Sun City Foundation - New Board Members

Out with the old, in with the new!

Welcome New Members to the Sun City Foundation Board

The RCSC Board of Directors is excited to announce that on October 10, 2024, the RCSC Board added six new members to the Sun City Foundation Board of Directors. These individuals are:

• Steve Collins
• Janet Curry
• Karen Gangelhoff
• Linda McIntyre
• Chris Nettesheim
• John Nowakowski

These new directors will help the Foundation to continue its critical work to help Sun City members who have difficulties paying their annual assessments. They will also allow the Foundation to expand its capabilities to identify and acquire new funding from grants, donations, corporations, and other sources that will benefit all Sun City residents.

 

Surprised??

LETTERS
Wilson: Resigns from Sun City Foundation board
Posted Friday, October 11, 2024 9:46 am
By Sue Wilson
After serving and promoting the Sun City Foundation for seven years, I have turned in my resignation.

Over the last seven years, I have met and helped many of our Sun City residents who are at the poverty level and cannot afford to pay their RCSC annual assessment.

The Sun City Foundation board has always worked to help our people, or at least they did until October 10. At the Oct. 10 meeting, the RCSC board decided to place several new members on the board without following the usual protocol of allowing the Foundation directors to vote. The Foundation directors who have served on this Foundation board were disrespected by the RCSC board.

Their reason for doing this is because they want a sound system for the new Performing Art Center, whenever they decide to build it, and they want to write grants for it. Since RCSC is a 501(c)4 they cannot be issued grants. However, the Foundation is a 501(c)3 and it can so they want to run that money through the Foundation.

They are changing Board Policy 20 to allow them to expand the reason for the Foundation. The problem is that this board policy hasn’t gone through a first or second reading and it was not voted at the last RCSC board meeting. I was told by the new RCSC board president that they could put new people on right now. So, this means that the RCSC Board no longer follows their bylaws or they passed this in a secret meeting.

I am not sure why this new sound system is not being bought with the Preservation Improvement Fund since they have changed the guidelines on that. I will miss the people I have served with and miss the people I have served, but I can no longer be a part of this with the RCSC board bullying the Foundation board.
#

( BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
September 26, 2024
6. Director Rough – I move to amend Board Policy # 20 titled Sun City Foundation. Motion passed first reading unanimously.
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Summary_2024-09-26.pdf )

Sun City Independent
https://www.yourvalley.net/sun-city...resigns-from-sun-city-foundation-board,539406

 

I am very happy to see this happen. I started the process, found it extremely invasive and just said forget it. From what I understand not many were helped last year. I also hope they change who has access to the applicant's personal information. I specifically asked a Foundation member if volunteers from the community had access to applicants' financial information and the answer was yes.

As prices keep going up on groceries, gas, insurance, etc. more seniors will probably need help, and I hope this change will give them the opportunity to receive the help they need.

 

It's not just protocol that the Board isn't following, they're not following there own bylaws!

Someone needs to explain why and how Tom Foster was elected to serve as Board President?

When Director Fimmel resigned, it is the responsibility of the Vice President, per the Bylaws, to serve out the remaining term of President.

The only vacancy that existed at that time was that of the Vice President!

The Board somehow contorted the Bylaw, which is used for disciplinary action, to vote/elect a new President.

The only justification of electing a different President would be if Karen McAdam also resigned as the then acting President.

 

Which is indeed is exactly what happened Tom. End of story.

 

And how may I ask you know that?

 

It was posted over a month ago on one of these social media sites in response to the allegations it was done in error.

 

Well I never saw it?

The discouraging part of it is, I sent emails to all those parties involved and the only response I ever received was their attempt to justify it by selectively using words in Article VI, which only pertains to "removal" caused by disciplinary action.

A simple response could have been sent saying Karen also resigned, which would have explained everything.

I sure would like to see that post!!!

 

Is the transparency gone?

 

I find it curious Tom as you were included in the email that was shared by Jean with a plethora of exchanges challenging/questioning the replacement of Kat. I've seen several comments regarding the action and this one you were included in says it all:
"Jean,
In accordance with our Bylaws, I assumed the duties of the Presidency and called a meeting to elect a new president.

I believe we acted in accordance with our corporate documents, as demonstrated in this statement:

A new election of an Officer by the Board of Directors for the vacated position shall be held within fifteen (15) days after removal. In the case of a vacancy in the President’s office, the Vice President will perform the duties of the President until a new President is elected.

Karen"

I never got involved in the exchange though i did read the responses. You were one of those speaking out most loudly Tom and you are listed on the email list. If you missed reading it, so be it. If you are just trying to make a point they need better communication, so be it. But your question has been asked and answered and i suspect it will be dealt with on Monday at the Exchange, which is the first meeting they are able to do so in person with members.

 

I did see that and that's what caused my concern! That bylaw pertains to "Removal" due to disciplinary actions initiated by other board members. It does not pertain to a vacancy caused by a resignation.

Read Section 6, especially the title and what the requirements are for "removal."

They used the wrong bylaw!!!! Tom Foster should be VP not president!

 

For most living in Sun City, their knowledge of the Sun City Foundation is limited. It has quietly been helping RCSC members cover their fees since the 80's. They've never had a lot of money, with the largest single increase coming from the 4oth anniversary celebration (2000). That party raised a boatload of cash and the Foundation was the largest organization was by far the biggest recipient. Rumor is they got a good sized bequest recently.

The Foundation board has been made up in large part by former RCSC board members (there was a set criteria at one point in their bylaws). The rest of the makeup was from RCSC members who wanted to play a role in helping members stay in their home even as their resources dwindled. It was a win/win situation as the RCSC wasn't faced with placing liens on properties for non-payments of lot assessments.

The interesting part of the Foundation can be found in its origin. The initial IRS letter of application was for it to have a much broader application. One of the goals was to be able to reach into the community and grow a separate revenue stream via bequests from members when they died. We know the Sun Health Foundation was pulling huge sums of money from the community in that way. Unfortunately, it never materialized.

I only know this because while serving as president we actively tried to broaden our scope. I was working with an attorney who did the initial legwork and determined we could do so much more. We did a white board workshop where we brought in a woman who had built two 50 million dollar plus non-profits who told us we had enormous potential. Two things held us back: The existing board wanted no part of doing that; they wanted to do interviews and help pay fees. We could work around that with new board members who would take on those responsibilities.

The second thing was what killed it was when the attorney's wife got sick and he sold his Sun City home. Sadly, his leaving ended that dream. What that effort did tell us was the Foundation has enormous upside potential. We knew there was a boatload of money available as grants and we had an untapped source of funding from bequests. After my three year term on the board was up, i left the Foundation.

The work they do, have done is admirable. That said, the ability to become something potentially better has always been lingering out there. Let me be clear, they should never lose their purpose of helping RCSC members paying their fees, but reaching beyond that limited goal is shortsighted.

 

Let's add this caveat shall we Tom? In your opinion.

As you know, i hate arguing what Bylaws mean. They are ambiguous at best and unreadable at worst. They never used to be that way and the insanity of jamming crap into them has made them fairly worthless (in my opinion). They need to be cleaned up and readable. My buddy Ben has rewritten them with every organization we have been involved with and his simply philosophy is make them say exactly what the organization is doing.

Your argument makes me smile. Are you suggesting the board should have forced Karen to stay on as president once Kat left? Does that even begin to make any sense to you? There was an opening as president, Karen filled it and then stepped aside and let the board vote on the new president. What part exactly don't you like about the way it transpired? What was your solution to filling the opening in accordance with the current bylaws?

Bylaws seldom cover every action/decision made. You know that as well as i do. Arguing the minutia is folly.

But alas, i'm trying to back away and let others take the reign.

 

This is not just "my opinion." I have verified this with several parliamentarians too which I have included the actual bylaws for them to read and they concur with "my opinion."

No. What I'm suggesting is that according to the bylaws and the responsibilities of the VP, Karen immediately became president and the only vacancy that existed was that of the VP!

At the time Karen became president, she would have been required to also resign, but she didn't do that. They twisted a bylaw to say something that it really doesn't say!

Ask Ben what he thinks and I suspect he will agree with my opinion as well. But make sure you explain the whole story.

 

Who are the parliamentarians you consulted and are they certified? If they are certified would they be available to serve as Board parliamentarian ?

 

I consult with the parliamentarians who serve on the Robert's Rules Forum, and received more than one response. They are all certified as parliamentarians and many are also lawyers, and they are the only ones responding. You don't get opinion responses from Joe Sixpack, you get actual interpretations.

In fact, if you actually had a copy of Robert's Rules, you would see more than one name on the cover of those parliamentarians who actually respond to the questions.

Is that good enough for you?

 

So what you are saying is Karen should have resigned her VP spot at which point the board would have voted on both positions? At which point the board would have voted Tom for president and in all likelihood Karen for VP? Explain another scenario for me, please.

Do you even realize how silly that sounds? The net is the same and in the end, i have no idea if that's what they did (Karen resigning her VP position) or not? Nor do i, or Ben care.

Here's why...picking fly shit is always just that Tom...picking fly shit.

PS, Become the parliamentarian Tom and then everything will be done perfectly...until someone disagrees with your interpretation...which you also know happens often.

 

No Bill! Pay attention.

According to the Vice President's responsibilities as per the bylaws:

SECTION 4: VICE-PRESIDENT
The Vice-President shall perform such duties as assigned by the President and, in the absence or incapacity of the President, shall perform the duties of the President. (emphasis added)

So...as I have previously stated; once Kat resigned the Presidency, Karen automatically became the President and would have, should have served out the remainder of Kat's term. Instead, she presided over a meeting to elect a new President when the only open position was that of the Vice President!

As I have also stated previously, they were applying a Bylaw that does not cover vacancies created by a self imposed resignation of an Office Holder. Article VI, Section 8 applies to "removal" as determined by a majority vote of the remaining Directors who believe that the current President is unwilling or incapable of performing their duties. It's about removal do to a disciplinary action.

At the point of Kat's resignation is when Karen should have also resigned as President, which would then have left two open positions. Proper procedure is the Secretary calls the meeting to order for the purpose of electing a new President and Vice President. And I believe that is exactly what was done when John Nowakowski resigned as President and Steve Collins immediately resigned as Vice President.

It seems that the process was done incorrectly because they misinterpreted their own Bylaws. Besides, if Karen did resign her position as President, then why wasn't that explained in the email blast from the RCSC that went out? I believe the misinterpretation of the Bylaws caused Karen to believe she needed to elect a new President when it was really only the Vice President's position that was available?

In fact, it appears that the Bylaws don't even address vacancies of Board Office holders caused by resignations. The only Bylaw addressing vacancies is Article V, Section 4, which pertains to vacancies on the Board as a whole?

 

So after reading that diatribe Tom, it's your learned position that Karen had to be the president (according to the bylaws) and she could not assume the presidency and then step down and be re-elected as the VP? I'm still missing what's twisting your knickers at this point because neither of us were in the room to witness what happened. We have the email sent to Jean where it was explained. Apparently you don't like the outcome?

Seriously dude, i get it you are a process fanatic, while most of these volunteer board members are just trying to get through the events of the day, week, month and year. Step up and become the parliamentarian, that way everything will be done perfectly.

Given your expertise on all things bylaws Tom, what would you suggest the remedy is? Better yet, step to the mic on Monday and expose the lot of them for trying to do their job the best they can in trying times.

In the end, if the outcome is Karen returns as the vice president (after she resigns from filling Kat's open presidency) and Tom is voted in by the board to fill the open position of president, how is that a problem? Are you angry she didn't want to be forced to be the president for the remaining three months? Should she not be allowed to be the VP? Curious where the rub is?

Because if the net of this exercise is you aren't happy with the process but the outcome is fine...then it is just picking fly shit (in my opinion).

 

I guess I don't see where this says that the VP becomes the President, it says that the VP shall "perform the duties of the President." That does not make the VP the President. What am I missing?