9/22/23 SAC Meeting

And your reaction to this video?

 

I just finished watching the video of the latest SAC meeting and I witnessed a coup by two women on the committee. Although they may have had valid points, their approach was reprehensible. I do not know those women, but they were making motions, restating them, changing the wording, taking votes, casually counting them, etc They were doing exactly what they accused the CoChairs of doing. I think the Chair should have taken back control of the meeting. If anyone, including those two women, wanted to make motions, that should have been allowed, but not with them leading the process. A few of the other committee members tried to quell their disruptive behavior but the ladies were having none of it. They were on their soapbox. Quite honestly, I was appalled!

 

Yeah, I was there and could barely keep my composure when she even tried to prevent the Co-chairs from being allowed to vote! There's no bigger violation of a members right's than that!

And Janet, did you ever see or hear a motion made at a Board meeting that actually established that SAC committee?

The only motion ever made was to stop the work on the MV project UNTIL a committee was established. Nobody ever made a motion to establish that committee? That's something the Member's should have had the option to comment on.

 

Tom,
That was an example of a couple of committee members hijacking a meeting. I think the Board needs to review their entire committee process and make sure they are functioning as they should. Some of them have gone beyond making recommendations and make decisions on their own. Think back to the Election Committee who decided on their own who could solicit signatures on RCSC property for absentee ballots. The Golf Advisory Committee has been making decisions on nonresident member passes, small groups, golf fees, etc for a long time without making recommendations to the Board. I wonder when the last time they made a recommendation to the Board.

When I was on the Bylaws Review Committee, there were two CoChairs but one was obviously the Chair and one the Vice Chair. We tried to change it, with the advice of the Parliamentarian, to rename them but we both know where that went. We are still stuck with CoChair. We also discussed having a Member be the Chair of committees but that met resistance too. I have watched a video of a committee meeting where the CoChairs didn't want to direct the meeting and it didn't appear to be a very productive meeting.

It is my understanding that Co Chairs don't vote at committee meetings. It is not written in the bylaws but may be in a Board Policy. On the Bylaws committee, there were times the Co Chairs voted and time they didn't. They need to be consistent so we don't have the same mayhem we witnessed at the SAC meeting!

 

Believe me when I tell you that it wasn't the Election Committee that made that determination. I'm on the Election Committee and we never voted or discused that!. That was when Dale Lehrer was Chair and a typical Dale Lehrer move .

As far as Chair's and Co-Chair's not voting; I think that's something they were doing because they don't know any better. That rule applies only to the Chair and primarily only at large assemblies. Truth is, according to Robert's Rules all standing and special committees should function under Procedures in Small Boards, which allows them to vote! (RONR 50:25)

There is still much that needs to be done when it comes to the bylaws!

 

Interesting discussion and one where what i saw and heard at the meeting initially had me scratching my head, but by the time the comments ended, i got it. The frustration regarding a process where some members serving on the committee felt they were being manipulated bubbled over. Clearly it wasn't all the ad hoc members as they voted the motion down to limit who could or couldn't vote but their collective agreement to let one of the non-board members chair the meeting was agreed to.

The fact none of us know (including me) whether chairs can or shouldn't vote speaks volumes. Is there a bylaw? A policy? A rule? When someone asked me, from memory, i told i didn't recall the chairs voting for certain, but i said "i don't think so." My best guess is the answer is yes they do, no they don't. We probably need a box marked "all of the above."

The challenges of SAC have been abundantly apparent from the very beginning. Those participating have come with their bias and their priorities. That shouldn't be surprising. What i have found disingenuous has been telling everyone they need to compromise, and then calmly arguing why their agenda item shouldn't have to compromise. The fall back is always that data justifies, so i get that as well.

Director Fast used to have a joke about what a secret was in Sun City, and while i don't recall it exactly, in essence it was that there is no such thing as a secret in Sun City. He was spot on correct. Frankly i think the exchange we saw at the last SAC meeting was more about that than what allegedly triggered it. Before i go there, let me ask this "dumb question?" Why in the world would the 3 chairs need to step out of the room to talk about the fact the architect couldn't have a finished product till Oct 20. A better question is; why would it take 20 minutes? And a better question would be; "why leave the room at all?"

I think most of you know i am pretty direct; perhaps to a fault. I've heard the "rumors" that at least a couple of the chairs have a wholly different agenda than what has been going on for the past 4 months. If i have heard it, i would guess some of the ad hoc committee members have heard the same or similar. The most egregious is that the 27 million dollars will be pared down to 10 million and the remaining PIF (of the 27 allegedly allocated) would be dispersed elsewhere.

I have no idea what is true or untrue. I have heard it from a couple of folks who may or may not know what is really going on. However, based on the statements made at that meeting, they were exactly from that same vein. For the upside and from my limited vantage point, the day the SAC was formed and we engaged the membership, it was clear to me this Mountain View remodel will get done. Any effort to squash it in the board room will be met with a lot of anger and simply the juice won't be worth the squeeze.

 

Seems to me that the one thing all previous boards had in common was they were hell bent on spending money for bright and shiny but not so much on maintaining it after it got built. Don’t worry about what it’s gonna cost, just plug in a number and whoever campaigns the most will get their project funded. Need wasn’t a priority. Seems like lots of committee members still have that mentality. I think people need to remember that they are planning for the future, not for today.

 

That's exactly why i like the suggestion to increase the PIF to 5k with $1000 going to capital expenses that can be applied towards costs going forward and 4k staying in the PIF account.

 

Larry, I tend to agree that Board's may have been behaving that way. I have an idea that things may be changing if the new Budget & Finance policies are adopted and followed. Only allowing a cursory involvement by the B&F committee has been a major mistake, and couple that with the Board's lack of a clear understanding of RCSC finances, and this leads us to where we are today: Most members (and committees) thinking everything is fine. We're not broke, but we can't continue on this path. We can't just budget on a year to year basis. Long Range Planning, B&F, the Board and key management have to work together. Most importantly, B&F has to be consistently engaged and be an integral part of the budget process - and for the first time in years (I have no idea how many) that is happening. This will not just an hour long budget meeting with a quick review and a rubber stamp; plus the B&F Committee has been meeting every other Wednesday since May studying all aspects of RCSC finances to prepare for the budget. B&F will be presenting a 5 year budget plan. The plan moves forward every year in conjunction with a long range plan. This methodology requires consistent involvement by the committee, the Board and LRPC - not only more transparency, but provides more member involvement to help ensure that due diligence is being done in carrying out the business of the RCSC according to its Articles and By-laws. It's been a productive summer. We are confident this will lead to a better understanding by the membership about various proposals being set forth for 2024 and beyond.

 

Thank you, Linda, for your contributions to the B&F Committee and your posts here. Most informative.

 

Just as Bill likes to explain golf, I like to explain our rules. And I do it not to critsize, but too educate those who are interested. Feel free not to read any farther!

The rule starts here Bill, Article V, §5 of the Bylaws states: "Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern procedure at all meetings of the Corporation..."

Next:

Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) states: "The informalities and modifications of the regular rules of parliamentary procedure listed in 49:21 for use in small boards are applicable during the meetings of all standing and special committees, unless the committee is otherwise instructed by the society..." (RONR 50:25) (emphases added)

So, what are the procedures stated in 49:21?

1) Members may raise a hand instead of standing when seeking to obtain the floor, and may remain seated while making motions or speaking.

2) Motions need not be seconded.

3) There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a debatable question. Appeals, however, are debatable under the regular rules—that is, each member (except the chair) can speak only once in debate on them, while the chair may speak twice.

4) Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending.

5) When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions must be approved by a vote under the same rules as in larger meetings, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a better method in small meetings.

6) The chairman need not rise while putting questions to a vote.

7) If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions. (emphhases added)

Next:

Who Chairs all committees? Here's what Board Policy 27 says: "All committees shall have a Board of Director as Chair and Co-Chair ..." And if you were to read the list of members on the SAC Committee, and their titles/positions, you would read that John Fast, Jeff Darbut and Karen McAdam were all listed a Co-chair!

Surely only one of those C0-chairs can serve as the committee's Chair at a time. After all, somebody has to preside over the meeting!?!?! If it was intended that the Directors were there simply as Members, then why were they listed as Co-chairs? And if they were simply listed as Members then wouldn't that be a violation of BP-27?

As for allowing each member of the SAC committee to serve as Chair, there are proper ways to do that and that should have been established when the committee was first created. And attempting to prevent a committee member from voting is ludicrous! I certainly wouldn't want THAT person chairing the committee!

Hope I didn't bore ya!

 

Good information to know FYI.

 

Not at all, thanks for info! One thing that seems to be causing conflict is board of director members, serving as chairs of committees. Way to much power is yielded to those chairs/directors as a result! Matter of fact I believe they should not even be on the committees. Even having board members present at the committee meetings yields pressure/conflict. Seems what happens then is board members/committee chairs end up recommending what they want to the other board members. Why then even have a committee? Guess I could lobby to have Board Policy-27 changed.

 

First of all, Standing Committees should have never been taken out of the bylaws. That's where they belong.

And you're right. Chairs seem to have too much influence when their real job is to simply preside over the meeting. That's the reason they were trying to prevent those Directors from voting at the SAC meeting. They felt that their votes would sway the outcome of any vote taken.

 

Understood FYI. What were standing committees and what purpose did they serve?

 

Were board members always designated co-chairs?

 

You should go read BP-27. A standing Committee is a permanent committee that is established to deal with certain subjects such as golf, bowling, elections, etc.

If the committee meets a certain criteria, which is stated in RONR, the committee has to be established either in the bylaws or as a special rule of order.

RONR specifies 3 things, and if the committee meets any one of the 3 the committee can't just be a standing rule which the BP's essentially are.

I believe each of the 11 standing Committee's meets at least one of those.

 

Best to read, okay. Last question till I read- what is RONR and BP’s??

 

RONR "Rules of Order Newly Revised." The first "R" does not indicate General Robert!

BP Board Policy on website https://suncityaz.org/rcsc-board-policies/

 

Excellent! Thanks much for link and acronym spell out.