Invite to RCSC board candidates

By now we all now there are 5 candidates for election to the RCSC board of directors. Those running in no particular order are: 1). Jerry DeLano.
2). Stella Van Ness. 3). Bruce Alleman. 4). Bernice Darish. 5). David Wieland. Thanks to each of you for throwing your hat in the ring.

You can find their pre-election comments/promises and bios here.

There will also be two candidate forums where each of the candidates can be questioned. The dates and times are: Thursday November 3, 2pm at Fairway social halls and Tuesday November 12, 7pm at Marinette. These are great opportunities to get unscripted questions answered.

I would also invite each of the candidates to log in to TOSC and joy in on our discussions. Not holding my breadth, but who knows. And if they don't, it will give us a chance to share our thoughts on each of the positions they have taken.

 

Thanks for the open invite BP. I have some thoughts and questions for all of the candidates. I will share some of them here, but also at the Q&A session tomorrow, 11-3-2016.

First, Dave Wieland. Served part of my board term with him. He is a man of integrity, honest to a fault, and is an ideal candidate from where I am sitting. He has served on the commissions which matter, such as the bid commission, the insurance committee, and the Budget and Finance committee. He scoured every bid document to assure himself and the cardholders there was nothing getting by that may appear illegitimate.

Second, Bruce Alleman. Don’t know the man, but he has two of my favorite things on his list, the Long Range Planning committee and reviving the second dog park. His skills appear to be current and reliable.

Stella Van Ness is a wonderful person and an excellent nurse. She has been attending all of the RCSC functions to act as a medical liaison until the paramedics arrive. One time, a man had passed out cold, and Stella started CPR on him. Even his wife acknowledged Stella probably saved his life. Her committee experience is current and relevant and has been an asset to every committee she has served on.

Bernice Darish, I do not know her either. If I met her when I had a short stint as a COC, I don’t remember her. Her goals, IMHO, appear to be general and the same stuff we hear from all of the members from the board. Clear communications with the public, what kind of communications? Proactive in the community in what way? I see a lot of generalities but nothing I can sink my teeth into. Will get a better feel tomorrow.

Jerry DeLano, I do not know him either, but his goals state “conservative budgeting.” This may be a portion of the board that needs the most attention. Especially in the golf arena. It doesn’t say if Jerry is an avid golfer, which makes it difficult to separate your desire for golf and remain conservative on this board. But this, too, shall be a question for tomorrows session.

Are these folks in favor of streaming video of the meetings so others can participate if they are not able to attend a member exchange meeting or a board meeting? Are any of these candidates interested in open meetings so the public can see and hear the discussion of issues and subjects which directly affect the RCSC cardholders? What will you do to re-establish the LRPC, or are you even in support of planning the community out for 5, 10 years with the best intent of the current and future cardholders in mind.
Those are my talking points on the subject.

Couldn’t stay away, especially with an invite from BPearson.

Hope to see everyone at the candidate forum tomorrow, and get some answers we all need and deserve
.
Thank You for your time, it is so appreciated.

Carole Martinez

 

Thanks for the input Carole. It helps to have someone who has known the candidates give an opinion, especially for someone like me who votes from afar. Glad to hear someone thinks that second dog park is still important and it might be reconsidered.

 

Attended the afternoon meeting of the "Meet The Candidates". Here are some notes of interest, from my point of view.

All but one candidate supported the taping and live feed of the board and member exchange meetings. BUT, and that is a big but (no pun intended), with the four stating they support, plus another existing board member, this should a slam dunk once the new board is in place. What can happen is the new board members will be so inundated with other information, there is an intent to have the new board members to forget about commitments made at these meetings. I am so hoping this is one time I am wrong.

Jerry Delano, the candidate whose bio states conservative budgeting and spending spoke of cutting services and employees. He is an avid golfer, nowhere was it mentioned to cut back on golf courses or their costs.

Stella Van Ness is not only the sweetest person out there, she was the most informed. She attends every member exchange and board meeting, so she has real clarity of what the board is doing and not doing. She is also a COC, so she gets to see firsthand how the clubs are going, those in need of direction, and which ones need to be consolidated or closed. Being a COC gives a person a real view of the pulse of RCSC and what is working and what is not. I am going to vote for her, no question about it.

Bruce Alleman said all the right stuff, he supports the building of a second dog park, he supports the return of the Long Range Planning Committee. This is a real hot topic, as this corporation needs a way to plan where it needs to go for now, the next five years, and the next 10, as the millenials will start to take over and we need to be prepared for their needs and wants without forgoing the needs of those still living here, such as the aging baby boomers. I suspect he will get my vote as well.

Bernice Darish is by far the sweetest little lady you can ever hope to meet. She stated over and over she is here to help, she wants to help, and give thanks back to Sun City for welcoming her and her daughter. She agreed with the hot topics, but I feel she was a little lost when it came to streaming and taping video. She acknowledged she doesn't know computers "that well" so I feel she would be overwhelmed with the amount of email and other tasks, such a calendars, meeting requests, and spread sheets that are used daily. I will acknowledge her desire to be helpful, I am just not sure this is the right venue for her to step into at this time.

Dave Wieland got long winded as he has a tendency to do, and did not always answer the question asked because he got himself sidetracked on a different topic. He does that when he gets nervous, he has done this before. Yet, I know his is the best candidate for the Bid Commission, the Insurance committee and the Budget and Finance Committee. His knowledge of the accounting, law, insurance, and bonds makes him an invaluable asset to the board, even if he gets a little weird sometimes. Yes, I am voting for him, flaws and all.

These are my thoughts on the candidates and what direction I am leaning. If you folks saw or heard something different, please join in so we can discuss it.

I will do a follow up at the next member exchange meeting, UGH, at 9 am to ask of the remaining board members how they feel about taping and posting the meetings, and also what kind of feedback they can offer to my statement made at the board meeting. I suspect it will be blank stares with no feedback. Yet, I have been known to be wrong before, perhaps this is another time we can receive actual interaction with the board members.

The second dog park also got discussion, which was great to hear from Bruce Alleman as well as other members of the audience. There are reasons to be hopeful still. The current dog park club offered to help set up the other dog park with all of the help they might need, but not take on the full task of running a second dog park. Hope springs eternal.

It was so great to see so many people at the meeting, more then we usually get. It was also great to see so many old friends that I haven't seen for so long since I was caring for my Aunt for so long.

This is my report for this evening. Sorry to be so long winded, but it was an almost two hour meeting, so there was quite a bit of discussion.

Thank you all for your time, it is so greatly appreciated.

 

For what it's worth.............the second dog park is a $400,000 issue according to the estimated cost given earlier in the year;
the Long Range Planning Committee is almost a given at this stage according to the info given at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting with the current committee members probably being given membership priority (all according to the probable board president elect); the taping and live feed of board meetings and member exchanges still face an uphill battle regardless of the board candidates limited commitments all due to the board and management concerns over the possible/probable doctoring of recordings for potential negative use. Having four candidates to be elected can be an interesting situation if all four could agree on three other major issues prior to taking office. All it takes is a fifth vote from an existing board member(as previously mentioned) and I know of two that could add to that vote count. I'm sure a number of people have thought about this on both sides of the issues.

 

All candidates supported the live feed. One candidate did not support the Long Range Plan.

 

Thanks for the report CM, agreed with most of it. My biggest problem was with Dave's answer to reinstating the Long Range Planning Committee; he abstained...yup no BS. And here's why that's a HUGE problem for me: He was on the board (as were you and I) when the board removed it as an existing committee. As i recall neither of us liked the idea, don't recall Dave's position, but yesterday it was pretty clear where he stood.

And the point made above was quite compelling...with 4 new board members coming on, the potential to do any number of things becomes far easier to accomplish; especially when you consider they are on record as having been in support of reinstating the LRPC and doing video recording of board and member exchange meetings.

Interesting on your comments Gary; as a board member i never heard the argument about doctoring tapes. I guess it could be done, but with the RCSC shooting video and posting it for viewing on their site, that becomes less likely to happen and better yet stops all the rumors by posting exactly what was said and by whom.

I am encouraged by what was said yesterday, time will tell how strongly people believe in what they are saying.

 

I doubt this will move quickly but... I'll be in SC full time in two years and I'd like to give input. There must be a separate place for small dogs. I hope its not just a second park with a mix of small and large dogs. Or if it is just one, its for small dogs only. If it comes up and anyone could give my input I'd appreciate it. With all the dogs in SC, and there are many, $400,000 is well spent. Much less than (yes I'm going to say it) golf.

 

The Candidate Forum was very informative and it was good to see so many questions from those attending. In previous years so many of the questions were prompted by Board members and answers were pretty generic. It may be that the candidates learned quite a bit by watching last year's YouTube video. Even though I attend the sessions I also watch the videos to make sure my memory is correct about what is said. The attendance at the evening session at Marinette is usually larger.

It may be that Dave thought that a Long Range Planning Committee is unnecessary because the Board & RCSC Management already has their LRP in the works. Unless the LRPC truly is given full consideration in their recommendations it is a waste of time. We'll have to see how the Ad Hoc Committee for the Grand Avenue property is treated.

 

Just a note that when the Long Range Planning Committee was in place a few years ago there were recommendations from the majority for a dog park at the Sun Bowl and at Marinette. Both parks would be built in the water retention areas because the space was already available. The LRPC was not told that negotiations were in the works to purchase Duffeeland. That purchase brought problems with it and the two new parks would have been planned to avoid those issues.

 

When the original dog park was approved, which was sponsored and carried by me, it was to have two separate areas for the dogs. One side for small dogs and the other side for large dogs, both gated off. There was to be two separate gates as well as two separated entrances, as well as a dog watering area. Excuses after excuses were used, mostly lets see what happens with the current park before we move onto another park. Guess the management team thought the issue was dead when I got off the board. Appears it is not, and I, for one, am glad to see it resurface

 

Since there are past and current Board members posting to this site I have a question. There used to be two RCSC Member Exchanges each month and an informal meeting with Jim Wellman each month regarding building/site issues in addition to the monthly Board Meeting. One of the Exchanges was eliminated along with the informal meeting with Jim Wellman(I think). My question is why there is no ability to have an exchange of conversation between Members and BODs at the monthly Board Meeting?? Is this something written into the Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation?? The lack of attendance at BOD meetings may be in part because Members don't feel they are active participants. The Board has already discussed the issues and their votes decided. It would be good to have some discussion prior to when only a few describe the reasons for the way they are voting.

 

Alleman and Van Ness have my votes. I think there is a drop off after those two.

All 5 agreed on turf reduction. I'm in favor of that. Happy with their views on another dog park. I have a problem with anyone against a LRPC. I wish a few more people were running.

One problem I have. If a person isn't able to vote in this election why was he speaking at the forum, and at board member exchanges in the past?

 

This person is not a cardholder, therefore, has no right to speak at anything. The moderator or President of the Board, should stop this person from speaking, as they are not authorized to do so.

But, rules were you did not have to give your card number or name, so what was there to stop outsiders from speaking?

 

I may be wrong, but a privilege cardholder can speak at meetings but cannot vote. Only deeded RCSC cardholders can vote for BOD.

 

Aggie, I do believe you are correct, but by this persons own admission at the podium, he said he had no card, he had nothing, he just wanted to speak.

 

Aggie, I will answer your questions about two way exchange when I get back from the Doctor. Had a nasty fall and need to take care of a few things.

 

Aggie, what you are asking for are "open meetings" where there is a dialogue between the members and board of directors. There is no bylaw or Board Policy forbidding this type of an "exchange". (member exchange) There is a fear someone, one of the board members, may something that has yet to be discussed, a pending action no one else "should" hear about, or in general, leak information out that is normally for behind the closed door meetings. The information given to the members is controlled to divulge only what is deemed okay to publish or to talk about. There is always a fear that one of the board members may something contradictory to what the management team or other board members may have in loop or plans. In order to keep the information contained to within the confines of the board, limited information is shared at the member exchange meetings, and the board meetings are carefully scripted.

I do not know if the meetings with the Assistant Manager have continued or not, as I have not been around the RCSC offices for about three years.

We all have hopes one of these days, sooner than later, we will have "open" meetings, which would then keep us out of the Title 33 fray, yet be open to our members in a way which would be unprecedented for the RCSC.

 

Sounds like the old days when doctors thought you had cancer and would withhold the info or only tell your family because they thought you couldn't take it. In other words...backwards. Its our community and we need to hear what the board is thinking and doing. Only private information about individuals should be secret. I really hope for the modernization that other Sun City communities have adopted.