Capital Allocation Process(?)

John Fast. It has not been rescheduled. Before anymore innuendo about secrecy and backdoor deal making goes on, the joint meeting was only an informational meeting for the GMs team to brief the two committees on its progress. The team is approaching the deadline very rapidly - the only purpose was to ensure the priorities of both Committees had been covered by reviewing a preliminary presentation that is being developed for the Board and members. Should it have been communicated that way? Like a lot of things - communication is lacking. But, members are trying their very best to develop presentations that make sense, that include the details we need to make sound recommendations to the Board and, most importantly, to do that, we also needed to have the reserve study updated, obviously forecast future revenues/expenses (based on inflation and minimum wage trends this has been more challenging), and consider some worst case scenarios (ADWR being one). Neither of those Committees had all of that information - a joint informational meeting made sense. After all, that's what members have been promised. We are trying to fulfill our purpose in a responsible manner. There is nothing nefarious and no hidden agenda. Frankly, committees need work sessions just like the Board when delegated major projects with a crossover. It involves communication. We can agree to disagree, but these are the facts of this situation.

 

Linda, Thank you. The answer to my question is that the meeting was scheduled, the members were unaware of it and could not have become aware of it unless someone was astute enough to ask the right question, the meeting was not held and has not been rescheduled. As a concerned member, my request is that this meeting be open.

 

Thank you Linda for facts.

My thoughts about committees:

• Something else that readership should also be aware of is that our committee structure is ripe for a change.
  • First of all, nowhere in the bylaws are our committees even mentioned. So, does that technically mean that RCSC doesn't have committees that are approved by the Board? Or does it just mean that when all the consternation some time ago about removing the policies from the bylaws took place, somebody goofed and the section entitled Committees that used to be under Article X has completely disappeared from the bylaws.
  • Also, what is lacking for committee members and chairs is a clear consensus on how our committees are run. Are they run under the same rules as the bylaws - Robert's Rules of Order? And, if they are, are they being run appropriately? Or, are they running this way because "that's the way that we have always done it?"
  • And, another pet peeve of mine is that unless you are a member of a committee, you have no idea that a committee meeting has been cancelled. Only committee members are notified. If we want to start growing our committees, we need a better method of communicating last minute changes. We use an Email blast to alert us if the entertainment at the Sun Bowl has been moved to the Sundial Auditorium; shouldn't an email blast be sent to announce a cancellation of a committee meeting?
• I'm frustrated along with many, many Members. Frustrated for us and frustrated for the Board. I was frustrated most of the time as I sat on the Board.
  • Bottom line, the Board could use some help.
  • And, rather than just spout off about it, I am asking - how can this be accomplished?
  • Thank you.

Jean Totten as One Day at a Time

 

I understand. I am only one person and I am not the chair of either committee. I expect something will happen soon.

 

Thanks for taking the time to provide the backstory that I admittedly chose not to.
Glad you did !

 

I also was bothered by the sad state of the Bylaws on this important topic (committees). I don't know if it serves any purpose to do a postmortem review on what went wrong. Members should be able to sign up to be notified of changes to meeting dates and times. This is as simple as putting additional names on a mailing list. Not everyone wants to be notified every time a meeting date or place gets changed. Only the Board can make changes to Corporate Documents and there is no established avenue for member input. Should there be? I don't know if it would be used that much. Committee meetings should be facilitated by management as a part of their assigned duties and any Board member can attend. My 2 cents...

 

I could not agree more. My position is this is wasteful spending that should never had made it to the Board. The only thing I could figure out when I was on the Board was this was a "Pet" project of Kat Fimmels and Steve Collins was facilitating getting it past.

 

How about the real story. Prior to this incident Kat Fimmel had told me she edited out comments from SAC meeting videos as well. She had also eliminated, without my knowledge, motions that I would have liked to make. I believe Anita Borski told me Kat had said the same thing to her, but this would be hearsay. The incident in question went down like this: Director Nichols said he did not put much faith in what was said on social media. President Fimmel gratuitously made the comment that it is good to see the chairman of the technology committee hates technology. You are right this drew an instant laugh. People, like yourself, love to see the President of the Board make fun of other Directors. Immediately after the meeting Director Nichols resigned as chairman of the technology committee. Shortly after the meeting Director Nichols was meeting with Kevin McCurdy and invited President Fimmel to join the meeting. While sitting there President Fimmel received a return call from Alan Kleinham in which she instructed him to edit out her snide remark from the tape. Mr Klienham was very troubled by the request and called fellow a fellow employee to see what he should do. They advised him not to edit the tape. He ultimately decided he had no choice but to comply with the President's orders and edited the tape. When the tape was posted Director Nichols reviewed it and realized it had been edited. He called me and asked that I too confirm the tape was edited. I reviewed it and it was clear that the tape had been altered. He wrote to the Board that it was unethical for a Board member to alter Corporate Records. Realizing she was caught President Fimmel, made up a statement regarding the incident and read it at a Board meeting. This is much like we are seeing with the library debacle. A factually correct article about the incident was published by the Independent. Director Nichols also proposed to make an amendment to the Bylaws stating clearly that this type of action would result in suspension from the Board. For my two cents, I was very confident this was a pattern of behavior that violated Arizona law and could be prosecuted. Out of respect for the institution of the Board, the matter was allowed to drop.

 

Troubling on many levels including that the board should not give direction to any employee other than the GM. If that is being allowed it's a problem.

 

That has been the standard for a very, very long time Sambo. It's also typical of boards not be involved in the day to day operations of the organization. If the board has an issue with an employee, the standard operating procedure is to take it to the one employee they do have control/direction over, the general manager.

On a lighter note; I guess the irony of a board member hating technology becoming the chair of the technology committee and then subsequently voting against adding technology (remote attendance at board meetings, if memory serves me) is lost on some. It's also indicative of why bringing back retreads has its pitfalls. With all due respect to those who volunteer to fill open seats, being trapped in the past of what they did back when they were on the board, can be prohibitive of moving forward (how's that for irony from a self-proclaimed historian?).

 

I'm referring to the board president contacting a regular staff member to edit a tape in the post above.

 

Unreal, really?

My posted abbreviated summary of Kat’s offense compared to your play by play, back story “real story…”
“Only aware of the one time Kat wanted something removed. That was corrected with directive that whatever happens at board meetings must be exactly captured for viewers of the YouTube video to experience what attendees did.”

Thanks, John, for sharing the prior SAC incidents. As I said, I was only aware of the one.

 

And much of this problem is the entire boards fault because they allow her to make decisions on her own, "The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by a Board of Directors" but I guess it's easier to let somebody else make decisions for you?

What part of "by a Board" am I missing?

 

This kind of is a Disneyland Park in that the "Face" characters (the BOD) get to speak, while the "Fur" characters (homeowners) do not.

 

Once again. Then Director Nichols made the motion to allow remote attendance at meetings and not, as Bill said, voted against it. How is that for irony - If facts get in some people's way they must be changed...

 

The RC

I think you are forgetting about the people that keep moving here. They want different things, the same as people already here may want different things. In my opinion the last thing the RCSC should do is provide services.

It's only a question of money. If we had the money, I would be in favor of the dog club building, the original plan for Mountain View, and if enough people would want it, a javelin field!

At the focus group a women at my table said "retirement community" I said "Active Adult." The older women from ASU pointed to me and told her "What he said."

 

There you go, Kat made a joke about the chairman of the technology committee voting "in favor" of said technology. Curious isn't it? Is the video still available? Don't know, don't care. Perhaps someone does. If not, the recorded vote is recorded and we should be available. As i said, "if memory serves me?" The real question is the comment that was removed and then added back in was predicated on a "no" vote by the chairman of the technology committee. If i am wrong, happy to admit it; unlike others.

 

Exactly. We tend to forget that the next generation is moving here now....55 years old...my two oldest kids could move here. That takes my breath away when I think about it. They are active, busy, working, doing all the things I was doing 20+ years ago that I wish I could still do. Some I can, just slower. Some, I've given up. Their lives are different and their "likes" are different - take music, how they socialize, use technology and the sports they like. This is an active adult community. We need to look to the future the best way we know how, by embracing both our history and acknowledging that we have witnessed how much life has changed for us. Think how much it will continue to change. It's a pretty delicate balance to try to please a population between the ages of 55 - 90+.

 

https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/up...uled-to-2023_04_05-Board-Meeting-Minutes_.pdf

This is the second reading:

https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023_04_27-Board-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

After discussion, a vote was taken on the original motion and the motion passes 6 to 2 with Director Nowakowski and Director Collins opposed.