RIP..board/member exchange.

Yesterday was the last of the board/member exchanges for the RCSC. We will have one board meeting in March but after that, April will showcase the new look RCSC. Two board meetings and no work sessions. It was stated the consolidations (some 90 plus pages of them) were done so that could happen.

I quickly paged through them and there was only a couple that needed be addressed to get that done. Once the video is posted you will see when i asked, the answer was only "in-part" were those changes necessitated by the new structure.

The better answer was there are/were several places where there was redundancy. Their goal was to combine them and make them easier to find. If that is the case (and i have no reason to believe it isn't true) then they should consider getting rid of all the "where as" crap that chokes our documents into being nearly unreadable. Ben Roloff suggested this years back and was politely told no way.

There were several people asking about why our ticket purchasing practices are so antiquated. Great question and i always hate when i hear how expensive it would be to upgrade our software and hardware. From a technology standpoint, we are 20 years behind the times. The reality isn't a question of should we, it really is why haven't we?

I also took the opportunity to suggest the RCSC slow down, take a deep breath and rethink their Mountainview plan. As we have discussed on this site, there may be other options for a Performing Arts Center. I suggested at least they do due diligence and see what the cost and whether it is feasible to build an 800 seat capacity, two level theater where the farmers market is.

Given the money they are spending on the Grand Ave project, it appears the Mountainview start date will be pushed back. If that is the case, look at everything through a wider lens and see what makes the most sense. If they are able to build a larger, nicer Center at Bell, make that the next project and look at doing Mountainview after that. Turning it into a "sports" venue gives it a whole different vibe.

That would mean the Lakeview remodel gets pushed back. Far better to get it right than to get it done and regret making bad decisions. Apparently the board was going off for one of the last times for a closed door work session to talk about it and other things we'll never know about (said with a smile).

While i like the idea of open sessions, far better under T33 (just my humble opinion). It is clear they are flailing about a bit how to pull this off (the changes in process). I'll cut them some slack over that, it is a massive change.

 

So, BP, why did you leave the LRPC, seems like things were just starting to move forward?

 

Were they? Let me take the roundabout way to answer this.

I'm different. Not better, smarter or more in touch with what Sun City residents want, but clearly different than most. I see Sun City through the lens of our history, not what has happened in the past 15 years. Measuring the community in the short term is literally short-sighted. When i ran for the board in 2011 or 2012, i drafted a four page newsletter laying out my vision during my three year term. There were only three of us for the three open spots. It was overkill but it encompassed Sun City; past, present and future.

Over the years i came to understand the value of building a comprehensive strategic plan. I also knew the importance of including the community and in growing the circle of those involved. From our history, the entirety of it's success was embodied in creating a sense of community and those living here taking ownership of the process of self-governance. When i ran, i argued every board member at the very least should read Jubilee (Sun City's 25th Anniversary book). I might as well have been talking to the wall.

Most people see the opening day picture and think Sun City was an immediate success. Nothing could be further from the truth. By 1964, the Del E Webb Development Corporation (DEVCO) had in place Plan B. Everything North of Grand Ave was slated to become an industrial park and non-age restricted housing. The original concept of an age restricted community was within a breath of becoming a footnote in history; much like Youngtown. John Meeker was brought in and he along with the thousands living here refused to let that happen. It wasn't easy, the infighting over the years was fierce.

When DEVCO reached build-out in 1978, the roots had been established that were deep and well secured. Community documents were written to insure the guiding principles of inclusion and ownership of the process would continue even after they left. Board members were elected and they ran the community. They hired a general manager to run the day to day operations, not to rewrite the documents to fit their agenda. As the years went by, those buying and living here gradually passed off their responsibilities. Board members felt their job was support the GM.

Suffice to say, i never agreed with that concept. It was foreign to how we were built and why we succeeded. While on the board i often voted against decisions put forward by the GM and pushed by the board. A year and a half in i submitted my resignation but the GM asked me to stay. I asked why i she said because i was willing to argue with her. I stayed begrudgingly and was almost always disappointed by our lack of leadership from the board. We simply became a rubber stamp. Just not my style.

Fast forward to your question. I hated the day we dumped the long range planning committee. That might stand as the single dumbest decision the board ever made. When Rich Hoffer pushed to have it reinstated, i supported his re-election on that note alone. I applied to be on it, but wasn't chosen. A year later when Rich became the chair he asked both myself and Ben Roloff to be part of the committee. We started off with a bang and Rich asked half the committee to draft a proposal regrading the next wave of home buyers; Generation X.

A couple of us did the research and drafted a substantial proposal. At the nub of it were two absolutes: maintaining affordability and for the community to be technologically advanced. Affordable was the easier of the two. From a technological standpoint, Sun City was a minimum of five years behind our competitors, hell, maybe ten. As we were breaking for the summer, we submitted to the chair and co-chair the report and the importance that Sun City identify what we needed to do from a technological perspective. There was some disagreements whether we request RFP's (request for proposals) or simply hire tech firms to do an analysis and provide us a summary report.

The entire LRPC was on board with our direction. When summer ended and at our first meeting we were told point blank our proposal was a dumb idea. Huh? I confronted both chair and co-chair as to why their position had changed. They said it didn't. Huh? It became obvious to me (and several others on the committee) there was pressure from above as to our recommendation. The GM has never been comfortable with the technology challenge, it's simply not in her wheelhouse. That's why we recommended (which is all committee's can do) they go outside the organization for direction.

The short answer to your question has been my guiding light as i volunteer in Sun City: I have given willingly my time and expertise. My goal is for Sun City to be a better place to live. What i won't do is serve as pawn so it looks like the community is a part of something when they clearly aren't. Our history is filled with people who have donated countless hours. It was how we were built, why we were successful. As we move away from that and let the GM and a handful of board members make decisions, the community is worse off in my opinion.

 

What happened at today's meeting? I am still not that public as to go.

 

It's on YouTube. People who don't abide by masks wearing with get a letter the first time then 2nd time 15 day suspension. It should have been 6 month suspension. They abide by nothing at Fairway. Interesting finding out that employees are now sick from Covid. Hopefully not Fairway or Bell or any rec center for that matter. Hopefully they will stay open. Good back and forth between Hofer and the board.

 

Please post a link to the video. Thanks.

 

Yes, about that link.

 

Youtube link for meeting.

 

BUT . . . ...1 1/2 hours? I have laundry to do.

 

Anyone who takes the time to watch will understand why i (and several others) walked away from the Long Range Planning Committee. Asking good people to donate their time and expertise and then ignoring their recommendations (or deferring to a later date), is simply not an exercise i was willing to engage in. It was curious to note the voting that took place. Clearly there is a "good old boys" mentality working and the fact one of the board members who often doesn't vote along those lines being absent was curious. Her vote was critical as a couple of votes died on a 4/4 vote.

 

Kudos to the newer board members who were willing to challenge the status quo. What the management wants in data collection is immaterial. The board has the ultimate decision making process and the general manager works for them;simple as that. Our proposal last year was all about improving technology so the data was available, current and accurate. Short of that they will always be behind the curve. The arguments by the "good old boys" will cling to letting management do what management wants to do.

After watching it only reinforces why i stay away. So frustrating.

 

Years ago I used to go to all the Member Exchange Meetings and because I was involved in the brouhaha surrounding Duffeeland Dog Park and then involved in the founding of the Duffeeland Dog Park Club, I used to speak at the meetings with some regularity. I was living with my mother, so had a User’s Card (or whatever) but it had a perfectly good number. Then at one meeting the BoD chair really lit into a speaker who was being a total ass about something. Told him (my words, remembered from years ago) to shut up and go away. Which the guy did. So I wrote a letter to the Independent saying that although I basically agreed with the chair, I felt that he had handled the exchange in a very highhanded, arbitrary, unilateral way. The paper published the letter. The next time I got up to speak I was informed that resident’s with Users Cards could no longer speak at the meetings. It was “members only.” I had stopped believing in coincidence years ago. Recently I heard that the rule has been reinterpreted, anyone with a number could speak. But why would I want to?

 

Anyone know which rec center the Covid sickness was at. If it was an employee should we not have access to the information

 

Where did you see or hear there was a covid19 case at a rec center m SW?

 

Leher at approximately 59 minutes where's members need to know as they were exposed did they get it and how many people have they passed it on to if so it's on the YouTube video this is why tracing is so important we need to know information not be shut out

 

Touch a doorknob they touch a table they use the bathroom they didn't know they had it and it spreads on and on and on this is Sun City not Sun City West

 

Just watched the video of the last BOD meeting.

What really caught my attention was Mr Hofer's reluctance to electronic data collection.
Also, there are members now on the board who fully accept and recommended electronic data collection.

The GM stood up and said she is NOT opposed to electronic data collection and it is the BOD's decision to do so.

Will it cost money to implement electronic data collection in ALL RCSC facilities - you bet, but there is nothing the RCSC does that does not cost money.

AS Mr Ege said, electronic data collection does not take time off - it also does not take vacation, it is open 24hours a day. The right data collection system will spot fraud such as a member swiping their card multiple times within a specified period. Members should be mandated to swipe their card on entry and EXIT. As Mr. Ege said, it takes a button push to create a report. How many people used a specific facility in a day, week, month, or year? How many registered members of a club use the facility daily as opposed to once a month? What is the busiest time at any given facility? How many people are using a facility at any given hour? What is the average time spent by individuals at any facility? Members with suspended privileges could be spotted the minute they try to use a facility.

There is so much data that can be collected that can benefit the RCSC financially. The LRPC as Rich suggested is supposed to be planning for the future. However, having current utilization data on every RCSC facility will only help in the decision making process of the BOD. Collection of current data in no way affects the LRPC's recommendations for future projects unless those projects need space that is currently under utilized.

I applaud director Lehrer's insistence on electronic data collection, and those in the audience attending the meeting agreed based upon the overwhelming applause.

 

I watched in abject horror as the GM threw Hoffer under the bus and then backed over him twice. Nice tread marks eh?

The beauty of her comments are simple; it is the boards choice to direct the management team to immediately invest in scanners for every club and at every event. That has always been the case, but claiming management having the authority to make the decision let them off the hook. I watch and laugh, because this is exactly what we proposed to the chair and co-chair while i was still on the long range planning committee. Hoffer and Lehrer were there when it was recommended the RCSC hire or solicit RFP's regarding our technology needs.

Front and center was the need for the use of scanners. We know clubs pad numbers and add visitors counts. By using technology we can get a true read on actual utilization numbers. As one of the committee members said, that technology has been around for some 20 years. Following the meeting Thursday there should be no reason to delay, it appears as if management is ready, willing and able to move forward. I will spare you the history of how and why they dumped the tracking, all that matters now is voting for a hardware and software system that addresses our needs.

It was a shame Darla wasn't at the meeting, she often sides with those that voted yes. Of course, now we get the summer break and everything will sit idle till they return this fall.

 

Hofer is a bag of hot air who has a short fuse. It's his way or the highway. Hopefully a sabatacle is in his future. One person too many years.

 

Lehrer tried to do the right thing. IMO, the gist of Hoffer's logic seemed to be that the current rate of utilization of a resource (eg, club space/attendance) has nothing to do with long range planning, that the planners should be focused 10-20 years out, not on today. I agree with the 10-20 future, but find his logic faulty in that the current use is irrevalent to the LRPC. Activities fall from popularity, sometimes technology obsoletes them, etc. Once viable clubs often begin to pad their member/usage stats as they experience decline. The decline didn't arrive suddenly... it occurred over time with an observable trend. Eg, one club I can think of hasn't had enough real members for at least 10-years that I know of yet they still exist (and I like the club, so hope they can find a way to continue). Conversely, some clubs are becoming more popular over time. That's all key info for trend analysis in deciding when/if more/less and type of space that will be required to accommodate long term needs. My point is the LRPC needs to balance current trends and future trends to make solid recommendations to the BOD who in turn should give guidance to Management as to priorities and timing. Today the RCSC seemingly operates far too much on reaction to squeaky wheelism driven more by cronyism than solid planning, reasoning, and the facts. And that, to me, is why softball's needs haven't been resolved and why the south pro shop isn't a much plainer structure. Neither the BOD nor the LRPC seems to fully embrace what their mission should be -- that may continue, perhaps with Management's meddling, for as long as they can raise the PIF fee to provide whatever they want whenever they want -- because the oversight function was voided by the BOD years ago.