Author: Myles Riner
In their search for a new IVGID General Manager (GM), the Board of Trustees, or at least some of these Trustees, appear to be looking for a puppet GM, someone who will do their bidding and never challenge them even if they appear to be headed in a direction that undermines the best interests of our community.
One of the things that made Mr. Winquest an excellent GM is that he could be counted on to raise questions when given direction by the Trustees that was inimical to the District, to IVGID staff, or to the residents of Incline Village / Crystal Bay (IV/CB). He would do this privately and respectfully, and with a clear understanding of his responsibility as the Board’s sole employee, and to the District. Trustees Schmitz, Dent, and Tulloch weren’t happy with even the most respectfully tendered disagreement, and that is why they forced him out.
A careful listen to the recording of the January 25, 2024 special Board Meeting reveals the not-so-subtle effort by these three Trustees to stifle any such behavior on the part of the next GM. Every good employer knows that the willingness to provide such feedback is an extremely valuable attribute in a manager, and that encouraging this kind of feedback is critical for the successful operation of the organization. What these three Trustees want is a lackey, a puppet who will dance to whatever tune they whistle.
Trustee Schmitz opened this strategy with a suggestion to modify the proposed GM Contract language in Section 1.4 to prohibit the GM from participating as a volunteer in a non-profit conducting business in IV/CB, even if such participation does not conflict with or interfere with the performance of the GM’s duties. This restriction seems like it is a reaction to Mr. Winquest’s many years of youth team coaching, which contributed to his popularity with Incline residents. You would think that the Trustees would want to encourage their GM to become involved in, and integrated into, the community in ways that enhance, and do not conflict with, the GM’s management role. This restriction also sends a similar message to the rest of the IVGID staff: don’t think of yourself as a member of this community. Apparently, Trustee Schmitz sees a popular GM, or an engaged staff, as a threat (hear her statement starting at the 50:19 mark).
She also suggested that the GM may be terminated for cause not just for serious infractions like fraud and gross negligence, but also for failing to enforce compliance with Board Policies and Practices. Though it is unlikely that the GM would be terminated for cause if the failure to enforce compliance by employees with a Board policy did not result in serious repercussions for the District, its employees, or IV/CB residents; this rather draconian provision is likely to undermine the relationships and trust between the GM and IVGID employees.
Trustee Tulloch also recommended changes to the draft GM Contract terms, again hammering on the need for the GM (under Section 1.2) to ‘execute and implement the policies of the Board of Trustees”. This requirement was redundant to other provisions, but Tulloch expressed concern that the GM “could be enforcing the policies but not following the direction of the board of trustees”. To this the Director of Human Resources raised the question: “If there is a policy and procedure that conflicts with board direction might (this proposed addition) set up some confusion?” Tulloch’ s response was: “then that means there is an issue with policy, but we know there are policies in place that haven’t been updated for years, and sometimes it takes a long time to change these policies”. (You can hear this exchange at the 55:46 mark).
Of course, there is a reason why GMs are to be governed by adopted policies when they conflict with direction from Trustees: policies are adopted after the full consideration and debate by the Board and input from the community; whereas Board ‘direction’, even when it comes from a majority of the Board, often does not have the benefit of this due diligence. As the Board’s attorney pointed out: “Generally, the GM is going to have a duty to follow the adopted policies until the board rescinds them or changes them or modifies them” rather than taking conflicting directions from individual trustees, and most contracts for managers specify that they have to follow direction given by the board at a meeting.” Missing the point entirely, Tulloch responded: “But the phrase I used was the Board of Trustees not board members.” This proposed addition to the contract terms, and the ensuing discussion, goes directly to the problem with Board micromanagement of IVGID staff, the heavy-handed approach taken by these three Trustees towards staff and management, and the inclination they have to ignore community sentiment and longstanding IVGID practice reinforced by many past Boards. This inclination is called ‘hubris’.
Trustee Tulloch also reiterated the proposal to expand the ‘termination for cause’ provision in the GM Contract to include ‘failure to faithfully execute and (incomprehensible?) implement and observe the lawful and legal policies established by the Board’. Again, a heavy-handed and unnecessary threat intended to ensure that the GM toes the line and dances to their tune. Sure, one can conceive of arguments in support of these proposed changes to the draft GM contract, but they all are predicated on the idea that IVGID staff are predisposed to intentionally ignore IVGID policy, and thwart the will of these three Trustees. There is no evidence for the former, but there may be good reasons for the latter.
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
Would you like to stay up to date on the news and activities taking place in our town? Provide your email address below and then hit the SUBMIT button. We send the latest news and events straight to your email inbox!