Sun City Foundation - New Board Members

When the duties of the president is assumed by the VP under the 25th amendment, the VP is sworn in as president, as per Bush when Reagan was shot until he could assume his duties again. It has also been used when the preside is temporarily incapacitated such as when the President is put under a twilight anesthesia for dental work, minor operations, etc. once the president becomes lucid and assumes his regular duties, the VP authority is revoked and things carry on.

Hope this answers your question.

 

Not really. That's the President of the USA. Surely the 25th Amendment does not also apply to the President of the RCSC BoD.

 

No it doesn't! This is not a federal issue.

Look...my only point is, and based on the responses I received from several board members who were defending what they did, it appears that Karen was incorrectly forced to elect another President even if she was willing to serve out Kat's remaining term because they misinterpreted the Bylaws.

 

What is this new fascination with fly poop?

 

You're doing exactly what some of the Board members did attempting to justify their actions, by selectively picking out words without reading the entire statement!

What do you suppose "in the absence or incapacity of the President, shall perform the duties of the President" means?

When the President stepped down it created an absence in that office and the VP "shall perform the duties of the President".

 

Tom: You do know the bylaws are written with a degree of ambiguity. There's no way every circumstance will be covered. In fact, i would argue the foolishness of stuffing 10 pounds of crap into the 5 pound bag known as the bylaws has created a mess that will take a careful crafting and culling out all the fluff. It was done on purpose as the former former GM wanted to enhance her control.

You suggested that Karen was forced to put the position of president up for a vote? What i have heard was she wasn't interested in filling the remaining three months. If that's the case, when Kat resigned, she did in fact (shall) perform the duties of the president until she elected to step aside.

I'll ask again: Is your argument she should have been forced to stay on as president? Even if she didn't want to?

 

No. What I'm simply saying is she may have been forced to elect another President under false pretenses.

Whether she wanted to serve out Kat's remaining term is certainly her decision, however, it would have been nice to learn of her decision at the same time we learned that Kat had resigned.

I must also emphasis, that the 3 Board members whom I sent emails to expressing my concern about the process never once suggested that Karen didn't want to serve out Kat's term. If they had, that would have been the end of the story, but they didn't. They all simply defended what was done.

One Director emphasised the term "unwilling" that is used in Article VI, Section 8 without reading the rest of the Bylaw. That Directors argument was that Kat was "unwilling" to serve as President. But if you read the entire Bylaw, it's made very clear that it's the other Directors on the Board that are the ones who must determine that the person was "unwilling" or was incapable of performing their duties. Here again, that is a Bylaw relating to a disciplinary action and not a simple resignation from holding an office.

Another Director stated the process was done correctly and had precedence set when John Nowakowski and Steve Collins both stepped down at the same time. The truth is that did not set a precedence because that was the proper way to handle the situation when both the President and Vice President resign at the same time. Now, I would agree that Tom Foster was properly elected if Karen resigned as President when Kat resigned as President, but all the emails I received was in defence of the process as it was used, and not once was it mentioned that Karen had also resigned at the same time?

The third Director who responded defended what happened by once again stating the words in Section 8 that the Vice President properly performed her duties.

So based on all the correspondence I received from Directors in reply to my concern, the only conclusion I can come too is, unless and until somebody actually tells me that Karen had also resigned, I will continue to believe that she was forced out.

PLEASE, go read Article VI, Section 8, and then explain to me how that Bylaw is not a disciplinary action and how it's the remedy for a simple resignation of an office holder!

 

Why bother arguing what may or may not have happened; just email Karen and ask or wait till the meeting tomorrow and ask her. Everything that happens isn't a conspiracy or subject to constant speculation that may or may not be the case. More often than not it's just volunteers (the board) making decisions they think work or are in the members best interest.

Think about the past 5 months.
1). Two board members resigned and they found competent replacements.
2). The building on 111th: The board did their due diligence as they are required to do and when the deal wasn't financially doable they walked away.
3). The panic over the Library was the hot topic and board members told us it would get resolved. 5 year agreement in place, done deal.
4). There was a lot of fury over proposed changes to punch cards. It's all been resolved and everything remains the same.
5). There was a lot of angst over golf cars not being used to transport members at the Craft Fair. Rumor has it they'll be used again this year.
6). Kat resigned as president (for health reasons?) and the board quickly acted so as not to lose a beat. Ask tomorrow how and why?
7). Many of us are waiting to see the 5 year reserve plan. Word was it was going to be released last spring. The fact it wasn't is on management rather than the board. It should be out this month (hopefully).
8). The other item they've been wrestling with, the Mountain View remodel, should be out soon (hopefully).

It's been a busy summer and with the fall and coming election it should get even busier.

Just saying eh?

 

Bill, as a member of the Imsurance committee, I do not believe that golf carts will be used at the craft fair. Evidently there was an incident last year and when this situation was discusssed with our brokers, they seriously convinced us that from a potential liability issue this was not a good idea and from a policy premium standpoint our total insurance premium would adversely effect our current annual premium which 1.5M and next could be nasty based on wildfires and more importantly the disastrous hurricane season thus far and there is still six weeks to go.

The reserve plan will be available soon for everyone to see. This has been a complex item to put together but management, particularly Kevin the CFO and his team have done a stellar job.

See you tomorrow.

 

It's my understanding that the drivers of the golf carts will be required to have their own insurance and the RCSC will carry insurance on the carts only.

The big question is; will they be able to find drivers?

 

I am not sure about that FYI, but I do know that management was going to find a solution to the problem working with the brokers. This sounds like a reasonable solution and might have been mentioned at the April meeting. FYI Tom, I don’t know this about even though being on the committee is because smaller problems to be ironed out we defer to management with be advised later as to the solution. We then vote electronically yes or no since scheduling a meeting for a situation like this is counterproductive.

 

I thought if you own a golf cart that is street legal it's mandatory to have a license plate and insurance. Mine has insurance and tags renewed annually.

 

True, but the RCSC is separating itself from the liability tied to the driver.

 

I wouldn't take the chance that my personal insurance would cover me in this situation should some "accident" occur. I'd not be surprised if my insurance company tried to claim that I was a driver (albeit voluntary) for a commercial corporation (the RCSC) and hence somehow "employed". Every insurance company has different policies and this seems a murky situation at best. What isn't murky is that the cost to litigate, should that be necessary, would be significant... something my finances couldn't afford. YMMV.

 

I guess the prudent thing to do would be to reach out to your insurance company to find out about coverage if you wanted to volunteer for this. So vehicles and street legal golf cars must be very different policies. Never looked, guess I will now.

 

Maybe the BOD should form another organization to search for grants, etc? Keep it separate from the existing foundation with different goals. Seems an easy solution to the squabble.

 

Why? From what I understand there were only about 25-30 people helped with the assessment fees in 2023. With that many on the staff you could have a grant writer, and annual giving coordinator, an estate person, and with the use of a program similar to LexisNexis find who donors might be in the area that a philanthropy person could call on and develop relationships with.

You really want another organization in this community to cause more angst?

 

I do not enjoy reading and hearing all the squabbling about this issue. Just suggesting a possible solution.

 

Not squabbling. I also made a suggestion, then asked a question. You can tell me you don't like my suggestion and why. I would like to know.

 

Existing Sun City Foundation already is established to seek grants and other sources of revenue allowed as a non-profit charitable organization.

Letter to the Editor
Borski: RCSC within bylaws with Foundation (Excerpt)
“ The Sun City Foundation was founded in 1986. The Articles of Corporation, amended date Nov. 8, 2006, state, “the corporation is organized, and will be operated, exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and to carry out the purposes of the Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. an Arizona nonprofit corporation, and to carry out exclusively charitable and educational purposes.” (Article II,A)
The bylaws of the Sun City Foundation, dated Oct. 12, 2020, Article III Section 1, state “ This corporation shall function as a civic, charitable organization whose purpose is to carry out exclusively charitable and health educational purposes and programs of the Recreation Center of Sun City Inc, an Arizona non-profit corporation.”
#
• View first part of Exchange video for Tom Foster, RCSC board president’s at length explanation of legal documentation of Sun City Foundation function purpose.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLy0Uy9sKWCJNLz37tn5ug

• Full Borski letter posted online, Sun City Independent, no subscription required:
https://www.yourvalley.net/sun-city...ski-rcsc-within-bylaws-with-foundation,540128