I am not a Thompson apologist having called him out publicly when I disagreed with him including a full blown fight not that long ago. But stepping back a little and looking at this situation from afar tempers my opinion.

First, I am not sure it is true the GM was involved in the process except for one closed board meeting and the public presentation. I thought he was excluded from the rest of the process and only brought in after the vote to participate when it was time to finalize the contract. Maybe during the final contract preparation is when these potential concerns came to light. If he wasn't part of the original vetting how would he know? 

Second, I do think that he could have raised these issues in a better manner and maybe simply listed the questions he has received from members rather than comparing the job done the last time a change was made to this time. If he had simply asked:

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? One might ask if they were included in the RFP.

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

Obviously, since these are pretty basic questions, our team likely did them during the vetting process. Questions like these would have been more direct and less an overall questioning of process. What concerns me is that Jack Collins, who I believe chaired the group, didn't come right out when Thompson lobbed the ball across the plate and respond with a detailed explanation of the vetting process to close the door to that line of questioning. Given the softball nature of the original statement/question the answer should have been simple and direct.

This started when the board agreed to leave golf on the agenda when Thompson said he had questions. Why they left it on is beyond me given the decision had been taken.  When he started down the path he could have been cut off at any time saying that the process was complete and to direct those questions to Collins or Stevens.

I am sure we will see a closed board meeting to discuss this at some point. Anyone thinking this is insubordination should really read some case law. Do I think Thompson expected the decision to be overturned? No. Do I think he might have been pointing out potential issues even though the decision wouldn't change? Yes. 

What was interesting to me was how the board failed to simply respond and close out the issues which if anything makes me wonder if Thompson hit a potential nerve. 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. Is it any wonder this place is in constant turmoil where the game is always to put the other person in a bad light?

So while the board may terminate Thompson's contract over this issue, I certainly think it would be a termination for convenience and not cause.  

Ted