Let's Not Let It Happen Again!

For anyone following or reading my posts, you know i have a simple philosophy: History Matters. In this case, we aren't going back into the 60's and 70's, we are talking the past 15-18 years. Some of you may have lived here and probably didn't notice the evolution. Or if you did, you got disgusted and tuned out.

It began in 2006 when a new general manager was hired. She quickly came to realize the challenges of managing an organization run from the bottom-up. At the time, committee's had enormous clout. Easily the most influential was the Legal Affairs Committee. Retired judges and attorneys reviewed every proposed document change and any pending legal and governmental matters. If there were concerns, the issue would go to the RCSC attorney.

Within a year, the GM with approval from the board, disbanded that committee. It was simply the first step. In 2009, the board in conjunction with the GM's rewriting of community documents, approved changing the quorum from 100 members to 3500 (which created an uproar) and quickly was reduced to 1250. The initial change took place in Sept of 2009, which coincidentally was the last membership meeting we had for 12 years.

It was a methodical and calculated approach to making the RCSC become a top-down run organization. I watched it in horror as i knew exactly what was going on. In 2011 i did something i said i would never do, i ran for the RCSC board. I foolishly believed i could make a difference. It might have been the worst three years of my retirement.

It was a 9 person board (just like today), only 6 of them were avid golfers. We met a lot back in those days and the goal was to just get done because they often had afternoon tee times. The problem wasn't so much the board members, it was more the GM who was really good at taking the work off the board's back and doing the heavy lifting herself.

Her vision for Sun City was golf. So much so, my first year on the board (2012) i was asked to attend a long range planning committee meeting (i wasn't assigned to it, but i knew most of the members). They had asked to meet with the full board, but had been told no. They wanted to know why as a committee they had been told: "the long range planning committee only had a say for 25% of the PIF budget, while golf had the remaining 75%."

It was a good question and one i never got an answer to. It didn't take a rocket scientist to make the deduction; the general manager wanted it and the majority of the board wanted it. The GM had hired Gary Brawley, a noted golf course designer, to redesign three courses: North, Riverview and the Willow Creek course. It was done for the bargain price of 30k per course (design work only). It was a great price, but it fairly well insured we would be investing small fortunes to remodel them (which we did, all from PIF).

Around this same time period, the GM was watching golf maintenance costs escalate. It's a long story, suffice to say the golf maintenance crew were the highest paid hourly paid employees the RCSC had. With roughly 440 employees, having 70 or 80 making $3 and $4 more an hour more than the others was troubling to her. The solution was to let them all go, which she did.

At that exact moment she hired a private contractor to do our golf course maintenance. Sub-contracting was the polite phrase, i guess it sounded better than telling the employees (many of them who were RCSC members), "you're fired." It was interesting as the new sub-contractor offered to hire the crew back, at deeply cut wages and benefits. Some took the job, some told them to stuff it.

It worked like a charm, costs were down, but maintenance issues with the courses started to surface. Cheap help often results in poorly done work. Towards the end of the third year of his three year contract, the GM fired him and rehired the existing crew to become RCSC employees again. It was little more than a clever way to cut costs.

What was most frustrating was the treatment of the long range planning committee. They had identified, as their number one priority project, the Marinette Rec Center renovation. Originally the goal was to keep the budget around 4 million dollars, but by the completion it had soared to nearly 6 million. That didn't sit well with management who then convinced board members to eliminate the long range planning committee; claiming their work was done. I defecate you not; suffice to say, two of us voted against it but it passed 7/2.

Golf had become the focus. 5-6 million dollars at the North course; 5-6 million dollars at Riverview and the third Gary Brawley redesign at the Willow Creek had exploded to around 10 million (done well after i was off the board). On top of that desert landscaping, water irrigation and distribution issues and wells were all part and parcel of a massive spending spree, much of it coming from capital budgets.

We know the total spent from PIF is in the 40 million dollar range (including half the Viewpoint lake cost). We also know from 2009-2021 they spent another 9 million dollars in capital expenses. Nope not complaining, the RCSC has an obligation to maintain these courses. I know there were other expensive golf capital expenditures before 2009, but the review didn't go back before 2009.

The problem isn't what we invested in golf, but the fact we flat out ignored the rest of the community's needs. Think not? How the hell does Mountain View end up looking like the dump it does? How the hell did we fall 15 years behind on our technology? How the hell do we end up with 20 million dollars coming due in deferred maintenance?

Every one of these fixes are big ticket items and they need to be addressed. Sure we've got a couple of years to spread it out...but here's the real problem: If a majority of the board members elected next year are golfers who think golf is our number one priority, what happens to the rest of the issues impacting the community we all love?

We've been down this road before...the real question is...HAVE WE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THAT FAILED EXPERIMENT?

 

Single issue RCSC candidates have always been a challenge in Sun City, though most often they don't end up as a majority. It's one of the reasons i like to watch (and or attend) the candidate forums. The short bio video's are simply too little to get a clean read on their positions; whereas the question and answer period reveals far more about what a given candidate sees as Sun City's path forward.

I know one current board member is already telling readers/members who to vote for. One has to question, is there more there than meets the eye? Of course there is and before you ever cast your vote for the new RCSC board members we'll be digging into what this is all really about.

 

Let's stop dancing around! I'll tell you exactly what I think, but of course it's only my opinion.

Mr. Darbut, who is currently running for re-election and who is a golfer has endorsed only those other candidates who are also golfers! Mr. Darbut is also the co-chair of the Golf Advisory Committee so it appears to me that he has a personal agenda and is attempting to pack the board with golfers.

Now, if you know the history of what happened the last time the board was packed with golfers, it wasn't good and perhaps Bill can fill in some of the details. (see some of the details in the above post)

I suppose there's no rules against a currently seated Director endorsing other candidates, but it's kind of revealing to me that there might be a personal agenda taking place?

The last thing we need is another fractured board with a weighted majority towards a personal goal.

Do your own research, make your own conclusions, but VOTE. And vote for the person(s) who best represent your own opinions and beliefs!

P.S. Mr. Darbut is also the Director/Candidate who is trying to eliminate the PIF Fund and turn those dollars over to allow for maintenance and capital expenditures!

 

At this mornings GAC, one candidate thinks capital expenses should not be "charged" against golf unless every other activity pays - in essence that's what he's arguing. (I need to get his name - sorry). He kept mixing up PIF and capital and assessments. Kat finally told him having a budget discussion at GAC without DOF available was counterproductive.

I thought the committee had their eyes opened when Kevin presented the big picture to them last month about how much money is REALLY spent on golf. But, until the GAC receives a monthly financial report from B&F specifically from the Golf division, some are going to continue to promote their fantasy world. That has to change.

Another candidate's platform still remains: His big concern - golf items were the last item on the Board agenda and they (golfers) were made to wait until all other business was finished. That's what he said in his video - and he repeated it again today. No other issues or ideas. That's it? What am I missing? Maybe he's upset as a golfer because he missed a tee time because they weren't the first item of business or is there something else? If that's all he's got, it's a non starter. He's just another golfer wanting a spot to promote a very troubling special interest agenda.

 

You're not missing anything Linda, nothing. The board members that are in the minority don't want to be there and rather than working with the rest of the board went out and found three golfers at the last minute to help them become the majority. The worst part is these board members are so frustrated they are telling golfers how badly they are being screwed.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those 2100 RCSC golf pass buyers have the best golfing deal in the country. Sadly you can't start the rebellion without getting people angry over nonsense that isn't even close to being true. The really ugly part is the board members know better, the golfers they recruited have no clue.

 

Perhaps it's just too damn simple or else I'm missing something!

First of all, all the Standing Committees need to be put back into the bylaws where they belong.

Next: The designated responsibility of some of those committees to report to the Board needs to be redirected to report to the Finance & Budget Committee!

The Finance Committee should probably meet at the very least quarterly but preferably once a month and maybe back to twice a month when you get closer to the end of the year?

Each of the committees that deal with dollars need to make their reports to the F&B committee at least on a quarterly basis, or perhaps at the end of each month?

The Bowling Committee and Golf Committee can report their income, expenditures, and the need for any additional equipment or repairs.

The Insurance Committee needs to advise the F&B committee of the annual cost or increases in policy.

The Property Committee needs to keep the F&B committee abreast of the need to replace or repair their equipment.

All of the above committees need to keep the F&B committee abreast of the current needs and upcoming expenses so that they can properly establish the budget!

If those reports are not funneled through a singular entity such as the F&B committee, the board is only getting sporadic bits and pieces of the facts and parts of the puzzle and has no real idea of how it affects the overall budget!

None of the above is hard to do, it just takes proper management to implement it. I'm sure all the information is already being kept track of and available, so it's not like you're creating more work for anybody! What are the magic words? "Fiduciary Responsibility"!

Just my opinion! Am I missing something?

 

Yet again, you, like Linda, aren't missing anything Tom. We used to have both structure and process (most organizations our size do). Jan didn't like working through the minutia or the membership and scrapped it all and did it all. Getting back there takes time and effort. I sense the minority favors control without anyone looking over their shoulders. Two steps forward. three steps back.

 

In my years of NPO management, no revenue generating committee ever bypassed the budget/finance committee and went directly to the Board. This process defies all logic. And, one of the candidates that attended a greens committee meeting yesterday told me that when Kevin made his golf presentation and explained that golf has received approximately $40 million of the entire $100+ million of PIF dollars, the response was "wow, that's great." So, there you have it. It's all about golf. The GAC and Bowling AC operate unto themselves that becomes a major conflict of interest when they set the fees that determines their own entertainment costs. It's time to bring structure and oversight back.

 

That's the problem guys, no one is benefiting from those "cheap golf rates" other than the 2100 pass buyers. Every RCSC daily walk-on golfer (4400 of them according to Darbut/Duthu) has always paid more than the break even rate. That break even rate with capital expenses is $22, the daily walk-on's are paying $35 during the high season and less in the summer but still more than the break even. Now, the GAC has shoved another $4 on the $35 it is going to $39. This is all about somebody else paying for those really really cheap full play passes and the more expensive surcharge passes (about $4 more per round on average than the full play).

What was the title of the movie: "other people's money (OPM)."

 

Bill, can you explain why the rest of the GAC committee doesn't see this? They aren't all pass buyers. I'm missing a link here -no pun intended. Or, don't they care?

 

Nope, most of the GAC are pass buyers. In fairness some of them get it, just tough to admit.

 

So Linda are you saying the hours the B$F committee spent this summer is going for nought? And what does the LRPC have to say? Will we be presented a detailed explanation of where this additional money will be spent? Golf is one thing, but another $50 for annual assessment? Another $1000 to PIF earmarked for operations and maintenance?

Unless explained with detail I would call this “financial irresponsibility “. I wish I could raise my monthly SS check by charging someone a fee. Pretty easy for the BOD to do with our fees!

 

No, Tom. I'm definitely not say that. This was the best involvement of the committee and brought to light other areas that need to be strengthened for oversight, in my opinion - and others. We need much better communication about all things financial. But, we took major steps this summer! Please don't misunderstand.

The lack of assessment increases over the years created numerous problems: stagnant wages, millions in deferred maintenance, add escalating costs of utilities, goods and services and we are at a point where RCSC can not sustain this model.

RCSC has millions of dollars on the horizon for golf in 2025 that will need to be addressed. Couple that with MountainView and that takes care of PIF. Lakeview will be the next PIF project to begin immediate planning.

In 2024, we propose 6M of the current carryforward be applied to deferred maintenance projects with the balance over the next four years. The $1000 PIF increase that is proposed is intended for a capital fund so that we can keep current and/or plan capital projects (not maintenance and general ops). Our objective is a 5 year "rolling" budget, instead of operating like we are just shooting darts, for lack of a better term.

I hope this helps a bit. Our work was not for naught. However, to my dismay, we have not had a joint meeting with LRP. There is some cross over of members, so some information is available, but for a discussion, it's pending.

 

The old motto for people like this was, “He/she who dies with the most toys wins.”

That is what causes me the frustration, everything seems “pending” or “in process”. I will roll with it. How does one get access to the 32 page document you referenced in an earlier post?

 

Tom, I can understand your desire for more detail about where the additional funds will be spent, but I think we have made great strides in an open and more equitable financial processes in just seven months. "Progress, not perfection" is a motto I try to live by. Nothing is ever perfect. There is a lot to come together with the work done over the course of the summer. We are going to see much of it to come to fruition so there is less "pending".

 

Thanks and understood. More detail and transparency has often been mentioned in many discussions I have participated and read. I hope to see the detail promised. The 32 page document Linda mentioned would be great to review. Hope I can find it. The SAC meeting today should reveal more great info. Thanks again!

 

Tom...when we finished the B&F meeting on Tuesday my understanding was that ALL documents were being provided on-line which would include the 32 page line item budget.

 

Tom...I just clarifief that the only document that management committed to posting was the presentation. The line item budget will be posted following adoption. That is clearly MY mistake and not what I believed was the original intention. But again. Communication is sometimes a problem. I hope you can attend on Thursday. Kevin does a great job in explaining, and there will be opportunities at the November Exchange. And more discussion after Thursday. Sorry again.

 

I think Bill’s observations are spot on. There is hope on the horizon. The seeds of change have been planted. But it is up to the members to nurture these seeds, so they grow into the community that once again changes the meaning of aging in America. I have no doubt our members can make this community the greatest again but have serious doubts about our willingness to tackle such a monumental task so late in life. It involves changing the me first community into a we first community. To make a lasting change like this in a community such as ours involves hard work. It seems oxymoronic to ask retirees to step up and do hard work again. Unfortunately, the primary reason Sun City is such a great value is because much of what members receive is provided by other members volunteering their time. This is the great dilemma of our time.

As a Director I am pleased to hear members who have always been active in their community say positive things about the community. We have been stuck in the us versus them loop for too long. I am encouraged that we have such a strong slate of candidates for the board seats that will be open. Each candidate is a new face and brings a new perspective to the Board. From what I heard at the candidate forums, none of the candidates has an exclusive agenda even though some local politicos are stereotyping some candidates as “golfers” and others are being promoted by the in-crowd.

Lastly, I would encourage all your readers to resist the divisiveness of soundbite politics in their community. In today’s world of instant “information” it is too easy to be influenced by the shock value of labels and headlines. If it’s on the internet it must be true. Really? Members looking to confirm their bias can easily find something on the internet to support their view. The “source” of the information is sometimes “anonymous” with author’s using pen names. We have one such individual in Sun City that I have found doing this on multiple occasions. My advice to you is to search for the facts the same way Huntley and Brinkley did.

 

And John why are posting on a public forum? I think this is inappropriate as a board member.