Monday's Musings

I will start out by saying that I love golfing.

However, running a golf course is a business. As we stand now, the golf course lost $107,000 last year. How is that money being recouped? The answer is our taxes must be raised in order to meet that loss. Seems like more money to a currently losing proposition.

This may be ok in a good economic environment if the golf course was on the right track (more on that in a second). However, the economic environment is not good. People have lost their jobs at Electrolux and other various employers. People need this extra cash to buy groceries and other basic necessities.

What happens next year if the golf course loses money again? Taxes will need to be raised again in order to meet that shortfall. This would be another tax burden on the citizens of Dayton.


A quick note on the golf course being on the right track. I have not seen a business plan to try and make the golf course profitable. I do hear the arguments that the citizens just need to give the golf course time. However, the current economic times does not allow the golf course to have a lot of time to get profitable. I understand that the council is proposing ordinance 232 to implement a board to oversee the operation of the golf course, and the argument may be made that this board will have the answers to make the golf course profitable

If this board is the answer than the board should be comprised of people that are independent of the golf course. What do I mean by independent? Remember Enron? Enron brought Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley, in general terms, states that an audit board of the corporation must be made up of at least one person with substantial accounting background. Also, the audit board must be independent of the corporation that the board is tasked with auditing. This independence reduces a potential for a conflict of interest between the audit board and the corporation. Therefore, shareholders of the corporation know they are getting accurate financial statements.

We, the citizens of Dayton, can be thought of as the shareholders of the golf course now. I would argue that this board to oversee the golf course should be independent, and have at least one person with a good financial background. This would allow the board to review the financials and determine what financial condition the golf course is in. The board would also be tasked with reporting back to the City Council how well the course is doing.

Have we, the citizens of Dayton, seen any of the financial statements to see what assets, liabilities, and equity the golf course currently has? I believe the answer to this question is no. There is too much potential for the fudging of numbers to make the golf course look better than it might really be. Of course, the golf course may be in great shape, but we, the shareholders of the golf course, should know the financial condition of the course. Unfortunately, accounting rules allow for the fudging of numbers to make a corporation look better than it really is. This could be happening with the golf course. I would say it is imperative to see something like a line item budget so we can verify how solvent the golf course really is. If the numbers are good, all the better. If the numbers are not good, well that might make for some interesting discussions ahead.

The Observer understands this post is sounding very anti-golf course; however, this is an argument that must be made. Even if this was about any other business that the town of Dayton bought, The Observer would be making the same argument.

The Observer would be happy to hear from anyone who has thoughts, opinions, or anything else he or she would like to talk about. The Observer may have another post with other thoughts later today or tomorrow. Thank you again for reading The Dayton Observer.