For anyone who has followed posts on this site for any length of time, it is hopefully apparent that all discussions are heavily referenced. And while pledging to that motto, it is with complete dismay that cut and paste excerpts from the recent post titled “Seriously lacking initiative” (1) have been published to the creek9.org (2) website absent all reference material and without any direction to the source of information.
The website carrying the front page banner, “Breaking News – Click below to read the Creek 9 Initiative’s rebuttal to misinformation being spread via social media” is linked front and center at the POA website. Considering that the “rebuttal” is contained on two official POA web locations, it will be assumed that the current board has sanctioned it’s content.
But let it first be noted that when cutting and pasting excerpts from the article while failing to include the author’s references, the “rebuttal” constructs an argument that was never presented by this writer.
It appears that bcmatters.org has been used as a backdrop to correct misinformation found on the Creek 9 website . . .
The focus of the “rebuttal” and misinformation appears to be aimed at questions and concerns from this writer regarding the absence of any bids for Bergin as the “general contractor” on the Creek nine renovation project. (1) (2) The “architect, project manager and general contractor” scenario was referenced by this writer as was noted in the FAQ section of the creek9.org website and by POA director and leader of the Creek 9 initiative in his August 12th presentation. (3) Neither of these citations were included in the excerpts reproduced from the article posted on this site. As additional information, the general contractor relationship was also described in the July board meeting. (4)
And Poof . . . as though it was never there . . .
Instead, the content of the FAQ which was used as the basis and foundation of questions and concerns has been altered on the Creek 9 website several days AFTER the posting of this writer’s article on August 17th and without any indication of that change having been made. click here FAQ081920 (5) and click here FAQ082120 (6)
This is disingenuous and frankly deceptive. And why was it changed? Was the previous information incorrect? Or did the nature of the relationship with Bergin just change? One must further wonder if this knowledge renders reference of other POA information useless and unreliable.
Unfortunately, future readers of the article at bcmatters.org will likely question the validity of the writer’s discussion of general contractors as that word and terminology has been completely expunged from the POA information.
In this instance for sure, any misinformation distributed to the community regarding the Creek nine renovation has come from leadership and not this blog site . . .
And now, according to the “rebuttal” and now altered FAQ, it is learned that Bergin will instead be acting in the capacity of architect, project manager and construction supervisor. Using that new scenario, bids for a “general contractor” would not be required. And . . . aside from the obvious manipulation of the content of the FAQ, serious concern is expressed for leadership’s inability to accurately convey, understand or communicate the organizational structure of this $2.3 million construction project. (It might also be noted that Bergin Golf Designs was referred to as Bill Bergin and Associates in the original FAQ.) For that matter, one might ask if this new narrative is even the correct narrative. Either way, this is not a very convincing start as details really do matter – especially in a project of this size.
And with the structure and organization of a construction project defining responsibilities, liabilities and the appropriateness of the bid process, it should certainly be important to all that we have a clear understanding of that structure.
In closing, this site often presents perspectives which are different than those of some leadership and some property owners. And, ordinarily, responses and reactions to this writer’s posts are not addressed, as comments on either side of an issue are considered healthy and each and every property owner should have the liberty to express their views, but . . . when leadership participates in an action or position that is deceptive and a misrepresentation of the facts, a response becomes necessary and must be made.
. . . . .
Please feel free to share your comments on this site or contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Likewise, should you wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification. Meanwhile . . . take care and stay safe.
Patricia Cross (10438 Big Canoe)
References:
-
“Seriously lacking initiative”, August 17th, 2020, bcmatters.org
-
https://creek9.org/
- Creek 9 Initiative Presentation, August 12th, 2020, at 35:35 (POAwebsite>login>POA>meetings>videos>….)
4) Meeting of the Board of Directors Video, July 23rd, 2020 at 29:30 (POAwebsite>login>POA>Meetings>SubscribeToOurYouTube . . . >)
5) FAQ, “We’ve experienced delays and cost overruns on previous capital projects. Why will this be different?”, August 19, 2020, creek9.org.
6) FAQ, “We’ve experienced delays and cost overruns on previous capital projects. Why will this be different?”, August 21, 2020, creek9.org.