For anyone paying attention of late, there's clearly been a lot going on at the RCSC. Much of it brought on by their own actions (as documented on these vary pages). I will tell you this: after nearly 4 hours at today's board meeting, someone best get their head around how dysfunctional they have become. I get it, way easier to just do whatever you want when there's 20 members in the room and the board is made up of people who simply agree with everything the general manager says. That was never how Sun City was built, it was what it had become the past 12 years. Before i move on, let me say this about the general manager. There's not a polite way to say this so rather than tainting the waters, let me just tell you what was said in response to this question from a director: " What happens if the board doesn't approve his requested budget by the end of the year?" His answer: The RCSC might have to shut down (i didn't put it in quotes but that was essentially what he said; watch the video to see his exact words). It never dawned on him he could write a new budget. Or perhaps using the 11 million dollars we have been shoveling in the bank rather than investing it in the memberships needs, it could be used to struggle through the next year (said tongue in cheek). It was the worst possible answer and one that was thoughtless and callous. That was the one thing that would never happen, but it was the one place he went. I know he's smarter than that, but that was what we got from him. Here's the update on what happened: *The budget with the proposed $29 increase was reintroduced after much haggling over how that was going to be accomplished. Was it to reconsider, or was it to rescind? As the hand ringing continued, the goal was clearly identified to vote the same motion again. That deteriorated into whether they could do that in the same "session." Don't ask. The board agreed to delay it till next month so they could sort out what they are doing and whether they were doing it right. Still with me? I know it's confusing, but it gets worse, much worse. That action prevented any comments from the floor. * The real fun began once the floor was opened for comments by the members regarding the bylaws. Easily the most powerful voice against it was from Patrick Gannon, a member of the bylaws rewrite committee. He withdrew his support based on the boards actions to strip the ability of members to collect signatures on RCSC property. He was the original maker of that motion at the annual membership meeting and he calmly explained when the board removed that clause, the compromise document was worthless. A second member of that committee, Janet Curry, had also written a letter withdrawing her support but it was not read into the record. The committee chair did state she told him yesterday she was doing so, that was a good thing. Thanks Allan. It gets far more bizarre. a board member tried to introduce an item to add to the document that resulted in a flurry of discussion, only to have it withdrawn after a lengthy back and forth. They tried to define a "session" and the net was it might have caused more problems than it solved. Watch the video, it looks a little like a three stooges movie. Seriously, i'm not trying to be mean, but it was painful to watch. But wait, there's more and it gets even more ugly. After all this, a vote was taken of the nine board members. All of us in the room assumed it would pass by a 6/3 vote. When the smoke cleared and the tally was taken, the motion failed. I honestly don't recall because i was in shock. It was either 4/5 or 3/6. The only people in the room more shocked was the board president and the chairman of the election committee. All of which prompted an outcry by those out voted who called fowl and demanded it be voted again. This caused another shitstorm and after much deliberation that president told us it was her fault because she had misread the motion and board members were confused on what they were voting on. I kid you not! Anyway, another vote was taken and i want to give credit where credit is due. Collins, Nowakowski and McAdams voted no as did Darla Akins. The motion to approve the new bylaws was defeated because it needs a 2/3rds majority to pass (6 votes). The vote ultimately was 5/4. Clearly the room and the officers were stunned. The good news is they got through the rest of the meeting without a lot of commotion. The tragedy of this is they could have called this the first reading with the second in December. Instead they tried jamming it through so it was in place by December. Let me just say this; there is no sense of jubilation over today's meeting or the outcome. I would never celebrate being dysfunctional. I would never celebrate the fact the board of 9 can't act as a board of 9 but two distinct groups; one in the majority and one in the minority. Unless or until they get their head around that, it will continue to be a sad hot mess.
And it's going to be interesting to read the current bylaws once they remove all the Board Policies! I wonder if they're considering another Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee...with an entirely new set of committee members? Not sure whether Janet or Pat would want to sit on a committee with the same set of members after what they went thru?
As of right now I believe those policies now exist as both Policies and Bylaws. My opinion (good thing DaveW can't post here and tell me how stupid I am) we need a standing Policy Committee that can attack the Bylaws in a collaborative, open, systematic fashion. I doubt that will happen this year with some current board members' history of vengeance vs progress. Let's hope we can move forward Jan 1. Vote Collins, Totten, Fast. This budget thing is just another example of the foot-stomping-arm-crossing-breath-holding tantrums that get us (and 5 year olds) no where. As Bill says above, and Dir Collins and McAdam alluded to, just rewrite the damn thing to exclude the $29 and get on with it. If next year you can justify it (and the $12 million carry over) then add it back then.
Damn, jeb, if you think common sense is going to fly when dealing with the RCSC, then we all should reserve our rooms at the One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest hotel. After viewing yesterday's meeting, i want a room next door to Jack...help restore me to sanity. Actually your proposal is the exact position i would adopt as a board member. Let the new general manager prove he is willing to spend assets collected from the membership that are intended to be spent on the membership and as he does that, requesting an increase next year will be justified. For now, stock piling two million dollars this year (during this hyper inflation they are whining about) speaks volumes.
And if that's true, how dangerous is that? Some of those policies are un-numbered and simply written text within the Sections of the Bylaws. Now they will be duplicated as numbered individual Board Policies? So that means if a numbered Board Policy changes it contradicts with the same policy as its written within the Bylaws and vice versa!
Much like jeb, just complaining about stuff doesn't fix anything. I had the opportunity to chat with two former board members yesterday. We haven't always agreed in the past, but that is neither here nor there. All of us served on the board at different times and all of us watched in horror as yesterday's meeting unfolded. It was painful to be in the room and to listen to the disjointed, dysfunctional attempts at governing. I'll be the first to admit, governing is way harder in front of members than if no one is in the room and no one cares what you are doing. I've always said the dumbest thing they ever did was fire Karen and kick the hornets nest over. They brought it on themselves, but that's yesterday's news. Here's today's: all three of us, as former board members, agreed when the RCSC held work sessions, the crap we saw yesterday was contained in the board room. I have always been a fan of opening up work sessions to the handful of policy wonks who would come and watch, but everyone apparently was and still is afraid of doing that. The "all meetings in front of the membership" was an effort to show the state the RCSC wasn't hiding anything during the lawsuit that was dismissed without prejudice. The nonsense was that it created an even more closed society where those in the majority worked around and through emails and coffee clutches where the minority was carved out of the process. It is still what is going on to this day. Those on the inside meet, those on the outside find out sitting in the board meeting, hence the total disconnect. For starters, i'm fine with reinstating work sessions. But here's the caveat; every board member is equal and entitled to not only be heard but also to have their opinions and viewpoints considered as potential solutions. Damn, what a freaking novel approach.
You and Jeb are absolutely right. He should have been prepared to answer that question. He wasn't prepared , believed it would pass, or he just can't think on his feet. It's no wonder the members reacted like we did.
Question Bill: Were those work sessions classified as "executive sessions" or were Board Members able to discuss openly what transpired/was talked about?
I totally agree with you, Bill. Making the sausage in front of a large audience is difficult. There needs to be a reset; trust has been broken and how can we fix it? It starts with new people, but it's bigger than that.
