The Governance & Public Relations Committee has
undertaken the hiring of a consultant, Dr. Mary Watson of GHS Consulting,
to take a survey of 2500 residents (Survey)
with the intent of determining the satisfaction of the residents with
respect to PCM Management. You have probably heard the advertisement on
our TV Cable system numerous times if you watch any TV at all.
A letter was written to the GRF President, Robert Miller, asking him
the respond to questions pertaining to this Survey Process ( CKG
to RMiller 7-28-8). Reading this letter will provide you with some
of the problems associated with the decision to have a Survey and the
Process that was eventually sponsored by the GRF Board.
In addition to this letter, I have subsequently sent the following email
to the Chairman of the GRF Finance Committee, Don Tibbetts in response
to outcome of the GRF Finance Committee Meeting on 7/29/8. An extract
...... My main concern today, though, is with the Survey. Realizing
the errors in the survey and redoing the current Survey is all well
and good, but, it does nothing to answer the underlying questions;
1). Why do we need a Survey? Money would be better spent with a Managerial
or Financial Audit. Is it possible that PCM is more comfortable having
an associate measure their performance than to do any kind of audit?
2). "How does the contractor, Dr. M. Watson, justify her statement
that there is no connection between GHS and PCM and GRF?" As the
chairman of the Finance Committee, when this is brought to light, I
believe that you have the right, AND, duty to ensure that our money
is being spent properly. The ultimate objective of the contractor is
to, "Monitor the Quality of PCM Management." PCM and GHS have
been associates for many years through membership in a common association.
There is sufficient documentation to make that embarrassingly evident
to anyone who wishes to look for this potential collusion. I hope that
you will take the time to review this with the GRF Finance Committee
and Board and show the residents who trust you, that there is some measure
of oversight by the current Directors. We are seeing an increase in
the lack of oversight as is evident in the resident frustration that
is showing up at the various Board and Committee Meetings.
As we continue to look into the operation of PCM and the Boards, it
is evident that the Boards can find no fault with PCM and their actions.
Some day a rude awakening will take place and capable Boards will begin
to define what PCM should do, as Milt Johns continually informs us is
being done, and the Residents will become priority number one instead
of being at the bottom of the totem pole as we are today.
In addition, why are WE spending OUR money on PCM's public relations.
If you want to measure PCM performance, there are many tools with which
to do that and a history of the "Lag Time" report would be
one way possible. We have spent tens of millions of dollars on computers
and the "Stellar" program for tracking PCM performance, Maybe
we should hire a contractor to show us how to utilize our equipment
to measure PCM performance. Quality of Maintenance should be one of
the Boards major objectives. With Quality Maintenance comes "Happy
The conclusion of the Finance Committee was;
- The selection of the 2500 surveys that were mailed was done in error
by the Consultant. All of the 2500 surveys were mailed to an address
with an incorrect name. Since it was bulk mail, there was no return
to the sender preventing the Consultant from knowing how many surveys
were filled out.
- The Consultant will redo the mailing of surveys at no charge to the
- The TV ads that were done, and, will be done, are done at no charge
to the GRF Mutual, using the following logic;
- Our Broadband/TV salesmen were unable to sell various time slots
to advertisers and since they were unsold, there is no cost to the
Broadband facility to air the advertisements with the GHS Consultants
- That would imply that it should also not cost any money for a
LWV Club, Function, Residents Voice, etc., to air advertisements
over our TV system for any unsold ad times.
The unequivocal statement by the Consultant on the ads, that there was
no connection between GHS, GRF and PCM is totally false and can be interpreted
as collusion. PCM and GHS were/are members of the same "trade"
association and by asking one of the members of the association to police
another member of the association is a perfect opportunity for collusion.
To ask this consultant to redo the survey is a lack of oversight on the
part of the GRF Board and indicative of the power that PCM has over the