Yesterday, four of us had coffee at Georges at the Bell Rec Center. Before i move on, let me just say thanks to the mystery woman who paid for our coffee. I/we were stunned at the gesture of kindness. The visibility that comes with stepping to a mic isn't something any of us seek, but you can't make your voices heard if you don't step up and speak out. As we chatted yesterday, i found myself stuck and confronted with the eternal struggle; write less words. Back in the day, newspapers filled their pages with words, pictures and lots and lots of ads. It was how they paid for all the words that were written. With the advent of the internet and social media, the theory is less is better. I know what conventional wisdom says, i know two or three paragraphs is the extent of most readers capacity. I also know you can't tell a story with that kind of allotment for time and space. It's simply impossible. My internal wrestling match has always been to side with the idea, more is the best way to relate what has happened. Will i lose readers? Yup? Will those who stay with the story know more? Yup. It is a conundrum and one i have elected to follow my own heart on. If the story is never told, then it is lost to those who move to Sun City and never see or read about what it took for us to become what we are today. They have no idea the millions of hours those living here gave to make us unique; different from the rest of the age restricted communities out there. It was exactly what the outgoing gm counted on. Those moving here (some 2000 plus home sales a year) would never know. The evolution of Sun City to a community that was the same as every other would make it easier to govern and control those elected to the board. The problem is/was we keep sharing the stories and we will continue to do just that. Now that i have set this up, let me fill in the rest of story regarding our discussion yesterday and why it matters to any of us. See you later today.
Seated around the table for coffee, there was more than 60 years of work experience dealing with not for profit organizations. I've written before, for profit and non-profit are wholly different concepts. Far more people come out of for profit businesses where everything is about the bottom line. Not for profit organizations exist for a specific reason/purpose. It is most often defined in their articles of incorporation, as it is for the RCSC. The documents also generate how the details of how the community is run. Boards and committees are the norm. They in turn are governed by legal obligations, both stated in the documents and also their actions are mandated by law. The comment was made, as we were chatting about our structure and how poorly managed the RCSC was, the tenets that board members are obligated to follow. As we have seen, it becomes apparent they have lost sight of doing that. One of the comments made was regarding ethics; it brought a smile to my face. I spent some quality time teaching "situational ethics" in one of my roles and suffice to say, our organization (the RCSC) is bereft in adhering to many of those values. To help lay this out, here is the definition of situational ethics: The doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances. Yikes, sounds confusing, but it really isn't. I can boil it down to this simple concept; "Doing the right thing." The ability to make sound decisions based on available information is pretty straight forward. To be clear, situations change so decisions may change as well. The documents spell out in great detail a boards obligation, it's their job to follow it. It's their job to get the required information so they can make sound decisions. Hell, the courts have even said their decisions don't always have to be right, but they do have to take all the proper steps so they can prove even the wrong decision was made for the rights reasons. That starts with following their own documents. Taking a break here, but when i come back i will strip this down to real life actions where ethics were of no interest.
Let's start with the most basic of premise. Any existing or past board member or general manager feel free to jump in and correct me where i am wrong. Always happy to listen. The RCSC board is made up of 9 individuals elected by the membership. The officers of the board are elected by their fellow board members in a closed door executive session right after the first of the year. That's been the long standing practice for years and years. Here's where the apparent confusion comes in; board members all have one vote. Board members all have the ability to submit agenda items. Board members all should share equally in the decision making process. The officers have defined duties in the by-laws. They are given things to do via the document. I won't waste your time making you read what they are, suffice to say, they don't give them more power, they give them more duties. For some reason, over the 12 years there has been a sense of entitlement that has been carved out by some board membersto let the officers (mostly) make decisions. Sorry guys, not how it works. That one vote by the directors equals one/ninth of the decision making process. A couple of them don't get to just decide. I know that's what they have been doing and it simply should never have been allowed. The question was simple: Who was going to stop it? The gm let it happen and typically new board members were just shoved aside. Let me be very clear, a board member has the same right to submit a motion as does the board president. It isn't up to either the board secretary or the general manager to say no. Same as the recall petition, the recall is made to the board and it is their obligation to deal with. Technically they should then refer to their documents for the answer, but they have elected to send it to their attorney who just makes crap up. Again, who is going to stop them from doing that? Let's get more current: The other day there was a meeting called of the pickleball members. There was no notice as to what the meeting was about. they had roughly 125 members there. Honestly, the actions taken, were a good thing. For almost a year now we have been telling the board, find more PB courts in Sun City before you do anything at Mountainview. They did, but how they did it was completely backwards. I've explained to several folks 3 or 4 years ago, the board gave away their authority over having a say in space allocation. It was utter nonsense when they did it, but they did. When the offer/vote before the pickleball members was taken, for the Lakeview tennis courts to be turned into pickleball, it passed almost unanimously. Here's the problem, of the three board members in the room, only the RCSC board president knew about the offer/vote. Say freaking what? You read it right, this matter never went to the board. Apparently someone decided they have the authority of and by themselves to make this decision. It was either the general manager, the board president or the management guy who has become God and just decides. If it was the board president, she doesn't have the authority to do that. Nowhere in the by-laws and her job duties is it defined to make that kind of decision. She hasn't been bestowed the title of queen to arbitrarily hand out land as she sees fit. One could argue it's a management decision, but the simple reality is with a 1.5 to 2 million dollar price tag affixed to the renovation it is a non-budgeted proposal that needs a vote by the full board. Remember, one/ninth. The likelihood is most if not all board members would approve it. That said, they didn't. They haven't seen the plans, heard the proposal or any of the details going along with it. Board's have an obligation to perform in accordance with their documents. If they don't, who will stop them? See, if this was a private corporation, where the owner/owners have that ability to just do stuff, no problem. The reason non-profits work, all be it slowly, is because of the equal division of authority/power. Ours, the RCSC used to share those responsibilities with the membership, but as we know, those are all but gone. Sadly, we have not only watched members lose their voice, but some board members in recent years have also been carved from the process of self-governance. I could go all day and list how this has evolved, but let me take the most egregious, most obvious blatant abuse of power possible. Golf was supposed to be self-sustaining. That's how the courses were purchased, what the documents said, in spite of the nonsensical argument the outgoing gm tried to make. Board members along the way have freely admitted those were the terms they were purchased under. They also stated they kind of knew the books weren't perfectly balanced. I will be the freely state, golf should be subsidized. It is way too an important amenity to lose. We are a golfing community, or at least 12% of us are golfers. Somewhere along the way, a decision was made to ignore the fact the game should be revenue neutral. I know who i would lay blame on, but why bother? I will simply tell you this action to subsidize golf over the last 12 years to the tune of 25 million dollars was at the very least a decision that should have been made by the board and even more appropriately brought before the general membership. The question always pops up, who is going to stop them from just doing as they please? Ethics be damned eh? It's not ho we were built or why we were successful. Sorry, it just wasn't.
I'm always intrigued when i read those words from the Articles of Incorporation. So simple, so precise. They embody and define the RCSC's reason for being. Everything after that is just the how to do it. Yet as we have watched the evolution of our documents we have found the purpose minimized, gutted if you will. The Articles go on to say, by-laws shouldn't be written to be in conflict with the Articles; and the members will shall prevail. How's that working for us? All of which begs the question, how did we get to where we are? The entire concept, construct was to keep the hired help in their lane, to keep the board in an oversight position and to have the community's voice be heard. It was a beautifully conceived process where everything and everyone worked in concert for a better Sun City. And, let's be clear, that didn't mean there wasn't fierce infighting over the important issues of the day. What it meant was when there were battles, the community documents provided the path forward. It's why as the by-laws have been bastardized, we have lost our way. By-laws can be changed by a general manager sitting in the office and writing whatever he or she thinks will work best. The board had/has the obligation to insure those changes are congruent with the Articles. Dare i say who fell down on the job? The gm was trying to create a setting where she had complete control. The board was complicit in allowing her to do so. In return, they minimized the hours spent as a board member. They also benefited from golf being heavily subsidized. All they had to do was not pay attention. The Articles of Incorporation, for those following along, can only be changed by a vote of the membership. It's why those documents have remained virtually untouched. Sadly, too many of the elected board members were convinced allegiance to the corporation was the same as loyalty to whatever the general manager thought was right for the community. The question really becomes personal for each of us; was giving her that much authority a good thing, or a bad thing?
