Board Candidates...

I'm wondering if the current Board would like to eat their words, "conflict of interest." I think they were chosen because they had no concrete reason to get rid of Karen so they used that. What it's done, though, is make it sound like all directors need to quit every activity during their elected time. And I'm not too sure that's what they meant. There are so, so may corrections that need to be dealt with in the Bylaws and Policies. Hate to see them start making changes, but the way they are now, is confusing.

 

Cheri - "if we have the data in place". There in lies the problem. We have no reliable data from anything in SC.
The number of members in any given club is not a good measure of usage. A club can have 1000 members and only 20 show up at any given time.
What does that tell anyone? Number of members and actual users are 2 entirely different things.
There must be technology in place to do the following;
1. count users of a facility when they arrive and leave.
2. Use facial recognition to verify card members.
3. Watch for individuals entering and leaving within short periods just to get their stats high.

There are other things that can be done technologically to make sure recorded data is correct. Pencil and paper is BACKUP only.

Can all this be done? Yes. Will it be expensive? Yes. But not as expensive as a Lakes East/West maintenance shed that receives little or no maintenance and now will cost 4 mil (probably more) to demolish and rebuild. It will not be as expensive as fixing Viewpoint lake. It will not be as expensive as redoing Mountain View. It will not be as expensive as reducing water costs for golf courses.

Also, contrary to what the IT department says, ANY building can be retrofitted for today's technology.

How did we get into this situation? My view is that the GM and Board keep kicking this stuff down the road. "if we do nothing, the next board members will have to cope with all this crap and not us."

 

And you would hope that the directors have some knowledge of the very activities they pass judgment on!

Some are criticizing Frank for because he apparently doesn't belong to any Clubs but isn't that exactly what the board considers NOT being a conflict of interest???

Look...we all know the conflict of interest excuse was a bunch of bullshit because Karen didn't do anything wrong, that's all they had. Besides, if a board member can't advocate for the Members just because they belonged to the same Club, then the board would have to recuse themselves from several motions!

 

Bylaws should revert to what they were 15 years ago. They worked then why wouldn't thhey work now?

 

Frank may be a good candidate, but my concern is that he has too many outside interests.

See his introductory video and listen to all his outside interests.



Don't know why this link didn't work here, but I just viewed it.

 

Yeah, and I wish I could get a copy of them!

I spoke with Frank and as he has also mentioned, he has plenty of time and can rearrange his schedule as needed.

I hate to lose his experience because I simply ASSUME he hasn't got the time. Give him a chance because he can't be any worse than some of the other past directors! And sometimes, the less they do the better it is for us!

 

Data in place should include long range planning, demographic and interest studies, among several other sensible things to review before committing monies. One candidate. John, I believe wants a review of preventative maintenance schedules vs tear down and replace. Awesome idea!

 

I agree with that. From overhead views of the existing east/west lakes maintenance area would suggest there has been little maintenance to this area..

 

Regarding candidate time available to serve:
Stella has a long list of activities and obligations, too…but they’re RCSC clubs, etc. If elected, how will she be able to serve on the board…unless she recuses herself from almost any decision or quits half of her current list of activities! She’s just too busy!! But it’s okay. Frank has assured the Members he has fully dedicated time for a board commitment, should he be elected.

Regarding requiring directors to be in a club, activity, or or participate in sports: All Sun City property owners pay the mandatory $496 annual assessment which entitles them to register for an RCSC Membership card (some dual deeded property owners get two memberships for the same fee, a two for one…won’t go there right now).
Not ALL Members participate in any of the many wonderful RCSC activities and amenities either by physical limitation or choice (not everyone is a joiner). They deserve representation on the board of directors, too. Another reason I think Frank qualifies for my vote!

 

John explained that so well…don’t spend your maintenance budget long enough and then you beg for PIF funds to build a brand new one to replace the intentionally neglected now dilapidated structure.

 

RCSC doesn’t allow sharing their videos.
Tap Watch on YouTube and it takes you to the RCSC YouTube page to view.

 

I like to remind folks who have 3 candidates, but not sure about the 4th, only vote for three. Your vote for a lukewarm 4th could keep one of the ones you really want off the Board.

 

I tend to like Alan. I think his experience as a judge would allow him to recognize conflicts of interest, better than most people. I think he would do the right thing regarding himself. He would be one to call out others and accurately address conflict of interest issues on the board.

 

I don't quite understand this statement. I get 4 votes - one for each opening. How does not voting for a 4th place (my ranking) negatively affect the outcome? I think each vote counts. A non-vote only leaves that outcome to others. I choose to fully participate and vote all four.

 

I would urge people to not vote too early. In this community, anything can happen. I want to be able to refine my decisions until the end. I won't wait until election day, but I will be close to that.

 

A couple of things here. First voting for less than 4 could reduce the number of votes a competitor would get. If memory serves me, several years back a candidate lost by one vote. His lament was; dang, i should not have voted for so and so, my vote gave her one more than me.

The second piece is for my good friend Stella. She approached me today about not defending an attack against her on this site. To be clear, she suggested in the last candidate forum she never mentioned attendance at an EPCOR meeting that drew the requisite 1250 that would be required for a board meeting.

I pride myself in my listening skills so i forced myself to go back and watch the video. She didn’t say EPCOR, but she did mention both the “water rate case” and the “charter school” issue before she used attendance at the Sun Bowl to justify the current quorum. So sorry kiddo, love you like a sister but you did in fact say just that. The good news is for anyone interested in checking, it is early on in the two hour session.

By the way, i asked her point blank if she thought it was a good thing that we haven’t had a membership meeting in 12 years and she said no it wasn’t. So people know, i don’t own this site, i have nothing to do with administration of it. I do post occasionally (said with a smile).

 

Stella may not have mentioned EPCOR explicitly, but everyone who has been here long enough knows,
It was EPCOR that was the focus of the waste water rate case. The gatherings at Sundial we’re not board meetings nor member meetings so there would have been no need nor mention of a quorum. It was a pocketbook item that drew
Hundreds simply because it affected their pocketbooks.

The charter school issue was also another issue that the RCSC had no involvement in.

Attendance at the sunbowl is an amenity and thus FREE to All residents (members). Has nothing to do with
establishing a quorum.

Stella is definitely off my list.

 

Well Bill, I'm dense on this one. I still don't get it. I'm not voting all four votes when I only want one person to win. I want all 4 of my choices to win. Even is I rank them, it doesn't seem to matter. If I don't want 4 of the candidates, then I guess I would only vote for 3 (out of the 7). But in my case, the 4th is just as important as the 1st. I do have 4 people that I would want.

It I could stack my 4 votes for 2 or 3 candidates, which I cannot, that may benefit me. I have 4 votes for 4 candidates. I won't vote for someone I definitely don't want. In my case there are 4 that I do want.

 

Nothing to agree or disagree about on this one Mike. I'll probably vote for 4 candidates as well. We talked about a strategy of only voting 3 and only because there was no consensus on a fourth. In the end it won't make any difference unless the vote tally's are very, very close. I will be waiting till the final day to vote in person. Just my preference. Between now and then we can kick around who we like and why. We did some of that via emails but i have no problem laying out my reasoning.