Published: May 08, 2008 05:40 pm         

Letter to the editor (published May 8, 2008)

Open letter to members

First, I want to thank the editor of the Glade Sun for this opportunity to address the press release issued by the Community Club’s board of directors as published in the April 24, 2008 issue of the Glade Sun titled “The board of directors responds to Miller.”

My wife and I have been residents of this wonderful community for almost six years. We could not be in a better place. We enjoy the climate, the people, and the lifestyle of Fairfield Glade. And we look forward to shopping in the new Food City. I have great admiration for the advances made by this community over the years. But this does not mean that members do not have the right to question the board about issues that affect all of us. We have not given up the right to ask our government why specific actions have been taken or are about to be taken. The last time I looked, this is the “American way.”

This is why I ran for the board of directors in 2007. My campaign theme was “Put Members First.” During my campaign I never made personal attacks on current board members or questioned their integrity. I ran on a platform that stressed the need for open and honest communication between the board and the members. My campaign dealt with legitimate issues such as funding road repair, the losses at the Legends, impact fees on new construction, board perks and the need for a long range plan. The “very few followers” (as referenced by the board in its release) totaled just short of 2,500 members who supported my candidacy. So many members told me that they had no meaningful voice in the governance of the club.

This public utility issue is a prime example of an almost total breakdown of communication with the membership. Almost a year lapsed between the time the board signed an agreement to provide wastewater treatment services to commercial establishments outside of our borders and the time the members found out about it. The Committee for a Better Fairfield wanted to see a copy of a Oct. 20, 2006 opinion letter from an attorney that reportedly said the agreement would not result in the club becoming a public utility. At least three requests for a copy of the letter were made to both the board and to the general manager. All requests were rejected with claims that the contents of the letter were “confidential.” This letter was received by the board 18 months ago and has yet to be shared with the members.

According to the board’s release, they had no idea what questions I asked in my Sept. 14, 2007 letter to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority even though the text was published in the Glade Sun on that same date. A copy of the text of the letter has been e-mailed to each board member. They need to wonder no longer. Had the board listened to the voice of numerous members, including my own, and followed our requests to seek an opinion from the TRA before moving ahead with the project to provide sewer services beyond our borders, the current difficulties may have been avoided. I sincerely hope that the board’s appeal of the TRA’s ruling will be favorable to the club.

The board questioned our motive for contacting the state for an opinion on the public utility issue. Our motive was simple. After repeated efforts to get the board to be open with us on this very important issue, especially after researching the applicable law, we felt there was no choice but to pursue the issue on our own. The disparity between the attorney’s opinion, and the wording of the law, was too great to ignore. Confirmation of the attorney’s position by the Tennessee Regulatory (Authority) would eliminate the uneasiness of many members over the potential financial risk to the community if the board’s attorney was incorrect. The board views this as an “unauthorized intrusion” into club business. We certainly were not trying to step on the prerogatives of the board. But given the limited information the board provided, we felt the board was falling short in its efforts to fully explore the issue. As to being “unauthorized,” Tennessee residents are allowed to contact the state government with questions and concerns.

Finally, my credibility and integrity rise above everything else on the scale of importance. It is inappropriate to personally attack a club member, both in a public meeting and in writing. The board’s attack on my motives crossed the line. It is a tactic that should be rejected by the board, not one that is used by the board as a tool to suppress questions they don’t like. This is not the first time the board has acted in this manner. I have not been the only target. At last year’s annual membership meeting, my motives were questioned for requesting an opinion from the state. This public admonishment was reported in the Glade Sun. Personal attacks were also made both in a board meeting and (reported) in print when we tried to share the results of a nonresident opinion poll taken at our personal expense that the board did not want to hear. Through the Internet, we actually reached almost 80 nonresidents while the board abandoned its attempt to conduct its own nonresident survey after 38 attempted contacts because of “inaccurate records.”

What we, and so many others expect of the board, is for it to do its homework. When members feel the board may have fallen short in its due diligence responsibility, we should feel free to ask questions and to receive an answer that is clear, timely, complete, and factually correct. Members must feel free to ask questions, and yes, even challenge the position of the board on a given issue without fear that their character, integrity, and credibility will be vilified. The board needs to be inclusive, not exclusive, and accept the idea that even if elected, they are still accountable to the members.

The committee I chair has made several constructive suggestions to the board which would be of benefit to the club and the members if adopted in whole or in part. Without exception, these suggestions were based on fact. All were rejected by the board except for a couple of suggestions for improving member understanding of financial reporting. We, as well as other members, have also identified problems in need of board attention. For each problem, a practical solution was offered. All too often, the board considers such involvements and member interest to be a “negative.”

Listening to others is a strength, not a weakness. The collective wisdom of our members should be valued, not scoffed at. This is a lesson that needs to be better understood by our board.

I hope that all members understand that the board’s attack on my credibility, and that of many others, is a serious breach of acceptable behavior for a governing body. I also hope that it puts a stop to the calls I have received using the board’s talking points in its press release only to then hang up without identifying themselves or expressing a willingness to engage in any clarifying dialogue.

Gerry Miller

Fairfield Glade