direction of this committee doesn’t go…[forward], my only recourse is to dissolve this committee and I don’t want to go in that direction.”
Choyce shared, “I wish I had other options. But that is the only option I have open to me.”
Choyce stated that moving forward by working in a professional manner and with honesty and integrity is how she wished the committee to proceed in the future.
Chuck Miller said, “I think this committee maybe ruffled a few feathers because we wanted information. Without that information, we could not make suggestions based upon what we didn’t know.”
Miller elaborated, “My personal thinking is, we need to give you what we see. We need to tell you as we see it. We need to do it in that way. And that might not be what you want to hear. We don’t want to be somebody that is just doing what the Board or the CMP thinks we ought to do. We are here to give you ideas of what we think, as marketing people, should be done.”
Choyce stated, “But as marketing people, you know there are many ways that we can tell the story. And they are all versions of a truth. A truth. Okay.”
Choyce explained that ‘feather ruffling must be done in a respectful way and that is what we want to happen here.”
Miller said that he believed the report was respectful, but it was not accepted that way. [Staff had received informational copies of the report. Obviously they were not pleased with the document.]
Choyce explained that the intention of the report may have been respectful, but if it wasn’t perceived by the recipients as respectful that this was not harmonious and “then something needs to be worked on there.”
Choyce elaborated that because of the open meetings (public is allowed to view meetings) that, “We have a chain of command in terms of how information is going to be handled. And that is through me directly. And as long as it stays within that boundary, I think that we can control it.”
Miller: “I can say, having sat in the committee, that at no time did we ever submit anything that was to be detrimental. It was our recommendations, based upon what we found out or didn’t find out.”
Miller: “If that’s taken away from us, I don’t think we have a committee.”
Lehman: “I agree. I think the reverse direction is also appropriate, as well. Respect coming back to the Marketing Sub-committee… One of the places where we were not respected is in our effort to understand the marketing efforts and all that behind Ghidotti. We were told that Ghidotti is off the table and we are not to talk about Ghidotti. I felt that that is highly inappropriate since they are our marketing firm. Just wanted to find out what they are doing and how they are doing it and how they have been doing it. I think it is an important part of it, we were told.“
Ornelas said, “ …It wouldn’t have mattered if it was Ghidotti or Company ABC, or you know, ACME Brick. It didn’t matter. The perception was we were picking on…The reason why we were so intent on getting the information about the agency was so that when we moved forward with a new agency, we were not repeating some of the same mistakes.“
Vice-chair, Dan Aylward stated, “Our charter mandates us to provide to the CMPAC that document that goes through the history of marketing. What I am hearing today, I am not sure whether we are supposed to follow our charter or not.”
Aylward said, “If we are supposed to provide a summary of the history of the POA marketing, then we would provide that document to the CMPAC.”
Avila asked the sub-committee members at the November meeting if any further changes or adjustments needed to be made on the “Summary of the Findings” before they were submitted to CMPAC Chair Choyce.
Aylward stated, “I think its a fair representation of what has happened historically. I have some reservations about some of the comments of what is the current status because I am not sure that we know enough to be able to take a position on some of them. But, I think it is a fair representation of where we are.“
Avila stated she had previously sent the report to CMEO Jamie Caperton but the CMEO did not offer any input. Caperton said, “I am not going to add my comments.”
Miller asked if the negative comments about the POA’s marketing efforts were, “going to be acceptable for you to receive them, as such?”
Choyce said, “No, I want it focusing on the recommendations and the issues. Nothing related to people.”
Miller responded, “It has no people.”
Choyce said “I will be happy to take another look at it, but the feedback that I am getting is that there were inferences related to people, staff, etc.” Choyce again asked for the MSC to focus on “forward-thinking.“
Aylward said, “But our charter said that we were supposed to access and compile the history of marketing in the POA.“
Choyce disagreed saying there was nothing in the charter stating they had to submit a written report on historical findings; only that the committee be “knowledgeable so they can move forward.”
Avila said they chose to create a “Summary of Findings” because the charter did not specify. Avila explained, “This document and the findings, unless someone else in the Village has spent time going through that whole exercise that we spent all those months going through, this information isn’t available anywhere else in the Village, in the marketing department, on the Board, wherever. So this should serve as a benchmark for moving forward.”
Miller moved to submit the “Summary of Findings” to the CMPAC Chair Choyce.
Choyce stated this submission of the document would be only for review purposes.
Aylward asked, “Are we submitting it for review or are we submitting it as our document?”
Choyce said, “The protocol is that it would go for review and only when it has passed the review, then I open it up to the CMPAC to take a look.”
Choyce said, “I will be happy to take a look at it and we can see what the next, for review, but then I will let you know as a committee what [sic] we go from there.”
Avila, “Is that fair?”
Ornelas stated, “So just to cut to the chase then… We want to submit it. You’re going to look at it. You’re going to make some recommendations on how to maybe make it a little bit less, if its feelings. And then you are going to communicate that back to Pam as to what maybe needs to change. But we as a committee really feel like the information is valuable and it needs to be seen.”
Choyce explained, “And when its in its proper form and finalized, then I am happy to go up [she was referring to submitting this document to the CMPAC Committee and then the Board of Directors]. Until then, let’s cut and consider it in the review status.”
Aylward disagreed, “If the committee feels its in its proper form, so what you are saying is we have to self-censor what we are saying so that it doesn’t necessarily represent what we believe.“
Choyce said, “No, I am not saying you have to self-censor. I am saying that it has to be…I am not going to say that you can’t do what you want, which is where [sic] I think that you are saying. But you have to have an honest point of view. But that honest point of view needs to be unbiased and it needs to be factual in terms of the issue, not the people. That is what I am going to be looking for.”
Aylward replied, “I think it is unbiased. I feel it is pretty unbiased.”
MSC Chair Avila said, there is nothing they can do about the past and “It is behind us. We need to move forward because it is not going to change. So our view has to be a forward view at this point. And we probably learned a couple of good lessons from that experience that will affect the way we move forward, I think. But it is important that we stop thinking about that; we stop talking about it, because we can’t do a damn thing about it. That is the reality.”
What is the status of the report?
Choyce “reviewed the “Summary of Findings” and made very significant changes to the document. At their December workshop, the Choyce version was presented to the MSC as the “acceptable” version of the Summary. The MSC unanimously voted to reject the Choyce version as not reflective of their body of work nor their marketing expertise and experience. At the December CMPAC meeting, Avila submitted the MSC-approved “Summary of Findings” to the Chair. During the January 10, 2020 CMPAC Meeting MSC Chair Avila inquired of Choyce about the status of the “Summary of Findings“.
This question was not answered. Instead, Choyce talked about the status of another report.
At the end of CMPAC Meeting, a guest commenter asked the same question:
The guest said, “I don’t think we heard an answer to the question Pam asked on the status of the Marketing committee’s “Summary and Finding Report“.
Choyce: “We discussed that at the last meeting. Where we left it at that point, there was some resistance and I said resubmit it to me. I have not seen the resubmission. So who’s ball court? Is that in my court or is that in your court?”
In actuality, the CMPAC had received the MSC Findings but refused to let them be formally submitted at their November 8 meeting. A few days after that meeting Choyce advised the MSC Chair that the MSC Findings were not acceptable and she had re-drafted them. The MSC unanimously rejected Choyce’s version as not reflecting the MSC’s work or a true picture of past marketing. At the December 13 CMPAC meeting, the MSC Chair managed to formally submit the MSC Findings to the CMPAC with no comments or discussion. Although the CMPAC had the findings since early November, Choyce claimed at the January 15 Board meeting that the CMPAC had not received them.
Board Director also asks about Marketing Report
Additionally, this issue was also discussed by Director Podawiltz at the January 15, 2020 Board Meeting:
“I would like to ask about the Marketing Sub-committee report. I was under the impression that this committee would also be reporting their findings and their work effort and their work product to us, the Board. But yet, we’ve never seen any of that.”
Choyce responded, “As a sub-committee of the CMPAC, if you would like information, then you may go to the chair of that committee and I will help you get whatever information you want from one of our sub-committees.”
The MSC worked diligently on this report for about three months previous to submitting it to the CMPAC Chair. During the November MSC meeting, there was talk of censoring and changing the report. Choyce did not want the MSC’s findings to be submitted to the Board as they originally were written but instead wanted changes made to the report. There seems to be a swirl of confusion surrounding the status of the “Summary of Findings“.
Thank you for reading. Please comment and let us know what you think about this situation. Be sure to bookmark this site so you don’t miss any updates.
By Cheryl Dowden, January 31, 2020
Click here to check out our Private Facebook Group
Tom Blakeman
01/31/2020 — 6:05 pm
Talk about a COVER-UP!
The “Summary of Findings” report of the MSC makes it crystal clear that as we have all suspected our POA Leadership has been failing us for many years now and wasting untold millions of our assessment dollars in the process. Let me summarize just a few of the highlights:
* (Ads Placed) ‘failed to deliver effective marketing messages’
* ‘people who did not understand the audience were making decisions’
* ‘lack of directional consistency’
* ‘people with little or no marketing experience directing marketing
dollars’
* ‘performance of the agencies used in the past appears questionable’
* ‘no solid means of measuring effectiveness’
* (Discovery Program) ‘not showing itself to be a major sales
conduit’
* ‘lack of direct and e-mail marketing’
* (Social Media) ‘a significantly under-developed opportunity’
* ‘only very limited use of any type of analytics in the past’
Not a very flattering report of history. The Bottom Line is that Nikki Choyce and whatever POA staffers were involved Did Not Want Us To Know The Truth.
Truth often hurts but as Jack Nicholson once said “you can’t handle the truth!” Or at least that’s what the apparent motive which was behind delaying and delaying the report. She (they – POA) couldn’t or didn’t want to have to handle it. Can you guess why?
Of course you can. Or, as Nikki said “. . . they are all versions of a truth.” She (they) just wanted the version she (they) wanted told.
And now, we have Nikki Choyce who thinks she should be on our Board of Directors. What “versions of a truth” do you think we will get from her if elected?
Frank Leeming
01/31/2020 — 6:06 pm
Another outstanding job of reporting by Cheryl Dowden.
The marketing subcommittee’s professional summary of its findings is an indictment of the POA’s woeful marketing program and wasted funds in recent years. No wonder the POA brass has instructed CMP chair Choyce to bury the summary so property owners can’t see what’s going on.
This fiasco is the latest reason why the POA needs a standing Marketing Committee reporting directly to the board of directors.
A professional marketing program may be the Village’s most pressing need if we are to escape our growth doldrums and achieve our potential. We have great marketing talent in the Village and it should be used to help guide the program.
Chuck Alvord
01/31/2020 — 6:27 pm
The “Summary of Findings of the HSVPOA Marketing Committee” is a consultant-grade report that could have cost tens of thousands of dollars. The Marketing Committee did it for free and Choyce and POA Management don’t want it released. It totally explains why HSV marketing has been a flop. Read it fully if you haven’t.
Lloyd Sherman
01/31/2020 — 6:30 pm
This revelation can’t come as a surprise to anyone watching the antics of the POA in the past several years. This discovery is nothing short of censorship, combined with the apparent intent to not improve our revenue situation. How can you see it as anything other than that?
The RFP to generate the CMP was hidden from us and now another committee who worked to provide the best information they could, has been withheld from the property owners and the Board. Who does that?
I have stated on many occasions that our POA has way too little marketing DNA and has been in that shape since the efforts of NRPI. We should be targeting revenue growth in the 4-5% range each and every year and building a program around that goal.
Now we are being told that after the hiring of a CMEO and a Marketing Manager, we are to engage in a contract with yet another marketing firm. Have we seen the RFP to determine exactly what was asked for? Are they asking for more strategy? If so, then this will be yet another wasted marketing effort. We have all the strategy we need. What we need is technical implementation and I am currently unsure if we have those resources on staff.
This is the age of digital marketing and we need people who know ALL the avenues of digital marketing on a country-wide basis and can teach our people what they need to be done; not trying to throw something against the wall again and hope it works.
Given the totally ineffective marketing results in recent history, I once again call for the establishment of a board-level Marketing Committee composed of property owners who spent their entire working careers perfecting their skills. Only then will we begin to see improvement in our marketing efforts. Failure to do so will simply result in business as usual. If we are going to allow more money to be spent on marketing efforts through an outside source, I recommend this be done on six-month contracts and evaluated by the board before renewed.
Had we not gotten a court ruling to allow us the property owners access to the information we pay for, this document, the RFP, and who knows what else is out there, would never have seen the light of day. These are all signs of irresponsibility and it is time for that to change.
We Love hsv
01/31/2020 — 7:20 pm
Thank you to the MSC committee members for all their hard work and research.
The report is excellent!
It original unmodified version should be brought before the BOD .
Again. Thank you
Carl
02/06/2020 — 11:26 am
Perfect, we need transparency…and a “Strong Board” not one that the CEO controls
Joseph Vlasek
01/31/2020 — 6:37 pm
Why does anybody even WANT to live here?
HSVP C
01/31/2020 — 6:39 pm
Joseph, because it is a wonderful place and we are going to take back our Village. Please don’t give up! Please help us with this endeavor. Thank you. – Cheryl Dowden
Kirk Denger
01/31/2020 — 7:32 pm
This would be a great article about censorship if it were not coming from a source that was not known to be heavily censored.
George K Phillis
02/01/2020 — 9:29 pm
Exactly Cheryl. The Villages want to stop the runaway train which is running the financial status of the Village into the ground. This downward spiral has been substantiated with facts regarding extremely poor management decisions. As Cheryl said….. don’t give up. Join the fight to help rid us of those in management who have failed in their fiduciary responsibilities to the property owners. This includes the CEO and some board members. Help elect Lloyd Sherman, Tucker Omohundro and Dick Garrison. The Village is worth saving and it can be done. Join us. Let’s get our Village back!!
..
Kilroy
01/31/2020 — 7:36 pm
Joseph, better question is why would anyone wanna serve on a commmitee?
Truth telling is discouraged!
Lem Tate
02/01/2020 — 11:56 am
Joseph We all want America to be great again, just like Hot Springs Village can be great again too. Everything takes work
Frank Shears aka Bubba
01/31/2020 — 6:57 pm
Wow, this article explains what many have suspected for a long time now. We ONLY get to see information from the POA AFTER it has been approved. I find this totally unacceptable.
It seems to me that our fearless POA leader is not the only one who needs to learn that the PROPERTY OWNERS OWN THE VILLAGE and NOT the POA!
She actually told them NOT to focus on past mistakes and that the door should be closed on anything in the past “that was NOT favorably looked upon.“
This goes against everything I have ever heard know about managing a business. But I only have 25 years of very successful business experience with the largest corporation in the world in their Operations, Marketing and Service Management departments. After that I had 21 more very successful years consulting for several different Fortune 500 companies, so what do I know about Managing a business?
Ms. Choyce even gave instructions on how to censor information from the public eyes with her statement, “We have a chain of command in terms of how information is going to be handled. And that is through me directly. And as long as it stays within that boundary, I think that we can control it.”
This is downright despicable!
Now I am obligated to question Nikki Choyce’s qualificatons for the Board position for which she is running.
Where is my Blood pressure medication. I really need it after reading this article.
Phil Lemler
01/31/2020 — 7:03 pm
First of all Cheryl, excellent article and very informative. A must read for everyone in HSV.
In my opinion, this further supports the narrative that the CEO is trying to control everything. The suppression and manipulation of information needed and requested by a bonified HSV sanctioned committee should be of concern to all property owners.
I find the recommendations made in the “Summary of Findings” by the marketing subcommittee of the CMPAC (MSC) to be excellent. These ideas and observations, if implemented, will help the Village return to prosperity.
What is quite obvious is HSV needs to elect Dick Garrison, Lloyd Sherman and Tucker Omahundro to the POA board. They would use such findings to build a better marketing program for HSV.
Amazing … the MSC’s findings were suppressed and changed against the majority of the committee’s wishes. Yet, marketing is HSV’s biggest challenge by far. HSV revenues continue to decline, and the head of the committee says, she will “dissolve the MSC” … if needed. Really?? You have people (on the MSC) like Chuck Alvord and Dan Alyward who have given their time and a slate of great marketing insights and you disrespect them and the other committee members who have volunteered.
The Village has wasted an opportunity to use great Village talent to help repair HSV’s marketing strategy.
My belief is this: if you are on a CMP committee or running for the POA board you should be intimately familiar with (read more than twice) the CMP. And, if you knew the CMP that well …. and had an even average understanding of business … you would conclude the CMP could possibly not work.
However, if you have studied the CMP in great detail (as certainly as you would do if your were going to head a CMP committee) and you conclude it (CMP) is good, well worth the money and you are committed to its implementation (which you would have to be to head such a CMP committee), one would have to question your business experience at the levels needed for the challenges HSV faces.
I do not believe anyone who supports the CMP should be on HSV’s board.
LTD
Yep
01/31/2020 — 7:06 pm
Too many hidden agenda items are going on in the Village. Why does it seems everything done here has an underlying tone of deceit? Seems so many dishonest. Things are being done at our expense. A forensic audit needs to be done here to uncover if any wrongdoing is being done. Are they afraid of being fired or worse yet thrown in jail because of corruption? If things are being done correctly then no harm no foul Seems, we as homeowners, have our hands tied to a certain degree. When will we be able to trust our so called management and board?
Seems like there are control issues on the CMPAC.
Walter Chance
01/31/2020 — 7:39 pm
Why isn’t this committee reporting to the BODs. Absolutely CMPAC group has no clue how to market a marketing program that fits with a CMP that can not be implemented. What a fiasco. Thanks to the MSC. You did your job. But as usual. No action. No wonder we have 60 new rooftops and 11,000 lots plus with no way of conversion to rooftops. LTD
Karen Daigle Lundberg
01/31/2020 — 8:03 pm
And this, my Fellow Villagers, is the same Nikki Choyce, who is campaigning for a seat as a Board Director. Her own words from her own campaign platform: “Because I am new to the Village, I will approach the role of Board Director with a fresh set of eyes and no preconceived ideas or bias.”
This must be one of her variations of the truth that she refers to. I don’t know about anybody else, but I was always told that there is only one truth, but many variations to a lie. I think that Nikki is confused and has been given her own set of puppet strings.
Sam Taylor
01/31/2020 — 8:27 pm
This article presents some very disturbing facts to me. One that I will start with corroborates what we hear on Nextdoor all the time – you are just naysayers. They do not want to hear the negatives, and apparently it is perfectly alright according to those pollyannas who only want affirmation, pats on the back, or participation medals. If one doesn’t recognize the mistakes that have been made, one is ripe to make those same mistakes again! I will not guess at Choyce’s motives in being the supreme censor in this situation, but she is not doing the Village a favor by protecting someone’s fragile ego from a statement of facts regarding the Village’s marketing efforts.
Secondly, I consider this an epic fail for LN. To be an entity that is severely lacking in monetary resources that is bleeding serious money, one would think that there would be some urgency about solving this problem. There are generally either two approaches, either cut spending so that the entity can possibly recover, or come up with a marketing effort that would bring in new money to alleviate the problem. We know that she has NOT adopted that first approach of cutting at all unless one considers lack of maintenance in the Village as cutting expenses. It also doesn’t exactly take a genius to figure out that our marketing has not improved one iota since she has taken the reins. This failure rests entirely on her doorstep! In spite of glowing reports on her job performance by some. We have doubled our POA dues in recent years and managed to squander that, and now we are talking about raising dues once again or springing a special assessment which very likely would be harmful to the majority of people living in the Village on a fixed income. Meanwhile, the cost of an individual using our amenities continues to spiral to the point of diminishing returns. I would say again that our failure to market the Village is her responsibility. Do I expect her to be a marketing magician – NO, but she is the only one who has the responsibility to put a staff together to be able to show results in marketing. She has failed!
Thirdly, it is scary seeing the willingness of the present CMPAC chairperson to sweep the hard truth under the rug because someone is too fragile to handle the truth. Have we not had trouble with transparency in the past, and have we not talked about the need of being more transparent in the future. This raises a red flag to me, and to be made worse, this same person is now running for the BOD. I personally do not want more of the same for future BOD members. That is the reason that I will support and vote for LTD (Loyd Sherman, Tucker Omohundro, and Dick Garrison), and I would urge each and everyone to cast your vote likewise!
Linda Anderson
01/31/2020 — 8:43 pm
The MSC did a lot of hard work to put together their findings. Apparently the CMPAC agenda was the problem and not to be discussed. It is an undercover plot to screen out logical determinations in order to patch together something that only supports CMP documentation. Any sub- committee should think twice about getting involved with the CMPAC. Looks more like another governing committee.
Karen Daigle Lundberg
01/31/2020 — 8:52 pm
My apologies to the hard-working members of the Marketing Committee for not acknowledging in my previous post the extensive and challenging work they have done to bring the Villagers truth, only to be suppressed by a person who has been the Chairperson of the CMPAC Committee a whole three days. And thank you, Cheryl, for a wonderful article, giving the Marketing Committee a voice when the Chairperson of the CMPAC Committee tried to silence them. We know how frustrating this can be for you, and you have our gratitude and admiration for getting the information out to us.
As far as Nikki Choyce not being qualified to be a Board Director, I now truly believe that Nikki should be removed from her position as CMPAC Chairperson. This article clearly shines the spotlight on her willingness to censor and deceive. Those traits do not belong in any position on the Board, the POA or any committee. She needs to be removed immediately. It is quite clear that the only people we are going to get on the Board who want our best interests are LTD, joining Diana Podawiltz. Let’s drain the swamp.
George K Phillis
02/01/2020 — 9:53 pm
Excellent Karen Lundberg. Ms Choyce clearly doesn’t want the property owners nor the BOD to read an unedited report by the MSC. Sounds to me she’s just another Nalley. The MSC did a magnificent job in laying out the truth of which neither the CEO or Ms Choyce want to hear or share with property owners. Do you really want Ms Choyce on the BOD!!?? There should be no doubt Ms Choyce is NOT the person who should be on the BOD. Lloyd Sherman, Tucker Omohundro and Dick Garrison will truly be the ones who WILL fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the property owners. That have the knowledge and experience to get us back on track to a bright future.
Anne Shears
01/31/2020 — 8:55 pm
I find it puzzling that Ms. Choyce didn’t want the report to be WRITTEN. What a cover-up. And then she tried to withhold the report from the Board because it said negative things about past marketing efforts!
The committee that wrote the report was made up of professionals. They offered their expertise and the report was rejected.
Ms. Choyce’s failure to disclose that she is on CMPAC in her Candidate Statement is another example off an attempted cover-up.
Her threat to disband the subcommittee because “staff” didn’t like the report was childish.
This is not the kind of person we want on our Board of Directors.
Stop the Lies.
Stop the cover-ups.
Now, more than ever, it is imperative to vote for LTD.
We NEED to elect Lloyd Sherman, Tucker Omohundro and Dick Garrison to the BOD.
Andy Kramek
02/02/2020 — 9:52 am
“Her threat to disband the subcommittee because “staff” didn’t like the report was childish.”
Let’s be clear, Anne, the “staff” referred to is the “ceo” – Lesley Nalley. She has said publicly, on more than one occasion, that she has been responsible for the marketing of the village for the past couple of years. You can be quite sure that Ms Choyce was given a clear directive to kill this report and prevent it from being made public.
The question now that, despite her efforts, it has been made public is what will happen to Ms Choyce. Not only has she failed the queen, she has exposed the queen’s lack of clothes for all to see.
I have wondered how someone who, by her own admission, only moved to the village 8 months ago came to be appointed to the CMPAC to begin with, and then elevated to the Chair so quickly. Now she is running for a Board seat as well.
How, after living here less than a year, can you possibly be qualified to Chair the (to the “ceo” anyway) most important committee? If I were a conspiracy theorist I would certainly begin to suspect some prior connection between Ms Choce and the “ceo”.
Andy Kramek
02/02/2020 — 10:13 am
Incidentally her PMP qualification is nothing special – especially since her “experience” is primarily as a trainer and author of training courses. FWIW I too hold a Project Management qualification and was actually a real Project Manager for many years…
Phil Lemler
02/02/2020 — 11:05 am
HSV doesn’t need project management experience … it needs business experience at a large company/managerial (P&L) level!
Andy Kramek
02/02/2020 — 11:37 am
Absolutely! People who understand the difference between “responsibility” and “accountability” and are willing and able to accept the latter!
Minn Daly
01/31/2020 — 10:50 pm
Cheryl thank you! COVER UP EXPOSED! What else is there? Where is the accountability? This is why we needed a forensic audit. The entire POA needs to be looked into, by laws to compliance rules. Restructuring staff as required. Elimination of the CEO position as well as some staff positions. Retaining a qualified GM & revamp of excessive salaries. CMP & Governance committee abolished. HSV BOD need to take charge of this association. We need to elect 3 NEW BOD members, TUCKER, Lloyd & Dick to get this process started. They will need all members support & legal support but this can be accomplished. Minn Daly
Mj
02/01/2020 — 7:39 am
Things were BAD when we made our decision to move from HSV & cut our losses. Sadly, from our perspective, it has only gotten worse! Now, OMG, HSV has to deal with LNs “doppelgänger”??!!?? Birds (vultures) of a feather…😞
Hope enough members are paying attention to Cheryl & Franks excellent reporting!
For us …life was too short to be dealing with all the increasing, mutating “diseases” taking over hsv.
We wish the remaining sane folks all the best!!
Chipmunk
02/01/2020 — 7:42 am
Some good news / bad news here: Good that we got to see the actual report with the true facts revealed. Good that we know know that Ms Choyce doesn’t belong on the BOD. But Bad because you can be guaranteed that the current BOD will no doubt again try to prohibit recording of meetings to protect their ‘version of truth’.
Andy Kramek
02/01/2020 — 9:36 am
In a document full of damning indictments of the “marketing efforts” by the “ceo” and her cronies, one of the most damning statements is Paragraph 2 where it says:
—-BEGIN QUOTE—-
Over the past three months, as required by our Charter, the MSC has made a concerted effort to review the history of marketing activity for HSV. This effort has been difficult due to a lack of information being provided and key resources being withheld from the MSC.
Despite consistent requests, many in writing, from the MSC, limited information was provided and requests for specific information and the opportunity to meet with the current PR agency was denied.
—-END QUOTE—-
So it is not merely us Property Owners who are being prevented from accessing relevant information about the activities of the PoA. Clearly they are stopping their own committees from accessing hard information.
U N B E L I E V A B L E !
RT Stony
02/01/2020 — 10:29 am
Has anyone noticed how these so-called “highly skilled and ultra-qualified” high level “Chief Officer” type positions keep getting filled by do-nothing overpaid “executives” who’s greatest skill is “farming out their jobs” to sub-committees?
Back in my day, (yes I’m old), we actually produced work results for the positions that we were hired to fill. That means, we actually had to use our learned skills to assemble a report such as the MSC did for the CMPAC that ranked above them. Yet another committee layer.
So the REAL work product that should have been done by our Market Manager was accomplish two layers down – by a qualified sub-committee. So ask yourself, “why do we need a Marketing Manager” when we have competent property owners that understand the problems and can DO what needs to be done for HSV?
Ask yourself where our high paid do-nothing Market Manager was in all this chaos? Sitting in his/her office collecting an unearned salary waiting for someone or some committee to do the work that they were hired to do!
We all know the answer that will begin the resolution process of HSV:
VOTE LTD! Lloyd – Tucker – Dick
They are our only hope!
Carl
02/06/2020 — 11:27 am
YUP! Right On
steve bylow
02/01/2020 — 11:20 am
Request to Nikki Choyce:
Are there any comments in the article that you’d like to clarify or felt were taken out of context?
I was impressed that your bio included Project Management certification but there are a number of comments that are disconcerting so your clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks
Steve
ps I sent a comment to your website so you can reach me via email.
Retiredinhsv
02/01/2020 — 11:36 am
With regard to previous post from Steve Bylow, I would imagine that Nikki Choyce would put a different spin on the events reported. Fortunately there were folks in attendance and videos and narrative reports to review for everyone to reach their own conclusions. Cheryl’s report is factual.
If Steve does recieve a reply from Ms. Choyce, I hope he will report it back here.
HSVP C
02/01/2020 — 4:20 pm
Steve, nothing was taken out of context. I was there at all these meetings. I audio recorded all these meetings. I transcribed all the recordings. In addition, all these meetings were also recorded by video. I couldn’t have done much more. Also, others attended these meetings and heard the same thing I did. Please let us know what Ms. Choyce’s response is. Thank you.
steve bylow
02/02/2020 — 10:52 am
Will do – I am optimistic Nikki will take the initiative to share her perspective within a few days and I’m sure she’d like me to share it.
Thanks
Steve
steve bylow
02/03/2020 — 12:04 pm
Nikki did respond to the questions I sent to her campaign website.
I sent the email because I was curious about her specific degree and 20+ years of teaching/consulting. She clarified that she:
1. Had served on the Board of a Fort Worth Professional Group Chapter.
2. Had never provided consulting services to the POA.
3. Preferred to not share her specific degree from Baylor.
In my return message to Nikki I thanked her for the response and let her know I really did not care who gets elected as long as they have:
1. Strong Business Acumen
2. Significant Assessment Skills
3. Practical operational experience making tough decisions.
In regard to the HSVP article; I shared my specific concerns with comments she made and recommended she share her unfiltered logic or intent of the comments. I reminded her that failing to respond would allow folks to fill in the void.
Thanks
Steve
Chipmunk
02/03/2020 — 1:07 pm
Personally, I think the specific degree, course of study, major/minor, etc along with the year of graduation from Baylor University is very material to her qualifications. It could be a degree in basket weaving if it is even a degree at all. Many attend major universities and party for a semester or two and then drop out. Then they say they “attended” – which is of course true but meaningless.
And just what is a “Fort Worth Professional Group Chapter”?
We have already had (and still have) our share of unqualified individuals, lacking formal education or experience serving on our board, not to mention in our POA in senior management positions.
Example: Chipmunk holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Advanced Nut Gathering from University of Arkansas, 1995. Advanced Studies of Oak and Other Nut Producing Trees leading to PhD in Nutology from Arkansas State University, 2000. Thesis: Nut Gathering for Sustenance, Fun and Pleasure”, Squirrel and Rodent Journal, Fall Edition, 2003. Charter member of the Hot Springs Nut Society, 2000-2018, President, 2015-2016.
Melinda Noble
02/02/2020 — 9:58 am
We known we were in trouble when the “CEO” bought a CMP for $500,000 that had nothing in common with the Village but they did produce a nice slide show. Now we have a Lesley clone running for the BOD. I can’t wait to see Ms. Choyce’s response to questions on Tuesday (2/4).
Jerry
02/02/2020 — 2:36 pm
I’ll say this for Leslie and her girlfriend, they certainly don’t hide their contempt for ya’ll. It seems to be that having become impatient even with her slavish dashboard bobble-heads on the BOD, she has decided to best way to realize her dreams is to create her own government to get there faster. What little pushback from residents she has got has emboldened her to grab for more power. I hope someone is digging into the background of Nikki Choyce (Leslie’s Choice, really) to see what motivated her to up stakes for the village and what promises to be a new career once the old folks in the way are brushed aside.
Ulrich Angleton
02/03/2020 — 1:20 pm
It very evident that the facts as uncovered by the committee are going to be covered up by a corrupt Chair. What is being hid? That maybe poor choices were made in the past that we as property owners paid for? The old saying in this matter is appropriate ” Those Who Don’t Learn From History are Bound to Repeat it”. The committee worked hard to provide such history. We the people of Hot Springs Village need to know what the true history is. I as a property owner am disappointed that issues that might shed a bad light on people in certain positions is covered up or hidden. Remember committee and Board Members you work for us the property owners. Everything you do should be transparent.
Julie
02/03/2020 — 3:54 pm
Reading this report sure makes me understand the situation with the recent contract for 80K+ for marketing.
Not one of the POA employees knows anything about marketing…clearly…
Julie
02/03/2020 — 7:25 pm
These people are dirty. Too much lying and cheating going in. And covering up.
It sickens me.