So keep delaying everything and it will go away. Sounds familiar these days.Very true. FWIW, I certainly don't expect other Trustees to take on those responsibilities (in most cases, that would be counter-productive, I would think).
I do expect to see evidence of some level of comparative analysis, even a rudimentary one, before taking on a cost of the better part of $1 Billion (or even one tenth of that) when there are, at least, several viable solutions to the issues at hand. And, quite frankly, we certainly have, or should have, more than enough "in house" competency to do a rather robust job, not just a rudimentary one. The last thing we need, IMO, is to burn another wheelbarrow full of money on some third party consultation - without having done our part up front, to provide a prudent direction.
How anyone could support such an expenditure - without that - is incomprehensible to me. Lacking that, I will do the best I can to reckon, at least to some basic level, on my own (though I know many folks may not even know where to begin - at least I am fortunate enough to have some level of ability in those areas). Certainly, I would never find it fiduciarily responsible to support actions that I know are imprudent at best, and quite possibly inefficacious.
Last edited: