You just have to ask yourself...

"It's another beautiful day in the neighborhood," (thank you Mr Rogers) and what better way to celebrate it than with a question to help stimulate ones need to understand how things work in Sun City. By the way, in checking, Mr. Rogers said "this" neighborhood.

Okay, so let's start with this really, really simple question: What RCSC board member over the last 10 years sprung from their bed on a Monday morning prior to a behind closed doors work session and pondered, "i wonder which long standing document should i propose we strip of it's intent to preserve the concept of Sun City being self-governed? Okay, so maybe it wasn't all that simple, but i'm pretty certain you get the picture.

In another thread i mentioned i'm hearing rumors of more rewrites coming to corporate documents. Changes that once again impact the residents of this community. Board members aren't saying what they are, but the idea they would even consider more alterations to our safeguards are preposterous. In this thread, Community safeguards flushed, i highlighted changes made to documents and how over the past 10 years it has changed the way Sun City is run.

There's little doubt in my mind this has been a controlled process with a defined outcome; better said, it wasn't an accident, it was planned.

Let's get back to the question at hand; i would argue, not one board member in the past year years jumped from their bed with the intent to take away the rights assured residents of Sun City via the Articles of Incorporation, By-laws or Board Policies.

All of which begs the further question: how the hell did it happen then? Let me step back into my role of running a non-profit and say, managing change isn't all that difficult when you have boards who rely on the leadership to give them reasons to take actions. Fear is the easiest motivator; threats of possible legal action; disguising it as simplifying the process, or even just arguing it's time for some changes all work pretty darn good.

And let's be honest here, once the board made a decision to turn over the reigns to a strong general manager, they fairly well agreed to follow along in lock step. Typically the officers become the catalyst and effectively push the agenda promoted by those who do the job on a daily basis.

This has been the subject of dozens of books (nope not on Sun City, but governance by boards working in concert with paid staff). It's one where a balance of strong leadership and strong boards are really important.

Here's why: If a board allows management to dictate policy then we find management tends to error on the side of making it easier for themselves to function, to get the things they want done. If the board sets the policy and management follows it, the relationship should be working to protect those safeguards, not allow them to be stripped from the community documents.

Obviously i have a bias on what i see happening. Rather than take my word for it, look back over the past ten years and see if the changes have made it better or worse for the residents of Sun City, or have they simply made it easier for the board and the staff to do as they please.

BTW, the rewrites coming are supposed to happen at the October meeting, which means they should be posted for review at the Oct Board/Member Exchange. Guess we'll find out then what they are eh?

 

Interesting... isn't there something in the articles of incorporation that say Sun City shall be self governed? If yes, couldn't this be brought to a lawsuit?
Not that anyone wants to do something like that because it is messy, but just asking.
Governing this way is not what Del Web had in mind from what I understand.

 

It was/is ... class action filed 10/15.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2015-012458

Note: next activity scheduled for 3/9/17 ... courts move slowly :grumpy:

 

Don't hold your breath on this one going anywhere soon IC. You may be closer to it than i am, but i have read the 72 page complaint and most of it is smoke and mirrors. The delay game eventually bleeds people out and the outcome is pretty predictable. Far better to change it from within than playin g the layer game.

 

I am not close to it BP, but I have followed what little public info there is and, I suppose, I was guilty of both supporting and criticizing varying aspects of its issues in some of the now defunct forums which existed several years ago. Personally, I wish the suit had focused on fewer items... in particular those related to quorum and adherence to the articles of incorporation. I posted the court link so those interested could see there's no judiciary relief coming in the near future. As is typical of little guy vs big corporation lawsuits, the RCSC has lots of organized resources to throw at defense and the members filing suit don't.

I do hope when the judgement is eventually rendered the RCSC is required to function under Title 33 and the Quorum change is reversed back to 100. I'm not particularly enamored with the PIF, either, but maintenance and improvement money has to come from somewhere.

I certainly support change from within. Unfortunately it requires a certain critical mass that the RCSC has been good at derailing via a variety of means... witness director ousters/resignations, members banned, rule changes, etc. Attaining critical mass requires getting the word out in a way that motivates members to get involved... and that's no small challenge.

 

What are the negatives if changed to Title 33?

 

Any of the current directors that are a member of this group has a comparison sheet showing the differences between Title 10 and Title 33 as it pertains to RCSC. Ida, Dan, Rich or any of the other directors should be willing to share that information with us or better yet have it published in the Sun Views or on the RCSC website. That would certainly be beneficial to the RCSC members.

 

That would be helpful. I read about title 33 but its difficult to easily compare the two.

 

I'm sure they'll post that any day now eh gang (said with a smile). It is interesting because the biggest concerns we heard as board members was that under Title 33 was proper notice would need be sent for open meetings and of course the obvious we would have to live life in a fishbowl. Way easier to do your bidding behind closed doors in the safety of darkness where no one knows what you are doing.

Here's an oddity IC, as i recall under Title 33, the quorum set point is 10% which would take us back towards that 3500 number. It's why i have argued the RCSC should voluntarily pick and choose the best of both Tittles 10 and 33 to make Sun City an even better place to live than it already is.

 

Yeah, I wasn't expecting it. Just dreaming it would be good if they did.

 

I'm trusting my memory from a couple years ago, but as I recall the under Title 10 the law read 10% IF our founding documents didn't specify a number... our bylaws did, 100. So the 10% didn't apply in my mind. I don't know what Title 33 requires.

 

I reviewed several documents discussing quorums for Title 33. I could not find that it specifes a percentage of member attendance required, rather it says that the By-Laws will determine the number required. So no need to go back to 3500. It does state that a quorum is required for Board Members. It says a majority of Board Members are present, but does not say a percentage. I assume that would mean > 50%. In reading over the meeting requirements it would be quite an improvement to what occurs now. Including open meetings for most meeting, a strict list of what is allowed to be discussed at a closed executive meeting and allowing members to tape the meetings. Among other items.

Does make me wish SC was Title 33. But like I wondered before...what are the negatives? I couldn't easily determine those.

 

AFAIK, title 10 and 33 are not necessarily mutually exclusive... Title 10 defines Corporations, Title 33 amends elements of 10 for Corporations with certain attributes, eg, planned communities, timeshares, condos, etc.

I spent a few minutes reviewing Title 33 statutes, specifically Chapter 16 Planned Communities... Cynthia is correct in that it doesn't appear to define the quorum.

My guess is the quorum definitions of Title 10 and the Open Meeting provisions of Title 33 simultaneously apply to the RCSC since they are not in conflict. I don't know what tact the RCSC is taking these days, but in the past they always contended the definitions of Planned Community didn't apply because the RCSC was not an HOA, but they have never publically explained how they could legally change the quorum w/o member approval...

Arizona Revised Statutes:

 

Thanks for clearing that up IC. So then its all comes down to the definition of planned community. I do remember from a few years ago that the law suit mentioned they were trying to prove SC was a planned community. Too bad it seemed like the kitchen sink got thrown into it as well. I was not yet an owner at that time so didn't quite understand about all the particulars. Not trying to bring it up again, but well, it's there on the docket so it shouldn't hurt to mention it. Is it still available to read about?

 

Now I see the potential for disagreement in the language. Here's Arizona's definition 33-1802. : "Planned community" means a real estate development that includes real estate owned and operated by or real estate on which an easement to maintain roadways or a covenant to maintain roadways is held by a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association of owners, that is created for the purpose of managing, maintaining or improving the property and in which the owners of separately owned lots, parcels or units are mandatory members and are required to pay assessments to the association for these purposes. Planned community does not include a timeshare plan or a timeshare association that is governed by chapter 20 of this title or a condominium that is governed by chapter 9 of this title.

We are not required to be members of the HOA but we are required to pay assessments. Sticky wicket.

 

The need for planned communities legislation was due to the managing bodies of many such communities abusing their fiscal powers and unequal treatment of members. Open meetings are deemed key to mainlining balance between corporate and members... they are called Sunshine Laws for a reason.

For me, the intent of the law applies to Sun City, regardless of how many corporations (and what their names are) actually make up a logical "HOA" defined in the statute definitions. Hopefully the court will agree.

I get it that most members think they need not concern themselves because the RCSC seems to basically work ok. But what happens if, at some point in the future, that ceases to be the case. The BOD has repeatedly modified the RCSC by-laws over the past 10-years to protect their agenda, but I am not sure those changes have added any support to the membership's agenda. The problem is, once the BOD takes power away from the members it's very difficult to get it back. Now they have created a second corporation for reasons which may/may not be to the members best interest... without transparency how do we know. In a nutshell, they have done far to little to earn my absolute trust.

Whenever the members have tried to be heard or push an agenda which differs from the BOD they've been rebuked. Members have been repeatedly told by the BOD that the RCSC can do whatever they want, that the corporation owns everything, that the members have no legal ownership interest, and, in not so many words, you'll take what we give you. While all that is literally true, the Articles of Incorporation say the RCSC exists to do the will of the members. And so there's conflict. What protection do we members have for our investment? After all, the members paid for everything. EVERYTHING!! So, I doubt many of us just think of our assessments and PIF monies as a charitable donation, nor as simply a "gym membership" to the RCSC. The BOD tells us electing directors is enough. That if we don't like it elect someone else. So far that hasn't worked as witnessed by board members being kicked out of office and/or shunned/frustrated until they resign. If I don't get what I want at a gym I can stop paying them and go to a different gym. I don't think moving from SC is a valid analogy for not liking what the RCSC does! But more than one Director has said that to a complaining group of members, basically, if you don't like it, move (aka, lump it). The attitude is just wrong in so many ways!

Adherence to the Title 33 statutes may impose extra work and expense on the part of management, and it may necessitate that members become more involved. But it's hard to see how that can be bad for the members... giving them more input and the ability to be more effectual in how their assessment and PIF dollars are used. Granted, the board and GM would have to adjust their way of doing things, but there are literally tens of thousands of corporations doing that every day in HOAs, government, non-profits, etc. across AZ alone. The process can't be that difficult. If the RCSC were to embrace it the cost impact could be minimal once they get past the startup cost to comply.

 

Exceptional posts gang. You guys have a better grasp of the differences between 10 and 33 than 98.2% of the folks living in Sun City. Personally i hate the argument and would love to see the RCSC restore the community safeguards (what's the saying? when pigs fly). And IC is right, the costs if we were operating under Title 33 are negligible, the real difference is in how they would have to govern.

Sadly the changes made have said it all; removing residents from the governance process (other than by running for the board) have been constant and dramatic. I don't see the lawsuit forcing us under 33, it will take an effort by those of living here and that's a two year project to elect board members interested in a more open style of governance.

 

So what does cause a community to adopt Title 33 rules? A legal decision or community decision?

 

Virtually every age restricted community in AZ would be covered by title 33. I've written often of the evolution of age restricted living as it has evolved into a hybrid of what Sun City is (as well as Sun City West). The biggest change was to meld into one structure the governing board for community amenities with the Home Owners Association. Both SC and SCW are free standing orgs with each having in existence a association to enforce the CC&R's. The difference is that SCW documents apparently rely on the RCSCW holding the ultimate responsibility to pursue non-compliance issues at PORA (or so i have been told).

As these developments evolved they came to see the benefit of a single organization holding all of the power. Along the way, the state saw the actions of some HOA's as abusive of their authority and enacted legislation to try and force orgs to behave in a more user friendly way. For example, the 386 condo owner associations in Sun City are all covered by title 33 and are obligated to meet the standards dictated by the legislation.

Sun City was built in the 60's and 70's and we have always argued we shouldn't be covered under anything other than Title 10. Our community documents were written with safeguards to insure residents would be able to address any efforts to do things we deemed unreasonable. Unfortunately, many of those protections have been stripped from the documents and exactly why i feel Sun City would be better served to be under Title 33.

As we just read in the thread regarding the newly named board member, it's just too convenient to hide behind "executive session" rather than be open about what's happening. Control is as much about guarding information as it is about demonstrating you are the primary authority figure in the community. No offense Rich, but it's stuff like this that makes most of us on the outside feel like we just don't matter. And let's be honest, who the next board member is really isn't that big a deal.

PS: Congrats RJ.

 

Its often difficult to know a first step to make a change to better the community. But, like Bill, I now believe SC would be better served by Title 33 protections. Candidates often promise transparency but either can't or won't deliver. Title 33 would allow for this. Next is to learn how to do it. I still don't know the steps for that. But I'm willing to work on it.