LansdowneLiving.com

The online meeting place and marketplace for Lansdowne, VA

Looking for Insight

Rating: 5 after 1 vote

Something has been bothering me for a while now - ever since Anne Volz brought to my attention at a board meeting that she is no longer allowed to teach the 50 kids she has as clients how to swim.

Why would our board decide that an exclusive swim contract with Let Swim that effectively cancels pre-existing swim contracts with Anne for 50 lansdowne kids is "the right thing to do" in their words? It is a mystery. Anne is fully licensed, insured and has been teaching here for a long time. Now she shows me emails from the board threatening to charge her with trespassing and ban her from the Potomac Club if she dares to teach there. It took numerous families to come speak at board meetings and private meetings with management on her behalf just to get her the leeway to finish her current obligations to the kids.

Does anyone have an answer?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duke Nukem on November 10, 2010 at 5:34pm

Maybe because Lets Swim got there first, and residents would object to the simming pool being turned into a commercial enterprise at the cost to the residents convenince. Just a thought - got no proof - go to the meetings and ask.

Duke

Addos is in

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by johnf on November 10, 2010 at 9:17pm

This situation is simply shameful. I am aware of no reasonable or even remotely reasonable justification. All justifications I have heard have been petty reasoning at best.

This is another example of the problem with the culture of the current board. It is not appropriate for our HOA to send such a threatening letter to a resident. It is also inappropriate to allow only one provider to offer swim lessons when one of the two is an independent resident of our own community. It is unnecessary and creates undue hard feelings.

We need leaders on the board. We don't need the kind of simply bureaucratic, impersonal, lawyerly, and combative action that has characterized so much of the current board's activity. I hope that future boards will act consistently to make decisions that make sense and are in the best interests of all residents. Seeking a win-win may take a little more work on the part of the board, but it IS possible to find such answers in almost every case. This is especially true in cases like this in which numerous reasonable solutions that could satisfy all parties easily are available.

It is unfortunate that such creativity and leadership is absent from the current board. There is no other way to explain the rash of bad decisions that have been noted.

This is not a slight to their dedication, volunterism, or their motivation. I am sure, in their own minds, the incorrect and sometimes incomprehensible decisions they are making are what they believe to be the right things for the community. This is, rather, a commentary on the mechanical, bureaucratic decision making that we are all seeing and an appeal to future board members to be true leaders to this vibrant community.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by robin on November 11, 2010 at 10:23am

Here is an excerpt from the email to Anne. I agree with you John that these types of communications are unnecessary. This came even after many families spoke at 2 board meetings that I attended, kids and all. Still, the board refuses to change their minds about this and authorizes the GM to send this email?
Why is LetSwim the "preferred provider?" So many prefer Anne.
The board stated in session that it is "too complicated to manage the indoor pool." Every time I go, there is no one there. Like I said, it is a mystery.

QUOTE "If it comes to my attention from any LOTP staff, High Sierra staff, or LetSwim that these conditions have been violated, I have the full support of the Board of Directors to revoke your facility usage privileges in five (5) day increments. Additionally, the Board has the authority to revoke facility usage privileges for sixty (60) days per violation. If facility usage is revoked, it is enforceable via trespassing charges.
This is the community’s best and final attempt at having your services available to the community while maintaining a healthy relationship with its preferred provider.
Regards,
Mac
Mac Staples, CMCA®, AMS® " END QUOTE

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Denzin on November 13, 2010 at 12:40pm

I am not sure if Let's Swim got there first before Anne or not. The idea that we sign "exclusives" is rather repugnant to me personally as it smacks of monopoly and I am quintessentially a free trader. However, I would also argue that if there is a revenue share with Let's Swim I would like to hear about it. I have enjoyed the Let's Swim experience with my now 11 year old and most likely will sign him up again. However, if Anne has offered a revenue share then I would like to hear that as well. I am all about the indoor pool being available to outsiders to teach, however, I believe that there needs to be a rev share in place as well it is after all community pool and rental fees should be paid much like if I reserved the ballroom for a function. If Anne, is operating her business (or Let's Swim) and not providing some sort of rev share then I would be against both.