The King Syndrome

Preface: This is just a personal observation and is in no way intended to be a criticism of any individual.
Over the past several years of "involvement" in (awareness of) Sun City Governance I have come to believe that we have a systemic leadership issue. This may be a myopic view, so I welcome any and all commentary. The issue is what I think of as the King Syndrome. Each year "RCSC members" elect at least three new members of the Round Table (Board). This year will be 5 new members. The members of the round table then elect a King or Queen (president) as the case may be who is the commander in chief of the army (employees). The General (GM) of the army serves at the pleasure of the Round Table (Board) who is solely represented by the King or Queen (President). Following along?

In order to maintain power, the King or Queen must have at least four other knights follow their lead (vote with them). In order to rule with an iron fist, the King or Queen must have five other knights willing to oust any disagreeable knight and appoint one more to their liking.

While dealing with the knights and their demands the King or Queen is faced with some serfs (members) who complain like mad that the kingdom (rec centers) is not to their liking and create immense pressure for the King or Queen to do something about it. Some serfs are perpetually dissatisfied while others have only occasional gripes. Some serfs from specific tribes (clubs) make demands for better castles (facilities). Others demand lower taxes and care only for their own castle. Occasionally the serf's revolt and storm the castle due to the discovery of an unpopular decision by the King or Queen and their court. (library closures)

And thus begins the fortress mentality where the King or Queen, their court (Board) and the army (GM) feel they must defend the castle and King or Queen against the serfs and impose their will (Vision). It takes tremendous effort on the part of the King or Queen to control the uncontrollable, so they enlist the town crier and plot scripts to explain the unexplainable. The serfs listen and once again realize they are subjects and not participants.

I hope you have found this entertaining and enlightening. The King Syndrome is not unique to RCSC by any means.

 

In have said similar things, not as eloquently of course as everyone reminds me on a regular basis how awful I am. I have over 100 pages of proof.

What you forgot to mention is that soon the serfs will tire of feeling locked inside the castle walls that are crumbling and their homes that are deteriorating and their money that is disappearing, the homeless everywhere, golf courses that look terrible all due to the King and Queen's insatiable desire for more. More gold. more power. More buildings. Serfs be damned! At that point some of the serfs leave the walls and go to greener pastures, a free place, a pretty place with nice amenities, places to meet and have lunch or coffee. Food markets, just about whatever you wish at your fingertips. A few will get tired of it and leave, most will stay behind and crumble with the castle, King and Queen. The end.

 

Interesting way to explain governance in general which is exactly why Boards need to be part of a larger organization of like entities and have professional orientation and continued education on a regular basis.

 

I tend to think you might be over emphasizing the power of the King or Queen? "The affairs of the corporation shall be conducted by the Board of directors..." so I don't necessarily see where one person has as much authority as you are implying.

I may be wrong, but as I read it, it's the entire Board that determines the direction of the RCSC and not not a single person, although we have seen, in the past, there are some presidents who believe they are dictators!

 

I think John is describing how RCSC Board operates, not what their corporate documents say. So often they don't follow them anyway. I wonder if it is because they don't know them or choose to do otherwise. I think they just forget to refer to them; instead, they do what they think is best. Many times it is conflict with their AOI and Bylaws.

 

Love it John! Sun City's governance: a game of thrones…with golf carts.

 

And it was only yesterday at the Outreach & Communications Committee meeting, where our president, who attended only as a guest, threatened to shut the meeting down after an hour-and-a-half because she felt if the meeting lasted any longer, it would be wasting the Members time!

Now...I don't necessarily disagree that those longer meetings tend to waste members time, but the president, attending the meeting only as a guest, had absolutely no authority to shut down the meeting.

Perhaps she needs to refresh her memory and read the bylaws again.

 

Thank goodness she wasn’t at the last B&F meeting, we would see it the chair has the will to defy the prez who it attending as a guest. Just ask’n. Hope no one is offended by this statement.

 

I think we can all understand the frustration of not getting what you want when you want it. However, royalty based on loyalty relies on having an obedient court.

 

I don't see RCSC Membership as being an "obedient court" anymore.

 

If I remember my Shakespeare correctly, the court jester was the only person allowed to tell the truth. Looks like my position is safe. I am being metaphorical here for those who don’t understand me.

 

So John, tell us why this is. I can't find anything in our documents that support the President having more power/say/control over the rest of the Knights. You say other Knights are afraid of being "ousted". But we've been there, seen that, and the old Queen(s) are gone and the "ousted" is still there.
So why do the other Knights relinquish their equal share of control?

 

Jeb, Well actually you can find two sentences which offer an explanation.

1. The General Manager shall report to the Board. The President shall provide direction and guidance to the General Manager. A job performance review will be conducted annually by the President, with input from the Board.

The other knights (Board members) have no real say into the employment reviews of the general (GM) other than input which can be accepted or rejected. They also quickly realize they have no access to information or resources because the General controls all resources and is beholden to the King. Does this make sense to you? If not please read The Prince by Machiavelli. Best regards, John

 

1. The General Manager shall report to the Board. The President shall provide direction and guidance to the General Manager. A job performance review will be conducted annually by the President, with input from the Board.

The other knights (Board members) have no real say into the employment reviews of the general (GM) other than input which can be accepted or rejected. They also quickly realize they have no access to information or resources because the General controls all resources and is beholden to the King.

Hear! Hear!!

Jean Totten at One Day at a Time

 

That is a bylaw that should be reviewed and potentially changed. The entire Board should be part of the GM's job performance. Not even the Vice President is involved! The President leads the Board but doesn't rule the Board.

 

Thank you for citation John. Looks like that language appeared somewhere between 2018 and 2021. Interesting conversation. So as Janet just stated, it's a Bylaw that can be changed. Why didn't Knights when they held seats at the Round Table propose the change?

 

Personally, I only read that part as meaning, although it's the entire board that decides everything, the Board speaks with only one voice to the GM thru the President?

As far as who evaluates the GM's job performance? Yeah, that needs to change. That could be a conflict of interest if the president and GM have their own agendas.

 

The bylaws should be written to safeguard against any one person having authority. Perhaps an executive committee of four, which is not a quorum, could conduct the GM evaluation, with written input, such as a survey, from the other Directors. That would bypass the need for a formal notification of the meeting and voting to go into executive session.

 

When I was on the Board, along with Bill and Carole, the president would pass out annual review forms to the Board in order that we may critique the GM’s performance for the previous year. These would be collated and the president would present the results, consequently in no way was the president the sole arbiter of the GM’s performance. Can’t say how it is done now but hopefully this procedure is still in place.

 

Dave, that process is similar to what I have experienced on boards. However, considering some of the issues we have recently faced, specifically the dog park and library closures, I think it is better if the process you describe is in the written corporate documents. Perhaps the Board policies is the place to start. I think it is usually better to begin with the lowest level because they can be more easily changed. However other Directors and RCSC Members should always hold the Board and its officers accountable for following the written documents.