continued Question: What was the result of the board members vote to send the letter of support?
Answer: The decision to proceed with the letter of support was approved by a majority of the board.
Comments: Would it not have been just as easy and far more informative to simply have said approved by a 6 to 1, 5 to 2 or 4 to 3 majority? Why was there a propensity to avoid full disclosure? More importantly, why did the BOD not answer this very simple question at the Nov. 21 meeting? Do they not know how they voted?
Why is this important? In my opinion, under these circumstances, Mr. Raddell was at a bare minimum, ethically and morally obligated to withdraw himself from all YMCA related votes because of his clear and undisputable conflict of interest. If your stated majority vote was, in fact 4 to 3, with the withdrawal of Mr. Raddell, the outcome could have been entirely different.
Question: What were the details of the survey that the YMCA commissioned by RMS Results? Can that be provided to the residents?
Answer: We have a link to that survey on our website. You can find it on the About Radisson/In the News page.
Comments: Well, at least you answered one of the two questions, the second easier one. Although the sad fact is very few people will take the time to search your website for the information, a very convenient truth no doubt.
Somehow I think at least implied in the first question, was the expectation that you would have provided at least a thumb nail sketch of the details that apparently influenced the BOD’s decision to support YMCA plans. Details as to why the BOD would place any credibility whatsoever on a 12-year-old, “outdated, biased and tainted” survey paid for by the YMCA. This is “all about elementary Statistics 101;” if you want to assess the validity of a study or survey, first look at who paid for it. Funny how survey results always, with rare exception, support the cause paying the bill, isn’t it?