Board Meeting - 6/26

Full disclosure - I have not yet seen the video. Any thoughts from those that attended?

 

It may be just a rumor but I heard that the reason so many golfers showed up to speak in support of the motion on golfing was because a Director sent out emails to his golfing buddy's???

Just a rumor? You decide!

 

VIDEO IS UP
Here

SUMMARY
Here

 

Thanks for posting the link, eyeopen, well worth watching...for educational purposes clearly (as opposed to only). The meeting was an abject and object lesson on how to perform poorly as a board. When a board member has to write a carefully scripted apology for his actions, one quickly has to ask the question, "why would other board members have allowed this to happen?"

If there has been one overriding theme that has happened too many times, it is the fact a board member or one of the officers elected to push something forward without the consent or agreement by the full nine member board (8 in this case). It was abundantly obvious from the statement read at the beginning the long range planning committee had recommended and voted on 4 motions. It was a last minute rush because of the requirement posting a week in advance, and of the four motions, only one of them made the agenda (kind of).

Here's a not so gentle reminder: Nine Board Members, Nine Votes.

That set the LRPC on fire and they tried to call an emergency committee meeting. I'm no expert, but i'm told by our resident parliamentarian, they have the right to do that. The board claimed they didn't due to other requirements and so the meeting and subsequent efforts were thwarted. That resulted in 4 or 5 of the committee members voicing their disapproval and objections. Including a LRPC member attending remotely and speaking (a first in our history from my memory). They have attended committee meetings, but i have no recall for a board meeting (board members have attended for years like that).

In conjunction with that, apparently some board members contacted various members of the golfing community and asked them to show up and voice the need to spend a bunch of money (2-3 million dollars), on the north course. The problem is the north course got a facelift in 2014/2015 and was paid for out of the PIF. That fund requires a 15 year life and at least $300k to meet the criteria.

Added to the confusion is the 2025 ADWR water management plan. That mandate and all of the desert landscaping conversions are slated to be paid for out of PIF, irrespective of what has been done in past years. I have no problem (other than the 30-plus million dollar price tag), but if it is mandated by the state, so be it. Golf course bunkers aren't in any way a water savings issue.

I suspect, if i heard the argument correctly, the Long Range Planning committee's objection was the golfers (and clearly now several board members) are demanding even more money be plowed into golf course. If anyone looks at the 10 year plan, we already have earmarked roughly 45 million dollars for courses and out-buildings. It sounded like the LRP committee was focused on water mitigation demanded by the state, rather than the play ability of the courses.

Regardless, the motion passed to spend up to 100k on golf course redesign at the North course. The argument stems from what was included (and how this was done/handled), but that's a discussion for another day (probably Sept or Oct). The board waived the second reading so whatever golf course designer they hire can provide the actual costs to do the work golfers want done.

The added benefit is we have finally hired a new director of golf (not that it took that long to hire him, the other one stayed around too long IMHO). He obviously will play an important role in any and all decisions going forward. Major plus with his hiring.

Suffice to say, the meeting evolved (yet again) to the tragic battle of one group versus another group. It's a lesson we've watched countless number of times and done nothing to try and resolve the concept of warring parties. It almost always ends up being a lose/lose proposition.

Rather than trying to fix it here, jump over to the other thread where i will post my thoughts on yesterday afternoons gathering.

 

I can tell you something else that happened at the Board Meeting that is not permitted, and that's to explain your vote during voting on a motion.

Two Director's did it on the main motion and two different Director's did it during the vote to waive the second reading.

RONR 45:7 Rule Against Explanation by Members During Voting.
A member has no right to “explain his vote” during voting, which would be the same as debate at such a time.

 

You absolutely want to continue to invest, improve and make a smooth playing golf course. Why?, I am not a golfer, but why because that is our top generator of making money, but more than that, it is the engine that brings in CASH BUYERS into our community. You have a beautiful golf course setting, you get new homeowners coming in here, and that is what is going to keep this lovely historic community great for the future.
I am not saying we go broke, but we need to understand that all of these over 55 communities with golf courses are geared for the attraction of this kind of buyer. We have to have at least a smooth, efficient and beautiful golf course, no matter how humble the course is, we need to have this here to keep us viable! I enjoyed watching the meeting. We are doing so much better! Everyone should be excited. Thank you!

 

I was encouraged to hear the new golf director speak. I think he will do great and I wish him the best.
Happy to hear there will be a new HR manager.
FYI, I do remember prior year boards who made comments and clarified their reasons for voting as they did. Not saying it's right. Just saying this board is not the first.
If you want to look back on the history of what occurred with the North rebuild, check out the Sunviews from October 2013 to December 2014. I cannot comment on it because I am not a golfer and I did not actually live in the West Valley until January 2014.
I really enjoyed the Sunviews from those years.
Looking back at those years really took me back on many things. Reminded of good people who have passed.
Thank you to Treasurer Borski and Director Gray for their comments and clarifications on a couple of topics. Much appreciated.

 

Access SunViews and Update
editions 2011- 2025, HERE and scroll down.

 

Seems like old times. Golf gets what they want, and dammed the needs of the rest of the community. Special interests taking and ignoring what the rest of the community wants or needs. History just repeats itself over and over again.

 

I have long argued that the dysfunctionality of our governance is systemic (not individual board specific) and results in mediocre decisions at best and corruption at worst. I applaud Gary, Dennis and Mark for setting the record straight on the latest misdeeds. My sense is these board meetings are all preplanned theater designed to create the impression that a proper process took place.
Carole, could you confirm that delinquency notices were sent by ADWR. Anita Borski plainly stated this information was false.
Dave, I will find the case again so you can dissect it. The language was from the pleading. I think the ultimate question is does the duty of care (i.e., to act as reasonable people under the circumstances) require an objective inquiry into and evaluation of the reasonableness of a group's "want" in relation to the benefit to the corporation based on data available to the director. Or can a director simply say they fulfilled their fiduciary duty by saying some member asked for an amenity and they gave it to them. This would be an interesting jury trial because each director would have to testify under oath.
I digress and have not offered any improvement suggestions to what I called the systemic governance problem RCSC has. Under the current balance of power (board supremacy) I can't think of any suggestions. The quality of the Board's decisions depends entirely on the quality and integrity of the individual board members and their "agenda". Based on the latest board meeting it appears there is lots of room for improvement but that has to occur at the ballot box.

 

We've always known self-governance is messy, and certainly not easy. We also know the community was better off when there were more of the members engaged in the decision making process. There's no question the changes that were made starting in 2006 made it easier and quicker to function. The real question is: Did it make it better or worse for those of us living here?

I won't bore you with the many failures of the new streamlined top-down structure, and to be fair, there were several successes. Spending money is easy, spending money wisely is far more difficult. The biggest problem we now know was the lack of board oversight; as the goal appeared to have been more focused on keeping us a cheap place to live, while spending large sums of PIF on pet projects dictated by the GM and then the board.

Yesterday's news, but as Carole alluded to,is still today's problem. Ultimately everything boils down to how much is enough? I was told i shouldn't look at it because it hasn't been approved, but the 2024 October budget presentation is my only frame of reference. The 10 year PIF plan has 45 million dollars allocated for golf course and golf outbuildings.

That includes $776,000 for bunker redesign at the North course; any other enhancements probably fall under the ADWR figures that come in at an eye popping $32 plus million dollars. Just as a reminder, these numbers are placeholders. The total expenditures comes in at a little over $115,000 million dollars, so everything else we own gets the remainder (after the $45 million dollars for golf).

I just wrote this on Facebook and i will repeat it here; we own the golf courses, we must keep them playable. The question has always and hopefully always will be at what cost? Which appears to be where the rubber hit the road between the board/golfers/Long Range Planning Committee. And now i hear we have lost another LRPC member, like three of them in the past couple of months?

It should be a bright light moment for the board; i fear it isn't. I know those committee members who quit and they are a terrible loss to the community. Committees for years provided a balance between and against board members or a general manager who had their own agenda. That all changed, as the GM and some board members found committees to just be in the way.

It's how we got here, and just when i/we felt like we were digging our way out, the ugly side of self-governance reared its head. Control is an ugly word and frankly one that doesn't belong in a community where the members are the owners. The problems of course are plentiful with no training for the board and no education for the membership on how the RCSC works.

What could possibly go wrong?

Sadly, we are watching it, live and in color. The June board meeting was fascinating on so may levels. The interactions proved the failures that exist will be difficult to fix. The board wants to do as they see fit, and in all likelihood, they will. What/who is to stop them?

On a brighter note, it was mentioned the RCSC is at looking at Board-Source for better educating board members and as a resource. That's awesome. I also know the board heard a presentation from a Sun City West former board member and an active TORCH program director. Both would go a long way in improving many/some of our shortcomings.

That's half the battle; what about the other half of the puzzle? Buyers moves here knowing nothing and being told little. As they become members or privilege card holders, their education is limited to a one-off massive room gathering with 100 plus tables, or what they hear from club members of clubs they join or next door neighbors who may know something, or may be dead wrong on what they know. Or, worse yet, golfers who continually tell one another they are being screwed because they have to pay to play.

We simply fail to help new owners appreciate or even come close to understanding how and why Sun City works. Okay; i guess. I could go on ad-nauseam about how poorly that impacts us as a community, but all you need to do is watch the meeting the other day...you'll see it plain as day.

Change is difficult and slow. It's impossible if one fails to understand where they fall short. Every time i see a glimmers of hope, i watch as they get in their own way and do dumb stuff that only intensifies things.

I recently started reading my Lee Childs/Jack Reacher series again. The good thing about old age (at least for me) is something i read ten years or more ago, i have no memory of. The constant line from the books is one i have come to embrace as we march forward: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."

We'll see eh?

 

However a Director can state how they are going to vote and why prior to the vote being taken during the discussion.

 

Correct. They can and should have done that during the debate process and not during the voting.

 

Whatever happened to the concept of consensus. Without it we have power, control, and manipulation. What happened to the more stringent PIF expenditure process. This process doesn’t seem to be in play. Has it been delayed?

 

Hey gang,

Good points all. First. I should note that Jean and I (as I recall) recommended outsourcing board training long ago. It is a no brainer and if I were an insurer I would insist on it. Second, to Emily's point I am quite certain one of the big attractions for one to be a director of golf is a huge budget and it is clear this one sees dollar signs. Now, I hope you are sitting down because I am about to expose what appears to be the Board's agenda for the North Course design. Take a deep breath and please read this to understand it and not to judge it. OK - Hold on. The Board has set the members up. Plain and simple. The funds approved were for a (singular) redesign of the north golf course. If it includes redesigned sand traps, the rest of the design is impacted and is probably worthless unless you redesign the sand traps. Now that is a trap. Imagine being told that because the architect assumed the sand traps were being redesigned unless that happens the design work is basically worthless. Talk about a golf hazard.
Look folks, I enjoy playing golf and believe having good golf courses enhances the value of all our houses. However, I disagree with what I consider to be the deceptive practices used to sneak in nonvalue add expenditures using techniques designed to incite "riots" by special interest groups. I will leave this for the board to explain: How can you in good conscience engage in ruses and manipulation which drive good people off the committees and may cause insurers to shy away from underwriting the risk your actions appear to create.

 

I'm sure no one remembers this but, there was a Member of the community who actually did Board Training for a living who spoke up at a meeting and offered his services to the RCSC.

As you suspect, nothing became of it probably because the Director's didn't want to stoop to the level of being taught by a "Member?" They rather spend big bucks!

I can give any Director who is reading this his name if they're interested, and if he's still willing.

It's incredible the talent and knowledge that lives within our community that the Board refuses to tap into.

As Bill always says, this is what you get when you have a Board that thinks only they have all the answers.

 

I like to think that any and all money spent on outside professional training is well worth the investment, particularly when it comes to risk management.

 

HOLY CRAP! Straight from the whole forest through the trees to the I should have had a V-8 moment catalogue. Damn, it sailed right over my head as i was so focused on the "sand trap safety crap" and them ignoring the PIF criteria, i got caught up in my thoughts. It's one of the shortcomings of being in the room. Hearing stuff, but not listening and not processing. Brilliant misdirection.

Just freaking "duh."

Let me post the actual motion: "I move, based on the Long Range Planning Committee's recommendation, to approve the North Course design not to exceed $100,000." During the member comments portion, Director Collins chastised the board for broadening the topics that would be included by the design. As i listened, the president ticked off a litany of items the design would include; it went right over my head.

Let's cut to the chase here: The vast majority of the golfers who spoke talked about the "safety and play-ability of the bunkers." There were a couple who mentioned the need to put down the same grass (Tiff or Tuff Turf?) on the back nine, but the front nine did not get designed to do that. So, why do we need a $100,000 golf course designer to do that?

What's even more curious is, if there are some traps that are difficult to play out of, what's to stop the RCSC hiring a contractor to simply lower the degree of difficulty? I've been told there may be 5 that are bad and would need to be fixed. It would seem to me, identifying however many there are, would be way cheaper to just address those for the players who struggle with them. Again, just duh!

To John's point: The RCSC hired Gary Brawley, a noted golf course designer, reconstruct three of our courses less than 15 years ago. The North Course was one of them. The general manager wanted/asked him to make them more challenging. Deeper traps (ones you couldn't putt out of), was one of things they wanted. She felt it would attract players wanting a higher degree of difficulty.

At this exact moment, we have now agreed to spend up to $100k for another design of a course we just had designed. This has gone way beyond replacing "dangerous" sand traps or putting down a more water resilient turf (neither does much for the water mitigation issue, by the RCSC's own admission). Nope, this is about rebuilding a course we have recently paid to have rebuilt. An even bigger violation on how we spend our PIF monies.

That's freaking nuts...and now i better understand why many of the Long Range Planning committee was so angry...they simply were being used to push through something they saw as wasteful and a violation of our documents.

Did i mention: Just freaking Duh!

 

There seems to be no adults in the room!

The members of the LRP committee had more intelligence, insight and ability to run the RCSC than the Board, but leadership of the committee has chased, and forced the really good members to resign. Those good members want no part of being attached to those dumb decisions. They have, after all, their integrity and reputations that they need to maintain, and I don't blame them.

The only problem is, when good members of committees resign, the RCSC wins and the community loses!

 

Bill, did Steve Collins vote against the motion or was this just more theater? I just remember him saying he was going to make a motion to redesign the South course in September or something to that effect. Pandering politician? He is in good company. I have said since the beginning of my time in Sun City give me a plan I can understand and stop treating me like an idiot. One friend of mine described this board in a way I can understand: Unified to scratch each other's back and cut the membership out of the decision-making process. What Preston Kise and Jim Rough did was simply not acceptable behavior from any board member under any circumstance. Some of the best minds in Sun City left their volunteer posts in disgust. But, as you can see, the board if united can ignore (endorse and condone?) even the most outrageous behavior. The steady diet of BS dished out to the members by the board during board and exchange meetings makes me ill. And what was said during what was supposed to be a secret meeting between an LRP member who made the board's motion and the chair and co-chair of the meeting? I hope Bill Pearson decides to run for the board again and put a stop to this runaway spending spree.