Gunstock Management team resigns

[snoseek]

Man it's been a rough couple years in the nh ski industry

 

[cdskier]

After following this and gathering all the info out there I think Gunstock will be sold. Sold to a private company or a Vail/Alterra type. There is no way they can continue as they stand now.

These morons on said board or committee still know what dollar signs look like and given their good financial record, someone will make an offer.

If this happens, I’d assume old staff would be contacted. They would be dumb not to try to bring some back.

Till all this maybe happens, this place could be in limbo for this season

Not that it makes a ton of difference, but they legally can't sell it. They could only lease operations to a private entity from my understanding...

 

[Newpylong]

Would take a popular vote to sell it. I could see operations leased for a year. There is no way these knuckleheads can put together staff to run it this late in the game starting from scratch. Not when every other ski area is looking for people too. I certainly wouldn't spend any money there or get on the lifts right now. What a damn shame. I went there for the first time last year in a long time and the place seemed well run with a good product. Not really the best time to have an experiment in Libertarianism when one of your assets is producing revenue for the county. Calling the walkout petulant I think speaks pointedly why they walked out to begin with.

 

[deadheadskier]

Band of Nitwits Highjacks Gunstock, Ski Area’s Future Uncertain

“Winter approaches a lot faster in the ski business than it does in the normal person's world.” says former Gunstock GM Tom Day

www.stormskiing.com

And apparently the "public" commission is having a private meeting tomorrow at Gunstock to discuss legal matters, "confidential financial matters", and employment matters. I'd say they've really shot themselves in the foot going from a profitable venture to complete bedlam in a week. I feel terrible for the community. Oust these clowns.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gunstock.com/upload/photos/page_199_gac-special-non-public-meeting-7-26-2022-notice.pdf

The meeting was public and what I gather from Facebook groups, Ness and Strange were asked to resign as a condition of employees returning to work. Ness and Strange wanted to take the meeting private and were denied doing so by the other two commissioners. So, they walked out. Probably to go cry to Sylvia and Silber.

Sylvia seems to be the biggest of the problems. He can just replace Ness and Strange with similar people in favor of privatization at all costs.

How Sylvia is still permitted to hold office I have no ideas. He is a secessionist and has a history of racist commentary. That guy belongs no where near a position of political leadership. No secessionist should.

 

[Smellytele]

The meeting was public and what I gather from Facebook groups, Ness and Strange were asked to resign as a condition of employees returning to work. Ness and Strange wanted to take the meeting private and were denied doing so by the other two commissioners. So, they walked out. Probably to go cry to Sylvia and Silber.

Sylvia seems to be the biggest of the problems. He can just replace Ness and Strange with similar people in favor of privatization at all costs.

How Sylvia is still permitted to hold office I have no ideas. He is a secessionist and has a history of racist commentary. That guy belongs no where near a position of political leadership. No secessionist should.

voted in by his constitutes

 

[deadheadskier]

voted in by his constitutes

I get that, but feel that those who wish to have a state seceed from the Union should no longer qualify for public office. Dude probably refers to himself as a "Patriot" too.

 

[thetrailboss]

Would take a popular vote to sell it. I could see operations leased for a year. There is no way these knuckleheads can put together staff to run it this late in the game starting from scratch. Not when every other ski area is looking for people too. I certainly wouldn't spend any money there or get on the lifts right now. What a damn shame. I went there for the first time last year in a long time and the place seemed well run with a good product. Not really the best time to have an experiment in Libertarianism when one of your assets is producing revenue for the county. Calling the walkout petulant I think speaks pointedly why they walked out to begin with.

It's called extreme ideology vs. logic.

 

[thetrailboss]

I get that, but feel that those who wish to have a state seceed from the Union should no longer qualify for public office. Dude probably refers to himself as a "Patriot" too.

Technically he is supposed to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitutions of the U.S. and N.H. Claiming a want to succeed kind of runs against that.

 

[deadheadskier]

Technically he is supposed to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitutions of the U.S. and N.H. Claiming a want to succeed kind of runs against that.

Exactly. It's a disqualifying position to hold in my opinion.

 

[Edd]

The meeting was public and what I gather from Facebook groups, Ness and Strange were asked to resign as a condition of employees returning to work. Ness and Strange wanted to take the meeting private and were denied doing so by the other two commissioners. So, they walked out.

I can confirm this but it’s been hours and no more news I’m aware of. Interesting position for them and the Delegation to be in.

 

[MadPadraic]

This is a pretty interesting read on the non-public meeting that never went non-public (hurray!).

What I don't quite follow is this bit about an audit:

During further discussion of a public comment period, when Strang brought up “the ongoing legal investigation,” shouting again ensued, drowning out his comment, “from what we know preliminarily from the audit, we cannot go back to that situation.”

Strang serves as chair of the first audit committee the Gunstock Area Commission has had, and it was his decision to halt this year’s audit, upon the advice of the auditing firm, that led to the management’s outcry on June 22 in which the staff expressed their distress about the way the commission was treating them.

So the staff was upset that the audit didn't finish (odd)? Strang refers to an audit that (presumably) was giving the all clear as an ongoing legal investigation? I don't follow.

 

[MadPadraic]

Check this out starting on : GUNSTOCK AREA COMMISSION MEETING August 25, 2021 Stockade Lodge, Gunstock Mountain Resort

They go into a self-dealing ethics complaint and a finding by a lawyer, which (I gather from reading elsewhere) was later contradicted by another law firm.

This puts the argument about who was allowed to consult lawyers from the March minutes that @mbedle in much more context.

 

[kancamagus]

This is a pretty interesting read on the non-public meeting that never went non-public (hurray!).

What I don't quite follow is this bit about an audit:

During further discussion of a public comment period, when Strang brought up “the ongoing legal investigation,” shouting again ensued, drowning out his comment, “from what we know preliminarily from the audit, we cannot go back to that situation.”

Strang serves as chair of the first audit committee the Gunstock Area Commission has had, and it was his decision to halt this year’s audit, upon the advice of the auditing firm, that led to the management’s outcry on June 22 in which the staff expressed their distress about the way the commission was treating them.

So the staff was upset that the audit didn't finish (odd)? Strang refers to an audit that (presumably) was giving the all clear as an ongoing legal investigation? I don't follow.

It's my understanding from reading other news articles, that Gunstock the ski area had their own annual independent audit. The GAC stated that they wanted to do their own audit.

Leaving facts, and entering into speculation land (all based upon other public news articles, I have no sources).

The existing audit procedure, by all publicly available sources, was on the up-and-up. Fully independent, honest, with Gunstock management having no part of that process. I think, that given the political viewpoints of some of the GAC members, they felt in their gut that somehow Gunstock ski area was corrupt or mismanaged or losing money. They seem to have started from a Free Stater radical viewpoint that ANYTHING the government does is bad, so we need to find "proof".

It seems like they did not like the answers from the existing independent audit that was showing that the ski area was being well run and was generating a positive annual cash flow. When facts (existing independent audit) and their sincerely held beliefs collided, they threw out the facts and were desperate to find something, ANYTHING, that would back up their preexisting beliefs.

So they threw out the independent audit, and started their own audit*. Because if they can control this new kangaroo audit, they can "find" things that match up with what their gut was telling them, regardless of where the genuine facts were.

It seems like the senior management at Gunstock saw that the new GAC audit was turning into what they perceived as a biased witchhunt that had a preset conclusion in mind before the process was started. I mean, if you believe that you are acting with honesty and proper stewardship, and you are faced with either an audit by an actual independent third party with no skin in the game, or an audit by a panel that thinks you are corrupt, you'll probably greatly prefer the actual genuine independent audit, even if that has a low chance of showing some minor clerical issue, like not using the proper TPS Report cover pages.

If I had to take a guess, "the ongoing legal investigation" is a play on words by Strang to make it sound like something that Gunstock ski area did was nefarious. As in "legal investigation" seems to imply that there is an investigation into illegal activity. However, I think that word was carefully chosen, and "legal" refers to the investigation itself. As in the GAC is allowed legally to open an investigation as part of their oversight duties, with the "investigation" referring to the GAC's own audit. By choosing these weasel words, Strang seems to both be technically correct for the latter interpretation, but smear the reputation of the ski area as most folks likely would jump to the first conclusion.

Also, if you read Strang's comment "from what we know preliminarily from the audit, we cannot go back to that situation" with weasel wording in mind, he could be technically true in that he could be referring to several years ago when Gunstock was on shakier financial footing and required assistance from the county to remain open in the offseason. But by being vague, it seems to imply something more recent.

*with blackjack, and hookers.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'd like to see Silber, Strange, Ness and any other asshat involved in trying to misrepresent the finances of Gunstock, be sued for defamation. These people are obvious scumbags who deserve to go down.

 

[LonghornSkier]

I'd like to see Silber, Strange, Ness and any other asshat involved in trying to misrepresent the finances of Gunstock, be sued for defamation. These people are obvious scumbags who deserve to go down.

And that lawsuit would go absolutely nowhere… They’re jerks but nothing they’ve said matches the legal standard for defamation.

 

[machski]

And that lawsuit would go absolutely nowhere… They’re jerks but nothing they’ve said matches the legal standard for defamation.

Very true. It may be very unappealing what the commission has done to date, but it has all been within their legal confines.

 

[deadheadskier]

Fudging numbers and using it to criticize employee performance is legal?

 

[LonghornSkier]

Fudging numbers and using it to criticize employee performance is legal?

Very, very, very difficult to sue a public official for defamation given that the law requires actual malice.

 

[thetrailboss]

It's my understanding from reading other news articles, that Gunstock the ski area had their own annual independent audit. The GAC stated that they wanted to do their own audit.

Leaving facts, and entering into speculation land (all based upon other public news articles, I have no sources).

The existing audit procedure, by all publicly available sources, was on the up-and-up. Fully independent, honest, with Gunstock management having no part of that process. I think, that given the political viewpoints of some of the GAC members, they felt in their gut that somehow Gunstock ski area was corrupt or mismanaged or losing money. They seem to have started from a Free Stater radical viewpoint that ANYTHING the government does is bad, so we need to find "proof".

It seems like they did not like the answers from the existing independent audit that was showing that the ski area was being well run and was generating a positive annual cash flow. When facts (existing independent audit) and their sincerely held beliefs collided, they threw out the facts and were desperate to find something, ANYTHING, that would back up their preexisting beliefs.

So they threw out the independent audit, and started their own audit*. Because if they can control this new kangaroo audit, they can "find" things that match up with what their gut was telling them, regardless of where the genuine facts were.

It seems like the senior management at Gunstock saw that the new GAC audit was turning into what they perceived as a biased witchhunt that had a preset conclusion in mind before the process was started. I mean, if you believe that you are acting with honesty and proper stewardship, and you are faced with either an audit by an actual independent third party with no skin in the game, or an audit by a panel that thinks you are corrupt, you'll probably greatly prefer the actual genuine independent audit, even if that has a low chance of showing some minor clerical issue, like not using the proper TPS Report cover pages.

If I had to take a guess, "the ongoing legal investigation" is a play on words by Strang to make it sound like something that Gunstock ski area did was nefarious. As in "legal investigation" seems to imply that there is an investigation into illegal activity. However, I think that word was carefully chosen, and "legal" refers to the investigation itself. As in the GAC is allowed legally to open an investigation as part of their oversight duties, with the "investigation" referring to the GAC's own audit. By choosing these weasel words, Strang seems to both be technically correct for the latter interpretation, but smear the reputation of the ski area as most folks likely would jump to the first conclusion.

Also, if you read Strang's comment "from what we know preliminarily from the audit, we cannot go back to that situation" with weasel wording in mind, he could be technically true in that he could be referring to several years ago when Gunstock was on shakier financial footing and required assistance from the county to remain open in the offseason. But by being vague, it seems to imply something more recent.

*with blackjack, and hookers.

Exactly. The second audit would have vindicated management and made the GAC look like fools.

I also love how the article mentions that when Strang got flustered he ‘took his bag and went home’.

 

[thetrailboss]

Very, very, very difficult to sue a public official for defamation given that the law requires actual malice.

Well, there might be that going on in this case…..

I think Ness and Strang need to save face and walk away now.