Some may find this disturbing, so I apologize in advance. When I ran for the board, I was asked during the "meet the candidate forum" what was the most important issue facing Sun City. I had a one-word answer: WATER. After being elected I expected to see the agreement between RCSC and the ADWR regarding future water usage at our golf courses. To my surprise I was told we were in ongoing confidential negotiations with the ADWR and that the PIF amounts for ADWR compliance were kind of estimates based on a per acre desert landscaping conversion estimate. The message was don't worry our GM was doing a great job handling this. At no time during my board tenure was I informed that RCSC had signed an agreement with ADWR. Fast forward to today and I am unable to find any record of a signed agreement with the ADWR and to the best of my recollection the members have never been presented with an agreement or a detailed plan on how RCSC will meet the terms of the agreement. If there is a plan, does it include clubhouse renovations? $800,000 for redesigning sand traps? I never saw it during my time on the board. JIM ROUGH has proposed a motion to authorize spending $100,000 for a golf architect to redesign a golf course (including redesigning sand traps). My understanding of the circumstances surrounding this motion and the people involved would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. I think all know that I stand for integrity and have never wavered. I respect everyone's right to disagree and will always listen to those that have supporting data. I know what I don't know and will respect those who present more knowledgeable points of view. Members matter and have a right to know regardless of how many complications that may cause. IMHO this board is using intimidation, coercion and, in my case, blackmail to achieve their agenda. I am turning the blackmail aspect of this over to law enforcement for their consideration.
John, There have been several alliterations over the years with ADWR in regard to agreements Darin back to my first term on the Board in 2013. Those agreements were executed by both parties. Currently it is my understanding that RCSC has signed a new agreement but ADWR has been dragging their feet on signing the latest agreement. The word around the campfire is that water usage reduction is the big item. Management has a good idea how much the reduction should be. Rather than sit around waiting for the State to act in an official capacity on this, management has been proactive in putting plans in place to reduce water consumption on the courses. That is why you see this action on courses. Have you ever talked to Kevin the CFO about this? My guess is no so now you are doing this alleged blackmail thing. My advice is to chill on it until you know more. You might want to know that 1 Acre foot of water equals 325,850 gallons os water. That figure will come up in discussion and it is nice to know a figure we could all understand. D
Dave, Thanks for the information but... IMHO RCSC is not being proactive but are using ADWR as a ruse to slide in golf course improvements. See for example, Quail Run. Is it fiduciarily responsible to make such decisions without a GM or Director of Golf in place? Is it fiduciarily responsible to take action before you have an agreement with the governing body on what needs to be done? Is it fiduciarily responsible to represent (or IMHO misrepresent) the actions of the LRP? My understanding is the LRP recommended to limit any design work to items necessary to achieve water reduction. The revised board agenda states that the LRP recommends spending the money on the design work for the North course which includes designing $800k of sand trap improvements. Seriously? The blackmail incident(s) involved a written threat by Jim Rough to me via email that he would use ill-considered emails I wrote to "publicly embarrass" me in order to get me to withdraw from consideration as a member of the LRP. He had told me he used the same tactic against Dr. Chat to keep him off a committee. This incident has so bothered me that I finally decided to inform the appropriate authorities for their consideration. I have no idea if they will act upon it, but my conscience will be clear. My thought is you were not fully informed when you wrote your response and your response may have been different if you had the information I just provided you. John
Well, I began filing a criminal complaint for theft by extortion under ARS 13-1804 and was shocked by the seriousness of the potential penalties - up to 12 years in prison if convicted. Honestly, I am sickened by the board's mistreatment of members and committee members, but I have to reflect upon the fact that these are recreational decisions by a board that has denied its members the right to vote at their annual meeting. Asserting in good faith that a criminal law was broken is entirely different from litigating whether the members have the independent right to vote. After printing out the evidence and naming witnesses I let the online criminal complaint form time out. My heartfelt question to all of you is whether it is worth fighting? Thanks
Good, let it go John. There's no upside in the fight. I would think a board member would know better, but the reality of being elected and having zero training shouts volumes at us. The members aren't the enemies. In fact, the reality is the only reason the RCSC exists is to serve the members and their needs. I've been shouting this for years and still to this day we watch as board members take one step forward and two steps back. I would argue it all began when a former general manager dumped the legal affairs committee. They would review every potential action the board would take. Once they were gone, the stupid began and here we sit. Threats of lawsuits or exposing emails to prevent you from applying to be on a committee are BULL SHIT. Sorry for my profanity, but board members need/should be smarter than all that. Apparently they aren't. Kudos for being the bigger person. Hopefully they'll learn. I'm not holding my breath.
John, I agree with Bill. Don't waste your time, energy or expenses. I believe the issue can be better served if you were to attend an Exchange Meeting and explain how the board is undermining the wishes of the Members and the blackmail tactics they used to keep you and Dr. Chat off of the LRP committee. Let the whole community, or at least those who attend or watch the Exchanges know what's been going on. I think the underhanded tactics, once revealed, will be shared throughout the community. You know what they say about how bad news travels! Between this and what I've heard about other things happening in committee meetings is disturbing. Just my opinion.
John, I will only respond to situations I am familiar with, namely Quail Run. The decision on this course was made when we had a Director of Golf (Brian) and a General Manager (Matt). While you are correct that Quail was about irrigation, the entire course has to be redone due to irrigation configuration and soil compaction on the entire course. To ignore the second would create problems as to the pooling of water and unacceptable drainage. I could go into the soil/sand composition and the soil horizon but I am almost 60 years removed from taking that course. So obviously a total course redo is necessary. I am sorry that I cannot respond to your reference to LRP and I am not familiar with the situation and the minutae. I do remember Jim making similar remarks to you at a Board meeting over your lawsuit which I found inappropriate and frankly appalling. Considering my background, while I am known for snarky remarks, I never would have said anything like that. Closest I ever came to lawsuit remarks was some members who were opposed to the LGBT club up for approval at that Board meeting. I said while I understand their concerns, if we did not approve the club the Board would be open to lawsuit that I was sure we would lose as it involved viewpoint discrimination. This was during the Anne Stewart lawsuit I was sure the RCSC would win.
John, It does my heart good to know you are the better man in this fight. There is no upside to taking it any further. I contacted ADWR and they verified there are no official signed documents on file. They also confirmed the four letters advising the RCSC of their delinquency. It also appears, based upon the research performed by the ADWR employee who answered the call, there is no indication of any agreement with the RCSC about water issues. No, this does not mean we can do as we want and have no consequences. I would rather believe it would mean the RCSC should proceed with caution since there are no agreements in place. Which brings me to the proposal before the board regarding modifications to the existing structures in place. I fear any changes brought about to any current system and structure could bring about unwanted consequences for the RCSC. The ADWR has the documents and filings submitted in 2022. Since that time, ADWR has sent four notices advising of the delinquency of the required items. Personally, I feel doing any kind of modifications of any kind to the golf courses is looking to create an environment of conflict. Just my opinion, but the board has a deep obligation to understand what is at stake with the ADWR and consider consequences carefully. Again, just my opinion.
Dave, Thank you for the background information on Quail Run. I was on the Board of Directors until March of 2024. At no time during my time on the board or as chair of the LRP or cochair of the SAC did we discuss a complete redo of Quail Run golf course. I respect your opinion about the condition of the course, but I am just amazed that there was no briefing of the Board about it during my tenure, but it became an approved project as soon as three golfers arrive on the board, and it does little to nothing (IMHO) to address the water issues we are faced with. I was told by multiple people that Preston Kise, then chair of the LRP, told the LRPC that the 10-year PIF forecast they were told to recommend could not comment on the Quail Run renovation. So, what are members to think? We all want to live in a successful community, but I just do not see how that can happen if we do not have transparent governance that members can understand. And I would pose this question to Preston Kise - For what purpose? Carole, As a due's paying member I would feel much more comfortable if we had a "meeting of the minds" with the ADWR before embarking on redesigning golf courses that includes "fixing" sand traps. IMHO it is fiscally irresponsible to continue down this path but, this board (like past boards) is taking a scorched earth approach that it totally unnecessary. I suspect, you, like I, are a student of the law and will always be. Does title 10 and an unlimited legal budget funded by members money insulate the board from liability so they can do whatever they want? I am worried that we are the only community of our type that IMHO hides behind the law because the corporate lawyer tells the current board that this is the best approach. Is it? Or does RCSC need to find a new lawyer? John
I fully support a second legal firm be brought in to balance and provide appropriate adjudication of current and future legal issues and affairs. A second set of eyes to provide a clear and accurate depiction of what is happening and provide an accurate description of what is occurring within the RCSC. I truly feel the relationship between the attorney and the board has become symbiotic and needs a change of direction as to how everything is handled and viewed. This has been the same counsel provided, without review, for far too long, in my opinion.
I sat in on one LRPC meeting and heard the question asked and never once answered: What would happen if we simply ignore the ADWR 2025 water management plan? No one from the board could answer. Which begs the question; which board members have reviewed the document and alleged agreement where we commit to spend 30-35 million plus dollars on desert landscaping? I know the committee was told we would risk raising the ire of the state and charged an exorbitant rate for the additional water use. Maybe? But are we just suckers for agreeing while the private country clubs around us, ignore the state's demand? Or, will the 370 golf courses around the state all comply? As a side note, many of the newer ones were built with desert landscaping, but the point is, will courses struggling to survive suddenly be forced to invest 4-8 million dollars in those conversions? As a board member and as a committee member, they should know those answers. This isn't rocket science; i would argue it is a fiduciary responsibility and given the outlandish price tag we are being forced to eat, everyone involved should see the agreement and allowed to read it. Sorry, but this is too damned important to treat as whether we buy new deck chairs for one of our pools. Holding people accountable became a throwaway for too many years. We can no longer afford to do that. As always, just one man's opinion eh?
I believe I heard from someone with authority that if the water restrictions were ignored and because some would simply rather pay for the extra water, what ADWR would do is cut back on the allotted water allowed for that facility?
Bill, I agree 100%. Is this a Board you can trust to act responsibly and in the best interest of the members? Or is the motto of the board we can do whatever the **** we want as long as we stick together, spend enough money to make it difficult to reconsider and leave the right paper trail? Just another thing to ponder.
I read the other countless golf course documents, to include Verrado, Estrealla, Sun Lakes and they have sigend agreements with the state on file. I dont see a whole lot of other golf courses being reminded this is the fourth notice of delinquency. I did not read every golf course or country club agreement, as I had a specific search in mind. What I will say is that there are vert few that have reached the stage of delinquency that the RCSC has. They are Maricopa County Unincorporated area near Chandler and another large parcel was Unincorporated Maricopa County, north of the Valley, still undeveloped. When I read how many have completed their comminment versus those that haven't, the RCSC has significantly delayed this issue beyond what I think would be considered normal business. How much longer before the state feels the same and places fines and sanctions against us. All for the members to have to pony up pay for due to the board not doing its due deligence in this issue? More importantly, withdrawing the motion for sand trap work becuase it is someones pet project?
Carole, I have been researching Arizona case law regarding breach of fiduciary duty by directors of corporations. One case filing specifically noted. The duty of care includes a duty by each director to inform themself, prior to making a business decision, of all material information available to the director relating to that business decision and to consider all alternatives. The case filing went on to state that the level of diligence required by directors was higher when the amount of money involved was significant. When I was a director, I was concerned about being "guilty by association" whenever one or more board member(s) (or management) showed a callous disregard for the fiduciary duty of the board. Which brings me to the ADWR. If I understand your excellent research correctly, RCSC does not have an agreement with ADWR. It follows then that RCSC cannot have a plan to meet water restrictions for which there is no agreement. Yes? And yet some or all of the Board are using money designated for ADWR compliance to make or design major and expensive improvements to Quail Run and the North Course? How is that fiduciarily responsible? If this conduct is a breach of fiduciary duty to exercise reasonable care in important decisions would not the directors be personally liable? As I stated numerous times, I want each and every board to be successful. I certainly do not want to see directors personally liable to reimburse RCSC for millions of dollars because they breached their fiduciary duty. I also realize that all the "confidentiality" rules in the bylaws and board policies are meaningless once a suit is filed and discovery is ordered. Every record and every individual is available to the litigating parties unless the record somehow qualifies as attorney client privileged. My rule of thumb has always been better safe than sorry and when in doubt, seek advice and disclose. IMHO this board may not fully understand the consequences of its actions.
There was a lot to unpack in your remarks John, so i grabbed the most pertinent. We know board members and some staffers read these remarks. I suspect some/most are blown off or treated as throwaways. In this case, it would tragic beyond imagination. Hyperbole? I don't think so. Back in the good old days (before 2006) when the legal affairs committee reviewed any and all potential problems with language rewrite and statute changes (both State and Federal), the RCSC board had a buffer to keep them from straying into dangerous waters. You know, like breaching their fiduciary responsibilities. Once those safeguards were removed, the board relied on the general manager and her reaching out to the company attorney as their buffer. Of late, we've watched the board turn to the same company attorney to provide them legal advice (ways to not follow our documents), much to the angst of the membership and potential exposure to lawsuits. Attorney's offer advice, boards become liable, as their job is to process what they have been told and then decide. The reality of the 30-40 million dollar investment for desert landscape for golf course conversions over the next 8 years is the largest single expenditure the RCSC will take. It dwarfs any other project. The very idea that a board member, or more pointedly, all nine board members have not read or even seen the alleged agreement with ADWR is preposterous. The fact not one of them has been able to articulate the downside if an agreement wasn't reached is even more bizarre. That's their freaking job. Oversight! Knowing what they are spending our money on best be based on absolute knowledge, not the whispering of a long gone general manager nor a newly departed director of golf. Making that decision and spending that much money leaves them in the murky waters of breaching their fiduciary responsibilities...which makes legal actions by the members far more likely. We taught ethics classes for years and the one defense i can guarantee them never, NEVER worked was "We didn't know." Your job before you vote for any expenditure is to have the information in hand, know what it says and then make your best decision on having that data/information. Without that, if this goes south, you are liable. Think i'm wrong? Ask your attorney.
