Naysayers in our community with an agenda proclaim, without evidence no less, that GID Boards exist only to adopt policy. They assert it is the job of unelected staff to implement that policy. However, compare this assertion to what NRS 318.175 instructs:

GID “board(s) shall have the power: 1. to manage, control and supervise all (of) the business and affairs of the district; (and,) 2. to acquire, improve, equip, operate and maintain any district project.”

And what NRS 318.145 instructs:

GID “board(s) shall have the power to: operate, maintain and repair the improvements acquired by the district, including, without limitation, the maintenance and repair of dedicated streets and alleys and the removal of snow therefrom, and all facilities of the district relating to any basic power which the district is authorized to exercise; and, (to) exercise from time to time any one, all or any combination of the incidental powers provided in this chapter¹ and any law supplemental thereto² except as may be otherwise provided (for) in this chapter or in any such supplemental law.”³

And what NRS 318.180 instructs:

GID “board(s) shall have the power to hire and retain agents, employees, servants, engineers and attorneys, and any other persons necessary or desirable to effect the purposes of this chapter.”

And what NRS 318.185 instructs:

“To prescribe the duties of officers, agents, employees and servants, and fix their compensation.”

So do you see any inconsistencies between what naysayers tell us and the NRS instructs? In other words, does the foregoing sound like GID Boards exist only to adopt policy?

Regardless, listen to the following policies and actions advanced by unelected staff which prior District Boards have simply rubber stamped:

Former Resolution No. 1480, Policy and Procedure Resolution No. 105⁴: According to staff, “the District operates under a Board-Manager form of government which…appoint(s)…staff…to administer and execute day-to-day operations.”⁵ And for nearly forty (40) years the District has had what is labeled a “Personnel Management Policy” which essentially abdicates away “responsib(ility) for supervising…day-to-day…operations [to the General Manager⁶ (“GM”)]…with regard…to IVGID personnel.”⁷ Therefore, the GM is empowered to:

“Maintain direct, day-to-day supervision over all District employees, with the exception of the attorney. (That) supervision includes the power to hire, fire, motivate, discipline, evaluate, promote, demote, transfer, and train employees, subject to established personnel guidelines, union contracts, Board policy, and generally accepted personnel practices.”⁸ And to make sure our popularly elected trustees don’t get in the way, individual “trustees were prohibited from exercis(ing) their authority to direct Staff(. And)…at Board meetings…trustees (were prohibited)…from directing or attempting to directly supervise Staff.”⁹

This language in essence makes IVGID’s employees the GM’s employees. And he/she rather than the IVGID Board, is their boss (don’t you think?)!

Resolution No. 1898, Policy and Procedure Resolution No. 142¹⁰: On January 25, 2023 the Board rescinded former Resolution No. 1480 and replaced it with a new Resolution No. 1898 which reiterated the District’s “Board-Manager form of government,” and the GM’s power to “maintain direct, day-to-day supervision over all District employees.” Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the abdication of power referenced above continues today. And our GM continues to be IVGID employees’ boss.

Therefore, Our GM is Free to Spend Up to $10,000 Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: Policy No. 20.1.0.2.2.3 gives our unelected GM or his/her delegate the authority to spend up to $10,000 on goods and/or general services without Board approval. The justification for this grant is allegedly because “a competitive solicitation process is not required for the purchase of (those) goods and/or general services…in a single transaction.”

Actually, Our GM Has The Qualified Authority to Spend Up to $50,000 in a Single Transaction Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: Policy No. 20.1.0.2.2.4 gives our unelected GM or his/her delegate the qualified authority to spend “between $10,000.01 and $50,000 on “the purchase of goods and/or general services” in a single transaction without Board approval. Although this policy states that such purchase “may be procured by soliciting a minimum of two price quotations from sources capable of meeting the District’s requirements under a resultant contract,” there is no requirement our GM shall actually purchase such goods and/or general services in the manner described¹¹. Hence we say “qualified authority.”

And Our GM is Free to Contract to Spend up to $50,000 Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: NRS 332.063 instructs that:

1. “If the estimated annual amount required to perform a contract is more than $50,000 but not more than $100,000, (only then shall) the governing body or its authorized representative: (a)…solicit responses from two (2) or more persons capable of performing the contract, if such persons are available; (b) may (he/she) advertise¹² the contract in the manner prescribed in NRS 332.045; (and,) 2. The governing body or its authorized representative shall award such a contract on the basis of price, taking into account the minimum requirements of a responding offeror prescribed in the solicitation pursuant to NRS 332.043, and the method prescribed in that solicitation for awarding the contract.”

Thus “if the estimated annual amount required to perform a contract is (less) than $50,000,” there are no statutory limitations nor restrictions whatsoever to our GM’s unilateral contracting authority.

In Fact Our GM May Be Free to Contract to Spend Up to $100,000 Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: If the estimated annual amount required to perform a contract is more than $50,000 but not more than $100,000, and our GM chooses not to advertise the contract in the manner prescribed in NRS 332.045, there are no statutory limitations nor restrictions whatsoever to our GM’s unilateral spending authority!

And Our GM is Free to Contract to Spend Up to $100,000 For The Purchase of Goods And/or Services, in a Single Transaction, Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: Policy No. 3.1.0.5(f)¹³ gives our unelected GM or his/her delegate the authority to “award and execute contracts for the purchase of goods and/or services for which a single transaction does not exceed $100,000.” The justification for this grant is allegedly “to ensure efficient and effective business operation of the District.” Given there aren’t that many contracts the District enters into which exceed $100,000, in essence, the Board has abdicated away its contracting responsibilities to our GM. And this means he/she has the authority to enter into contracts with third party vendors of his/her choice without going out for public bid!

Actually, Our GM Has The Qualified Authority to Spend Up to $100,000 Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: Policy No. 20.1.0.2.2.5 gives our unelected GM or his/her delegate the qualified authority to spend “between $50,000.01 and $100,000” on “the purchase of goods and/or general services” without Board approval. Although this policy actually states that this kind of purchase shall “be solicited from two or more prospective sources capable of providing the required goods and/or general services under a resultant contract,” because there is no requirement our GM shall actually purchase such goods and/or general services in the manner described, we again say “qualified authority.”

Actually, Our GM Has The Qualified Authority to Spend Any Amounts Whatsoever on The Purchase of Goods And/or General Services Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: Policy No. 20.1.0.2.2.6¹⁴ requires our GM to competitively solicit bids “from two or more prospective sources capable of providing…required goods and/or general services under a resultant contract,” and to advertise that solicitation “in the manner prescribed in Section 2.1.2, Advertisement of Solicitation Opportunity,” only if the purchase exceeds an estimated $100,000. But even then there is no real requirement the contract be awarded to the lowest and responsible bidder unless “an invitation to bid is the solicitation method used.”¹⁵ The net effect of this policy is that our unelected GM or his/her delegate in essence has the unbridled authority to make purchases of goods and/or general services for any amounts without IVGID Board approval, as long as “an invitation to bid is the solicitation method used.” Hence we say “qualified authority.”

And Our GM Has The Qualified Authority to Enter Into Contracts to Spend Any Amounts Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: NRS 332.065(1) instructs that “except as otherwise provided by specific statute (see NRS 332.112, et seq. below), if the estimated annual amount required to perform a contract is more than $100,000, (only then shall our)…governing body or its authorized representative: (a)…advertise the contract in the manner prescribed in NRS 332.045¹⁶; and, (b) may issue a solicitation for the contract.” But even then there is no requirement the contract be awarded to the lowest and responsible bidder unless “an invitation to bid is the solicitation method used.”¹⁷ The net effect of this statute is that our unelected GM or his/her delegate in essence has the unbridled authority to contract to make expenditures and enter into contracts for any amounts without IVGID Board approval, as long as “an invitation to bid is the solicitation method used.” Hence again we say “qualified authority.”

And Unbelievably, Our GM Has The Unbridled Authority to Spend Any Amount For The Purchase of Goods And/or General Services Exempt From Public Bidding: NRS 332.115(1) gives our unelected GM the authority to spend any amount whatsoever for the purchase of goods and/or general services on

“Contracts which by their nature are not adapted to award by a competitive solicitation (without Board approval), including…(a) Items which may only be contracted from a sole source; (b) Professional services…(d) Equipment which, by reason of the training of the personnel or of an inventory of replacement parts maintained by the local government is compatible with existing equipment; (e) Perishable goods; (f) Insurance…(o) Supplies, materials, equipment or services that are available pursuant to an agreement with a vendor that has entered into an agreement with the General Services Administration (“GSA”) or another federal governmental agency located within or outside this State; [and,] (p) Items for resale through a retail outlet operated in this State by a local government or the State of Nevada.”

Given these exceptions are the types of contracts staff regularly enter into, and the expenses they regularly incur, the net effect of this statute is that our unelected GM or his/her delegate(s) in essence has/have the unbridled authority to make expenditures and enter into contracts for the purchase of goods and/or general services for essentially any amounts without IVGID Board approval. Want some examples?

1. Professional Services: Since essentially all of our third party consultants provide “professional services,” we consistently enter into contracts with them without going out to public bid. Even with EXL Media which is really nothing more than a media purchasing salesperson;

2. Trained to Work on a Favored Vendors‘ Equipment/Peripheral Components: Because our ski/snowboard rental equipment staff have been trained to work on a particular manufacturer’s equipment/peripheral components (like boots, bindings and ski poles), staff claim we are exempt from going out to public bid insofar as that equipment is concerned. As additional justification, we maintain an existing inventory of replacement parts which allegedly is only compatible with these manufacturers’ products;

3. Perishable Food: Since the food we purchase for our food and beverage/catering departments is perishable, staff claim we are exempt from going out to public bid for food product;

4. Retail Sales: Since we operate retail clothing/sports equipment facilities (such as our two pro shops) where these items are sold, staff claim we are exempt from going out to public bid when it comes to purchasing such product;

5. Specialized Sources: Because much of the capital equipment we purchase (such as PistonBully snow grooming machines, Caterpillar loaders and dozers, Deere lawnmowers, Poma ski lifts) is only available through a specialized sole source, we purchase it through their authorized dealers rather than going out to public bid. Same thing with the software we purchase; and,

6. Governmental Purchase Agreements: We limit our purchase of replacement vehicles from local dealers whose manufacturers have entered into agreements with the Government Services Administration (“GSA”) or another federal governmental agency. Same thing with the computers and printers we purchase Are you starting to get the picture?

So What Have Our Staff Done With These Various Abdications of Power? So you the reader can get a flavor of the staff abuse associated with the above contracting and expenditure powers which have been abdicated away, and the Board’s refusal to do anything about it, consider the handful of examples below. We know of many dozens if not hundreds of additional examples. However here, we just want to give the reader a flavor of what has gone on behind our backs/right under our noses. So we’ve identified the following ten (10):

1. Gerry Eick‘s Sale of Three (3) District Parcels With Beach Access Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: That’s right! Starting in 2014, former Finance Director Gerry Eick unilaterally sold these publicly owned parcels with beach access to persons of his choosing without beach access, and at prices of his choosing. If interested, the reader can learn more about these sales here;

2. Joseph Pomroy‘s Sale of District Wastewater For Others‘ Irrigation Purposes Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: That’s right again! Starting in 2013, former Public Works Director Joseph Pomroy unilaterally contracted away publicly owned wastewater for irrigation purposes to several third parties (non-Incline Village/Crystal Bay residents) of his choosing, and at preferential prices of his choosing. If interested, the reader can learn more about these sales here;

3. Joseph Pomroy‘s Agreement With NV Energy to Install, Maintain, Repair, And Operate at The District‘s Expense Four (4) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (“EVCSes”) Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: That’s right…again! In latter 2017 Mr. Pomroy entered into a series of contracts with NV Energy whereby the District agreed to lose $25,000 or more of public funds over a five (5) year period installing, maintaining, repairing and operating four (4) EVCSes; two (2) at Diamond Peak, and two (2) at the Championship Golf Course! If interested, the reader can learn more about these agreements here;

4. Indra Winquest‘s Agreement With The North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District (“NLTFPD”) Which Allows The Latter to Store Their Motorized Vessels on Our Hermit Beach, And to Launch The Same From Our Ski Beach Boat Ramp: And for free no less! That’s right! IVGID is the beach steward for the benefit of local Incline Village parcel owners with beach access and their guests. That stewardship extends to enforcing the the beach deed‘s restrictive use covenants¹⁸. Although the NLTFPD owns a number of Incline Village properties which were included within IVGID’s boundaries on June 4, 1968, it doesn’t pay Beach Facility Fees (“BFFs”). And as a consequence, ¶43 of Ordinance No. 7 instructs that it is not entitled to beach privileges because only “parcel(s) which (are) assessed and ha(ve) paid in full the current Recreation Fee, (are) eligible to receive Recreation Privileges.”

Not being entitled to beach access, why did the District’s former GM enter into a June 30, 2022 written agreement with the NLTFPD which expressly granted that access? And why for free given local parcel owners with beach access are prohibited from storing vessels of any kind on our beaches? And they pay fees expressly for the privilege of launching their vessels at Ski Beach, If interested, the reader can learn more about this fraud on local parcel owners with beach access here;

5. Indra Winquest‘s Tacit Agreement With The NLTFPD Which Allows The Latter to Do Emergency Helicopter Landings And Take Offs From Our Village Green: And for free no less! During a recent Board meeting it was revealed we are prohibited from operating a dog park on Village Green because of “the (alleged) requirements for the use of the lower Village Green as a LZ (landing zone) for (helicopter) Care Flight. According to NLTFPD Chief Sommers,

“The ‘lower’ part of the field, referred to as the South End of the Green…is the ideal place for a landing zone. The most important part of the landing zone are the dimensions and overhead obstacles…This is important as EMS helicopters are utilized 24 hours a day and Village Green has been a crucial place to meet those needs. Additionally, when helicopters are lifting off or taking off from the Green, they need a direct path out to and over the water for the best lift…The South end path not only has the best clearing, but it also limits obstacles or objects below the helicopter. Lastly, the lower lower part of the field the best transfer location for a patient and parking for our apparatus”¹⁹ in the transport of local critical patients.”²⁰

You mean the NLTFPD has been using our lower Village Green for some period of time for emergency helicopter take offs/landings to local parcel owners’ detriment? Does the NLTFPD charge for the EMS helicopter services it provides? And how much does it share with the District for its availability to use Village Green 7 days a week and 24 hours a day²¹? In contrast, what do local parcel owners who are involuntarily assessed the Recreation Facility Fee (“RFF”) to provide this ideal landing/take off spot for the NLTFPD pay? And notwithstanding the lack of authority, where did our former GM get off allowing the NLTFPD to access and use our Village Green for the purposes stated, which handcuffed us in using our property for legitimate recreation purposes? If interested, the reader can learn more about this fraud on local parcel owners here;

6. Steven Pinkerton‘s Initiation of The IVGID Magazine fka The IVGID Quarterly Without Advance Board Knowledge or Approval: That’s right! In June of 2015, former GM Steven Pinkerton inaugurated a propaganda rag along the lines of the Tahoe Quarterly called The IVGID Quarterly. Although staff initially asserted the net annual cost to the District for the publishing and mailing of the magazine was $20,000 or less, the truth is that the real cost was closer to $100,000 of local parcel owners’ funds. Regardless, Mr. Pinkerton never sought nor obtained Board approval for the initiation of publication nor the mailing of this magazine. If interested, the reader can learn more about this magazine here;

7. Steven Pinkerton‘s Expenditure of $788,137 to Allegedly Line The District’s Former Sewer Effluent Storage Pond: Under pressure from the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (“NDEP“), in latter 2016 Mr. Pinkerton announced to the Board and the public that under his tutelage, the sewer effluent storage pond had finally been lined. But it turns out it never was! Because of this abdication of power and our Board’s complete disinterest, it took a local citizen to discover the truth. And to start asking what had really happened to the public’s $788,137? If interested, the reader can learn more about this fraud on the public here;

8. Maintaining, Repairing And Operating Washoe County’s “East“/”West“ Public Parks, Paying For it With Our RFF, And For Decades The IVGID Board And The Public Had No Clue: There are two small parks at either end of the intersections of Lakeshore Blvd. and State Highway (“SH”) 28 which are owned by Washoe County. They’re loosely identified as “the east/west parks.” Guess who has been maintaining, repairing and operating these two (2) parks for the last twenty-five (25) or more years? And paying for the electricity, irrigation and trash removal furnished to/at those parks? And paying for concrete cement curb and asphalt parking lot paving repairs and re-striping? You guessed it! IVGID. And until recently, after a member of the community discovered this set of facts and publicized them to the IVGID Board and the public, guess who has been reimbursed for none of these costs? Even though a written agreement exists which calls for these reimbursements. You guessed it. Again! IVGID. And guess where the money has come from to pay for the costs associated with these expenditures…For over twenty-five (25) years? Since they have been assigned to the District’s Parks sub-fund which loses $1 million or more annually? Again the answer is you the likely reader through your RFF! And guess who until recently didn’t have a clue because of this abdication of power? You guessed it again. The IVGID Board. But our staff knew! And they didn’t care. If interested, the reader can learn more about this mis-management and incompetence here;

9. Snowplowing And Sanding Washoe County‘s Dedicated Public Roadways, Paying For it With Your RFF, And For Decades The IVGID Board And The Public Had No Clue: In order to get from SH28 and SH431 to Diamond Peak, one must drive upon Country Club Drive to Ski Way at its intersection with Fairview Blvd. And then northwest on Ski Way. Guess who owns these dedicated streets? Washoe County. Guess who has been snowplowing and sanding these streets during the winter months for the last twenty-five (25) or more years? You guessed it! Again. IVGID. Guess who has been reimbursed none of these vital costs? You guessed it again! IVGID. And guess where the money has come from to pay for the expenditures associated therewith (like at least one $250,000 Caterpillar dozer)? Since those expenses have been assigned to the District’s Ski sub-fund, the answer is you the likely reader through your RFF! And guess who until recently after a member of the community discovered these facts and publicized them to the IVGID Board and the public, didn’t have a clue because of this abdication of power? And didn’t care. You guessed it again. The IVGID Board. But our staff knew! And again, they didn’t care. If interested, the reader can learn more about this mis-management here; and,

10. District Credit Card (Disingenuously Labeled “Procurement Cards“) Charges: Would you be surprised to learn that over fifty percent (50%) of the District’s full time employees have been issued credit cards in IVGID’s name so they can make charges of their choosing for alleged vital expenditures they unilaterally determine are warranted? Well get ready to be surprised. In order to hide this fact from the public, staff has disingenuously labeled these cards “procurement cards” so you won’t ask the obvious. If the reader saw some of the charges our un-elected employees have been made over the years using these credit cards, because of this abdication of power, we think you would become physically sick (in fact we’re getting sick just writing these words onto this web page). And where were the “internal controls?” Or oversight? And who do you think paid for each and every one of these charges? You guessed it! If interested, the reader can learn more about these cards and charges here.

Conclusion: If we can’t trust our unelected staff (which we submit we cannot), then who can we trust? Wouldn’t the answer be our publicly elected trustees? But what we hope the reader sees is that in the real world, the District is operated as a tool of staff. By and for staff! Because essentially all of the District’s powers have been abdicated away to unelected staff. And you and we are the financial accommodators for all of this essentially unbridled staff contracting and spending. And you didn’t have a clue.

But now you do! And now you know why your RFF/BFF which pay for all this fraud, waste and mis-management are as high as they are. And why some in our community are demanding the hiring of a Director of Government Efficiency (“DOGE“)!

---

1. See NRS 318.210 which states that “the board shall have and exercise all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific powers granted in this chapter.”
2. See NRS 318.077 which states that “the board may elect to add basic powers not provided in its formation.”
3. See NRS 318.145.
4. See pages 038-043 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s January 25, 2023 meeting (“the 1/25/2023 Board packet“).
5. Kind of sounds like GID Boards exist only to adopt policy and it’s the job of unelected staff to implement that policy, doesn’t it?
6. See ¶II at page 039 of the 1/25/2023 Board packet.
7. That is “hiring, firing, motivating, promoting, demoting, compensating, and training individual employees.”
8. See ¶IV at page 041 of the 1/25/2023 Board packet.
9. See page 042 of the 1/25/2023 Board packet.
10. See pages 028-032 of the 1/25/2023 Board packet.
11. To prove the point, the reader is directed to Policy No. 20.1.0.2.2.4.1 which instructs what to do “if at least two price quotations are solicited, and only one is received.” This language infers our GM may elect not to solicit price quotations.
12. Which really means may or may not.
13. Also see Policy No. 20.1.0.1.5.2.1.
14. Also see NRS 332.065(1)-(2).
15. See Policy No. 20.1.0.2.2.6.1.
16. Which states “the advertisement…required by subsection 1 of NRS 332.065 must be published: (a) in a…qualified…newspaper.”
17. See NRS 332.065(2).
18. “The original Beach Deed states in pertinent part…that the beaches are ‘for the use of property owners (whose real property was included in IVGID’s boundaries on June 4, 1968) and their tenants…and as the Board of Trustees…may determine, the guests of such property owners’” (see ¶11 of Ordinance No. 7).
19. See page 15 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s September 19, 2023 meeting (“the 9/19/2023 Board packet“).
20. See page 13 of the 9/19/2023 Board packet.
21. The answer is nothing because a local resident made a public records request for the particulars of any agreement between the District and the NLTFPD pertaining to these helicopter take offs and landings and was informed there is no such agreement.