Awe Struck

Thankfully, for all of us,but especially me, Bill has taken us through the beauty of Sun City. He shared his most desirable and thrilling location of the community, the Del Webb Museum. What a glorious place it is, and shall continue to be for decades to come.

So, as I was in my Sun City euphoria, I picked up the Independent to read of the latest goings on in the community and fully expecting the rebuttal argument from Gray. What I found was some interesting additional tidbits to the changes being made to RCSC documents. The changes are not minor, and are really, significant. Rather than bore you with the details, which can easily be read on the Independent, I would much rather deal with the commentary from the membership. The loudest cry "why now", why can't these be done in a fashion which involves member input? If all of these changes are as such, something which changes the very fabric of Sun City, shouldn't these changes have input and discussion from the members?

As per the usual, the GM has taken it upon herself to change and redirect the very fabric of what the RCSC is and should stand for. Instead we are getting self directed, self serving unchecked balance of power in full display. A manager, redirecting the workings of a community to suit her own wants and needs, member wants and needs be damned. The question has been raised to the BOD, Why now, why can't it wait for one more month before enacting sweeping changes, not all positive, imho,

Folks, this unfettered power grab is the very reason the Planned Communities Act was written, and needs to be adopted ASAP. The Planned communities ACT prevents these types of bylaw changing from occurring, and protects the members from power hungry management teams and boards from derailing the member involvement process. No more fear mongering antics or quotes from me, merely read the changes to be enacted.

If all of these changes are approved by the board without member input, it very well may be the appropriate time to ask the Arizona Corporation Commission to come in and undo all of these changes which were not solicited by member input.

Yes, Sun City is an amazing place to live. Please allow us the members to have the slightest say into these changes. Explain why these changes, now, and what the hurry is?

John Meeker and the DEVCO Corp never envisioned these types of wholesale changes being enacted without the members having direct input. Let us return to those days, STOP the vote on these changes. Board of Directors, you know better than to do wholesale change just for the sake of saying you did something with your morning. Stop this wholesale rewrite of the Bylaws and allow for some more time to discern all of the changes. A few more weeks doesn't hurt anyone. Stop these motions from forever changing our beloved community. Thank You

 

Thank god someone besides me started a thread. I'm getting tired of trying to create material from nothing. Just kidding.

Here's the dilemma Carole: We know most folks don't pay attention to anything involving the governance of Sun City. But, if you think that's bad, try and figure out how many of them go catatonic when you start talking about the "corporate documents." Lordy, it's an exercise in futility. And realistically, why should they pay attention or even care a wee bit? In fact, we could have a test to see who knows the order of importance of the three bodies of work everything the RCSC stems from is. Take your pick: 1). Articles of Incorporation. 2). Corporate Bylaws. 3). Board Policies.

Rather than being tricky, i simply placed them in their order of hierarchy. Everything should flow from the Articles of Incorporation which were written first. Then came the Corporate Bylaws and they had to follow the A of I. Board Policies were the last crafted and again took some measure of guidance from the Bylaws. All of our documents have been added or deleted to over the years. The least amended has been the Articles of Incorporation. Corporate Bylaws and Board Policies have been rewritten countless times.

Those of us who are more policy wonk driven, have watched some of the changes over the past 15 years. We have noted the move away from the democratic process where the community had a greater voice to one where control has been centralized in the hands of management and the board (and in that order). If you think not, ask one of the current board members who initiated all of the changes Carole is talking about? Which one crawled out of bed and said lets do wholesale rewrites on our documents to make Sun City a better place?

My challenge is i get glassy eyed as well when talking about our documents. Not that they don't matter, it's just boring stuff and really hard to follow. I tend not to care if the language is in our board policies or in our corporate by-laws. To Carole's point, what does matter is if there are material changes in both intent and content. When the board president said residents could make comments at two sessions before the vote, i almost laughed out loud. I sat at the member exchange looking through the 94 page document and was at a loss as to what they were trying to do. Maybe i'm just a dummy, but they needed to change the format for open meetings and we know they wanted to add the fact the RCSC was covered under Title 10. After that, what was the point of doing it now?

The simple reality is if they have to do it in open meetings, there will be discussions about each change and the rational behind those changes. In closed door work sessions, there may or may not be discussions. Too often while i (and Carole) was/were on the board the GM rewrote language and the board adopted it. After all she was the working with them and should know the problems. But, is it really that simple? Is what is in the best interest of the management always in the best interest of the community?

All fair questions and as we move to open meetings, answers will become more obvious. It’s just too bad they didn’t hold off on the bulk of these changes so we could see self-governance in action. All fo which begs the question; why couldn’t we wait on the bulk of them?

 

I had this whole diatribe written about specific things I know to be true about all of these various changes, then, in an instant, through my hands up in the air, and thought, what the heck, it doesn't matter anyway. That is when it really hit home. We, as a group, have been conditioned to believe what we need and want from our RCSC leaders doesn't matter anymore.It doesn't matter anymore because we have already been told we don't matter anymore. Just look at the article about the ticketing process and the response received back. It was, in effect, we are going to continue to do what we do, and we don't care if you don't like it. There were ideas and items brought to us as board members, and these folks trusted us to be their advocate. As soon as it got behind closed doors, it was as if the person had not spoken. We tried to cajole, argue, reason, anything to help get our point across in an effort to champion the cause. We would get nowhere, leaving the member believing this is the way it is, like it or lump it. Do that enough times to the members, as we have done with the Players Club, and everyone will be conditioned to the fact they don't have a voice. then, just about the time all the glimmer is about gone from their eyes, throw them a small bone and they feel grateful to have even been acknowledged.

Our Board of Directors have been hijacked, for years now, by the GM and some of the management team. We would get together for a work session, with agenda items to be discussed, and we would get handed finished notes on what would take place, who would author the motion, and don't forget to hawk your liaison. It was a struggle to get real discussion on real items. With the video taping of the meetings we can now see the people coming back and asking what did you do for me on my issue I brought to you 8 months ago. The blank stares on the directors faces says it all. They did nothing for you. And so it goes.

So, there will be a boatload of motions voted on next week that don't have to be, with changes made that don't need to be. Can anyone advise me on to politely hijack a meeting back? I have read the documents and I am a member in good standing which means I have the right to speak, I just want to speak at a particular moment. Perhaps several times.

When we ask ourselves where did all of the apathy come from? It came from our board and GM, making it clear we don't matter and our ideas have no value. Perhaps with open meetings and the availability by the members to be able to see somethings become real action items before their eyes, we can win back our membership enough for them to want to get involved,

 

Well guys I fall in the why now category. Fundamental ways of governance should not be rushed through. This is our “Constitution” and is being radically changed in about a month, more or less with no real member imput. Just think what the nation’s Constitution would have looked like put together in a small timeframe. Even the Founding Fathers realized that the Bill of Rights needed to be added to complement what was already written, not to mention other amendments added over time to make the document relevant with changing times. Eat that “originalists.”

Anyway, the engine is on the tracks with its engine running waiting to be railroaded.

That my opinion, I may be wrong.

 

You're not wrong GvD. I was planning on going today but am stuck at the house with the remodel. Bummer. The good news is we will be able to watch it in the next day. It is now 20 minutes to 9 am. I will predict the 94 pages of changes will all be done within less than an hour. There will be virtually no discussion on any of them. Simply putting them up for a yay or nay will be the order of the day. Hurry up and get them done so they can rush down to the Capital for the hearing on the "striker bill" this afternoon.

If they are simply cleaning them up and condensing them, it's one thing. If there are material changes, that's another entirely.

 

CM - I agree with some of your thoughts, but I tend to take issue with the following:

"Our Board of Directors have been hijacked, for years now, by the GM and some of the management team. We would get together for a work session, with agenda items to be discussed, and we would get handed finished notes on what would take place, who would author the motion, and don't forget to hawk your liaison."

If in fact the above is true, why do we even have a Board. If the board is given handed notes (essentially a script) on how to vote, then the board is NOT doing their job and they are the major reason for the apathy in the community. The board members are supposed to have a mind of their own. They should be doing their own research and making decisions on their vote based on what they have deemed appropriate for the community. They should not be voting based on a script from anyone.

I mentioned this in another thread, but to me, the board has ceased to be of value to the community as a whole. If the board cannot and will not make decisions based on their own thoughts, logic, and research, then they become useless - hand the reins to the GM - which is exactly what has happened.

The apathy was created by the board because they have long ago decided they don't want to spend time and energy developing and asserting their own opinions.

If I read your comments incorrectly, please correct me.

 

SCR, parts of the monthly Board meeting is in fact scripted. The committee reports are a summation of the committee meetings as evidenced by secretary notes, although the chair of the committee can revise or write their own report.

As for motions, unless the Director was instrumental in the substance of the motion, it is assigned by management. Votes on motions have been previously ironed out in work sessions, although discussion on motions during the monthly meeting have been a fairly new twist. I believe that it started a few years ago regarding the latest PIF increase.

 

SCR, I promise a comphensiv answer and opinion shortly. I will have quite an answer and doing it off of the cell phone just won't cut it for me.

Let me preface my answer with dog park and LRPC.

 

Several people asked why the rush in passing all of these motions. The repeated reply was "We've(the BOD) has been discussing these changes for 3 months!". The cardholders were never privy to the discussions or explanations as to why these needed to all be passed prior to the new open meeting format.

There was discussion about one item but it was pretty bizarre. The topic was drones flying over RCSC property and was brought as an amendment to one of the motions. My belief is that this shouldn't have been discussed or brought up as an item to vote on as it was never mentioned prior to the Member Exchange Meeting. There was no opportunity for member input.

Enjoy the video when it's released. Jan was down at the Legislature where the new SB1094 passed by a narrow 6-5 vote.

 

Another sad day for SC residents who care about more about what/how the RCSC provides what it was intended to and less about protecting the empire of the damn corporation.

Circa 600 BC the Chinese philosopher Laozi said: Do not conquer the world with force, for force only causes resistance.

The RCSC has used the resources we provide via mandatory funding against us. Their actions, replete with lies and half truths, are shameful. We are the resistance.

 

Sorry for the late reply. Got released from the hospital late, and then a nap was severely needed.

My comments reflect a time from when I was a board member, and my feelings as to how the interactions between the GM and the sitting board of directors at that particular period of time.

When I ran for the board, I trusted and believed everyone had a voice and would be heard. Ideas could/would be brought forward and given a fair shot at being deliberated and reaching understandings which would reflect mutual respect and decisions. My eyes were opened rather clearly and quickly after being elected. The current board members had already decided, among themselves, who would be officers for the coming year and who would get what position within the Board. Since I was only one voice, it didn't matter if I liked the idea or the person or not, as the outcome had been decided already. This is how my tenure on the board would go. Always just one voice against a barrier of agreed upon decisions between the board members and the GM.

There would be discussion alright, everyone's past or upcoming golf game. The greens and the difficulties of particular holes would rule the meetings, with the GM adding her commentary as to how she felt the courses were being played. My very first board meeting and one of the new board members walks up to Jan and points out he has wanted a particular tree removed from a fairway near his home due to its appearance. Guess what, the tree was removed and a newer, bigger tree was brought in, at the expense of the RCSC. So, it became quite clear where the power structure resided and it wasn't with the board.

My first issue of business was a dog park. It was met with strong resistance, and none of the other board members thought this to be an amenity. No matter what I presented as to data, other communities and their amenities, I was shot down. Every meeting, I would bring up the dog park and not let go, kind of like a dog with a bone. What was on the agenda to be discussed? Tee lengths, fairway conditions and tee times and how to improve access to the earlier tee times for those who want them. Yes, anything beyond golf would get little discussion time and time to discuss or present your arguments were always clearly limited.

There were times when it was requested we have meetings with the members, and the resistance to this suggestion was met with clear and conscious "NO".

There would be "meetings" of the contingent, and Jan would be included or briefed on the contents of these meetings, allowing her to be apprised of the direction the work session would be going. So, the agenda presented always included the answer to the agenda item already inserted in the agenda or as a handout as to the costs, reasoning, or where it could/would fall into the larger scheme of golf items to be done. Me. I would bring my handouts, once again, to the board, seeking a dog park, and getting little support. The response to the dog park issue? Approve it, but then make sure it never sees the light of day after that, just to shut me up. So yes, there was an approved motion to build a dog park by the Sun Bowl, but it remained quashed on the agenda for future consideration and was only given lip service by the management team.

So, rather then drag out all of the items which makes me feel the board has been in the pocket of the GM, it's just easier to note, it didn't make it to the agenda if the GM didn't want it on the agenda.

The disbanding of the LRPC was a deliberate and calculated plan contrived and delivered in such a fashion, the other three "non-contingent" board members had no idea what had just happened. But, as a majority, the "board" decided the LRPC would not be needed, as the direction for the RCSC had been decided by this board and there would be no need for further discussion about other items. Besides, the LRPC was asking too many questions and taking up far too much of her staff's time to indulge the whims of a committee. Yes, the board had decided where the PIF monies would be spent and be dedicated to golf and its needs for the long and short term to come.

So, who really runs the RCSC? The BOD of course, at the behest of the GM. This would explain why work sessions, which would last 8 hours at times, now can be accomplished in two or three hours. Why the lesser time, no dissenting voices to make the meetings run any longer. The contingent, still in place, only different members, but still the same modus operandi; fulfill the desires of the GM, espouse her standings on the issues, and support her political stance.

MY opinions of course, but descriptions above are as I recollect them. The board was in Jan's pocket and vice versa. Little of what the members brought forward was even given real consideration. Nope it was send the member a letter of thanks but the board will not consider your suggestion at this time.

I am not a current board member, nor can I speak as to how the current board decides to complete their agendas. But I suspect, based upon some of the stories heard, it is still Jan's BOD and her decisions which ruled the day.

How will this change? The new open format, as when an agenda is presented and members do not like the item or the intent of the items, it can be tabled or removed from the agenda by the member input. It will be a task some board members find daunting, giving up their "power" position within the board members, but I can assure you, T33 is the best thing to happen to the RCSC. It will now force much needed change into the day to day operations of the board.

It will slowly right the ship and get it sailing in the proper direction of membership input, membership feedback, and what do the members want for their community.

 

Solid read Carole and one i suspect won't win you any friends from some quarters; oh well. Carole is right, the board back in her first term and when i came on still actively engaged with meetings dragging on. The two biggest concern from some board members were; would we get fed as we went past lunch, or would they be able to make their 1pm tee time? Very odd. Sometimes i think we intentionally drove them nuts by keeping them there longer than they wanted.

Let me take a step back and help people understand the "evolution." We bought in 1999 and moved here permanently in 2003. From the beginning, i was intrigued by our governance. I loved the concept we ran ourselves. I got to know board members and religiously went to meetings. Running for the board was tantamount to a part time job. They tracked everything and most of it was done by themselves. Yes they had a "board secretary" but she was there to get the information they requested. She worked directly for them.

Boomers were just coming to retirement age. They had a different attitude about volunteering. I don't know if that was what prompted the board to find a more full time general manager, but the board made a conscious decision to hire someone with a solid resume that could take some of the weight off their shoulders. Interestingly enough Jan told me her first year under them, she couldn't even write an article without them first approving it. Letting go of the reigns was going to be a challenge, at least in the short run.

In the long run, the slope was slippery and everything moved quickly. Key position changes within the management office were made. The GM brought in people she wanted around her. Several long time people left, sometimes for the good, sometimes not. As new board members came aboard, information streams were controlled by the GM. Board members got what she gave them, which made their job easier. Everyone wins right? And, the mantra from above was, "i work for the board." While on the board i bet i heard it twenty times.

I tend to look at how the board has changed from a less jaundiced point of view. It's simply human nature. Boomers tend to want less involvement than the "greatest generation." With the management staff taking the burden off of them, the board could reduce hours and still do their job. The problem comes because the decision making process should always start with statistical data or at the very least be supported by facts and figures. I've written a dozen times about the board doing due diligence. They don't always have to be "right," but they do have to weigh the facts and make those decisions based on all of the available information. Multiple options are preferred, but all too often they got one path forward and follow it.

Any semblance of the board being at least on equal footing of the GM was lost long ago. During my three years on the board, the two presidents were retired career military officers. Both "good guys" and both who saw their role as supporting the GM. Both avid golfers, BTW, and hence the push for all golf/all the time was easy. Carole is spot on, the board elects the officers before the newbies have any voice and so that first year is pretty much limbo city. I was an oddity because being on the board was identical to what i did for a living so i came to the table with all guns blazing. Short sighted on my part, but i didn't feel i could change the culture without creating some waves. Probably why i failed so miserably as well.

It's funny now to see just how far the evolution has come. At least back in our day, we put up a fight. We dragged crap out. If you watched the annual membership meeting that wasn't this year, you saw the board flat out say they didn't have any input into the email over the legislation, that was a management decision. I was stunned. Board sets direction, management carries it out...at least that's how i think it should work. The GM has gradually taken almost total control of what happens in the community. Meetings have been reduced to an hour and half at the most and the total time spent has been cut in half or better for board members.

Quick story to amplify: I think it was my second year on the board. We used to have the president and vice president share an office with the secretary treasurer having a desk just outside their office. The other six board members were in a separate space around the corner. We came to a work session and on the agenda was a plan to reconfigure the management offices and board space. I listened in awe. Even back then the cry from the maddening crowd was that we were simply puppets for management.

The plan we were presented with was simple. Give the pres and vice pres office to the gm, take the sec treasurers desk and make it a work space and shove all 9 board members into the space around the corner and create a "bullpen" setting for the nine of us. The argument was we weren't there all that much so what was the difference? I remember asking if that didn't in fact reinforce the idea that we were becoming less significant. Of course i was told don't be silly.

Now, six years later, we sit by and watch as the board is continually telling us "that's a management decision." Damn gang, that's not the tenet's that Sun City was built under.

 

Carole, hope you are feeling better.

That's a very good question. It might not be who you think, although it's probable entities you know.

Democracy (which we want the RCSC to be) is not inherently fair. It empowers majorities against minorities, and certain minorities tend to stay minorities year after year.

“Tyranny of the Majority” – the unfortunate occasion where a majority of a population come to care mostly about their own concerns at the expense of others, and often support policies and actions that suppress minorities. This can be accident through ignorance of issues, or, on purpose, through malice and intolerance. The solution is that 'majority rules' are not enough to ensure good governance and fair society.

“Problem of Persistent Minorities” – in a democracy, certain minorities have no hope of winning, and are likely to have their preferences ignored. Minorities often have little power on their own; they can get their way or have their interests served only if they build a large coalition, or if the majority is sympathetic to them.

Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. Their motivations are typically money and/or unfettered control. An oligarchy can occur in any political system – in a democracy oligarchs use their relationships and money to influence elected officials. Oligarchs are often invisible to the organization; rather they function as benefactors providing influence by manipulating support, encouragement and rewards to those in charge who support their agenda. Often the elected officials have no clue they are being “manipulated”. Oligarchs don't necessarily work together unless they have a common agenda. Oligarchs don't necessarily perceive themselves as oligarchs.​

The RCSC is obviously a functioning oligarchy in my opinion. It began functioning that way long before T33 was an issue. But who are the oligarchs? Are they individual(s)? Club(s)? Until we know and understand who the power behind this is we are just fighting their front men. Pre having a GM I would say the major activities (golf, bowling, etc.) functioned as the oligarchs in a tyranny of majority scenario, and I'd say they still are. The GM is influenced by them and may be an oligarch herself, today. Are there others, possibly political or corporate outsiders? Follow the power and money trails is always good advice -- 40,000 people and $20-mil budgets surely invite attention.

So why the overwhelming resistance to T33? My theory is it's more than the "hand-me-down folklore" we've been fed for the past 25 years; it's more than "they can't tell us what to do." T33 would pull the sheets back somewhat and, if nothing else, bring a larger number of ever changing people into the mix who the oligarchs would then have to contend with. Today they only need to influence what, maybe a dozen people to control the RCSC, but open meetings would allow anyone with an agenda to place themselves into the situation -- every meeting would have a differing set of participants. Proxies would give the persistent minorities a bigger voice, too. This all could quickly overwhelm the oligarchs resources to influence, resulting ultimately in a more democratically run RCSC. That would be good for the members, less so for the oligarchs.