Maybe during the final contract preparation is when these potential concerns came to light.

What concerns?

1. Did we check references with golf courses managed by the three bidders?

2. Did we visit courses managed by the three bidders?

3. Did the three bidders review the requirements of acceptance like Life-time memberships and the proposed budget and accept those conditions? 

4. Did we review the bidders standard contract form to ensure it would be acceptable to OPA or provide one of our own?

So, you think board members like Collins, Stevens or others should have become involved in some verbal arguments with the GM over his accusations that the board made a mistake?

Perhaps Collins should have made a motion to adjourn to private session to discuss the GM's continued employment.

No, just the opposite. As I said when it got to process it should have been cut off or Collins as the head of the search group could have stated the vetting was complete and any questions from Thompson or the public could be sent to him via e-mail. As to adjourning to terminate the GM's employment if that is the decision then so be it. 

Anyone thinking this is insubordination should really read some case law.

Case law? What the heck are you talking about? The board needs no case law to fire any GM. What case law was involved when Rakow & Company fired Olson? If the board fires for cause, they simply send the GM on hos or her way. If a contract is involved, any GM can sue for compliance if desired. Or the board can simply pay the GM about $100,000 (pay and medical for 9 months) and say goodby.

The GM serves at the pleasure of the board. It really is that simple. The GM did not raise any real questions. He said outright that the board made a mistake.

A poster to this forum mentioned insubordination as though it was a cause for termination in this instance which I don't believe is applicable. I probably should have responded to that in a different post as to not mix topics. Obviously, the GM serves at the board's pleasure and maybe this board needs a new dance partner. As to Olson they honored the termination clause in his contract and obviously they can do the same with Thompson at any point in time. 

In addition, while Thompson works at the pleasure of the board he is still an employee, a resident and not a servant or slave. The attitude of some that any GM, past, present or future, has to cower and crawl in front of the board and cannot question or raise issues, even if those issues may place the board in a bad light, indicates a truly dysfunctional organization.

Pure straw-man nonsense.

Not sure what you mean a straw-man for what? I actually believe that there should be a partnership between the board and the GM in order to make progress. I think the crap going on now is not healthy. And as you know it is easier to replace one than seven and that is fine as well. 

Ted