For those of you reading this who haven't visited the Sun City Advocates Blog, you should. Click here, and you can see the latest news on it. We understand it is less than a perfect format, but it was a free piece of software, which fits nicely with our budget. One of the shortcoming is regarding questions emailed to us. There are options for comments following blog posts, but from time to time we get directly emailed questions and for now, no way I know where or how to respond. Which is really okay because it allows me/us the luxury of utilizing TOSC to answer them. Which increases our visibility across multiple platforms. With that out of the way, let me take two of the comments/questions via email and post them one at a time and go into my answers to them: "If the board is hiding the true costs of projects and dodging which funds the moneys come from - that is a serious problem and should be a legal problem as well. You cannot just pick and choose which fund to use. Nothing sinister here? Maybe there is. Perhaps it is time to do something drastic, like ask the attorney general for his assistance. This is OUR association and OUR money - and they spend it like water. The grand ave project is an excellent example. How many people are benefiting from that complex compared to the total membership (about 38000 people)? Shouldn't projects like this - with detailed costs, be voted on?" My answer: This has long been an argument from the various activists groups in Sun City. To understand the comment is to fully understand how projects are funded. Projects like the Grand Ave Center are paid for from the Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF). There is set criteria for spending and that must be met. Over the years since its inception (1999), critics have lamented the membership doesn't have a vote. While they are right, the fund was intentionally built that way. Approval by the membership at large would almost ensure nothing would ever get done. No single constituency group exists in large enough numbers to pass big ticket items. Take for example, golf. While i have been an outspoken critic of yearly capital subsidies (to keep golf rates low), i have always supported using PIF money to keep golf courses and buildings in good shape and with the best playable conditions. That was the point of the PIF from the very beginning. As an aside, only 12 % of the population golfs, so who would have voted for the renovated golf courses? The fund was created to keep our amenity package current rather than letting it deteriorate. And to be clear, without having to vote the membership's approval. Another easy example; what would have happened in 2005/2006 had the RCSC board had to vote the 16.2 million dollar Fairway project? I suspect many of those living in Phase 1 (not all by the way), would have voted yes, but that's about one-third of Sun City's population. Potentially those living in Phases 2 and 3 could have voted no and the rebuild would never have been done. For those of you new to Sun City (the past 12 years), the old Fairway center was terribly out dated. I know the argument from the critics which is similar to the arguments in the 80's by the Concerned Recreation Members (CRM). They wanted to try and keep the cost down on everything rather than update the facilities. They hated when the RCSC increased the yearly fees by $2 so they could buy the Sun Bowl. There was a vote on that issue and it almost didn't pass. The reality is, the PIF has been a godsend for Sun City. The charge is identical to how DEVCO built and paid for the amenities and then gave them to us. The mistake made was not starting the PIF when DEVCO left in 1979. To the second part of your question, and for me, the meat on the bone; transparency should be an absolute given. We can debate semantics of the word hiding, but that's a worthless exercise. I would argue every dollar they spend from the PIF account should be shown on the RCSC website. We (members) should be able to click on an accounting of how the money was spent, including when, where and how much. There's no logical reason not to, other than the board hasn't directed management to do so. The bigger problem from my perspective is just that; the board has become reliant on taking direction from the general manager. Our documents say the gm works for the board. The past 15 years we moved away from that ideology and all too often it looks like the board works for the general manager. This was done by changing our documents and by removing our (the members) voice via by-laws changes while at the same time insulating the board members from repercussion. We moved away from the tenets we were built around. Overall, the Sun City Advocates love Sun City. We love all it has to offer. We simply believe by returning to our roots of responsibility, accountability and building a sense of community, we will become even a better place to live. Hope that answers your question.
The second question was shorter and easier to answer: "Don’t pay too much attention to the complainers. The topic of IT, we need to find out and address who was responsible for things getting so bad when our communities had carry over money. Not to punish but to hold accountable. This question from Jim was/is the perfect teachable moment. Before i begin though, we posted a couple of the more negative comments on purpose from our poll. It's easy to respond to the positive, the negative ones offer more of an opportunity to respond openly and honestly as to why we do stuff and even as to why we exist. The IT issue referenced above is so on point. For anyone who doesn't know, Sun City is 10 -15 years behind the curve regarding technology. Don't take our word for it, watch the RCSC presentation here and see for your self. If you haven't seen it before, it is worth watching. It is simply terrifying to see how far behind we are. The question Jim asked goes well beyond how we fix IT. As Jim noted, we have the resources to get it done, unfortunate the suggestion we take three years to do by Bill Cook is wholly inadequate. More importantly, his comment that we are where we are was/is "no ones fault," was mind numbing. Of course it was someone's fault, it didn't happen by accident. Which is exactly why our history is so critical. And, as he mentioned, accountability is even more important. Finding blame is easy. There was a head of IT and he is ultimately the easy target. But, if we are to be honest, the general manager was his boss, so it really does fall on her shoulders. But wait, there's more; the general manager works for the board, so ultimately they should have been holding the general manager's feet to the fire. Yikes, pointing fingers gets us nowhere. What we really need do is assess how we got to where we are? There was a time in this community (roughly 45 years) when the gm simply handled the day to day operations of the organization. The boards of directors we elected served to ensure the community was run with an eye to the future. The responsibility of the board was they stayed on top of what was going on within the community. Conversely, the membership via the documents gave us both the right and responsibility to hold those we elected and those they hired accountable. It was the perfect arrangement for a community built around the concept of self-governance. Last night i read the by-laws from 2009. They were 14 pages long and were clear and concise. From 2010-2021, those documents doubled in size and are virtually unreadable. Worse than that, the ability for the membership to hold anyone accountable was gone. More troubling is the board has relinquished much of their responsibility to the "management team." The end game has become no one is accountable; No ONE. I guess that goes to Mr. Cook's point, the IT mess was no ones fault. You need to know this: Since before 2010, both committees and members have been telling the management team our technology sucked. It wasn't that they didn't know, they simply didn't care. The board should have stepped in and forced the general manager to care. Unfortunately by the then the board believed that loyalty to the corporation was the same as loyalty to the general manager. The point here is just this: Going forward, the board needs to hold the gm accountable, the gm needs to hold employees accountable and finally, the members rights and responsibilities should be restored so everyone living in Sun City has the opportunity to be held accountable. Dang, way longer than i thought it would be.
Just got another question asked by my old friend Tom, let me post it here: "Question I have, what are all of us and the Advocates doing to make clear our opposition to what the RCSC Board just did to limit comments and meetings? I believe we need to assist the individual who is actively attempting to recall the bad actors and get the board back to being servants of the Sun City Members." Fair question Tom, and one that allows me to wander a bit. First off, the recall issue is one i struggle with, and to be clear, it is a neighbor of mine who has been after the board with numerous petition requests. I would consider him a friend and agree conceptually with the recall, i think it is an exercise in futility. Not because it wasn't warranted, but in his efforts we have come to understand the control the RCSC feel they have over members' rights is painfully obvious. To be clear, he has the right to request the recall as he did. The documents no longer state the reasons have to be justified as they used to say. The board just dumped it off to the corporate attorney to make up some BS language. I've told Ricky to ask them to cite the clause that says he needs "just cause." They never have because it was removed when the old general manager rewrote the documents and left it out. The point is, even if they gave him a petition number, gathering 3200 plus signatures off RCSC property is daunting. What i told him was i would rather see the effort in getting 3200 plus signatures that would act as proxy votes and demanding a membership meeting. Even that is a stretch; especially with summer coming. To your main point, we (the Sun City Advocates) elected not to get the cart out in front of the horse regarding the board meeting changes to be acted on this Monday. Here's why: last meeting, the proposal to go to 1 member/board exchange and 1 board meeting with no comments from members other than regarding motions was defeated. We have no reason to believe it will pass this time, but in all honesty, the fact it is being brought up means it has some life. Apparently there are some moves being made behind the scenes to try and reposition votes. We aren't privy to them and frankly only time will tell what happens. The Sun City Advocates are interested in a member/board exchange once a month, but not at the cost of losing a voice at the board meeting other than speaking to a motion. That is a huge step backwards. You go back far enough Tom to recall when we had quarterly membership meetings with quorums of 100, 2 member/board exchanges and 1 board meeting per month. The steady drip/drip erosion of the members voice has been a constant. Now the argument from the board president is the RCSC can't afford to pay the management team to sit through lengthy member comments (even though there's now 18.3 million dollars in cash accounts). Fine, let the management team stay back in their offices and just bring the general manager, or better yet, let the board members answer questions without having to turn to the management team every time they don't know the answer; which is way too often. I have, for the first time in 12 years, begun to see a glimmer of hope. Last meeting there were 4 board members who appeared interested in letting the members comments be heard. I know they are in a tough position because they are still in the minority. The board president is arguing she is looking out for the best interest of the members, but is she? The agenda came out with neither board member, nor member comments to close the meeting. We don't know if it was an accident or is she is just trying to flex her presidential muscle? We prefer to give both her and the rest of the board the benefit of the doubt. After all, she was the one that gave the impassioned plea at her first meeting to give everyone a chance. Come Monday, we'll see.
Let's be clear about this; the motion wasn't defeated because the board members who voted "No" were against the Member/Board Exchanges, it was for several other reasons. First of all, why change a Bylaw on a permanent basis when you don't really have the whole procedure nailed down. Second, some didn't like the fact that the only motions that the Members were going to be allowed to comment on were those that were listed on the agenda! What happens if a new motion is offered during New Business? Thirdly, some didn't like the 2 hour time limit on meetings to be written in stone in a Bylaw. The board is way too flippant with the Bylaws in my opinion but that's a story for another day! Everybody wants some sort of a Member/Board Exchange but there were simply too many restrictive limits placed in that one amendment. There are cleaner ways to accomplish the goal of Member/Board Exchanges without such large trade-off's!
How many times are you going to give the board president and other board members the benefit of the doubt? We are 3 months almost 4 into the new year and a new board. So far nothing has changed and if anything things have gotten worse. The board still has a blank stare on their face when asked questions they can’t answer. They call on the protege of JE to answer any tough question. Why are they even discussing bylaw changes when there is a committee being formed to look at bylaws. What power does this committee have to make changes? There must be a moratorium on all bylaw changes going forward till the newly formed committee does their work. The only reason they are recommending bylaw changes is to further limit member participation in the governance of Sun City.. Not everyone wants aMember/Board exchange that will be severely limited in time because the board doesn’t want to spend the time to listen to the members. Think about it. Everything past boards have done and now this board is attempting to do has been done to silence the members. Again - a moratorium must be placed on any future bylaw changes before the bylaws committee completes their work. The bylaws that were in place up until about 15 years ago served Sun City well with no I’ll affects. Citing bylaws on this forum that are believed to be ignored by the board will never change a thing. The board and the GM are NOT being held accountable.
The committee has no power to make changes, they can only make recommendations. Also, they have only been tasked to review the Bylaws and not the Articles of Incorporation, which I believe might actually work to the committees advantage.
Sorry SCR, but your negative reactions drive me crazy. I've been writing this stuff for 15 years or more and the audience was always small and insignificant. This past year, the RCSC poked the beehive one too many times. They got by firing Barbara Brehm in 2020, kicking Karen off the board was a bridge too far. The community is coming alive and the numbers who believe things should change are growing. Nope, not going to happen over night, nor should it. Organizational change is slow by design. We are at the crossroads and as i continue to tell the Sun City Advocate members, patience. The real question will come the end of this year. Do we elect 3 more people who believe the community should have a voice? Or, do we allow those who love the status quo to just keep doing the same old same old? And let's be clear, the existing board is far removed from where they were in December. You can be critical, i applaud them. Do i think the president is on board? Not yet and frankly Monday's meeting will speak volumes. I guess i am more of a glass half full than a half empty kind of guy. There's nothing easy about change, especially when the cards have been stacked against you for the past 12-15 years. Take a deep breath and appreciate things are moving in the right direction; i know, i do.
Here's a bit of a twist as this wasn't in the form of a question, but was a comment posted on the Facebook Sun City Advocates page. I am not using the posters name, nor does it matter. Another poster came on to defend me, i thanked her but also stated, the poster was entitled to his opinion of me. There was more to my response but Facebook is hardly the place for two-way dialogue. Here's the comment i am referring to: "Bill Pearson your comments are starting to sound a lot like a current board member. Maybe you should step back a little and calm down. You don’t possess the only opinion in town. If you want citizens to be involved, quit arguing and start listening." He's absolutely right, i don't possess the only opinion in town. In fact, that has been my point for nearly the past 20 years. Those of us living in Sun City should not only have opinions, but more importantly their voices should be heard. And to be clear, i have spent the past 20 years both listening and watching as the community and especially the RCSC shifted from an inclusive setting of self-governance to one where the membership was neutered. I know, strong words, but looking back on the evolution that was foisted on us, i find it difficult to try and put lipstick on the pig. It wasn't by accident, it didn't just happen, it was a constant effort to contain and control everything at the management level. The one piece of the puzzle i could never get my head around was how board members elected by the community could become so easily enamored, so quick to relinquish their role and worse yet, that of the membership. At coffee yesterday, my best friend Ben reminded me, the more they stepped back, the less the general manager asked them to do. Serving on the board is hard work, and to his point, the more management did, the less they had to do. I've said it before, simply a quid pro quo arrangement. I don't even fault them for it. Who wants to retire and then spend countless hours "working?" Unfortunately, that was how Sun City was built, those who ran became responsible. Those who ran were obligated to hold the management accountable. The wild card in the factor was the membership always had the right to be involved. As i have written repeatedly, they were the safe guards that kept everything in check. Our documents were written that way for a reason. I would argue, they were changed for that reason, to prevent anyone from being held accountable or be responsible. It's just "one man's opinion." To coincide with it, i have always made the argument it isn't important to listen to what i have to say, but what the community has to say. The problem is for the past 15 years there has been a concerted effort to make your (the membership's) voice insignificant. With that in mind, there was a revised agenda sent out by the RCSC yesterday for the Monday meeting. There were two changes, one regarding the fitness equipment the other further clarifying the reconsidered motion. What was missing was the members right to comment and the boards closing comments. We know for certain now those items weren't left off by accident. The only real question is, will members be told yet again, we don't care what you think or have to say (other than on motions before the board). We'll see eh?
So here we go again...let's just violate the bylaws! Article V, Section 5, "All meetings of the Board, excluding Executive Sessions, shall be open and video recorded with time allotted for Members to make comments."
