Site Notice: This website contains extensive data which may cause slower loading times. Please be patient while all content fully loads. Thank you for your understanding.

“Under New Management”, a very common phrase used to indicate a change in a Private Sector Business.
Most business owners post the sign hoping that the change will indicate improvement/better experience and motivate the General Public’s return to that business. The “New and Improved” slogan is iconic and a basic tenant in marketing. But, to the general Public what prompted  the change, why was there a change, and how did the owners know a change was needed is rarely known. The answer to why management change is usually a need for better revenue/net profit results by the owners.

The reason for what prompted the change, can usually be found in a “precipitating factor,” which is usually a significant occurrence i.e. revenue reduction, criminal act, mortality, resignations etc. The two most common reasons as to how the owners knew a change was necessary are from supervisory direct observations, and communication/feedback from employees & customers.

In our case, we have a Public Sector Business, Edmundson Golf Course,( EGC )  with the Management ” City ” consisting of Elected Officials ( Mayor, Councilmen, Assessor, Clerk, etc) who have negotiated a management agreement with “Contractor” MK Golf Shops, Inc. to operate the EGC until 1-1-2032 on behalf of the Citizens of Oskaloosa. Pursuant to the Management Agreement (MA) the Revenue/profit from the MA is not a WHY reason to change management, as the fee paid to the city $8500.00 / annually, does not fluctuate, save for the annual 5% increase. So revenue/profit is not a precipitating factor for change. Per the MA, has a significant occurrence at EGC been reported by the “City”? Certainly, such an event would be noted during their required annual performance evaluation of the “Contractor”? No known event, as of this writing, has been recorded. So significant occurrence seems to not be a WHAT factor in a Management change, at this time.

That leaves the HOW possibilities of a direct supervisory observation and employee/customer communications/feedback.

It is unknown if any negative supervisory reports have been recorded. A competent supervisor would surely include such an event in the annual performance review, one would expect. One would expect that a competent supervisor would surely include such an event in their annual performance review.

So, if accurate, that eliminates direct supervisory reports from how one would know if a change in management is considered.

Lastly, Oskaloosa Citizens have a dual role in this “HOW” scenario as both owners and customers.

1. The revenue from our taxation funds most of the City’s expenses, to include EGC expenses incurred by the city, as well as, the monies paid directly to the Private Business of the  “Contractor” of EGC engaged by the “City” imbue the citizens with both ownership and customer rights, as well as our voting privilege, which elects said officials.
2. The golfing at EGC and  the resulting experiences makes us the customer.

As such, the city relies upon this dual role to enrich both the city and the contractor, while expecting communication/feedback to the city should any customer have a negative or positive experience while Golfing at EGC. Unfortunately, the  city has relied to its detriment in the past, as many citizens neglected their duty to provide said feedback.

It is the members of The Concerned Citizens of Oskaloosa’s hope that after viewing the entirety of the contents of our Op-ED tht you’ll return to this “Home” page and provide the feedback that Management requires to make the appropriate decision RE: The Improvement of EGC.

Will we see an UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT sign posted at ECG in the near future?

Be sure to Vote by selecting Yes or No

• 👍 Yes, EGC Needs Improvement
• 👎 No Improvement Needed

View Results

 Loading ...

 Yelp

Click here to read Yelp reviews