JEAN TOTTEN Throws Her Hat in the Ring!

(Announcement Excerpts)

“I have decided to run for the 2023 RCSC Board of Directors…

I’m looking forward to meeting and talking with many of the members who make up neighborhoods in our community. Whether you’ve only been here 6 months or were the first on your block 25 years ago, I want to hear from you.

I want to become the candidate…

* known for standing up for the members and self-governance while assuring them that I will meet my fiduciary responsibility to the corporation.

* who will use my voice to discuss the history of Sun City and how it ties into our community today.

* who believes in bringing back some of the successful clubs/committees from past years that benefit members.

* that understands that I don’t always have to be right and will admit if I am wrong.

…I’ve picked up my Candidate packet and am currently looking for 100 signatures that will qualify me to run. I’ll be at the Member Board Exchange on Monday, September 12th. I’ll look forward to meeting and chatting with you…

I have decided to do things a little bit differently. I want to…

* have some face time with members * know who is supporting me

* answer what questions you might have

* to not just shove a piece of paper in your face before a Board meeting and have you sign it.

…I will make myself available every Wednesday from 1-3 at the Fairway Recreation Center in the lobby over by the couch and TV. I will plan to be there on August 24th August 31st and September 7th.

I hope you'll take a minute to stop by and say “hi.”

Thank you.

Jean M. Totten”

 

You've sold me on this commitment alone!

Good Luck!

 

Excellent! And, I agree with eyesopen! Also, not always having to be right, and admitting when you are wrong is an excellent quality in a board member.

 

Jean,

I think it is wonderful to have a person of integrity and honesty willing to step forward and place their name in the hat for the board. It will be an even greater feather in the cap of the communitt when you are elected and a board member to be the voice of those no longer heard or listened to. Heed this warning though, it is a difficult position to put yourself in and it can be most stressful to be the lone voice on the board that espouses the other side of the coin when making decisions or striving for the best intentions of the members.

I feel you will be an exceptional voice on the board, as it is has become clear, the group mentality has taken over again, and the membership be damned. A perosn of conviction and personal fortitude, such as yourself, is in great need to be a voice on the board for all of us who have had our voices stolen by those who seek to have power rather than the best interest of the community in their heart. I look forward to your campaign and your eventual seating as a new board member, it is a voice clearly needed and now is the time for it to be heard.

 

Jean.......Good to see the decision that you made although I do have a question and would like to hear your thoughts. RCSC basically has a "gag order" (lacking a better term) on it's elected directors. I believe it is still in effect unless it has been recently lifted. Directors, while in office, are prohibited from communicating with the public in any fashion (except at Board meetings) and specifically through sites such as TOSC and Sun City Advocates. The probable reasoning is that the Board is supposed to act as ONE in it's communications. Individual Directors, speaking independently on their own can not be controlled to give the same/correct message. The entire Board must give their approval for an individual Director to say anything independently. I am assuming for the moment this process is still in effect as I have not seen any active Director openly post anything to this site. There are several Directors that are friendly to thoughts expressed on this site and the Advocates but have not seen them post anything either. This "gag order" does not become apparent UNTIL after you take office. Finally to my question: Are we going to hear from you anymore after you are elected? And as always please understand that I may be working without the most up to date information.

 

WOW! I don't doubt you for a minute! I think there may also be a moratorium on responding to emails as well. I sent the entire board an email over a week ago regarding a Bylaw (see the thread on this blog "Remember Last Years Annual Members Meeting?") and have not even received a "Thank You for bringing this to our attention"

If this restriction is still in effect then it sure opens up a lot of questions! Who's the dictator who's enforcing this rule? And if you get caught talking to a Member will there be an incident report and disciplinary action filed against you? Is this grounds for termination from the Board?

If this rule was made by the Board then the Board can certainly change it! Seems to me that a rule such as that would have been made by a motion at a meeting and recorded in the Minutes of that past meeting? I sure would like to see those Minutes! There's certainly nothing in the oath of office that requires a Director not to talk to their Members!

All I can say is IF I were a member of the Board a rule such as that would not shut me up. After all, I was elected by the Members and they certainly have the right to ask me anything they want, anywhere they want and I have an obligation to respond, or get in touch with them at a more convenient time to discuss their concern. Ignoring the Members in such a manner is simply turning your back on the very people you were elected to represent!

I certainly hope GCotten only misunderstood the intentions of that rule/recommendation! If not, we're in worse shape than I feared!

 

The majority certainly acts that way - whether its a written rule or simply enforced on junior or minority Board Members thru bullying, threats, and vengeance. We saw all those characteristics (add in unethical behavior) in some of the blunders and actions of the 2021 Board. It appears there are too many people now talking about Members rights, transparency, and accountability for future Boards to do everything with backroom deals and fascist control. Jean is absolutely part of the solution!

 

If true it certainly reinforces the perception that it's "them" against "us".

That is NOT the way to run an organization that was established with the sole purpose to do anything and everything in the interest of the Members!

 

Interesting stuff here...

https://www.missionbox.com/article/55/common-mistakes-by-nonprofit-boards-and-how-to-avoid-them

Fresh faces and perspectives could really bring about a healthier Board and Membership relationship.

 

Where can I get a packet?

 

Corporate office at Lakeview Rec Center

 

Bottom Line: Regardless whether or not this is some board policy, it's my opinion that as long as a Director makes it clear that they are NOT speaking for the entire Board, they are free to express their own opinions to the Members...period!

 

"They" would disagree with you; which is odd because really the "gag order" is outlined in the documents where it talks about what is said in "executive session." There are other remarks about speaking for the organization, sorry, not going to dig them out. I never stopped posting on TOSC while serving on the board but i don't recall addressing issues on the site we were dealing with on the board.

The solution i proposed was an interactive website where we could respond to members. That went over like a fart in church.

 

I've got no problem with things that were said in executive session not being revealed, that's a no-brainer and a well established understanding. It's when they try to control what you say and do out of the context of a meeting is what I'm opposed too.

Like I said, as long as a Director makes it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the board I don't think they have any authority to force you to shut-up, especially if that requirement was not known until AFTER you were elected to the board. Granted, board members should not be spreading contradictory or confusing information, but as far as I know we still do live in America!

If a Director isn't allowed to talk with Members outside of the context of a meeting then the Board needs to come clean and tell us that that is one of the requirements to serve on the Board! But if they did that, who would want to serve?

 

Jean Totten, One Day At A Time

Gary, thank you for the question.

I spent a couple of hours today at Fairway Rec. Center with the sole purpose of meeting with members, introducing myself to members, and garnering signatures from members so that I could run for the Board in the fall. I plan to continue this effort throughout the weeks ahead. After all, Sun City IS its members.

You are telling me that RCSC has a "gag" order (lacking a better term) on its elected directors that basically prohibits them from communicating with the public in any fashion; that the Board is supposed to act as ONE in its communications???? And exactly when does an elected candidate find this out?

Because I say to you right now, if this is not listed in the bylaws as a qualification one needs in order to be a candidate to the Board, this candidate is not on board (no pun intended). And since we have a Board-directed Bylaws Ad Hoc Revision committee, chaired by Director Lenefsky, hard at work (since January) revising and reviewing our bylaws, then they best add this "gag" order to that list of qualifications before they consider their work done. If it's not written, this candidate ain't gonna let that happen! Why on earth would I run to represent the members if I can't speak to them??!! I can understand keeping mum on matters conducted in Executive Sessions and in other delicate instances, but I cannot adhere to not speaking independently.

As a declared candidate for the members, you can bet that I will be bringing this matter to the next Member Board Exchange. And finally, to your question: Are we going to hear from you anymore after you are elected? You bet your sweet bippy!!



**For those of you who have never heard that expression, what does you bet your sweet bippy mean?
** You can be certain about that.
**Origin of You Bet Your Sweet Bippy
**This expression became popular in the late 1960s when characters used it on a show called "Laugh In". It is similar to another expression, you bet your a$$! This expression has the same meaning, you can be certain about that.

 

I wonder, and this is a stretch, but is it possible someone along the way misunderstood the "policy" about talking to members? Matters taken up in Executive session are off limits, as they typically involve personnel, pending legal or other contract negotiations, possible matters covered by law, etc.; but keeping Board members from interacting with the community is nonsense. They represent the community; how are board members supposed to stay informed about how the community feels about issues, their concerns? At a monthly meeting where members are limited to speaking 3 minutes about only agenda items, or a monthly member/board exchange where no action can be taken and maybe something will be reported on in the weeks or months down the road? So, you can't have coffee with a Board member? Do members golf or play pickleball with board members, or swim or hang at the metals club or the car club? My opinion is this is nonsense and needs to be addressed and answered by the President. Clearly stating "the opinions expressed are clearly mine" should always be stated, and caution should be exercised, but a "gag order?" Seriously!

 

Linda,
I agree with you. Guideline policy about proprietary information disclosure, of course. Personal communication, no!

This “gag order”is simply speculation without confirmation of a policy or recent directive that prohibits board members from communicating by email, on social media and/or speaking with members.

We’ll see when the board reconvenes in September if there’s proof. I hope it is false.

 

It's interesting to read the responses to my "gag order" posting, and thank you Jean for your answer to my question. Perhaps the depth of the restriction of speech on directors is determined by who the President of the Board is at the time and their personal or assisted interpretation of corporation rules and policies. Other past board members may have had different experiences than I but to be clear I have lived it and have seen other board members fall under the same restriction. In my situation it was one of the "final straws that broke the camels back". And for further clarification my offense was to answer the question by a new SC property owner as to the purpose of the purchase of the Grand property......hardly a confidential matter since it had previously been announced in the media several times.

In reflection I think the real problem is that most directors do not know the difference between the type of corporation boards.....read Cheri Marchio's above posting and click on the article regarding "mistakes/non-profit boards etc". RCSC does nothing to educate potential board members as to how the thinking is so much different in "for profit" boards. If mentioned at all it comes after the election and at the new directors orientation. By that time the new directors are rip-roaring ready to go and fulfill all the campaign promises they made and to "communicate" like they campaigned to do.....only to find out they are not allowed to. Most of us including myself do not give it a second thought when making the decision to "run for the board". Most of us relate the process to running for a local, state or national office and all the politics that involves. We also relate the "job" if elected is similar to that of being elected for a local, state or national political office......and this is where the problem surfaces. Serving the people, members or constituency has different meanings and most definitely "communication" or lack thereof is different. Until such time that RCSC requires corporate education classes or actual experience on serving on not for profit boards we will continue to have the "us" and "them" atmosphere.

Board candidates should do their own research and talk to friendly board members who are willing to "communicate". In addition I am certainly willing to clarify any questions or concerns regarding my remarks.......my email is gary@homeinfoplease.com. Gary Cotten

 

Thank you, Gary. And, therein lies the problem. No interest in EDUCATING the Board about how a non profit board works! Education is the key. Training is essential. AND, the same holds true for the the staff; especially the top management staff, but also key support staff. The nonprofit world is different and complex. And, it's painfully obvious there is little understanding. There are volumes written about the pitfalls. It's time somebody starts paying some serious attention.

One of my responsibilities in a former life as the CEO of two nonprofits was to work with the Executive Committes to ensure that there were annual board training sessions on such key matters as governance, finance, long range planning/strategic planning. We used professional outside facilitators, or sometimes regional peers that had years of experience in a particular field and were certified through our professional organizations.

Something to think about: RCSC is tasked with building, maintaining and managing a significant portion of a "municipal infrastructure" when you get right down to analyzing their responsibility - their budget and staff rivals that of many small towns, but there is no responsibility for such things as streets, utilities or law enforcement. So when you put that in perspective, they have a lot of decision making power and authority over resources and the future of Sun City.

This responsibility shouldn't be taken lightly; there needs to be ongoing professional guidance. Even the professional staff needs training. And joint staff/board training is incredibly helpful. Organizational development is lacking and needs to be seriously evaluated IMO.

 

I think Gary is right about different board presidents handling communication differently. Even back in the "old days" pre-Jan, the hope was the board would act in unison. The documents used to suggest, argue like hell in the board room, but then act unanimously when in front of the crowd. I always hated that and if i disagreed in the board room, i disagreed on the stage. If members asked my why, i told them. What i didn't do was run off and write a letter to the editor explaining my displeasure with the board. You should always be willing and able to engage the membership with how you feel and why you vote the way you voted. I don't think that has ever changed.

I can well understand Gary's comments, if memory serves me, he wasn't all in regarding the Grand Ave project, while some board members were, officers specifically. Telling members that is/was a criminal offense. One of their problems these days, with no work sessions, there's literally no option to voice your opinions as a board member other than in front of the crowd. That's puts the minority position board members in a really awkward position.

My solution, while serving on the board, was to allow members to sit in a work session and listen to the exchange. It would have changed the dynamic and again if memory serves me, one of the reasons Gary left the board because those closed door work sessions were less than civil. Had their been members sitting there, the comments would have been in the room, it would have been less likely to happen.

Finally, regarding Cheri's links on how to, if only we operated that way. That operating manual would exist in a perfect world, the RCSC is far removed from said perfect world. There is no reason to not try and do better. For that to happen, you first need to come to grips with the idea the organization need to do better and under the current leadership that will never happen. They think they are right and we don't have a clue.