I totally agree with the motion by Director Akins and hope it gets passed quickly without further delay. President DeLano said we didn't lose the Board Exchange meeting but those of use sitting below in the Monday Morning Board Meetings sure can see the loss. I'm still amazed at the lack of discussion before voting so there must still be a lot of information exchanged between RCSC Management & Board Members prior to these meetings. The withdrawing of Director Hoffer's motion regarding the Long Range Planning Committee request for technology bids was a perfect example. No reason was given to us yet it was a unanimous vote to send it to the dumper.
So much for transparency. it's always nice when there is at least one BoD member that you can ask, "So what really happened there?" and get a believable answer form.
I was late to the meeting, but stopped to ask Rich what happened? I thought we only had the recommendation on the meeting minutes that was working it's way through the committee that we presented before the summer break. Apparently the second one was on the agenda, and that was the one pulled. This summer we had a sub-committee meeting and made the recommendation the RCSC go out for bids (an RFP) on a total rebuild of our technology infrastructure. RFP is short of request for proposal. We did it that way so not as to incur costs. The reason company's submit bids is because they ultimately want the work. We have no idea what the cost would be or even what our potential needs are. As we said in the write-up of the agenda item, if we are looking at 150 million dollars of PIF money over the next 20 years, starting with good information and clear data collection techniques just makes sense. An email was sent to the full committee for board consideration and was approved. When we met last week the chair and co-chair told us it was a bad idea. Odd in that they were at the meeting when we decided to submit it. Anyway, the discussion got heated at the committee meeting and we agreed to hold any movement on it till the Oct long range planning committee meeting. The argument was no company would waste their time in analyzing our needs. I find that hard to believe but the suggestion was to look at a proposal where we hired a consultant to do a full evaluation and pay them for it. That would have been my preference to start with, but we were trying to do something positive without recommending spending a bunch of money. Two people have resigned from the committee in the last month and one has been replaced. Several of us are watching to see how serious the board/management team is about how we move forward. There's no point having our butts in a chair and doing research and writing if the end game is anything we do gets shot down from above. We all know committees have no control, but i for one won't waste my time pretending we are doing something. Hope that helps clarifying. When the board takes an action like they did, an explanation is helpful to those in the audience.
I'm not quite sure what the real explanation is. If the recommendation is to pull/abandon the LRPC recommendations, there should be an explanation from all involved - the LRPC, the BOD, and the GM. Just requesting that the recommendation be pulled is not acceptable to me. Again, the BOD seems to be nothing more than a yes group for the GM. The GM and her staff has ignored IT and security for the past 10 years. Why then can we expect that they will be able to successfully implement a technology plan for Sun City? Are they considering WIFI 6 and WIFI 7? Are they researching 5G and how it will improve internet access? Just adding access points and increasing internet speeds is not sufficient to move of forward it real world technology. Security should have been a number one priority at all Sun City locations where there is resident presence. That would include all rec centers, all clubs, all swim pools, the library, the Sun Bowl, the dog park, and the list goes on and on. This should have been done at least 10 years ago when it would have been far less expensive that it will be today. Any security cameras must have superior backup and storage capabilities to encompass at least a weeks worth of digital recordings. Weekly backup of those recordings is a must. All recordings must be of the highest quality and not the grainy images that are usually seen from security cameras. The BOD must press for an RFP to accurately access our needs without interaction of the GM. The board has to get a pair and start assuming their duties to Sun City instead of being a yes group for the GM. I can definitely see why people are reluctant to serve as board members if all they get to do is accept everything the GM feeds them.
It's why i was within a breath of walking out the door at the last committee meeting SCR. The saving grace was we would continue the discussion of how best to get to the point this community needs get to at our next meeting. The other day i was working out at Bell and chatting with one of our younger residents who has lived here for three years. When we talked about the long range planning committee and technology, she asked had we had considered making the entire community wifi compatible? Meaning the RCSC become the carrier providing the services rather than buying it from Cox. I had to smile, we talked about that years back while still at the Visitor Center. We actually discussed it at one of our committee meetings. No idea what it would take or cost, hence the logic of hiring a company to tell us what is possible. So much potential, but i have no interest in playing the fool for anyone.
I brought this up once before, but it bears repeating... IT (information technology) covers much more than just Internet connectivity and security. In today's world it usually is just referred to as "Technology" and relate to networks, end user technology devices (ie, hardware), software, and installations. In my mind the IT requirements within the RCSC more closely parallel the needs of a university than a typical business. To wit, distributed campus segments (ie, rec-centers) networked together, classrooms(ie, club rooms), labs (ie, metal shop, carpentry, clay, jewelry, etc, etc), recreation entities (ie, gyms, playing fields, etc, etc), media facilities, etc., etc. In addition to the Internet connectivity, WiFi and security capabilities we've been talking about, the following does/should exist within the RCSC and is part of the IT issue scope today: (this is from a college IT purchasing policy, BTW....) Technology hardware includes, but is not limited to: desktop and laptop computers and peripherals, external storage drives (except thumb drives, CDs/DVDs, smartcards), servers, tablets/PDAs, monitors, printers, copiers, plotters, scanners, projectors, multi-media players, flat panel displays/televisions, fax machines, desk and cell phones, cameras and network devices. Software includes, but is not limited to, any software application that is loaded on college-owned technology hardware (desktops/laptops/tablets) or used in the cloud. This includes Departmental/Enterprise/Web Application Software which is any software that will be housed on a College server. Usually this type of software is multi-user, but it can also be dedicated for a specific business practice or purpose. Cloud-based or externally hosted systems include, but are not limited to, any server or storage hosted outside of the College’s data center infrastructure. The scope of IT is already beyond the RCSC's current grasp and will continue to get more sophisticated over time. IMO, few if any members of the BOD or Management are capable of addressing the breadth of this adequately. When those in charge fail to act responsibly because of lack of understanding of the issues money and effort are wasted. Other DW communities have embraced Technology to a much greater degree than SC. We can't remain a viable alternative in attracting new active retirement living residents if we don't at least catch up with our sister communities. just say'in
Bill, not you nor anyone else should feel they are being made a fool of because of the GM. I ran into Jerry the other day at Lakeview and told him I wanted to run for the board again. He asked "Do you really want to do this again?" and I said yes. I feel it would help the other board member see what it is like to lead, and provide a strong example. The current board does not seem to want to take their position of directing the work of others, especially the work of a dominant GM and passive management team. Does going to the meetings every week and demanding the board do their job and have truly open meetings with real discussions, outside of their emails and other forms of communication? Who will pay attention to the dire needs of the community if the directors will not take up the cause? So, if I need to attend meetings and be a nuisance, I can be of great service, as I do it so well. Ask anyone. In the meantime, you are not tilting at windmills nor are you a fool. You are one of a handful of people who knows the direction we should be going in. There are so many ideas to search, we just need to get around the blockade.
Not to throw cold water on an attractive concept, but this isn't very easily accomplished without MAJOR investment in infrastructure. Think about it -- the two major ISPs in SC (Century link and COX) already have wires to most everyone's home and still can't provide internet connectivity in some parts of SC without adding additional infrastructure. Cell phone carriers have lots of infrastructure and already cover the majority of SC. If the RCSC were to attempt such a feat (becoming an ISP) it's cost for comparable infrastructure would be huge and regulated by the state and fed. There are many good/bad alternatives, but it's very unlikely a wifi blanket (or other technology) could be constructed across SC without major upfront cost in infrastructure.
I suspect you are dead on right IC. That said, here's an article that i found interesting where communities have done just that. The good news is, Arizona isn't one of the states where it would not be allowed. The bigger point to our push for experts is that when we do it, we get it right. Goodness, what a novel idea.
Thanks for the link Bill. It illustrates that where communities are willing to invest in the infrastructure residents can indeed have access to the internet provided by their community. It's tedious to delve into the details, though -- I looked at about a dozen random cities. To thumbnail what I found, some are committed to but are still in the planning stage, one is only providing a network access to gov't offices and businesses, another is piggybacking Internet service on the fiber that networks their traffic lights to provide wifi access to nearby residents and provide hotspots in parks, public buildings, etc. Another was a rural co-op where no Internet alternative existed. Several were not aimed at the city, but rather a community within the city. Of the ones I looked at only one city had made significant progress in providing city-wide residential connectivity -- they did so by running fiber to nearly every residential building. Several had spent close to 10 years developing what the have so far. None I looked at mentioned anything about implementation cost and fees they charge residents for service.
At the last long range planning committee meeting, Ben Roloff brought along two articles from the local newspapers. One was dated 1983, the other 1984. He has been researching Sun City newspaper archives for the past couple of years and these were copies. They were pertinent. Here's why: The first was on a proposal for the board to enact a $1500 point of sale fee on every home sold. His contention was there was that much equity in each Sun City home, (based on net worth of the accumulated amenities divided by the number of homes). He carried out the equation that if the RCSC took half the $1500 and put it in an account and used the other half to update the facilities, they could eventually build a fund that would reduce the yearly rec fees (we now call them lot assessments) to zero. Obviously, it went nowhere. The second article was from 1984 and the general manager and the board were working on getting their head around why so many residents didn't use the facilities and didn't join the clubs. It went even further, they wanted to create an effective way to insure clubs would have adequate space. Even back then, club members were clamoring for more dedicated space. It was an issue then, and is still one we struggle with today. No idea if anyone read the articles Ben provided. The bigger point was, there have always been ideas floating about the community. Doesn't matter where they come from, but more so whether they act on them. Is the idea the RCSC capable of becoming our ISP of choice viable? Probably not. Is the idea the RCSC enhance their technological capabilities ten-fold doable? Absolutely. The saying, go big or go home almost always sounds trite. That said, the idea we think small makes no sense in a community that has enormous resources and so much underachieved potential. Imagine had they put the PIF proposal back in play in 1983 where this community would be today. Damn.
Fun fact -- that $1500 in 1985, adjusted by inflation to 2019 dollars, is $3576.55. That's a spooky coincidence in my mind.
Just a coincidence, but cryptic as well perhaps. What is more disconcerting is the 100 million dollars plus that could have been pumped into the community from 1085 through 2000 plus the higher rates for those early years once implemented. What we don't know is the kind of impact at the point of sale. The annual rec fee back then was only like $40 or $50. The idea fees would have been kept to next to nothing based off of investments is intriguing in its own right.
Yes, well, history can give one ulcers too. I'm reading a histoy of the Opium War, not producing ulcers (yet) but there is a lot to ponder on.
