Much has change since then, but some things have stayed the same. More people know about how lucrative that old contract was for Glanton Inc. and more people have been expressing a few thoughts about how they perceive that RGI got the gold mine while the citizens of Richardson got the shaft.
Some of the things that have not changed include the city staff really wanting to keep RGI running the golf course. He has done such a fine job of things!
Included in those fine things is the fact that the golf course since the beginning of 2004 the golf course has lost $1,596,605. When the city bail-outs are added, the golf fund has lost a staggering $2,917,466. Only in government would the loss of almost $3 million be called "doing a great job!" The pages of the CAFR's since 2003 can be found here: http://graphics.dc-tm.com/G>ransfer-WS-S-Golf-Other
The word is RGI is very unhappy about the proposed contract. He will not be grossing the $1 to $2 million a year anymore. Him being happy or sad is of little concern. The big concern is that we as taxpayers get the most for our money with any contract for services.
As for the city council, no doubt there will be many questions. For the most part, they are not critical thinkers. They appear to be more of a rubber stamp committee.
The change is how we elect the mayor may make tonight's meeting a little more interactive. I would expect Laura and Amir both to ask more questions. The rest of the council, not so much of a change.
"Only in government would the loss of almost $3 million be called 'doing a great job!'"
ReplyDeleteObviously you have never worked for large publicly traded companies.
An excellent job was done last night. By the management staff.
ReplyDeleteBurying the golf course management issue at the back end of the agenda served to ensure their was no time for discussion in the work session. When it finally came up at almost 11 P.M., in the Council meeting there was little hope for any real survey or examination of the proposed contract, especially after Mr. Johnson, the City Manager, explained how long and diligently the proposal took to perfect, and how ample time there was to review it.
No questions about stopping general fund replacement of golf course losses out the front door of City coffers. Nothing said about shifting debt service payments for the course to the general fund to be paid out of the back door of city coffers.
No questions about the exorbitant and much larger G&A transfer out of golf course funds.
And, no questions about management approval for paying certain of the contractor's non-golf course related expenses from course earned funds.
But on the bright side, Rick Shamblan, the citizen who spoke to Council twice about his differences with the proposed golf contract provisions, learned how ideas from a concerned citizen that differ from management's are received by our Council. Last night must have been a true Master Card moment for him, but the City needs more people like Mr. Shamblan paying attention to what's best for taxpayer's streets and infrastructure needs than protecting a long time contractor.
And, the new agreement finally gives the golf course everything it earns after expenses. It also caps
Mr. Glanton's company to no more than $225,000 per year.
Quite a difference than the previous 28 year old circumstances.
By putting this toward the end of the meeting just shows we need a new council and Mayor. Seven people who have no ties to any group in Richardson. Seven who will work for the people!!!!
ReplyDeleteHow many times must you be told you are a nuisance to the city as a property owner and citizen. This is their city and they intend to do it their way with your money.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Their way with my money
ReplyDeletemost regular customers don't like Glanton. $225,000? PGA of America in 2010 surveyed salaries and $140,000 was the top end for pros. This guys has abused COR for to long. Glanton recently had ethic charges filed with NTPGA. Nobody ever investigated. When asked why no one investigated, president of NTPGA said to stop emailing he would never answer that question.
ReplyDeleteSherrill Park looks great 1 week out of the year. That is the week Glanton holds a tournament for his PGA buddies. The rest of the year it is only half ass. The greens are the worst in town in the spring and summer when other courses are great. This has gone on for years.
ReplyDeleteGlanton needs to go, and take his staff with him.
"When asked why no one investigated, president of NTPGA said to stop emailing he would never answer that question."
ReplyDeleteI believe that was the year he was named the Golf Professional of the Year by the Northern Texas PGA 2007Mr. Glanton also served as president of the Northern Texas PGA in 2006 and 2007, and currently serves as the District 12Director for PGA of America, representing Texas and New Mexico
The PGA was aware of the ethics charges, but turned a blind eye.
Amazing
I agree, if Glanton left, nobody would miss him.
ReplyDeleteThe contract was long over-due, and to put a cap of $225,000 is more than reasonable for any Golf Pro in the nation.
ReplyDeleteFor Ronnie it is a big haircut, but reasonable for what he does for the city. Actually a little high I would think a cap of $180 would be generous.
People, such as, Ronnie have taken avantage of City Officials well to long. They know, recognize, the City does not understand the management of a Golf course, and then put their trust in a PGA member. The City Officials do not realize the PGA is like any union. It is for the protection of it's members not the City or Golf.
It is a pratice well over-done hiring PGA members, rather than hiring good professional business minded people.
I remember watching Glanton on the evening news hiding in his office when channel 11 reporter wanted to ask about his income. Glanton has deceived Richardson taxpayers and pocketed millions of dollars, has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars running Sherrill Park, why in the hell would anybody hire him again.
ReplyDeleteGuys, this is sad. Your blaming a guy for something the COR clearly allows and promotes. So your saying if you work for a corporation and they hand you a fat contract you'd walk away. The issue is NOT RGI, it is clearly the COR who allows it to continue. PERIOD.
ReplyDelete