Roger Carroll is a longtime New Hampshire journalist. He lives in Belmont and doesn’t ski or zipline.
The heart of the dispute that led to this summer’s shutdown of the Gunstock Mountain Resort, it seems to me watching from the cheap seats, is the Belknap County Legislative Delegation’s attempt to manage resort operations by stacking the Gunstock Area Commission with people who feel it is their job to manage – some would probably say micromanage – day-to-day operations at the mountain.
The law that created the commission in 1959 backs that up, establishing “a commission to operate, maintain, develop, improve and promote the Gunstock Area in Gilford.”
There it is: the enabling legislation gives the commission the authority to “operate” the mountain.
Gunstock commissioners – acting at the direction of hardliners in the legislative delegation – may have acted legally in seeking oversight over day-to-day operations. But it seems fair to ask whether it’s wise or prudent to have a commission involved in day-to-day affairs, while they also write checks for qualified, experienced high-priced management. At best it’s redundant, but in Gunstock’s case, the delegation’s actions injected a dysfunctional element into what had been a well-regarded, successful operation.
It would be like a school board hiring a superintendent, but with school board members taking a daily hands-on approach to things like curriculum, athletics, teacher evaluations and other items that professional educators carry out. No superintendent or principal worth their salt would ever stand for such a thing.
Nobody would argue that the Gunstock Area Commission should not exercise oversight over operations. But if only there were some proven model that would provide insight into how such a thing could work… Well, it turns out there are thousands, and mass resignations are exceedingly rare. School boards, city councils and selectmen do it all the time.
The traditional line of demarcation is well established: boards set policy and executives carry out that policy. Board members don’t decide what books or backhoe to buy, or ask for personal contact information for rank-and-file employees. Each side respects the role the other has to play. It’s not always pretty, but it’s usually functional.
Board members review the financials and ask tough questions of the CEO as part of the accountability process. If boards aren’t happy with the way their policy directions are carried out, they get to fire the superintendent or city or town manager. This model offers several advantages: it allows the board to have oversight and input into overall operations, it holds the CEO accountable, and it allows employees to know who they answer to.
While the Gunstock commission may be allowed – legally – to have a say in day-to-day “operations” at the mountain, the last several months show it’s a poor way to operate. It might not be the worst idea in the world if some enterprising state representative sought to amend the Gunstock statute to remove the word “operate” from the law that created the Gunstock Area Commission, so as to make the roles more clearly defined.
Speaking of legislators
It almost seems like ancient history now, given everything that has transpired at Gunstock, but not so long ago a member of the Belknap County Legislative Delegation asked fellow delegation members for their blessing to mediate the rift between the delegation and members of the Gunstock Area Commission.
Rep. Tim Lang, R-Sanbornton, made his motion at the Feb. 22 meeting of the delegation. It was a no-lose proposition, Lang said. It wouldn’t cost anything (like thousands in legal fees) to talk to the members of the GAC and see if they might reach a consensus. It might even save taxpayers some money in legal fees in the long run, he said. Lang’s motion also stated that any tentative agreement would be subject to approval by the delegation.
Gunstock hardliners, led by Rep. Michael Sylvia, R-Belmont, weren’t even willing to talk. The motion failed 9-8 on a show of hands.
Belknap County voters may find it useful to know how their representatives voted on this matter. The specifics of that vote are not recorded in the meeting minutes, but it’s possible to discern how reps voted from a review of the meeting video and from talking with some people who were in attendance.
Voting in favor of the motion to enter into a dialogue with GAC members were Reps. Lang, Mike Bordes, Travis O’Hara, Dawn Johnson, Richard Littlefield, Harry Bean, Juliet Harvey-Bolia and Jonathan Mackie.
Voting against the motion were Reps. Sylvia, Norm Silber, Raymond Howard, Barbara Comtois, Paul Terry, Peter Varney, Glen Aldrich, Thomas Ploszaj and Gregg Hough.
That vote, it seems to me, may be a better indicator of which representatives really had Gunstock’s and county taxpayers’ interests in mind than the vote taken in August to reinstate the Gunstock management team. The August vote came at a time when Gunstock was under extreme legal duress, but the February vote was earlier in the process when no representative had a metaphorical gun to their head or faced political pressure from the wrath of Gunstock proponents.
The Feb. 22 meeting minutes also don’t contain the results of the roll-call vote (taken just before Lang’s motion) to fill a vacancy on the GAC from one of three candidates. Again, voters may find that information helpful when they go to the polls on Sept. 13.
David Strang received nine votes, gathering support from Reps. Sylvia, Silber, Johnson, Bean, Littlefield, Varney, Comtois, Harvey-Bolia and Terry. Strang was elected with a majority of the delegation vote.
Doug Lambert received four votes, from Reps. Ploszaj, Aldrich, Hough and Howard.
Heidi Preuss also received four votes, from Reps. Lang, Bordes, Mackie and O’Hara.
Bad public policy
I had a “what were they thinking” reaction to the news that Gunstock management donated $500 to Gov. Chris Sununu’s re-election campaign. Regardless of whether it was legal, it was not management’s finest hour.
I read in one of the news accounts that someone claimed the donation was not made with “taxpayer” money.
That’s a distinction without a difference. Gunstock is a public entity and has no business making partisan campaign donations, even if such contributions are legal. Here’s why: It’s a safe bet that not everyone who represents the source of that money was a Sununu supporter, but Gunstock’s actions forced some Sununu opponents to contribute – by proxy – to a candidate they didn’t support.
Is it a huge deal? No. It’s just bad public policy and Gunstock management would be well advised not to do it again. But it’s a pee-hole in the snow compared to the havoc that members of the Belknap County Delegation visited on Gunstock in the months that followed.