Guest Comment: Disagrees with points in GVR commentary

In regard to Ms Linda Sparks commentary of Oct 17, a majority of her facts were erroneous. That could be attributed to her short time as a Green Valley resident and her limited exposure to GVR affairs prior to her election to the board of directors.

We did agree on two issues. First, it should be a priority in keeping the membership informed which heretofore has been less than acceptable. Secondly, GVR employees should be adequately compensated to insure that the high maintenance standards of our facilities continues and that staff continue their efforts to provide exemplary services to members.

The former executive director made it a point on a number of occasions to the Fiscal Affairs Committee (FAC), of which I was a member, that his intention was “to make GVR a place where employees wanted to come and work.” To that end he was successful in providing, with the board of directors approval, a wage and benefit package that exceeded our area’s major labor market competitors, Pima County and the University of Arizona.

In one area, he was overly generous and few if any members of past boards were cognizant of the language of the GVR employees 401(k) retirement plan. For new residents of Green Valley, much has been written and published on this issue. At GVR, whether or not an employee contributes to their 401(k) plan, GVR contributes 5 percent of the employees salary/wage into their retirement plan.

The unfairness of the plan is compounded in that there is no vesting period. As soon as the employee is eligible for the corporation contribution, those corporate funds immediately become property of the employee and as has happened in the past have been withdrawn for the purchase of a car. This is definitely not the intention of a GVR member dues sponsored retirement plan.

In contrast, employees of our major labor market competitors must as a condition of employment enroll in the Arizona State contributory retirement plan. Then, participation in the contributory matching funds 401(k) plan is optional.

Regarding the 2009 budget, staff recommended to the FAC a $75,000 allotment for employee merit raises and the committee made this proposal to the board. In the previous year $16,000 was allocated for this purpose. Some fiscally minded board members proposed a $25,000 allocation but finally resolved the issue at $37,500 — a substantial reduction from $75,000.

The Board of Directors declared a financial crisis. Yet it saw fit to spend $25,000 for pickle ball courts, allocate $50,000 for Electronic Locks for two centers yet to be identified. Does this sound like a financial crisis?

The board is considering shutting down or reducing the hours of facilities during severe economic times to maintain financial integrity. Has the board considered NOT opening up the Canoa Ranch Social Center and saving approximately $235,000 of operational expenses? The current Social Centers are handling the additional member usage. That would be a bold move and alienate a few rather than the masses

As for the Code of Conduct issue, over the years of all the meetings I have attended, I have never witnessed vulgar language or inappropriate behavior. I have seen heated discussion over certain issues but nothing that would warrant the kind of disciplinary action that is being proposed. As the old saying goes “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Maybe disagreeing with the board majority is considered inappropriate. Maybe GVR should establish a flag with the hammer and sickle and just take dissidents out to the back 40 and shoot them. Yes, that was intended sarcasm. People who disagree with the board decisions are not malcontents but have a vested interest and an obligation to question their actions.

Elmer Silaghi has been a full time resident of Green Valley for 13 years, having retired as an automotive design leader, and during his 38 years of experience spent four years as the engineering representative of the corporate value analysis committee. The views expressed are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of this newspaper.