A penny saved is a dollar burned

The Sutherland's are always eager to point out anything and everything they do or are responsible for that saves our Association money.  However, there are really two sides to that coin.  A more balanced assessment of their volunteer efforts and their financial impact on our Association would also have to include the less well known - and certainly less well polished side - the additional cost incurred as a result of their wasteful spending, mismanagement of Association affairs, their uneven pursuit of Association receivables and the additional bloat in the cost of contracted services borne of their cozy relationship with - and over-reliance on - our management company, CMA.

THE SAVINGS  One doesn't have to do too much in the way of estimating to get an idea of the financial benefit the Sutherlands bring to our association.  A glance through any Board meeting minutes would enable one to make a fairly accurate dollar guesstimate, as they are always careful to make note of every contribution, even the most mundane - like this mention in the July 14, 2010 Board meeting minutes:

Compactor hatch door painted and sign installed, but letters are peeling. Community Officer Kit Sutherland agreed to attempt to stabilize the peeling letters.

Or this one, from the minutes of the June 17, 2009 Board meeting:

Kit installed hang-tag labels on the valves for ease of use during a plumbing leak emergency.

But the accuracy of your guesstimate might suffer a bit if you rely solely on them to tell you the amount of the savings.  Like this entry from the May 3, 2010 Board meeting minutes:

Pool is now open. Many, many thanks to volunteers Drew Woods, Erik Moore, and Kit Sutherland who installed the replacement fabric panels in the pool furniture. This task took approximately 6 hours, saving the HOA $1200 in installation costs.

While it was certainly generous for Drew, Erik and Kit to donate six hours of their time to put new fabric panels on the pool furniture, was this really the type of task that the Sutherland Board would have paid $67 an hour for others to do, had they not?  We sincerely hope that the $1200 figure was innocently pulled out of thin air more as a grandiose gesture of appreciation for those that volunteered their time, than an hourly rate the Sutherlands deemed fair and reasonable for the task.  And we cringed when we realized the far-reaching implications of that figure possibly originating from an actual bid received from a contractor who had done work previously for our Association, at the behest of the Sutherlands.

To be fair, the Sutherlands have, indeed, saved our association some amount of money over the years.  Stuart has performed various and sundry legal services - free of charge - that surely total in the thousands.  And, while one could never accuse Kit of cutting anyone out of their manual labor job, she has been known to don a hammer and wrench and fix the vehicle gate herself on several occasions.

THE COSTS   The Sutherlands' service to our Association hasn't exactly come without cost.  So, following their example of duly noting any savings they provide to GIL homeowners, we felt that it was important to likewise make note of the instances when they cost homeowners as well.  This will enable a more balanced and informed assessment of the financial impact the Sutherlands have on our Association.

The following are the first few entries in what will be a running list of wasteful spending and other costs to our Association that will be permanently featured in a continuously scrolling text box, located on the right hand column of our Web site, called the Sutherland Surcharge.

SUTHERLAND SURCHARGE

1. $3,064  The Blog pointed out that we could save $3,064 a year by simply changing our rate plan with Georgia Power.
   >Our rate plan was never changed.
2. $10,000  The Blog took an in-depth look at our electrical usage and found that nearly $10,000 a year is wasted on heating the stairwells with 4,000 watt electric space heaters around the clock during winter months.
   >No effort has been made by the Board to look into, address or otherwise even mention the matter since it was brought to their attention.
3. $5,500  Then there are the costs that come in the form of money due the Association that the Sutherlands chose not to collect - like the pile of unpaid monthly assessments that the developer of Glen Iris Lofts and former GIL home owner, Jerrold Miller, owes.  The Blog received a detailed analysis of the amount owed our Association by Mr. Miller from one of our readers and they estimated that at the time he let his unit go back to the bank, he owed our Association an entire year of monthly assessments.
   >For reasons yet to be determined, the Sutherlands chose not to pursue Mr. Miller for the funds - despite the fact that there are former homeowners who are being pursued relentlessly for unpaid past assessments years after they have left Glen Iris Lofts.
4. $1,250  In a now-famous temper tantrum, Kit Sutherland threw a brand new utility cart that had been donated by the Blog into the garbage and promised that the other four carts we were preparing to donate would meet the same fate, should they be deployed.  Further, the Board announced that if any more carts were needed, they Association would pay for them.  This figure includes the money Kit Sutherland spent involving the Association's attorney in the matter, resultant of her having no idea what an RFID tag was and, upon finding one on the donated cart, becoming convinced that it was some sort of covert listening or video device designed to illicitly spy on homeowners (sorta gives one a window into where she's coming from, no?).
   >Despite several homeowner statements that more carts are, in fact, needed, no additional carts have been made available to homeowners - likely due to the fact that the Association cannot afford to buy them, at present.
5. $45,000   The difference between the highest quote received by the Sutherland Board to remedy the failed retaining wall behind the 640 building ($120,000) and an eleventh hour bid that was ultimately  accepted ($165,000) that had been pushed heavily by CMA less than two weeks after they were hired to replace Piedmont Management Co.
   >Despite going with the higher price tag with curious haste, the rear wall is again failing and will need to be addressed anew - and the money required to do so, spent anew as well.

This list will be continued in tomorrow's Blog post. Stay tuned!

People who read this post also read :