[Roger Hultgren]

I am forwarding two word documents (both as "*.doc" files).  The one is a revision of the proposed draft I sent out last Sat.  The other, entitled "revisions" is for those who do not want to read the entire revised draft.  This document includes the new paragraphs I inserted in the Exec. Summ. and the original and my suggested revisions and additions.
 
I have a concern about Dave's recommendations, even though I added it.  Questions about "philosophy" are not really subject to financial advice, but I admit that a philosophy of cooperation could enhance revenue and reduce expenses, so I included a paragraph and recommendation.
 
I also made some minor changes to the Exec. Summ. and report -- adding some captions and simplifying the wording (but not changing the intent) of one recommendation.
 
I wish you all the very best for the holiday.

 
*****
Roger Hultgren

[grigs...@cs.com]

Formatting Suggestions:

 

The Executive Summary is an introduction to the material to be presented, therefore the detailed information regarding each section and subsequent recommendations should not be in the Executive Summary.

All the related information for each section as listed in the Executive Summary should be moved to the Section Headers.

As you already have the recommendations listed again under the Section Headers, they merely need to be deleted from the Executive Summary when the section detail is removed.
The "Introduction" section should be moved to the "Executive Summary" and any repeated information deleted.

The "Contracting Recreational Services" Section Header should be moved to its own page.

I would also suggest adding a "Table of Contents."

All notations of CA should be written out as Columbia Association.

 

I will not be offering any comments regarding the information presented in the document itself.

-Nina

=

[James P. Howard, II]

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:46, <grigs...@cs.com> wrote:
> The Executive Summary is an introduction to the material to be presented,
> therefore the detailed information regarding each section and subsequent
> recommendations should not be in the Executive Summary.
> All the related information for each section as listed in the Executive
> Summary should be moved to the Section Headers.
> As you already have the recommendations listed again under the Section
> Headers, they merely need to be deleted from the Executive Summary when the
> section detail is removed.
> The "Introduction" section should be moved to the "Executive Summary" and
> any repeated information deleted.

No to all of the above. An executive summary is just that, a summary
of the document in question. An introduction is an introduction.
They serve two different purposes and both are necessary in a document
of this type and with this audience. That said, the ES goes on to
three pages and is excessive. It probably can and should be trimmed
to one.

> The "Contracting Recreational Services" Section Header should be moved to
> its own page.

Probably a good idea.

> I would also suggest adding a "Table of Contents."
> All notations of CA should be written out as Columbia Association.

I can go either way on this.

Also, the table on page 6 has some problems. One thing, right off the
bat, is that all ten villages could not have finished in the black 2
of the last 2 years if DS did in neither.

James

[grigs...@cs.com]

YES - to all I have noted for the reasons I have noted.

The Executive Summary should not have the section header details nor the recommendations listed as they are detailed in the Section Headers.

If there is an Executive Summary, there is no Introduction section needed.

The audience is irrelevant.

-Nina

[Roger Hultgren]

I am forwarding another draft report.

I agree with James' comments regarding the Exec Summ. The Exec Summ is for the busy reader and should contain the essential information that backs up the recommendations. Anyone who reads only the Exec Summ should be able to understand the main points of the report and understand what the recommendations are intended to achieve. I shortened the Exec Summ, to 2 pages.

I have no problem with the other suggestions, such as moving headings and adding a table of contents. In that regard, I added a cover and table of contents to this draft and moved the section on contracting out to start on a separate page.

Concerning the table, it presents the results for all 10 villages in the aggregate, which is stated in the paragraph before the table. That is, some villages had surpluses large enough to offset the deficits of the other villages. I added a note to the table, that I think explains this.

*****
Roger Hultgren

-----Original Message-----
From: ca-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ca-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James P. Howard, II
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 12:55 PM
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ca-fac] Charge B&C Document Formatting

[Chick Rhodehamel]

Dear FAC Members,
I hope you all had a good Holiday with friends and family. Just
a reminder that you will have to come to some sort of agreement on this
report of Charges B and C by close of business (or sooner) Wednesday so
we can post for the January 6th meeting. Btw, next Wednesday is a
special meeting of the PSC (postponed from 12/16 due to the snow) when
they will be discussing Charge A and clarification letter. Yes, two
nights in a row for the FAC reports I'm afraid. Enjoy this evening at
Bernard's.
Chick

[James P. Howard, II]

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 15:15, Roger Hultgren <rogerh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Concerning the table, it presents the results for all 10 villages in the aggregate, which is stated in the paragraph before the table.  That is, some villages had surpluses large enough to offset the deficits of the other villages.  I added a note to the table, that I think explains this.

I read the paragraph, and I had not found myself certain of that
interpretation. The note clarifies.

Thanks, James

[Roger Hultgren]

Sorry, Nina, but I disagree.  The audience is very important; they are the reason we are doing this, they are hardly irrelevant.

 

I apologize for not addressing your comment about spelling out Columbia Association instead of using CA.  That just slipped my mind when I wrote yesterday.  The group mentioned this last night at Bernard’s house before you arrived, and I think everyone thought it was OK to use CA and FAC as long as those acronyms were introduced the first time the terms Columbia Association and Financial Advisory Committee are used.  I have double-checked the draft (which is attached) to make sure that is what was done.

 

I think the headings are useful in the Exec Summ to direct the reader to what is being discussed.  Because the Exec Summ is intended to portray the gist of the report to the busy reader, I think it is vital that it contain the recommendations.  After all, some people may read only the Exec Summ.

 

Chick reminded us that we need to reach a consensus and send him a report by tomorrow.

 

I suggest that we all look at the attached draft and let me know of any last minute changes today.  Please send your “aye” or “nay” by this evening, say by 9:00 pm, if possible.

 

Bernard, if the committee agrees with this draft, I will convert it to a “*.pdf” file and send it to Chick, if you want me to do so.  Please let me know what you want me to do.

 

Thank you, everyone.  Also, Bernard, thanks to you and your wife for the social time last night.

 

 

*****

Roger Hultgren

 

From: ca-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ca-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of grigs...@cs.com
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:50 PM
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ca-fac] Charge B&C Document Formatting

 

YES - to all I have noted for the reasons I have noted.

[James P. Howard, II]

Aye.

Be sure, please, to copy us on the PDF.

J~

[Land Residential, LLC]

looks good to me.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: ca-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ca-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James P. Howard, II
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 2:41 PM
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ca-fac] Charge B&C Document Formatting

Aye.

Be sure, please, to copy us on the PDF.

J~

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 09:33, Roger Hultgren <rogerh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Nina, but I disagree. The audience is very important; they are the
> reason we are doing this, they are hardly irrelevant.
>
>
>
> I apologize for not addressing your comment about spelling out Columbia
> Association instead of using CA. That just slipped my mind when I wrote

> yesterday. The group mentioned this last night at Bernards house before

[Marvin A. Lawson]

The report looks good to me.  This was a good team effort but special kudos go to Roger and Nina for pulling this report together.
 
Marvin
 

---

From: rogerh...@hotmail.com
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ca-fac] Charge B&C Document Formatting
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:33:29 -0500