|
Response to paragraph 1
The only
letter I have received from KICA in over five years as
Editor of TALK and one which fits Joe Bunting’s description was
dated March 14, 2006. This letter arrived after the March
deadline for the April issue of TALK. Since the greeting in a
Letter to the Editor has never been printed, the fact it was
addressed to me personally was never an issue. Within the body
of the letter there was no request for it to be printed as a
Letter to the Editor. The
corrections
requested were printed in the May 2006 issue of TALK on page
5. This was the next issue after receipt of his letter. The
entire letter, as well as all articles and documents referenced
here, can be found on
www.kiawah.org under
KICA Letters to the
Editor. I encourage you to read them.
The greeting and first line of his letter to me read:
Dear Barbara:
Please publish two corrections in the next issue of TALK.
Bunting’s e-mail said:
“KPOG’s Talk failed to report that four KICA board
signatures—chairman, vice chairman, treasurer and Finance
Committee chair—are required for the association to purchase any
investments. This process has not changed.”
KPOG response:
Sentences one and three, paragraph two of the
KICA/Money article appearing in the left column on the front
page of the December/January 2007-08 issue of TALK, say:
“The existing KICA Financial Controls Manual requires four
signatures before any investment purchase can be made. . . One
director and the Financial Advisor felt it was cumbersome to
require four Board members to sign off on a purchase.” The tape
of the November 5, 2007 KICA Board meeting corroborated TALK’s
text. Moreover, there were no specific Board positions
designated as signatories on the tape. Neither the tape nor
TALK’s article said the process had changed. [Ed. note: Any
property owner wishing to listen to the tape should contact KICA
to arrange a time to do so].
Bunting’s e-mail said:
“The 2008 budget was provided online, on our Web site (www.kica.us),
in November 2007. The two Mornings with Joe sessions were the
forums open to all members about the budget, as was announced at
a board meeting and by instant news flash. The Finance Committee
and staff considered and concurred with the concepts of the 3.5%
assessment increase and the conservancy contribution before the
board voted it in the meeting. Any draft budget is only a draft
until the board approves it: it is not fluid forever. “
KPOG response:
Deadline for the December/January 2007-2008 issue of
TALK was November 9. The paper was printed
November 19 and sent to the mailing service the following
day. At the November 19 Mornings with Joe, Bunting announced the
budget had been posted that morning but said It had been
subsequently removed that day because KICA had posted the
incorrect version. KICA sent an
e-mail “flash” to the membership at 9:10 a.m. November 19.
The correct version of the budget was posted later that week.
While the budget was discussed at the September and October MwJ,
as a matter of record, these meetings were never identified
specifically as the open forum which was requested and agreed to
at the September 17 Mornings with Joe. At that time, Bunting
said an Open Forum on the 2008 budget could be held between the
September and October FAC (Financial Advisory Committee)
meetings, before the FAC sent the budget to the Board for a vote
at the November Board meeting. . . as reported on page 7 of the
November issue of TALK. It was also noted in the same
paragraph that at press time (October 5 deadline) no date had
been announced for this open forum.
TALK did not receive a request for correction to this reportage
when it appeared in the November issue.
The next two paragraphs refer to color coding which appeared in
the “KICA 2008
Budget Assumptions Summary.“ This information is available
in color on our website (www.kiawah.org).
So readers can more readily understand the references to color,
the coding means:
-
those words printed in black refer to the September 18,
2007 working draft from staff.
-
those words printed in blue refer to the September 26,
2007 first draft with FAC recommendations;
-
those words printed in green refer to the October 3, 2007
second draft with Board recommendations [color coding references
on Assumptions Summary].
Per KICA’s “Assumptions Summary 2008 Report” handed out to
those attending the November 5, 2007 Board meeting, assumption 1
reads: “Assessments in the budget are at 2007 rates using
current property status’s [sic], therefore no increase is
assumed in budget (printed in black/staff recommendation). In
green print, immediately following that statement (green print
indicates this was the 2nd draft with Board recommendations in
green) “BOD has recommended a 3.5% increase in assessments,
which are now incorporated in this draft.”
Number 7 in the same “Assumptions Summary” handout reads: “An
amount of $650k is not (in blue) included from MRR as a grant to
KINHC per their request.” (Ed. note: This indicates the FAC
recommended against the $650,000 from MR&R as a grant to KINHC)
The following is in green: “BOD has recommended an amount of
$575k from MR&R in this draft. This amount is assumed to be
offset by funding from the General Fund Surplus.”
Bunting’s e-mail said:
“The Rhett’s Bluff rules are (and were) posted on the Web site
for member review.”
KPOG response:
TALK’s report of the September 2007 Board meeting (October
2007 TALK, p. 9, last paragraph) stated Bunting said members
would receive the rules prior to the Board vote. In the
December/January 2007-2008 issue of TALK, page 4, paragraph 2 in
the
Mornings with Joe which covered the October meeting: “During
the roundtable discussion regarding revisions to Rhett’s Bluff
rules, a member asked when all property owners would receive
copies of the proposed rules the Board will consider at its
November 5 meeting. Bunting indicated the Board had decided not
to provide these to all property owners, as announced at the
September Board meeting.” No request for correction was received
for the October article.
Bunting is correct in saying that the “recommendations are and
were posted on the web site.” If KPOG is correctly interpreting
information embedded in the link to the rules, these were posted
on November 1, 2007. However, there was no general communication
with the membership that these were available on the website for
general member review before the November 5 vote by the Board.
Bunting’s e-mail said:
“It is more cost effective to have our independent survey
consultant work with a represnetative [sic] sampling of members
rather than to survey the whole membership, given the cost of
$29,000 for the full survey (including printing and mailing).
The board values the information!”
KPOG response:
TALK again refers to the KICA handout at its November 5 Board
meeting in the “Assumptions Summary 2008 Report,” number 12.
“Member Survey will not (in blue print meaning this was a
Finance Advisory Committee recommendation) be conducted in 2008
at an est. cost of $29k per FAC recommendation (last three words
in blue print as is the following sentence). Rather the board
will use the representative sample to answer strategic planning
questions. It was felt that the member survey did not provide
input valuable to board compared to cost required in obtaining
it.”
The Board of Directors accepted the FAC recommendations and did
not include $29,000 in the 2008 budget for a member survey. KPOG
has seen no further communication on their reasons.
As always TALK strives to present timely, accurate information
to its readers. If errors are brought to my attention,
corrections are printed in the next issue of TALK. TALK reports
on what is said, what happens, and what is handed out at
meetings, and is not responsible for changes, decisions, etc.
made after those meetings if they are not reported to the Editor
before the deadline. The deadline for the next issue always
appears on page 2, lower right, above the masthead.
Barbara Winslow
Editor, TALK |
