I spent a good number of my later years working in concert with an organization just outside of Milwaukee Wisconsin. They were a massive non profit and one of their focus was trustee education for both labor and management. Over the years one of the yearly programs we ran was called "Situation Ethics." It was a blast because often times we filmed videos as teaching tools for those attending the sessions. Being a bit of a ham, i was often times filmed so as to be the bad guy player, the guy making poor choices. The audience would often critique it and then the presenters would further explain what was done right and what was done wrong. Having this background has proven interesting to me over the years. Non-profits all should operate under similar criteria. Obviously the smaller ones, tend to be less stringent. Budgets dictate all too often just how well run they are. Those with strictly volunteer boards and minimal staff have to rely on the quality of the volunteer. Those that have more money than they know what to do with are in a wholly different class. Money cures all ills, or at least it should. The ability to hire quality consultants and qualified attorneys, expert financial advisors all make for the opportunity to get it right. This past year and a half has been especially interesting to me. We've watched a very large organization nearly implode because members started attending meetings and began asking questions. In some cases they had the gall to expect answers. Some of the folks reacted poorly. That happens, everyone is human and some of the circumstances were beyond "normal." After all, when you've functioned in a vacuum with 20 members in a room and you could do whatever, would anyone be prepared to deal with large crowds of members asking for answers? Clearly, they weren't prepared. But alas, that was then, this is now. My ethics question is purely rhetorical at this point; not accusing anyone of anything; yet. As we approach the most significant election in a very long time in Sun City, would it be appropriate for any one of the RCSC management team to try influencing the outcome of this election? Should they be saying things like, "if you elect the wrong board members, they will kill your project? I know, given my years of both teaching and taking those classes, management should have no role in any way in helping determine the elections outcome. Their job is handling the day to day operations of the RCSC. Not telling members who they would prefer to see elected. But hey, maybe that's just me. Perhaps ethics isn't that damned important in this election. Any thoughts?
Is Ethics a Thing? Good question. It use to mean doing the things that are right, but it now seems to mean only doing the things that are right for me?
When I attended Situation Ethics workshops one of the main things I came away with was that folks needed to define what they meant by ethics in the first place. Most people couldn't and if there was no shared foundation, there was nothing to build on, so determining what may or may not be ethical in any given situation became a moot point....
Both comments spot on guys. The problem with us being a "business" is as we all know, there is no such thing as ethics in business any more. That's where the board's role should supersede whatever the general manager s touting. Not these days though is it?
Morals vs Ethics While they're closely related concepts, morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors. I think living by the "Golden Rule" would pretty much satisfy both those terms? But of course nobody teaches that anymore! A wise man once said, "Your reputation is who people think you are, your character is who you really are." - John Wooden Actions have meaning and when those actions are all out in the open for everybody to see...the people will decide!
"Money is the root of all evil" - lol debate those two cliches! Moral values are individual - enough individuals agree and those become society's ethics. So yes - they exist. But if too many individuals start to disagree - "right" and "wrong" become fluid or lose meaning. I guess the way to hold on to what you believe to be ethics is to voice your moral values, find (and put into power) people who share your moral values, and bring to light people whom you believe don't share your moral values. For example, I classified as "unethical" actions of the 2021 RCSC Board when they first snuck behind closed doors, ignored due process, and without ever proving or providing evidence of their public accusations, removed an elected official, who was acting as a watchdog, without notice to or involvement of the electorate. Then, those same people stopped the very legitimate process that it used as a check against abuse of power (the recall election process). I've heard people in our society of Sun City say those actions were fine because they like or didn't like certain people. Like or dislike ? That's the basis for these people's moral code?? When something like a Board becomes too incestuous, year after year of keeping the same clique and friends in power, it takes on its own micro-society and may not reflect the ethics of the greater society. If their values are corrupt (defined as not in line with the society), what happens to the people they are supposed to be providing oversight to? Sadly we have many people who, as FYI said, only think about "right for me". Lets hope enough of the other kind come out for this election.
I am always intrigued by questions of ethics and morality. While working it was more prevalent, in retirement, not so much. For those of us who have stopped the rat race, our lives have become more simple. Sometimes we are able to tune out the craziness of the world and just live in our own little bubble. For a dose of reality, we may turn on the evening news, which makes our uncomplicated way of life in Sun City look even better. Perhaps that's the reason the former general manager's tactic of telling those buying here to just come and play worked so well. The work world has gotten nastier by the year. Once the social compact was destroyed in the 80's between employees and employers, the only true measuring stick was profits. How much money could be made? I get it, that's what for profit businesses are all about. It's also exactly why when we found Sun City it became our perfect utopian idea. Over the past 15 years the changes have been staggering. The oddity was with no one really paying attention, no one really cared. That's not totally true, because for nearly 20 years the group The Sun City Registry was outspoken. Their solution was to sue them into change. I seldom understood their arguments, but the idea of suing ourselves was foolishness. While their ranks hardened, their efforts further pushed the RCSC to dig in. To become more insular. Morality and ethics were shoved to the sidelines, winning was the only thing that mattered. Whatever it took. If members rights were bludgeoned, so be it. Once they started down that rabbit hole, with each passing day it became easier to move away from a sense of community to a more "business-like" approach. Solidifying the general managers role by instilling more power in management made the board's life easier. Once the changes were in place, the newest phenomena was board members staying around well past their prime. In the 60's we had maximum 1 year terms, went to 2 and then finally 3 years. In 2003, the last Article of Incorporation change was to allow two 3 year terms. The language regarding filling open positions with what i lovingly call "retreads" became the new normal. They could have filled those open positions with candidates who didn't get elected the year before, but the strategy was to keep control with known quantities. It wasn't unusual to see board members serving 6 years and then being brought back for more. Should we be saying thank you for your service, or why the hell are you still hanging around? I can only speak from my 3 years on the board and it was painful. When serving in a minority position, it is merely an exercise in futility. Any ideas we had were quickly squashed, the gm's agenda was locked and loaded and the board embraced it wholly. Hell, they didn't even question or challenge why? The majority position is far more attractive than the minority one. That was 2012-2014, and since then it's only gotten worse. After i left the documents were carved up even worse and the board's became more pliable. The winning was endless. The problem of course was what was the cost of all that winning? In my next post, we'll take a little deeper dive into the morality/ethics of it all.
Ethics has an almost ominous ring to it. Jeb did a good job of breaking it down above, i want to take it down even further. I like when readers can easily get get their head around a problem. When we start talking about bylaws and golf rates, most folks eye glaze over. However, when we start talking about what is "FAIR" that's pretty easy to comprehend. Let's bullet point a few things, and ask you to be the judge; fair or unfair? The first one just came to me from people obviously smarter than me (doesn't take much, i know). * The notice was just sent out regarding the annual membership meeting. In it, members were given 5 days to collect and turn proxy votes in (a pretty short time). On the other hand, we were also told that was because the RCSC needed 10 days to process them. Fair, or unfair? * Earlier this summer a meeting was held where potential candidates for the board could attend and get the scoop from previous board members. Not a bad idea and we were told, "pick one or the other (am or pm)." The video was filmed for members to watch. Curious, while watching back i noticed one candidate was at both sessions. Even more curious, she was already a board member who should know the ins and outs of serving. Was it screen time? Was this in fact the proverbial thumb on the scale? * Yesterday, the video taping of the candidates were done. I like the opportunity to get a first blush look at candidates even if it is a bit scripted. I wasn't in the room as i had dropped from the race. Good thing i was gone because it would have been an ugly scene. Apparently someone decided (chair and co-chair?) to do the taping in front of the assembled candidates and some board members. I've appeared on video more times than i can count, but it is challenging for those not used to it. Putting them behind closed doors would have been the right thing to do with the person shooting the video. Instead, they did it before a "live audience." Then to add to the misery index, the last one to be video'd had the advantage of listening to everyone else's comments and shape hers. I'll give you three guesses who went last? Fair, or unfair? * During that same session, apparently (again i wasn't there), while at least one of the candidates was speaking, the board members in the room disliked some of his comments and openly reacted. Fair or unfair? * Before i dropped out of the race, i was asked to stay in the race and if i won and if we acquired the majority, i could drop out and the seat could be filled by someone who thinks thinks the members voices should matter. I said absolutely not. Just not how i function; sorry. In my mind, that would be unethical, unfair. That has happened before, where a board member could have resigned before the years end and opened a seat for a candidate, but elected to resign immediately following the new year. That way they could fill it with a retread rather than one of the candidates who had run. Fair or unfair? * One of this years candidates is running for the RCSC board and for the SCHOA board. We know the RCSC doesn't want board members serving on two boards due to a potential conflict of interest. I have no idea what will happen if he wins both, not my job to know. What i do know is if he wins and drops off the RCSC board after the first of the year. the stench will reach far and wide. We'll see and then we can determine, fair or unfair.
All I can say is WOW! The video taping process - unprofessional and unfair. Should have been done by the In-Focus group or some other party, and done without other candidates or Board members. Bad idea! The current Board member at both candidate forum sessions - somethings fishy. Openly reacting - totally unprofessional and unfair. You did the right thing! Should not be running for both. So the person will pick or choose which organization will be most advantageous to his or her "cause." Wow, again.
This is just beyond more shenanigans!! I doubt an incident report was generated on whomever did this: “During that same session, apparently (again i wasn't there), while at least one of the candidates was speaking, the board members in the room disliked some of his comments and openly reacted.”
Wow, double wow! Hang in there Members Matter candidates! Shame on current Board members that that are manipulating the process and intimidating candidates!!!
We've all watched it from the stage, eye's rolling, snickering and demeaning the members and their opinions. Here's the really ugly part they (the board) refuses to acknowledge: the majority of the board looks down their noses at the minority and treats them like second class citizens. It has been stunning to sit in the audience and watch the caste system at work. I guess it just makes sense to continue the practice while shooting the video package for each of the candidates. Obviously that was said with tongue in cheek. It's not okay, it's shameful. We've watched too many times as the have-nots have just been shut down. We've watched one of the candidates rage from the stage and call the fired board member a liar. We've watched minority member's motions be shuffled off to Buffalo with lame excuses that shifted in the wind. We've listened to their debate be stopped with the wave of hand and a blessing from the parliamentarian. A board member, and there are 9 of them, each has one vote. The documents ascribe the responsibilities of each officers duties. In the end, it is supposed to be the sum total of the nine votes, each having equal weight. The fact they treated one candidate so shabbily shouldn't come as a surprise. The fact they interrupted him during his taping is just more of the same. Sadly, they'll all just pretend it didn't happen. Business as usual...and indeed it is.
What surprises me the most is the fact that anybody is really surprised with the Boards shenanigan's! You all have seen my tag line, "You get the government you deserve." If we keep on voting those like-minded power hungry directors into office this is what you get. Most of you who visit this site know what the Bylaws say, and they say we can't do anything to oppose or dispute any of their decisions unless we get their approval first! But the Articles of Incorporation does make the point that the "Members shall prevail" but that's of course is only after we jump thru the hoops of getting a petition and the signatures of over 3,000 members of the community and do so within a certain limit of time! Here's a thought...since ultimately the Members have the ability to prevail over the Board, it tells me one thing, and that is the fact that the Members are the superior body within this corporation and the Board is subordinate to them. So why aren't the Member's offered the same ability as the RCSC and that's to simply allow a Member to file an incident report against a Director and have a "community-board" decide the issue rather than forcing the Members to go thru the entire petition process only to find that any final determination will be decided by the Board anyway? Just my opinion!
