Entire Gunstock Mountain Staff resigns

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The problem is that presumably you'd have to go back read a lot of articles to get the full picture b/c none of the articles I've read seem to present it with much clarity. The LDS article seems to hang Ness and Strang out there as the bad guys -- which certainly could be the case -- but there isn't anything in the article that provides background on their feud with Wood and Lambert. There is an allegation of management wrongdoing, so it would be helpful to understand whether there is any merit to those allegations. Obviously management needs to be held accountable for any mismanagement, but it's not clear to me exactly what is going on. Some have said that there was a ulterior motive to get the mountain placed into private hands but not clear whether that is true or not, or why that would be more beneficial than the status quo that existed prior to the management team walk-out. Would be nice to see a balanced, comprehensive article that just lays out the facts of how they got to the current state of affairs. I'll admit that I have not taken the time to go research that. And thanks to all that have posted links -- it's an interesting (but unfortunate) situation.
 
The problem is that presumably you'd have to go back read a lot of articles to get the full picture b/c none of the articles I've read seem to present it with much clarity. The LDS article seems to hang Ness and Strang out there as the bad guys -- which certainly could be the case -- but there isn't anything in the article that provides background on their feud with Wood and Lambert. There is an allegation of management wrongdoing, so it would be helpful to understand whether there is any merit to those allegations. Obviously management needs to be held accountable for any mismanagement, but it's not clear to me exactly what is going on. Some have said that there was a ulterior motive to get the mountain placed into private hands but not clear whether that is true or not, or why that would be more beneficial than the status quo that existed prior to the management team walk-out. Would be nice to see a balanced, comprehensive article that just lays out the facts of how they got to the current state of affairs. I'll admit that I have not taken the time to go research that. And thanks to all that have posted links -- it's an interesting (but unfortunate) situation.

Perfect statement. Thanks. The only sensible one I've read on the Web.
 
It reminds me of a book I listened to last Summer: A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (And Some Bears) a Book by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling. It didn't end well for Grafton NH and the bears can now problem solve and assess risk.
 
The Laconia Daily Sun coverage has been extremely one-sided on this issue (which isn't surprising, considering the conduct of their reporter at the meeting last week).

One of the members of the delegation, who is an attorney, is claiming that two audits will be released next month (one by a CPA, another by a legal firm) that will reveal "egregious" wrongdoing and may result in a referral to the attorney general.

Thus far, the only thing that has surfaced is that the general manager cut a check using Gunstock Area Commission funds for the Governor's campaign two years ago (a WMUR reporter tweeted a photo of the check last night). When the general manager resigned last week, the Governor publicly offered him a state job. Certainly this raises a lot of red flags, but not enough to explain last week's events.
 
WMUR reported that its likely the staff will be rehired this evening conditional on Dr. Strang either quitting or being removed from the Gunstock commission. Recent resignations on the commission means the county commissioners have a path forward to elect a temporary commission if the Doctor does not resign prior to this evening.
 
Yes, sounds like a good resolution to this situation. The people who caused the problem are being removed.
 
WMUR reported that its likely the staff will be rehired this evening conditional on Dr. Strang either quitting or being removed from the Gunstock commission. Recent resignations on the commission means the county commissioners have a path forward to elect a temporary commission if the Doctor does not resign prior to this evening.

I don't believe the county commissioners have any oversight in this matter.

The Gunstock Area Commission is appointed by the county delegation. Ironically, the Gunstock Area Commission unsuccessfully sued the delgation last year, trying to prevent the delegation from having the ability to remove members of the commission.
 
https://www.laconiadailysun.com/new...cle_a3416244-11d8-11ed-a25c-37ee54e0e79c.html

I don't know much about Mike Sylvia but if this is accurate his effort to discredit the meeting on Monday seems like nothing more than obstructionism (except of course for the part about instructing David Strang not to resign, which is pure despotism).

Keep an eye on these guys!
As mentioned earlier in this thread Ski Areas come in many different flavors. That's what I like about MRG. We keep an eye on each other.
 
I don't know much about Mike Sylvia but if this is accurate his effort to discredit the meeting on Monday seems like nothing more than obstructionism (except of course for the part about instructing David Strang not to resign, which is pure despotism).

Keep an eye on these guys!

I don't know Sylvia either, but calling him a despot is a bit much. The commissioner in question was appointed by Sylvia and his fellow reps, and as far as I've read, actual cause for removal was never established.

It was also legitimate to question if Monday's meeting was valid, particularly if this sets precedent. Last year, the commission sued to try to take away the delegation's ability to remove commissioners. Fast forward a few months and now the commission is demanding the delegation remove commissioners, and to do so outside of normal meeting notice.

I'm glad that Gunstock is (hopefully) back on course, but both sides made some decisions that may have negative long-term ramifications.
 
I don't think this is a case of both sides did some things wrong. IMO, it's pretty clear that one side instigated this fight, they lost, and they deserved to lose.
 
Best of luck. Sometimes you just got to start over and find a new beginning.A47F3A31-AF2E-4275-8BD8-AC571035FA18.png
 
From afar, I want to point out an alternative view. I could see some legitimate friction with respect to the proposed major expansion of the ski area onto the south face of the mountain given the changing climate between an operating team and an oversight board. Unlike Les Otten's claimed "special climate zone" up at the Balsams (same weather track as Jay Peak),the Belknap's have been seeing consistently less snow and warming temps. Multiple dog sled events have been canceled in that region due to lack of snow and the ice fishing season on the nearby lakes is getting shorter yearly. All indications are that at some point sooner than later, the ski area will go into decline due to climate change. One approach is to focus on the short term and not worry about the future. My speculation is this expansion will not be done in one shot off of operating revenues and therefore there could be loans/bonds that will finance the expansion, this is legitimate cause for public discourse as ultimately the county is on the hook for long term indebtedness. There is also the environmental impact to the land. The expansion is onto land that currently is woodlands that do not appear to have been aggressively managed for timber sales and may be approaching mature to old growth characteristics. In addition to the actual expansion onto the south slope, no doubt there may be interest to add access to the south side of the slope and that will drive commercial development on the roads to the access. On more than one occasion a successful management team focused on building up an enterprise will be far too concentrated on the act of building for the short term rather than looking at overall impacts and may so to speak "not see the forest for the trees". A properly operating oversight group would legitimately have the long term in mind and there could be some friction between a hired manager focused on the short term as he will be long gone before the loans/bonds are paid off.

Sadly, given the description of personalities from afar I do not attribute such lofty goals to the current mess, it does seem to be long term power play clumsily handled by one side with a clear winner. The question is, will the reconfigured Gunstock commission become a rubber stamp board for the growth ambitions of the resort? Will the long term view be ignored?
 
I don't think this is a case of both sides did some things wrong. IMO, it's pretty clear that one side instigated this fight, they lost, and they deserved to lose.

Tell that to the front line staff who felt like pawns in a political fight. Both sides made some decisions that may have negative long-term ramifications.
 
Top