Posted by Jim Haar
In a recent email blast to Somersett residents, Somersett Country Club President Pat Gaskill, recommended voting for Board of Director candidates Kirby and Huff, which as a Somersett homeowner he has every right to do so. However, in evaluating his recommendations one should consider the following:
1 Mr. Gaskill has advised us to “Stay tuned for subsequent communications”, this raises the question as to why and for what motive is the Country Club President undertaking a tandem campaign for these particular candidates? It is well known that Ms. Kirby is a party to re-negotiating the current SGCC Lease Agreement.
2 Mr. Gaskill identifies the others as “excellent candidates”, but because they are retired, he dismisses them by saying: “clearly at this time, as a group, not representative of our diverse Somersett Community”. The irony here is that in last year’s election, Mr. Gaskill and the Country Club endorsed, three Country Club members, a realtor, and a retiree, all of whom were supporters, at that time, of the Country Club Lease Agreement. Where was the diversity in these recommendations? Another irony is that out of the current five Board members, the two who have been most engaged in devoting their time and energy to association affairs are both retired.
3 Mr. Gaskill implies, without addressing other qualifications, that we should vote for Kirby and Huff because they have young children. However, I suspect most of the candidates have had experience with raising young children and related community issues. Having young children does not in itself qualify or disqualify one for serving on an association Board of Directors and should not be a determining factor in who to vote for.
4 Mr. Gaskill closes his endorsement letter by encouraging “Happy Residents” to take action stating, “Otherwise, the direction of our community, …, is always at risk of being dominated by a disgruntled and vocal minority with plenty of time on their hands just waiting to dictate direction to those of us who are too busy getting on with our lives …” . What is the implication of this statement and how does this relate to the other, as he describes, “excellent candidates”?
I consider much of Mr. Gaskill’s comments to be somewhat disingenuous and perhaps self serving. Therefore, I would encourage all to put aside his endorsements, and on your own, become familiar with all five candidates (Fadrowsky, Huff, Kanyr, Kirby, and Myerson), their experience, background and skills, and subsequently vote for those you feel most qualified to serve.
Personally, based on the individual candidate statements and what I observed on candidate night, I consider the other three candidates (Fadrowsky, Kanyr and Myerson) to be much more qualified to serve than those endorsed by the Country Club President. However, you be the judge!