Why the secrecy?

The Bella Vista Property Owners Board of Directors have had several unannounced, closed meetings that should be of concern to the membership.

We understand that, as a private corporation's board, the POA board does not have to follow the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, but it should because the board represents more than 20,000 members who expect transparency -- far more than they've gotten over the past few weeks.

Was now-former general manager Tommy Bailey forced out or did he resign? Generally speaking, when a board uses the term "it's a personnel matter" that's a good sign of the former. Because don't you think if he would have resigned they would have said that?

Because this was never discussed in an open meeting it's a safe assumption that the board had a closed meeting -- or several of them -- to reach its decision.

Then the board decided in a closed meeting to hire GSI Executive Search to help in its search for a new manager. We don't really understand why the board would go into an executive session to hire a search firm under the guise of it being a meeting on personnel. The board was hiring a search firm, not hiring a new general manager. It didn't need a closed meeting. The membership should be informed about the board's thinking on hiring of a new general manager.

Unfortunately, the membership will never know what the board is looking for in a general manager. Do they want a marketer? A finance man? Someone more like a city manager? Someone who will say "Yes" to their every request?

The board never announced any closed meetings to discuss personnel, which is their prerogative. However, POA board policies (Policy 1.01 I.1) states: All board meetings shall be announced in advance. We acknowledge that the policy goes go on for five more paragraphs, one of which (paragraph 5) states the board may hold discussion sessions that will normally not be open to others. No formal action may be taken at such sessions and minutes will not be recorded.

Thus, it seems that the board CAN meet in secret and not mention it. But, there's the sticky point of Paragraph 3, which states that executive session "action taken by a vote of the Board at an executive session may be reported normally at the next regular board meeting to include the individual board member's vote on the topic or by a confirming roll call vote." Yes, it says "may," not "will" or "shall." Talk about a policy with a lot of wiggle room, this is it.

In light of the membership's long-term distrust of the board, we think they'd want to have a little more transparency than they've had. Seems they should be looking for ways to build trust.

Building relationships with the membership is extremely important as the board struggles to find ways to improve amenities. That relationship is important because, we are certain, the board is going to seek an assessment increase in the future.

The board missed a golden opportunity to provide a dose of transparency, but instead intentionally chose not to open things up so members are better informed.

The board needs to have fewer -- far fewer -- secret meetings. Announcing meetings and opening them will go a long way toward providing transparency to the members. Transparency, and open meetings, will go a long way in building trust, trust which is vital to the POA's financial stability.

Editorial on 09/23/2015