Quick reminder...

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by BPearson, Apr 26, 2018.

  1. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    In a matter of hours on this glorious Thursday morning of 4/26/18 the board will gather at the Sun Dial auditorium for the monthly board meeting. I'll go out on a limb and predict a total of 22 members (feeling optimistic), not counting staff and board.

    There's a couple of proposed by-laws changes as noted in earlier threads and should stimulate at least some discussion and perhaps a no vote or two. For those who can't make it, the meeting will be posted for viewing some time tomorrow.

    If you are kicking around with nothing to do, the meeting is at 0 am with coffee and cookies provided.
     
  2. aggie

    aggie Member

    I believe you meant the meeting time is 9:00.....see you there.
     
  3. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the correction aggie. I normally proof read but was in a hurry and failed to do so.

    Interesting meeting yesterday, perhaps more so than any other i have attended in quite a while. First off, i was sorely wrong on my numbers prediction. There were 41 members in attendance. I obviously had no clue there was so much angst regarding the reverse mortgage situation and hence the larger than normal turnout. If you have watched the video, you will see there were several people speaking to that matter. It has dragged on too long and there need be some resolution to the problem.

    Clearly the board policy changes were contentious and personal. That comes through pretty clearly as board members did take the opportunity to share their logic in their votes. Thanks for that. Having been in this position too many times, one of the challenges of serving on a board is it always come down to a vote. And when there are split votes, there are always winners and losers. I never took it personally, it's just how it works.

    Moving on becomes difficult for the board because once it becomes personal, it changes the dynamic. This issue regarding audits is an interesting one. I never like changing something for a bad reason. There are always good reasons to make changes, but doing it to get someone or to prove you can is nonsense. At the board/member exchange i went to some length to insure the board understood how important a role they play in supporting clubs. That said, there are built into the by-laws aspects that force the club to act in certain ways.

    With 130 clubs in Sun City, with ever-changing officers and sometimes sloppy record keeping there is a need for some insurances they perform tasks in the correct manner. Most are good, some get lazy and some just plain ignore their responsibilities. Think not? Watch the tape when the board member gave a summary of how many clubs hadn't even complied with the basics of submitting officer lists or member lists in a timely fashion. Clubs all have rules and regulations they operate under. They write their own with some obligation to conform to RCSC documents. Audits play an important role because if clubs are doing things improperly that quickly comes to light.

    Hopefully they will find a common sense solution to the action taken yesterday. To quote an old adage; throwing the baby out with the bath water seldom works.

    I was glad to see motion 3 die due to lack of enough votes. Unless something changed in the new tax laws, there was no harm in maintaining the direct pass-through for earmarked projects. If a member is encouraged to donate money because there is a tax write-off and the net result is Sun City is a better place for it, that's a good thing. In fact, that was the initial purpose behind the Sun City Foundation.

    One final note: For months now the board has been functioning one board member down. There's a reason to have 9 and with all due respect to the board members personal problems, it is time to fill the position with someone who can be there for the bulk of the meetings. Not trying to be unkind, just realistic.
     
  4. aggie

    aggie Member

    That was an interesting meeting and good to see more resident participation. There were two things that caught my attention in addition to the items Bill mentioned.

    The first is that I heard no report from the Chair or Co-Chair of the Long Term Planning Committee. Did I blank out of their summary? Was it overlooked? Was it intentionally avoided? I'll scan over the video tape but I sure don't remember it being discussed.

    When the vote on the Sun City Foundation was taken there was a vote of abstention by one member of the board. The President said the vote had to be explained and cited Roberts Rules of Order. I searched everywhere this morning and can find no rule that requires a vote to be explained. Anyone know where that rule is listed?

    The final note from Bill is a very important one. Not only is it imperative for Board Members to be present for the Board Meetings, but they are also Chairs or Co-Chairs of Committees. There is no reason to carry a board member that doesn't shoulder the responsibilities they pledged when running for the Board.
     
    Emily Litella likes this.
  5. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Good points aggie and i do not recall a LRPC report either. But then let's face it, this looks more like a fiasco they want to fail than a committee setting a course for our future. Tragic.

    When David was pressed to give a reason for his abstention, i was stunned by Jerry demanding an explanation as to why. I'm no Robert's Rules expert but i had never heard that. I looked this morning and found nothing to support his position. Worse yet is when Jerry watches the playback, he will see he forced him to explain and then talked over him before he finished. I get it, he didn't like his vote, but being rude never plays well, especially when hundreds will watch it for years to come.

    Just as a side note; when we first moved here (2003) there was a parliamentarian at every board meeting to insure proper order.
     
  6. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    Maybe Jerry wanted David to recuse himself and leave the room, thereby changing the number required. "When a director abstains because he does not believe he has sufficient information, the approval requirement is a majority of all directors present, i.e., three out of five (assuming all five are present). A recusal changes the approval from a majority of directors to a majority of a quorum. If, for example, two directors have a conflict of interest and leave the room, the approval requirement is now two out of the remaining three instead of three out of five."
     
  7. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    For the uninitiated, the board takes straw votes in work sessions so they know how the motions are going to play out before the meeting. On occasion, a director or directors may change their minds based on what they hear at the meeting or how hostile the crowd is. They hate when that happens and people mostly try and stay on script. That's why this meeting was so interesting. They moved forward in hopes the motions would pass. Oops.

    Thanks for the post C on Robert's Rules. I found the same, but there is no mention of someone abstaining and then being told they have to explain why. Most often it is due a conflict of interest and then stating so is reasonable. Compelling a director to give a reason and then cutting him off mid-explanation is rude and unprofessional. Jerry is better than that. I suspect when David abstained, Jerry knew the motion was then dead in the water with a tie vote.
     
    Cynthia and Emily Litella like this.
  8. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    IF David changed his mind because of the what he heard from the crowd at the meeting, kudos to him. He listened to what the community wanted. Can the board bring it up for a vote on it again until they get the result they want?
     
  9. Emily Litella

    Emily Litella Well-Known Member

    It's a shame some did not listen to CM, Director Wieland and Director Van Ness' comments. I think Van Ness' statement said it all.

    Nope. No mention of LRPC.
     

Share This Page