SPEAK UP & VOTE!

“To get a more transparent, fiscally responsible and responsive Board, we have to speak up and vote.  We have to encourage capable, fair-minded people to run for offices, and we have to get out and vote for them.”-anonymous contributor from “One Last Chance to Decide the Future of Farmington Woods”

From the MA:

“The Farmington Woods Tax District will hold it’s annual election on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 in the North Lounge of the Clubhouse.

Registration starts at 6:15 pm

Meeting opens at 7:00 pm

As there are 3 positions open and we have 6 people currently running there will be a ballot issued to each person who registers.

All 6 will be listed with an extra line for anyone nominated from the floor.”

I’m happy to announce that of the six candidates for the tax district board I’m able to endorse two. Since there are three openings I wish I had one more to endorse, but as noted above it is still possible for another candidate to be nominated the night of the meeting.

It seems odd that our Declarations allow the President of the Condo Board to be a candidate for the Tax District Board, but it’s just another way of maintaining the status quo, I guess.

And the status quo at Farmington Woods is that golf will survive at all costs, despite years of losses, the Great Recession and the downturn in the popularity of golf worldwide. It is for this reason that I wholeheartedly endorse the following two candidates:

Peter A. Janus

2 Redwood Lane

penajan@att.net

I have been a resident of Farmington Woods since the early 1980’s. If elected to serve as a Tax District Director I will provide leadership skills, balanced decision-making, financial analysis tools, and a commitment to transparency and accountability in the operations of the Tax District Board.

Relevant Experience

Since 2007, I have served as president of the Board of Directors of a condominium association in Colorado. I have been on the Board of Directors of that association since 1999.   While streamlining costs through fiscally challenging times, I have forged a positive working relationship with homeowners. I led our Board through a number of capital improvement projects and in setting cost effective and achievable goals for our management company. 

My 20+ years of activity with the Section of Labor & Employment Law of the American Bar Association, including my present tenure as an elected member of the governing Council, have been marked by positive and collegial relations between members who practice for both management firms and union/employee firms. As a past budget and finance chair I was effective in setting priorities that achieved long and short range goals for our membership.

Since 1982, my experience as owner and renter in Farmington Woods has contributed toward an understanding of the value of our community and the significant challenges we must face for the future.

My background is significant for professional and community leadership. I led my law firm through transitional times that allowed our firm to remain cost effective and competitive. I have led an active professional life while contributing leadership to the community through various Cornell alumni activities, and involvement with other associations.

I seek to use these skills for forge a more secure financial future for Farmington Woods.

Education

Cornell University, A.B.

Boston University School of Law, J.D.

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, M.B.A.

Kingswood-Oxford School, West Hartford, CT.

Joe Chudecki

17 Madison Lane

jchudecki@aol.com

The reason I am interested in this position is that I believe that both the clubhouse and golf course can be run much more effectively and efficiently than currently.  I am concerned with maintaining property values within the community and think that much can be done if the operation is run more like a business.

My qualifications are a BSME from Duke and business degree.  I have done three business turn around's from 1990 to 2004 (manufacturing) and are what many consider to be a turn around specialist or sometimes a hatchet man.  I was typically hired by the board of directors of a company to come in and restructure operations.

IT’S TIME TO RUN FARMINGTON WOODS GOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE LIKE A REAL BUSINESS.

DON’T FORGET TO VOTE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2012

ARE WE REALLY THE 47% NOW?

"Golf is an invention, not, as some would have it, a divine gift. While we may celebrate the pleasure it brings us, it's best to remember that we are singing of ourselves when we do so."- Desmond Muirfield, Noted Golf Course Architect and designer of Farmington Woods Golf Course

Desmond Muirfield


I’ve lived at Farmington Woods for more than thirteen years now. I don’t consider it a country club, as do Mapquest and Bing Maps. To their credit Google Maps calls us Farmington Woods Golf Course. But in reality we are neither. We should technically be called Farmington Woods Condominium on all maps and by all residents because that’s what we are.

Unfortunately, some here have the attitude that this is a country club and if you don’t play the game of golf you are merely a resident living here to enjoy the mythical country club lifestyle. I’ve played the game and I live here; it’s not a country club, period.

I didn’t grow up rich. My father owned a garage and made an honest living repairing cars and getting people back on the road. We didn’t belong to a country club, although I attended many parties at Shuttle Meadow Country Club while attending classes at Mrs. Linder's School of Dance & Etiquette, which took place in her mansion just down the street. It was my mother’s idea. And I really did  learn to dance.

That’s probably why after reading the following letter, printed in last month’s "In the Woods", I decided to submit my first ever  “letter to the editor”. As if it’s not enough living in a place where for some, golf is king and the rest of us are merely residents, having friends and loved ones who happen to walk the course on occasion characterized as having a “feeling of entitlement”, just sounded backwards to me.

I’m sorry, but if any group of folks here has a “feeling of entitlement” it is the small group of people who use a course that is not only being subsidized by non-golfing residents now, but has a long history of financial support from decades of residents, without whom the course would no longer exist. To try to cast those people as the infamous 47% is downright insulting.

Anyway, I have included the aforementioned letter, with the one I wrote in response, following it. If the Communications Committee allows it to appear unedited, or prints it at all, they will have demonstrated their commitment to the First Amendment. If not, it is here for you to read in its entirety.

To the Editor,

I recently addressed the MA Board regarding an escalating
problem here in Farmington Woods: It seems that a feeling
of entitlement has overcome some residents with regard to
the golf course. The statement I hear most often is "1 own it,
why can't I walk on it?"

The golf course is indeed owned by the Farmington Woods
District, but it is subject to the rules of the Master Association.
In Section 3 of the Resident's Handbook, Subsection 6.2.5, it
clearly states the rules regarding usage of the golf course.
Walking, jogging, fishing and vehicle use are prohibited. No
pets are allowed on the golf course.

These are ordinances of Farmington Woods not the Golf
Committee and are there to ensure order and safety on the
golf course. Violation of these rules has become all too
common. Recreational walkers can be hit by a ball and injured
or worse. This is a dangerous situation.

It is commonplace for speeding, parking, and other infractions
to be enforced. Why are the golf course rules not enforced
equally?

When residents closed on their Farmington Woods units, all
were required to read a booklet containing the rules and
regulations of Farmington Woods and then sign a document
agreeing to abide by these covenants. These rules should
come as no surprise to those who choose to ignore them.

I believe the MA Board needs to take an active role on this
issue and enforce the regulations as written before an
unfortunate accident occurs.

-Michael Hamelin, 2 Split Rock Lane

To the Editor,

Regarding Mr. Hamelin’s letter stating that the golf course is a dangerous place to walk, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately there are other places that are equally as dangerous: Catalpa Court between the 12^th hole and 16^th tee come to mind, as does the pathway to the common gardens at the 5^th tee.

But to characterize non-golfing residents who take the occasional sunset walk on the course as having “a feeling of entitlement” strikes me as rather harsh. Some of these folks have been supporting the course for twenty years with their condo fees, district taxes and club minimums.

Placing them in the notorious 47% will not foster the community relations required to ensure the continued survival of Farmington Woods Golf Club.

These residents support a game they do not play. They should be thanked, not derided, because they may decide one day to take ownership of the course seriously and use the Declarations to make it a recreational facility they can use all the time. 

Article XVIII Section 8f clearly states: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, nothing in this Declaration shall be deemed to restrict the use of the golf course as a Golf Facility.”

It just seems that a little respect is due the folks who pay for a course they don’t play and can’t walk on. New leadership may one day decide, by popular demand, to turn the course into a park that would make New York’s Central Park envious.

Respectfully submitted,

Lee Lagasse

HE SAID, SHE SAID JOURNALISM

In order to maintain an illusion of neutrality, the media often employs what’s known as “he said, she said journalism.” They are often criticized for it. On the other hand, at least in this form of journalism both sides are heard from and given a platform for their goals and ideas. I’m certainly not fond of this approach. There are times when one side is clearly right and the other clearly wrong and yet the talking heads just shake their heads and go on to the next story.

When I read an article called “A Course Divided” in the October Avon Life last week I was surprised to see that another form of journalism existed: simply telling half the story. The article began telling the story of the bond fight at Farmington Woods last spring and devolved into a one-sided fluff piece about the overwhelming greatness of our village told by the usual suspects, all of whom were either members or former members of the Golf Club. And of course, the president of the boards and a couple board members were quoted as well.

After reading the article I flashed back to a couple of Executive Board meetings after the bond vote when some board members wanted to hire a public relations firm to improve our image after the debacle they tried to impose on us. I’m not a PR man, but if I were, this article would be something I would have suggested, or even written to put a damper on the problem that golf presents for many residents of Farmington Woods. And with the District Board election coming up October 30, golf needs all the boost it can get.

I have one request. Before you read my letter, please read the article, if you haven’t already. I’m hoping I wasn’t too hard on Ms. Pollock, considering that Avon Life’s advertising consists largely of real estate ads and most articles have a positive spin with lots of smiling faces in the pictures. It is, after all, a lifestyle publication, not the NY Times.

Anyway, enjoy the article: http://www.lifepublications.com/ , Avon edition, page 8. I’d like to add that it was well written, as are all the articles I read by Ms. Pollock in the publication. I probably shouldn’t fault her for not seeing this story for what it really is, because if she did and reported it, she would probably be sending out resumes this week. A person’s got to eat, you know. 

HE SAID, SHE SAID, JOURNALISM

Ms. Pollock,

As someone who was actively involved in the $4M bond fight at Farmington Woods last spring I was disappointed to see that only one side of this important issue and historic vote was given a platform to express its views.

I am the individual who created the blog that the article states "attacked Dan Sullivan". I too, believe in the Constitution's First Amendment but as a retired teacher I also believe people deserve all the facts in order to make informed decisions.

That is the reason I started www.farmingtonwoodsinsider.blogspot.com back in March

In six months this micro-community blog has received 10K page views and posted a total of 63 articles written by myself and more than a dozen other contributors, most of whom prefer to remain anonymous for fear of social, or other sorts of retribution. So they write anonymously, which is really sad when you consider we live in the "land of the free, home of the brave": America. If you go to the site you will see that it's purpose is to educate, not attack as has been portrayed in your article.

With regard to the subject of this emaiI, I can only say that I would have been happy with that type of journalism. But in this case what I read didn't go that far. The people you quoted all represented one side, so I'm afraid that in this case you have failed in your mission "to give each........ party fair and equal representation" as stated on your editorial page.

I was going to avoid being critical in this email, but as another resident who read the article and wanted to respond said in an email:  "I have had numerous editorial comments for the NY Times and The Hartford Courant published over the years, most political, but I'm not sure I can write this without emotion becoming a part of it".

Some of the facts left out of the story include: $50K of resident taxes spent to study a proposal that was turned down 2 to 1 with an historic 1,023 votes cast; a golf/clubhouse operation that has lost $1.3M over the last several years and continues to lose hundred of thousands of residents fees and taxes yearly, money that is then not available for improvements to the infrastructure of the community; the fact that most members of the Tax District Board (and the people you interviewed) are golfers or ex-golfers who think nothing of spending resident funds, in this case with an 18% increase in taxes for twenty years, for their entertainment; the fact that there are 89 resident golfers in a community of 1,084 homes and nearly 2,000 residents. It takes 300 members to break even on the course. We haven't had more than 200 members in years. And there's a lot more.

Since I've already exceeded the word limit of 300 for letters to the editor I may as well add to the total. I started the blog to counter the propaganda of the monthly magazine published by the Master Association, "In the Woods". In this month's issue there's a letter from a member of the golf committee. In it he characterizes non-golfing residents, whose fees and taxes have supported this losing operation for years, for a course that we're constantly told we own, as having a "feeling of entitlement" for asking for at least some time to walk the course they pay for. I think they call that projection in Psych 101.

As someone who appreciates a catchy title, I liked yours. "A Course Divided" is definitely creative and aptly named due to the fact that the article itself left out one half of the story: words from the people who fought vigorously to defeat a multi-million dollar boondoggle that would have locked us into a losing proposition for 20 years. As a result, it ends up being exactly what it says it is, divided.

Please excuse the long winded nature of this email, but this story is not really about the long-term survival of Farmington Woods. In the end it won't be Farmington Woods that goes bankrupt as our President likes to say; it will be the so-called "self-entitled" residents who will pay the price and face financial tragedy because of a selfish few. Probably something that isn't news worthy anyway.

Sincerely,

E. Lee Lagasse, Chair
Farmington Woods Residents for Fiscal Responsibilty