Town Hall meeting 3 is in the books.

5 years ago, as chair of the newly re-created LRPC, I submitted this report to the RCSC board. It was read into the minutes at an open board meeting for fear it would be ignored. For the most part it was.
5 years later we have multiple committees studying the issue, the RCSC Board, the LRPC, the SAC committe, the latest version of TownHall meetings, plus the ASU project.
With the exception of explosion of PB, not much has changed. If the report had been taken seriously and action taken, we might have have done by now and saved millions over today's costs.
Pickle Ball should definately be expanded but not by trampling others who have been taking positive actions to improve their standing and provide benifit to the overall community.

It's time to quit talking about it and get off the pot

Below is the 5 year old report.


Mountain View Recreation Center LRPC Town Hall Report

The LRPC was tasked by the Board of Directors to conduct Town Hall meetings for the purpose of obtaining member input regarding improvements to the 50 year old Mountain View Recreation Center. The committee conducted two meetings on October 1, 2018, one at 1:00PM and one at 6:00 PM. The early session was attended by over 300 members and the evening session was attended by over 150 members. In addition, 35 emails from members unable to attend were reviewed.

1. The Sun City Players Theater Group has done extensive research on a Performing Arts Center in the hope that years of promises will be fulfilled. The committee feels that a Performing Arts Center should be the first priority. The size should be kept to a maximum of 400 seats. Options for making this a multi-use facility will need to be explored.

2. Second activity receiving strong support of discussion was the aquatic feature sometimes known as a pool. The majority of those commenting wanted to keep it as a “Resort Style Pool” with open sight lines and no walls, unlike Bell or Fairway or Lakeview, which are all inside of walled compounds. The committee feels there should be sufficient space for a walking pool or lap pool without destroying the current open atmosphere. Several members suggested moving the hot tub outdoors.

3. Many who commented felt that the Fitness Center was in desperate need of updating. A larger center in the style of Fairway or Bell seems to have gained favor. Several members felt the addition of a Steam Room and/or Sauna would increase the appeal.

4. The Basketball/Volleyball clubs made a strong case for a Multi-Purpose Gym for Basketball, Volleyball, and any other activities that would be appropriate.

5. The remaining activities at Mountain View received minimal support. There was no support for Tennis. There was one email supporting Lawn Bowling. Several members asked to save the Mini-Golf. The Pickle Ball club requested more courts but the committee felt Marinette was already identified as the Pickle Ball facility. There was one email supporting the Horseshoe pits.


The final request of the committee is for the Board of Directors to create an Ad Hoc Committee with the goal of soliciting more detailed member input and applying it in a cooperative process with Management and the Board of Directors to create a new recreation center that will be the Newest Showplace in Sun City.

The committee feels the new Ad Hoc committee should be kept small in order to be more responsive. In order to keep this project from being turned into an outlet for private agendas, the Chairman and Co-Chairman should serve only in a facilitator capacity. The committee should be able to invite guests or temporary members to contribute to specific areas as the project advances and more expert input is needed.

 

From my perspective the “conflict of interest” situations permeating these committees is mind-boggling. Clubs deciding whether to spend community money for their own activities is inappropriate in my mind!

 

The truth is, voting is one of the 4 pillars of the rights of membership. You can never compel a member to not vote, even in a conflict of interest, but only if under some disciplinary action.

I think more to the problem is the fact that every committee is required to have a board member as the chair and co-chair! Why can't a committee be chaired by a RCSC community Member and only allow board members to attend as guests?

As far as only voting to break a tie is a faults hood. The chair can vote to change the outcome of a vote. He/She can vote to either break a tie or to even create a tie so that the motion fails.

Typically, all committees operate under what Robert's Rules calls Procedures for Small Boards which allows the chair to always vote.

Like I said earlier; these are many issues that could of/should of been discussed and determined if the Board had properly established the committee with a motion at a board meeting.

 

Thanks, Bruce, for the LRP recommendation from five years ago. You are right - RCSC has just been marching in place since then! I commend this Board for trying to get input from the Members. However it seems like there were so many protecting their own interests, that nothing much was accomplished but a bunch of suggestions and plans with not much consensus. Unfortunate, but the Board needs to get the reports and make the best decisions they can with the current information. Let's not waste anymore time! I think our new GM is a quick study and can give some guidance to them.

Tom M, thanks for reminding me that an organization can't prevent someone from voting per Robert's Rules of Order . I just wish the Board would be consistent. Good suggestion that Members be Chairs on Committees. I think one or two Board members could also be included just so there is communication between the committees and the Board. Plus it would lessen the responsibilities on Board members. Their time is important, too!

Also, I have no particular skin in the MV project. I have been to the pool several times, but that's about it. Not a pickleball player or on a performing arts group. I just like to keep up to date since I have invested money in my Sun City property.

 

Interesting post Bruce and just further justification how little anyone paid attention to or cared what the community members said they wanted. Our evolution away from a community of membership involvement began around 2008 and unraveled year after year. Beyond not caring what members thought or said, the decisions to be the "cheapest" have left us in a mess. Digging out won't be easy or painless.

The most interesting aspect of the SAC has been how clear it is everyone has great ideas. The true test becomes: 1). Will they fit on the site? 2) Are they affordable and in our budget constraints? 3). Do we really need them, or just want them? Number 3 is easily the most subjective, which is where data should play a pivotal role.

Yesterday at coffee, Ben Roloff and i had a good chuckle. We both came from structures where we came to understand: Process works. We know it's time consuming and arduous, but it helps create buy-in and acceptance of whatever the final outcome is. This case will be no different. That doesn't mean everyone will be happy, it seldom does. At every session the comment has been made; urgency is critical.

I agree 100%

 

Just to clarify Janet; someone could, however, be prevented from voting but only if there was a bylaw that prevented them from doing so because, as you know, the bylaws supersede Robert's Rules!

 

And this board will not decide on anything regarding MV. This will be up to the next board, at best and at the rate this process is going, who knows?

 

Is a SPECIAL MEETING the same as a SPECIAL SESSION? I do not know…
Reference:
A Special Meeting was called in December of 2022 to action the contentious issue of the 2023 Budget. I could not locate those minutes in the RCSC Minutes archives.

 

Yes! They are the exact same thing. (RONR 9:13).

 

So let me see if I understand what you guys are proposing, a year has been spent by a citizen committee to derive at a plan that is economically feasible and they have not come up with anything definitive, so now you want a special meeting to ram something through? Is that what you’re proposing?

 

Hopefully not!

 

It's not what i am calling for. I suspect the above comments regarding a special meeting would be to accelerate the decision making process so as to get it started sooner. Frankly i think there is too much ground to cover with whoever the architect is they hire. Marlene did a great job facilitating the SAC meeting and would think she would be a prime candidate to hire, but she is not on the preferred vendor list and i think that requires even more due diligence in the screening process.

It's exactly why i have encouraged the RCSC to immediately hire someone to do a site evaluation of the existing MV center to determine if anything can be salvaged.