So ALL of the PIF projects are on hold

Deleted.

 

Emily, are you "cheesed off" at the board & management, or the 4000 members who instigated the class action lawsuit?

There's always two sides to every story. If you were here during the run-up to the lawsuit you should have noticed that there were thousands of people who had issues -- some over the various PIF issues, some the unequal assessments, others about the inconsistent rules on who was a member and how many rec cards they got, still others how the board was changing the by-laws and spending large sums of money without member approval, still others the lack of transparency, and others the way things were/were not maintained, etc. Many of us tried to work within the system via attending meetings and agitating for change, others were more threatening. Instead of working with the members the board felt threatened and listened more to management -- together they stonewalled, changed the by-laws to neuter their opposition, threatened people with suspension of membership, etc. -- and they got even bigger and bolder. When committees disagreed with the board they were disbanded. For me personally, the board thwarted my desire to try to work within the system when they illegally changed the member quorum and by-laws and gave an "alternative fact" justifications. It soon became obvious to many that the members could never prevail. There were many factions -- BP and a few others tried to join the board and effect change from within -- others felt there was no other recourse and began a campaign to solicit donations to effect a lawsuit -- and still others remained supportive of the board. Eventually enough members joined together with enough money to file their lawsuit. (Just for the record, I am not one of the litigants, but I have followed what they have done.)

 

Good summary IC. The fact is most folks moving here have no clue on how this all came about. It's been going on for 15 years and has had numerous residents donate money to ARS to fund her website and hire multiple attorneys.
I've met with her on numerous occasions for coffee to try and find middle ground but there was never any to be had.

If there is one bright spot, this thing will be over by years end. It will be good to put it behind us and get on with the business of running the community. No question, there's lots of work to be done.

I think the board has taken some good first steps in restoring a better relationship with the residents and i suspect those changes will continue to grow that confidence.

There's so many great things about Sun City and by growing the circle of folks involved in the self-governance aspect, we only insure we have even more positive outcomes.

 

I've been here through it all and it's too bad that we didn't have video to show some of the erratic behavior in past meetings. Tact would have been more successful in getting some compromises. All cardholders are footing the bill for actions of a few that refused to work within the system. There are some issues that I feel were handled poorly and there are inequities. Hopefully our Board/Management can work together going forward to address these issues.

 

I need some help here. The lawsuit shows 40 plaintiffs (class action)...where does the "4000 members that instigated the lawsuit" come from? What am I missing?

 

I think his finger just stayed too long on the zero. :smile-new::smile-new::smile-new::smile-new:

 

I'm mixed on the issue. No one likes a lawsuit but it does seem as if the board had become a bit autocratic from many reports. I haven't been around long either but it's come up several times in the almost 3 years this site has been active. Anyway its on now, so we will see. Hopefully something positive from it since we will pay one way or the other.

 

There were originally 72 plaintiffs, is it now down to 40? I took IC's comment to suggest some 4000 people have contributed to her fund raising efforts over the years.

 

Thank you Bill and Aggie for the answers to my "4000" question.

 

I understand your feeling... what alternative approach to the lawsuit do you think could have been successful?

The Planned Communities Act was passed in 1994... knowing 20+ years of lobbying for the RCSC to adhere had failed, coupled with the board changing the quorum to an unachievable number, it's hard to see many alternatives. As BP will likely attest, changing the board's conduct and attitude via electing new board members hasn't exactly proven easy, nor effective (some that got elected were kicked off the board, others -like BP- had more success but I suspect weren't able to effect the degree of change they had hoped.)

The scary part of the lawsuit to me isn't the title 33 issue -- the RCSC can adjust to that easily and the idea it will cost a lot of extra money is overblown given the RCSC's recent advances in Internet savvy. More concerning to me is the possibility the court rules that the board wrongly changed by-laws and implemented the PIF and spent money without the authorization of the members. Taken together, there could conceivably be penalties in amounts the RCSC doesn't have. That could be devastating. Good accounting practice says as soon as you are aware of a potential liability you must take steps to handle it -- apparently the RCSC perceives this as a possibility now?

Assigning blame never advances a solution, nor does it usually do anything but waste time while egos battle -- but, I would have a hard time assigning blame to anyone but the many boards that failed, in my opinion, to do the right thing and work with the members to resolve their differences. Instead the board was dismissive -- even though the members kept trying. And shame on all the members who paid so little attention to allow it all to happen -- more members need to accept that they are the community, not the RCSC -- that the community only thrives when they become involved, so they must get involved. Our society has gotten far too comfortable listening only to the news we want to hear while dismissing all other viewpoints as "wrong". We may live in Arizona, but the days of the old west are long gone -- we shouldn't shoot people when we disagree with them (although it is tempting sometimes :hororr.

 

Yes, as I recall she touted the 4000 number in several opinions she wrote. Once she had enough donations I believe she solicited those 4000 for volunteers to be the plaintiffs to file the suit... I have no idea how many volunteered but one of my friends told me they stopped soliciting as soon as they had the number they needed to file.

 

A fine larger than the RCSC has? That strikes fear. Money that would be used for what and who would be the recipient of that large sum? Anyone know?

 

I was referring the the amount of PIF in the bank. I have no insight into what's going on in the trial, but regarding the PIF the complaint appears applicable to the the last 6-years and claims any amount over $400 is illegal... suppose the court, worst case, decided to order the RCSC to refund the excess PIF over $400 collected per property for the past 6-years... if there were, say, 8000 properties involved, you're in the neighborhood of $20-mil. It's just a hypothetical, but the PIF reserves don't cover that if I remember the Dec financials correctly. The bottom line net of the RCSC was close to $100-mil, so its not more than the RCSC has in total. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I think the action in delaying the projects serves a couple of purposes. One, it looks like they are taking the case seriously and two, it's just prudent on their part. No matter the outcome, it won't break the bank, because if you read the the claims, most are frivolous. The biggest likelihood is the RCSC would be forced to change how they function and i just don't see that happening. IC is right, as i have contended, we could have voluntarily adopted some or all of Title 33 and it wouldn't have changed much. Sun City West did it years back and all it did was create a more transparent operation.

The reality is, the community has the right to adopt their own rules, and the only concern i would have is the arbitrary changes the board has made over the last 10 years. I think since my term on the board finished, we have done a better job of ignoring ARS rather than the knee-jerk stupid we used to do with trying to shame her (which only added fuel to her fire).

 

Is it still posted online to read about it? It was at one time but it's been long so I've forgotten the particulars.

 

If you're asking about the Amended Complaint, etc. it's posted on the RCSC website -- http://suncityaz.org/rcsc/legal/ .

 

Yes, thanks.

 

Thanks for posting the links IC. Been a while since i read the complaint and for some reason i thought there were 72 complainants. Oops, 32 total. It all still boils down to ARS's initial argument that Sun City should be governed by Title 33 rather than Title 10. And ultimately, does the RCSC have the right to change the rules governing them.

The highest order of documents is the Articles of Incorporation and to change those takes an action by the residents vote. Everything after that can be amended by the board. The argument appears to be the suit doesn't feel the RCSC can do that. It should be an interesting case to follow, who knows, maybe i'll break out the suit and tie and sit and watch (just kidding about the coat and tie).

I'll just say this, i ran for the board because of some of things i watched being done and the cavalier way they were doing it. It's also why i was never in fear of the RCSC functioning under Title 33, some of this crap may have been avoided.

 

I don't understand what you mean "I was never in fear of the RCSC functioning under Title 33" Do you mean you were ok with Title 33 happening or you never feared that it would happen?

And it still make me quite unhappy every time I read that many people pay a per person fee, some pay a per lot, others get two cards per property while others get one while paying the same cost of two. That is never going to go away for me. IMHO, it's just wrong.

 

I've never been afraid of Sun City falling under Tittle 33 C. The fact is it would make the RCSC become more flexible and more transparent. When decisions are made in a vacuum of secrecy there's an initial push back by some of us in the community and then things fall back into place.

As far as the single/couple assessment, i get your frustration. The question becomes; would you have not bought here if you knew that at the point of purchase? I'm not saying it makes it right, but there was a logic behind it that was solid. That said, while on the board i tried to introduce changes that would at least recognize the unfairness but any discussions never made it beyond the closed doors. Again, the classic example of why open door work sessions would create a more proactive community towards these kinds of issues.

Finally, if you read the complaint you saw a good number of those filing were based on their facilities agreement not showing the dollar figure for PIF. Pure crap because every realtor tells you up front how much it is and at closing, the amount is right there in front of you on the settlement agreement. If you didn't want to pay it, buy somewhere else. One would think when making a purchase that large, a little due diligence would be in order. Ignorance is never an argument you want to be making in court to try and win a lawsuit.