JANUARY BOARD MEETING: HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM 1998!

Cicero wrote: “To remain ignorant of what happened before you were born is to remain always a child.”

If you missed the January 7^th Executive Board meeting you missed the repeat of a scenario that caused an uproar at the November meeting due to its sequence: comments from the floor were taken after our president, Sara Harrigan called the meeting to order.

Because she called the meeting to order and then took comments, those comments should technically appear in the minutes because they were presented inside the convened meeting. Normally, comments are not included in the minutes, which is why it’s so important to go to the meetings:you actually get to hear the concerns of residents.

And the comments came. The Farmington Woods Young Mothers’ Group representative spoke first. She asked the board to consider a playscape for children, a very good idea which many of us have wanted for years. Another brave soul made a request to ask questions at the end of the meeting, which I guess is a no, no. She was told the board would “think about it”.

Another gentleman was very concerned about speeding in Farmington Woods, especially on Heritage. He wants radar during peak times: early morning and late night commutes. He wants the security patrol officer to hide to catch as many speeders as possible. He believes paying a steep fine for a first offense will boost our bottom line. Not sure if that would happen. It would probably cost more in salaries between Murphy Security and Farmington Woods office staff to catch and process the speeders. But I do agree people should slow down. A lot of people walk here. And if you've ever walked in the "imaginary" walkway on lower Heritage you know what I mean.

Last, but always troubling was the subject of garbage. One district rep commented on garbage on street corners, in driveways and on top of the garbage bins. He complained that residents in his area are tired of seeing it for days on end. He was told to call the MA and someone would pick it up but he wasn’t happy with this solution. It certainly is a common and unsightly problem in Farmington Woods.

We heard the usual social reports: Connect, Community Awareness and Communications. Most reports were like other month’s except the announcement that Farmington Woods proposes to enter the 21^st century by developing a Face Book page even though the board thinks they reach most residents with the monthly “In the Woods”. The sad fact is that they are delivered to our doors, but most residents, at least in my neighborhood, take them directly from the mailbox and deposit them in their recycling container. I watch my neighbors do this every month.

The Farmington Woods website, with its registered users and over 700 email addresses was brought up but it seems to be used more for golf/clubhouse marketing purposes than to deliver important information to residents like the change of location of last month's executive board meeting.

According to the board we also use the Valley Press, Avon Patch, Farmington Life and the Valley Press to get our message out regarding golf and I assume, the joy of residential life here. There was one in Avon Life's October edition. (See  blogpost "He Said, She Said Journalism" October 7, 2012 .)

There was no mention of this blog but our stats show an average of 1500 monthly visits from residents and non-residents alike. In the last ten months we have received scores of unsolicited emails from prospective buyers asking very specific questions. We try to answer them as honestly and positively as possible. We are not here to bash Farmington Woods as a community. We like living here and when people ask, we tell them so.

The most disturbing event at the meeting was the budget discussion. It started by the board declaring that “we need to pick a number from 1 to 100 but we need a start somewhere.” At first, I didn’t understand what "picking a number" had to do with the budget. It soon became very clear when Finance Chairman, Brian Petrovitis  stated, “I don’t really need a number, just a place to start. Last year we worked hard on the budget and in the last hour had to scramble to adjust it for the vote.”

Now, I understood. The discussion involved picking a number to decide the percentage raise residents would incur for the next fiscal year, in both district taxes and condo fees. As a professional who manages budgets in my job, I was shocked to hear we pick a number and then work towards it!

One board member suggested a 3% starting point! What was wrong with starting at a 0% growth budget and reengineering Farmington Woods working processes? Why not look at what we spend and decide if we can spend smarter? What projects are needs versus luxury wants?  There are other approaches available before we just “pick” a number as a starting point.

For the umpteenth time a board member brought up the “fact” that we have never had an assessment here at Farmington Woods. This is categorically untrue. Read your documents (or read “Reassessing Assessments below.) We’ve had an ongoing monthly assessment called a restaurant minimum since 1998! It started out at $20/month for ten months and went to $25/month for twelve months a few years later. It’s now $30/month and if some board members have their way it will be increased in the new budget.

So yes, you, me and every resident of Farmington Woods has a monthly assessment, one that will only go up and that allows the clubhouse the luxury of $562K in staff salaries in this budget year alone. (I wonder if four star restaurants like Matthews, Apricot's or Cuginos pay that much in staff salaries. It would be interesting to know.)

In our fourteen years here the minimum assessment alone has cost us over $5000! I think if I were representing Farmington Woods as a board member I would be careful about spreading false and misleading information to prospective buyers. There may be legal ramifications for distorting the truth. 

We just received a survey with our monthly statements. I encourage everyone reading to complete it. Farmington Woods is trying to get a handle on the population, needs and wants of the community. There was much discussion about what we get for our money: pools, clubhouse, golf, tennis, sidewalks (or lack thereof) to name a few. One board member said “We should ask what residents don’t want.”

I’m not sure what residents don’t want, but I can tell you that based on the Focus Groups held roughly two years ago in 2011, what they do want. Of all the concerns and suggestions coming out of those groups one thing stood out quite clearly: the overwhelming majority of Farmington Woods residents want the golf/clubhouse operation to be a self-sustaining enterprise. We need to work towards that.

The meeting closed without any report on golf or clubhouse activities. That produced major groaning and grumbling from the crowd as they exited the meeting. I happened to overhear a comment regarding the playscape. One resident wanted to know who would be watching the kids (my guess would be their mothers) and what would happen if a kid got hurt. I guess we would just follow the same protocol we do for any other accidents here at Farmington Woods, (resident sidewalk or clubhouse falls, slips at the pool): liability insurance. Every resident pays for it.

A closing note: Thanks to the many friends and neighbors who showered us with Christmas cookies and email Holiday cards. As for the cookies, we enjoyed every one we ate and cursed the scale the next morning. Worth every bite though.

NOVEMBER BOARD MEETING: NOT A(N EMAIL) BLAST

The location of November’s executive board meeting was changed from the master association to the clubhouse but most residents were unaware of this because there was no email blast to notify us in advance. As a result, attendance was very low and familiar faces were missing. I guess email blasts are reserved for important announcements, like farewell parties and such.

The meeting started off with an important announcement. Our new president informed us that if conversation between residents were to take place during the meeting it should take place outside of the room. She then called the meeting to order. From there she announced there was a quorum and asked if there were remarks from the floor.

Why is this sequence so important you wonder? In past meetings, comments from the floor always came first so they weren’t included in the minutes. As a result, residents’ ideas, concerns, frustrations and complaints never appear on the record. But tonight, they were included in the meeting itself.

A newly elected board member expressed her gratitude for the change and that’s when things heated up. Both the president and former president put their hands up in a stop motion and said almost in unison “now wait a minute” as our president explained that she had no intention of including comments in the minutes due to legal reasons. Discussion went back and forth until the new board member retreated.

And then came the second wave. While trying to approve the last two months of minutes, the newly elected board member asked that the minutes be changed to reflect that Roberts Rules of Order had not been followed during a special session meeting. Once again, the president and another board member erupted. The discussion got so heated that at one point the board member shouted, “What’s your point?” to the requester.

She continued to press as to why the minutes couldn’t be updated to include a statement reflecting Roberts Rules of Order had not been followed. Boldly, she asked the new GM to take off his manager hat, put on his legal one and tell them the correct way to state that the rules weren’t followed. He had no response. It was finally decided that a blanket statement would be made to correct the minutes.

There was a report from the clubhouse committee regarding the restaurant survey. Results were published in the December “In the Woods” Some 320 residents responded and most comments were favorable. There was some dismay about the stairs, service, décor, and hours but overall, this committee saw the results as a favorable. Interestingly, no one mentioned the fact that 800 residents chose not to respond at all.

The survey showed the age range of those using the restaurant to be 56 years and older. The committee reasoned that this finding was an indicator of younger residents not having discretionary funds to spend at the clubhouse.

But here is the overlooked reality. The younger crowd doesn’t want to sit at a bar drinking, watching golf and rehashing the glory days. We would much rather be at the Olive Bar rooting for our favorite basketball, baseball, or football teams, drinking with our peers and discussing the latest technology and advancing careers.

We also spend our discretionary funds on season tickets at local colleges, area comedy clubs, and on massages, manicures and pedicures. We like gourmet coffee and will pay $5.50 a cup several times a day without giving it a thought. We occasionally drop $125.00 per ticket on a good concert. In case you’re not familiar with the latest statistics, most young Farmington Woods residents are young professionals with decent incomes.

It was revealed at the meeting that. we are on track to lose $120K as budgeted on the golf operation. The golf committee initially voted a dues increase and then suddenly, rescinded that vote. There will be no increase in golf dues because current members indicated that any increase would cause them to find other places to play. And we all know, we cannot afford to lose more members. I am a little surprised by their lack of loyalty to Farmington Woods Golf Course though.

On the brighter side, there are plans in place to bring in new members that include corporate memberships (The Hartford?) one day a week during the golf season. They did stress the need to bring in younger golfers to Farmington Woods and are actively wining and dining some private school golf teachers. I hope it all works.

There was also discussion on the siding of units, a project that is coming to an end. Apparently 20 years ago Farmington Woods made the commitment to rehab all units and little by little it is being done. The project was anticipated to take 20 years and now 20 years later we find that we need more time. The timeframe will be extended but it was revealed that when the program started there were a dozen or so carpenters. As of today we have four due to budget cuts. (The scheduled $120K loss to the golf course could pay the salaries of several carpenters and be a boost to our infrastructure at the same time.)

This report began by criticizing the board’s lack of communication skills: the location of the meeting was changed but residents were not informed by the email blast system. So it was nice to hear our new president announce several times during the meeting that all residents can log onto the Farmington Woods website membership tab and receive updates including draft meeting minutes.

This is a first at Farmington Woods and we applaud her decision to do this. If you are having trouble logging into the membership page which does require a password, the MA office can help. If you would like hands on help board members are offering to come to your home to assist.

The meeting closed with awards and gifts given to Farmington Woods volunteers. A nice gesture and certainly we are all glad to have them and appreciate their work.

The next meeting is scheduled Jan 7, 2013 due to holidays.

REASSESSING ASSESSMENTS

ARE WE BEING ASSESSED OR NOT?

Assessments are a fact of life endured by residents of many condominiums. But not at Farmington Woods Condominium according to our leaders:

In her letter of January 5, 2012 to all unit owners, Irene Loretto, President of both the tax district and executive boards assured us that “There has never been an assessment at Farmington Woods” and as recently as last month tax district director Nancy Landwehr made a similar statement in an article about Farmington Woods in the Avon News. I have heard the same claim from other board members as well over the last year.

I finally decided to check the accuracy, if not the veracity of those statements and quickly discovered that our leaders are either ill informed or prevaricating. It didn’t take a whole lot of research to find the truth.

The following document is from Amendment Number 3 to our Bylaws adopted March 30, 1998. It refers to our restaurant and the newly created minimums. Without even reading it you can see that the word assessment appears in one form or another 5 separate times!

(I highlighted the only section you need to read to see how we’ve been hoodwinked.)

History fascinates me. From what I’ve been able to ascertain from residents who were here in 1998 the restaurant was doing poorly and residents were asked to bail it out. So why can’t our leaders just own up to that. It’s one thing for them to remain ignorant of the history of Farmington Woods but trying to convince us that there’s never been an  assessment here is just plain dishonest.

Section 7.2. Powers and Duties. The Executive Board may act in all instances on behalf of the Association, except as provided in the Declaration, these Bylaws or the Act.

aa.        (1) Operate and maintain the premises and facilities leased from the Farmington Woods District for the benefit of the Unit Owners, their invitees and members pursuant to terms and conditions of membership as set by the Master Association.

(2) Provide for non resident and resident membership in the golf club.

(3) Maintain a Club liquor license under the Liquor Control Regulations of the State of Connecticut within the Clubhouse leased from the District.

 (4) Levy assessments against the Unit Owners and members of the golf club who so agree as a condition of membership, as a charge or fee for goods and services purchased or other charges incurred by Unit Owners or such members for use of the facilities or membership in the golf club but not paid for at the time of purchase, and for any additional fees or charges incurred by a Unit Owner or golf club member in the use, leasing, renting, or purchasing of goods and services from the Association in connection with the premises leased from the District or other services provided directly to the Unit Owner by the Association or its staff. The charges for membership in the golf club and use of the Clubhouse may reasonably differentiate between golfing and non-golfing memberships.

The levy can include a separate assessment per Unit Owner or golf club member as a minimum periodic charge for the fixed costs of operation and overhead of the restaurant in the Clubhouse, against which the costs of meals purchased during such period can be credited. This uniform restaurant assessment shall be established by the Executive Board after Notice to the Unit Owners and an opportunity to Comment. Pursuant to Section 47-258(a) of the Act, such charges may be assessed against the Unit of any Unit Owner incurring such charges, and enforceable as a common expense assessment.

THE COSTS OF NOT RUNNING A BUSINESS AS A BUSINESS

The State of Connecticut passed the Common Interest Ownership Act in 1984 and amended it in 2009. It governs what executive boards can and cannot do and puts limits on how much they can assess unit owners in any given year. It turns out that if an assessment does not exceed 15% of the association budget “the special assessment is effective without approval of the unit owners.”

So, if the association wanted to assess all 1,084 units $1,000 each for new roofs the total of nearly $1.1M would require the approval of owners since it exceeds 15% of our yearly budget of $6M. That's a one time assessment.

When I moved here in 1999 the restaurant assessment was $20/mo for ten months. That soon changed to $25/mo for twelve months and was raised to $30/mo several years ago. That's an ongoing assessment, one that never ends and only goes up.

In 1998, when the assessment first went into effect, the total came to about $220K, well under the 15% threshold for unit owner approval.That $220K has grown to nearly $400K, still under the 15% limit for owner approval. 

But if you figure what that 1998 assessment has cost residents since its enactment, it comes to roughly $4.7M, about 78% of this year’s budget. And if you add the $2.1 it will cost residents over the next five years (barring increases), we’re looking at $6.8M over a twenty year period which amounts to an assessment of $6,273K for each unit owner! 

That $6.8M figure sounds oddly familiar. Oh yes, it’s the total that the bonds we rejected in May would have cost us with interest over the next 20 years.

Tax district board elections are today. We have directors who are either unaware of what I just summarized or blatently lying to us about it. These are the same directors that were ready to spend $6.8M over the next twenty years to shore up the money losing golf/clubhouse operation. 

They were so sure we were behind it that they spent $50K of our money planning this boondoggle with it's horseshoe bar.

Let's face it. We need honesty and transparency from our leaders, which is why we need to elect the three candidates I endorsed in my last post: Peter Janus, Joe Chudecki and write-in candidate Harry Dermer.

Public Act No. 10-186

AN ACT CONCERNING THE COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT.

Sec. 47-261e. Adoption of budgets. Special assessments. Loan agreements.

(b) The executive board, at any time, may propose a special assessment. Not later than thirty days after adoption of a proposed special assessment, the executive board shall provide to all unit owners a summary of the proposed special assessment. Unless the declaration or bylaws otherwise provide, if such special assessment, together with all other special and emergency assessments proposed by the executive board in the same calendar year, do not exceed fifteen per cent of the association's last adopted periodic budget for that calendar year, the special assessment is effective without approval of the unit owners.

THREE OPENINGS, THREE EXCELLENT CANDIDATES

We survived a hurricane, a nor'easter and the finale of a grueling presidential race in the span of a week. We can rest now right? My aching back and jangled nerves could use it.

But hold on. There's one more thing we've got to get through before we start resting up from the madness and mayhem we all just experienced. We've got our own election to attend to: there are three openings on the Tax District Board coming up for vote tomorrow night and we have some really great news to share from a reader:

Harry Dermer has agreed to be a write in candidate in the upcoming Farmington Woods Tax District vote on Monday, November 12 at 7pm.  Registration begins at 6:30 pm. 

As many of you know, Harry most recently served on the MA Executive Board.  He is currently serving as a member of the newly appointed Clubhouse Task Force.  He, with the other Task Force members, has been instrumental in identifying improvements which have already had a positive impact on Restaurant revenues.

I urge you to write in Harry Dermer and vote for Peter Janus and Joe Chudecki in the upcoming election!  Together, these individuals will help bring fiscal accountability and financial transparency to FW. 

Please share this news with all your Farmington Woods friends and neighbors.  You need to vote in person.  Every registered Avon or Farmington voter, living in Farmington Woods and/or owning a Farmington Woods unit is entitled to vote.

I've lived in Farmington Woods for more than thirteen years now and must say we've never had a more urgent need for new leadership than we do today. Please, if you care about the future of Farmington Woods, show up and vote Monday night.

And if you want the board to be more responsive to the needs of all residents and not just those of one special interest group, vote for Peter Janus, Joe Chudecki and write-in Harry Dermer.

See you there!

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