It Will Never Be Easy Running A Community...

I had to look up who Peter Fine is. For others who don't know, he is the CEO of Banner Health. Wow, he makes a lot of money - $25.5M in 2017, gross pay which included some sort of retirement package. Of course he doesn't attend the Board meetings for each of the hospitals in the Banner system. His is more of a "big picture" role. I agree with Larry that our RCSC Board is trying to manage, perhaps even dictate, my word. (Think Duffleland Dog Park.) Our Board needs to agree on a "big picture", express that to the GM, and get out of the way. Remember their main duties are to hire and evaluate the GM (can't believe there isn't a written evaluation document that both the GM and Board know), set policy (bylaws and board policies in RCSC's case), and approve and monitor an annual budget. Of course, it's important to listen to residents, but that has been carried to an extreme, in my opinion.

Happy Hippie, you got me thinking about my responsibilities on my past board experiences. Never was I a liaison to another community organization. If needed, that was done by staff and reported back to us. We had community committees about important topics, but they were usually ad hoc. Board members had suggestions on who might be good on a committee, but we didn't participate. Rather, we waited for their report back to us. In other words, as a school board member or hospital board director, we weren't expected to be liaisons to the police, city council, Chamber of Commerce, library, United Way, YMCA etc. Suggestion: Don't expect Board members to serve or cochair on committees and remove the liaison commitments. Perhaps that would lessen the work load on Board members. If they can't do that, then they want to "manage" not "govern".

In so many ways, I think we are on a better track with RCSC. but I agree that with Bill P that the Directors needs to get their act together to treat everyone with respect and dignity. I might also suggest that Board members be limited to three minutes for their comments. Some have gone on and on, saying the same things repeatedly. They could institute this without a Board Policy since there isn't a bylaw or policy about Members only having three minutes. Someone came up with that arbitrary number and it has become standard at meetings. Once when I was on a Board, we had a policy that a person, including Board members, could speak for a certain number of minutes. If needed, we could ask for additional time and it could either be granted or denied by the presiding officer.

Since there is a monthly meeting of the Board that RCSC Members are not allowed to attend, we don't know what is being discussed, their treatment of their fellow Directors, and if any decisions are being made. I think that is unfortunate. At a recent meeting, one of the departing Directors stated that decisions were not being made transparently. The Board has a policy about topics that can be discussed in executive session. I suggest they review that and stick to it!

Regarding "snowbirds" being able to serve on the Board, I have mixed feelings. For one, we pay the same fees and have the same responsibilities as all others. Our Articles of Incorporation state that all Members are equal, so that should guarantee that out of state residents, who are Members in good standing, can run for election. Voters can decide if they don't want "snowbirds" on the Board. On the other hand, it does become problematic if one isn't here at the meetings in person on a regular basis or can't attend to other duties. It would probably eliminate some of the micromanaging though! Again, think of the three most important duties of a Board - hire the GM, set policy, and adopt and monitor a budget. That can be done from afar. I do take exception when I am told that I don't have a "vested interest" in RCSC since I don't live here fulltime. I watch the videos of meetings that I miss and pay the SAME FEES as everyone else. If my rights and opportunities are lessened, then perhaps my fees should be too.

 

I said before the jig has been up for a long time, it's Josie. I still think board members are involved in too many things and not allowed to focus on the 'Big picture" like you stated. A hospital for example has smaller meetings within each department that report up to the board on CEO board day. The director of each department goes to the board meeting and gives a report eg, the ED, CardioPulm, Maternity, NICU etc. Many hands make the work load light. And you may be surprised, more people may want to get involved if it doesn't involve being similar to a full time job. Judging from the schedules of our board it is almost a full time job. Been there, done that.

 

Just had a great conversation with my buddy and fellow historian Ben Roloff. Our history is fascinating and instructive on so many levels. Change is inevitable for all of us, the question ultimately becomes, change to what? We know when DEVCO left Sun City (circa 1978) and started building Sun City West, it was different. The community's CC&R's were added to the function of the RCSCW governing board. They in turn farmed them out to PORA (their home owner association) who sent letters to those in violation. Adjudication was left to the RCSCW but as new community, most violations were quick and easy fixes.

As time went on and the community got some whiskers, it changed yet again. The RCSCW moved it back entirely in-house with their own compliance division. Not surprising because every community after them had evolved to what i call single entity governance. Along with that those newer communities became way smaller and many with no golf course owned by the governing body. If there was one, it was owned by a private corporation who had control. They also did away with many of the infrastructure support organizations (think smaller, leaner, meaner).

None of the above is better or worse, it's just different from a historical perspective. Knowing these differences and their roots is helpful in understanding what may work or what may be an issue. That's always been the value of our history. It always will be. Sadly some argue we still want to go back to land lines, hardly the case, but alas, making ones premise fit the narrative means shaping it to ones argument.

Change is inevitable. From the outset of moving here i argued that very premise with this addition: The goal should be to manage it (change) effectively. Easy to type, hard to do. It means an ongoing awareness and understanding of the community and those moving into it. No small task as we look at generational and societal changes. Both impact the community as a whole and if you ignore them, you do become trapped either in the past or worse yet, doing things that don't work well (which is how we got to where we are).

Here's the classic example of just how easy some of this is: We have heard the lament of how many meetings the board has to attend every month. Just duh. Any number of us have been championing the idea the co-chair on committees could easily be a member rather than another board member. The value added of less committee meetings is adding both the duties and the scope of responsibilities on to members who may find they like the added work and become more involved (as board members?).

But alas, there are those who feared giving up "control." As Ben laughingly pointed out to me, committees can do nothing but make recommendations, so, control of what? How about all the liaison meetings assigned? Are those warranted or not? Not my job to decide and frankly any or all of them can be made by the existing board. The real subject becomes just how much does the board have to have hands on all of the pieces? Is it time to rethink their role? I would argue yes, but that doesn't fit the narrative of land lines does it?

Some have been critical of the term i use, "retreads." They argue it is a pejorative or insulting phrase when a board member quits and they are replaced by a former board member. The argument goes they get a short-term replacement who is already up to speed. The downside is they get someone locked into what was, rather than someone who may be asking what may be? And so we are clear, i have always said if i went back to fill a position, i would be a retread.

I am hugely (nope, not saying bigly) in favor of newer, younger more recent members of the community becoming involved rather than leaning on or into my ideas. Every organization in Sun City has relied on "retreads" rather than building a structure that nurtures involvement and participation. It's a flawed system, because it causes stagnation. It's also easier to rely on the old standbys rather than shaping for the future.

All of which is intuitive regarding my opinion of second 3-year terms as a board member. I think it's a mistake, i think it breeds laziness and complacency. Just my opinion, so it isn't right or wrong. The Articles allow for the replacement of board member who dies, quits or is terminated by a former board member, but that section of the Articles was written back when there was a 3 year term, not two consecutive terms. By limiting it to one term (or 3 years total) the RCSC would find themselves in a position of having to develop an in-house feeder program for potential candidates rather than going back to the same-old-same-old.

But, what the hell do i know about any of this eh?

 

Janet,

All excellent points in your full comments.
I think there’s an easy solution to reducing many hours our volunteer board currently serves. Govern Articles of Inc. required responsibility. Manage, just a group expectation put into bylaws?

Have you noticed the reduction of RCSC management sitting with our GM at the board meetings?

The recent organizational adoption has eliminated director positions, replaced by five senior leader positions are under the GM, those senior leaders attend the board meetings.
Matthew D’Luzansky - general manager
Brian Duthu - golf senior leader
Mike Dirmyer - non-golf senior leader
Mike Wiprud - facilities senior leader
Kevin McCurdy - finance and support senior leader

• View new RCSC Organization Charts
March 2024 - Expanded Format Five Pages
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-03-Org-Chart-for-Publishing.pdf

To best define our board’s responsibility,
on the first page:
• Add the Board of Directors directly above the General Manager
• Board governs over the GM
• GM manages all positions below

Ideally, there would be staff positions assigned to engage with RCSC committees and external community agencies, who report to their senior leaders who report to GM.

Reference:
RCSC reorganizes business offices
Effort to increase efficiency
By Scott Tynes | Independent Newsmedia
Excerpt

The Recreation Centers of Sun City is in the process of reorganizing its corporate hierarchy to increase productivity and efficiency. “I’ve talked a lot since I started here about the organization, trying to understand it and think about how it might be better,” said Matthew D’Luzansky, general manager. “I’ve talked about documenting processes that we use and how that’s important if you’re going to run a place consistently. So, after several months of many meetings and talking about it with staff and senior leaders, we have a new organization going forward.”
**************************************
• Read full article:
https://www.yourvalley.net/sun-city-independent/stories/rcsc-reorganizes-business-offices,484246
Posted online Sun City Independent, Friday, March 15, 2024 No subscription required.

 

I have read a few comments on this site and others about the BOD listening to the members. I agree this is important, but begs the question. What will they do with that which they heard?

 

Just like here, not a frickin thing. I have left a couple of comments/suggestions. I did not get 'hey that's a really shitty idea" which is something I am used to from here so why hold back now, or yeah, a revamped org chart might be good, wanna help? I have all the microsoft software I could ever use, "But, what the hell do i know about any of this eh?" Now ask me why people don't care anymore.

 

I think Janet presents an idea that should be looked into.

Providing there are enough interested Members among the general membership to engage and serve on those standing committees and liaison commitments, why not? Is that the reason why the Director's got stuck with that duty because nobody else would step-up to the plate?

Perhaps this is another opportunity for a member to offer an amendment to the bylaws at the next Annual Membership meeting?

1. Allow an ordinary Member to serve as co-chair (vice chair) in Standing Committees.
2. Allow ordinary Members to serve as liaisons to those outside organizations.
3. How about an ombudsman position that allows all Member inquiries to go thru that one single person/office who will further direct the question or concern to the appropriate party if they can't answer the inquiry on their own?
4. Why can't a single RCSC Staff employee be tasked with attending all those liaison organization meetings instead of a Director?

Seems to me, on the one hand, each Director is tasked with to many responsibilities for the amount of pay they receive, but on the other hand, we don't want to duplicate the situation we had a few years ago where the board pretty much relinquished all their responsibilities to the GM!

 

back the truck up. i was the one who suggested sub boards. Oh fuck it

 

Well excuse me! I didn't realize you were such a "me-me" person, but then again, it seems like all you ever want is attention!

 

I am not Tom. Just proves a point. I was going to offer to do an org chart, golly gee, I even know what all those little shapes and arrows mean! Kind of makes a person wonder why bother, and I truly don't know, especially after a little reminiscing…I first ran across the name Bill Pearson in the Independent Newspaper. There was a comment section called Speak Out. Didn’t get a lot of room, don’t remember, maybe there was a word limit. Just like today people wrote in with their likes and dislikes. A major dislike among “The Greatest Generation” housewives was they wanted to be able to hang laundry on a line outside, and I guess it was against CCR’s. If I saw the response once I had to see it ten times. “Why would I want to look at someone’s brown stained size 52 skivvies when I look out my window”. It wasn’t funny, so why even say it...in print...with your name attached? Someone from the Appalachian Mountain area? I wondered about it because when I was in grade school ironing was my job and my dad's boxers were ironed too. I never saw brown stains. And here we are, 20 or so years later and he is still posting his platitudes. Shit, or was it crap sandwiches among others? Have a lovely evening.

 

Again from a historical perspective, one of the most successful efforts by any DEVCO employee was by their PR expert, Jerry Svendsen. His role filled multiple baskets and while admittedly his job for the for-profit corporation was to help sell homes, he was often times the front man for and between the community and the corporation. Would it work today? No idea, but watching how uncomfortable some of the management team appears to be with the cameras rolling, it just might make sense.

 

Then change your screen name.

 

You are not allowed to. Guess you forgot, but when you set up your account the app let you know. It wouldn't be an issue at all if not for Bill. Thanks for the suggestion tho.

 

Bill is not the Admin. What's your point?

 

I guess you haven't been keeping up. I, like a lot of other people, signed up with a pseudonym, which is my right to do so. Bill in his infinite wisdom thought it would be cute do dox me (use my real name) which is a real no-no for those familiar with social media. When a person signs up on this site it warns you that once you choose a member name you can't change it. I wanted to because in those now famous words "What difference at this point does it make?". He thought it was no big deal because "nobody gives a shit about you anyway". No, Bill is not the admin of this site, however it is against the terms of whoever is the admin. Here are the terms which are available to all who use this site:

The providers ("we", "us", "our") of the service provided by this web site ("Service") are not responsible for any user-generated content and accounts ("Content"). Content submitted express the views of their author only.​

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.​

All Content you submit or upload may be reviewed by staff members. All Content you submit or upload may be sent to third-party verification services (including, but not limited to, spam prevention services). Do not submit any Content that you consider to be private or confidential.​

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.​

You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.​

These terms may be changed at any time without notice.​

If you do not agree with these terms, please do not register or use this Service. If you wish to close your account, please contact us.​

Understand now?

 

Incessant whining, poor me and the victim card crying is never pretty; it's simply tiring. But alas, i guess people have to lean into their strengths.

On a far brighter note, its good to see the adults in the room looking at viable solutions/changes to how the RCSC is doing business. What should be obvious to anyone on the outside looking in is the new GM is making changes to fit his management style. Obviously that won't be to every member or board members liking. Too bad and it is sad two of them elected to leave rather than trying to work together and forge a better future.

Lots of comments on the "organizational chart" all of which leaves me numb. I know some get excited by them, just like some relish business cards with their titles on them. Or all too often, what their title is. I've always been more focused on what i/we can accomplish than by flow or the title attached to whomever. That's just me because ultimately having structure matters, at least in who reports to whom, and who is in what position.

Looking ahead, the two board member openings and filling them with interested and dedicated members will prove to be one of the most important pieces to this years puzzle. Some will look at the short-term significance and see a need with an experienced "retread" while i look at the long-term implications of finding two qualified members who use the next 9 months as a potential introduction to being elected to a three year term starting in 2025. I don't like the two 3 year-terms, but having almost a year to get up to speed and show the community their strengths is a bonus not to be wasted.

We are in the midst of a sea-change in direction and course. As i have written, getting it right is more important than getting it done fast. Across the spectrum of changes are a multitude of options, all having impacts on us and the community most of us love. Weighing each is critical, asking the community is an essential piece of the puzzle, but ultimately the board need make decisions based on the data and the relative costs associated with moving forward.

Yesterday, talking with Ben, i asked him about the mid 1980's smoking battle. It is/was reflective of exactly the challenges of running an organization the size of Sun City. Many of you remember the stink that came when smoking came under fire and everyone in the country was weighing whether they should allow it in the Rec Centers. It was a heated battle and as the push to remove it totally hit them, the smokers demanded a vote, a paper ballot mail-in affair.

The result was nearly 30,000 ballots cast (a whopping 75% of the membership). The tally was a close 54% for the ban, 46% against. The smokers were still heated and called for a second effort by forcing another vote a short time later. The high number of votes was almost identical and the percentages again very close. The result was two-fold; no smoking in Rec Center buildings and language added to our documents that prevented multiple language changes being resubmitted. It still exists to this day in our documents.

The story/message is pretty clear (for those willing to learn from it). Almost no matter the issue, the membership will be divided somewhere near the middle. Smoking (or not) had a huge impact on the community at large and a vote by the membership was the easy way out. The cost of a mail-in ballot would be extraordinarily high these days and most issues today have less consequences (think fans, dog park and the like). Soliciting feedback from the membership will always garner both the pro and the con, but ultimately the board of 9 is elected to make those subjective decisions based on the best information available. That is what their fiduciary obligation calls for.

 

Yes, Josie. Thanks for another "I really have an axe to grind with Bill Pearson" response. Your obsession is clearly understood. Let's move on.

 

You asked me a question so I answered it! And while I was at it reported it. Simple. Moving on.

 

Bill, I usually agree with you, but I think two three year terms is much better than only one. It takes time to get up to speed and develop strong working relationships with fellow Directors, Management, and Members. It seems that we get too much turnover on this Board anyway. From my own experience, I served eight years on one board, nine on another, and six on two others. Other than the elected position, all were limited to two or three terms, by their bylaws. It worked well and a person could see the culmination of their vision and efforts. However, I don't think it is wise to have the same people on boards for decades. It's important to have people with new insight. Just my opinion.

 

I've always been more prone to measuring outcomes to determine the value of an action than working from suppositions on whether it has value or not. Do yourself a favor and go back and look at those who had multiple 3 year terms over the years and see how that worked out. So we are really clear, the change in the Articles to allow it happened in the mid 2000's. It was wholly uncommon for board members to stay beyond one 3 year term. So we are really clear it began after i left the board (2014), when those staying more than 3 years held no one in management accountable for anything. One would think having the "wisdom" of two terms, that would have been the first thing they would have done. Just saying eh?