Greenbelt News Review

THE GREENBELT NEWS REVIEW
The GHI Tangle

Three months have now elapsed since the Greenbelt Homes, Inc. election in May which resulted in the naming of several new members to the board of directors. With the addition of new and more widely divergent views on the board, there has been much speculation as to how effectively and efficiently the new board and management would operate as a team.

It can hardly be said that board and management got off to an auspicious start with the first major issue confronting it -- the opening of a sales and service office in the commercial center. The board has taken three different positions on this matter within almost that many months and has presented an image to the public of indecision and confusion.

All parties have made their contributions to this undesirable situation.

Some of the members of the board, led by Harry Zubkoff, in suggesting a reappraisal of the decision to sublease space from Twin Pines, made the proposal in such sweeping terms that the impression was created that they were challenging the integrity of the old board and management. On the other hand, some of the incumbents of the board and management were so intent upon defending their original decision that they failed to retain a sufficient open mind to appraise the merits of the proposals advanced by the other group.

The result was as might be expected. When the matter came to a vote at the July 13 meeting, the situation was so confused by charges and counter-charges that the board violated a cardinal principle of good management -- it failed to get the facts before making a decision. It voted 5-2 to move into the space formerly occupied by High's without first ascertaining precisely what it would cost. (One group had charged there would not be much additional cost; another group charged there would be, but no precise estimates were presented.)

All parties must take responsibility for this lapse -- the board for failing to insist upon a precise cost estimate before making the decision, and management for its lack of vision in not having available cost estimates. (It was not until the August 10 meeting that management came up with the precise cost estimates which finally persuaded the board that the move to High's was not economically feasible).

In addition, management was remiss in not bringing to the board's attention at the July 13 meeting the possibility that the agreement with Twin Pines was of such a nature as to constitute a binding commitment. This bit of information would have been very influential, since it would have raised the spectre that GHI would have to pay dual rent.

It is a hopeful sign that this unfortunate experience has apparently burned its lesson into the minds of board and management. The board at its August 31 meeting decided to get from management full and precise cost estimates before making any further decisions about moving into the center. We suggest that management in preparing these cost estimates consider several alternatives, since various types of arrangements are possible, depending on such factors as how many hours the office will be open, how much space will be utilized, and what personnel will be used.