2023 Last Board Meeting 12.14.23

•RCSC Board of Directors Meeting
Thursday, December 14, 2023
Summary
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BOD-Mtg-Summary-12-14-23.pdf
• Video NOW on RCSC YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdLy0Uy9sKWCJNLz37tn5ug

 

Really quick turn around. It was a long meeting with golf issues once again dominating the session. Seems golfers don't really care all that much about the conditions of their courses, they are more concerned about each member being able to drive their own golf cars. Odd, because industry standards are 2 to a car; the PGA expert recommended they eliminate every player driving their own cars because of compaction and wear and tear and the golf advisory committee submitted the policy change that groups of 5 could have no more than 3 golf cars on the course.

I didn't speak on the issue, not really a concern for me. In fact, i have long been advocating the golf advisory committee take more/better ownership of the process. In the end, it's just many of the golfers wanting what they want. Nothing could be more clear; we have a lot of work to do in restoring the ownership mindset of those who love to play golf.

 

And maybe it is time to eliminate those second readings of motions?

The motions are publicized 7 days before the meetings and anybody who wants to comment on them has plenty of time to work on their comments fore or against the motion. And does it make sense to attend 2 meetings to simply repeat your comment?

It just seems that today was the perfect example when several motions simply waived their second reading!

There is no provision in Robert's Rules addressing more than one reading and it would also take the pressure off of having to force a waiver at the end of the year.

 

Really not trying to be a smart aleck with my comment FYI, but any data on this idea. For instance, I am assuming a second reading on the “Taj Mahal” plan for MV project helped slow that project down and lead to its demise?

 

If memory serves me, it was three readings back then. Either way, the board waived the second (or third) reading to accelerate the process. The whole thing blew up in their faces as Karen McAdam was fired a few weeks later and the proverbial shit hit the fan. By the end of the summer break, the crowd was riled and restless and the first meeting of September was cleanly one to remember. With armed officers and a lively crowd complete with signage (that they deemed illegal), the meeting lasted two minutes. Just enough time to swear in Karen's replacement and the board president gaveling the meeting closed as they raced out the backdoor. The rest is history.

But alas, i drift. The whole point of multiple readings is to give members the ability to speak to motions they may be opposed to. I've long argued the faults of waving any motions of substance. Then again, sitting through multiple readings of motions with no discernible complaints seems like a waste of time. Perhaps there would be a way to introduce motions at the Exchange where questions could be asked and then the action of passing the motions would take place at the board meeting with comments from the members.

There are a couple of obvious flaws. One it would detract from the purpose of the Exchange and two it would mean the board would have to get their act together earlier in the month (which is actually a good thing). I'm all for changes that make sense and work to everyone's mutual benefit.

 

No, what led to the slow down was the fact that we finally had a new board that wasn't on a personal power hunger agenda! A president who wasn't off making behind the scene secret deals with the pickleballers and failing too include the entire board!

We finally had a board who understood how the process is supposed to work.

 

I may need to go back and view those discussions. There must have been support for those plans to get as far as they did. A decision to waive the 2nd and 3rd? readings on a $40-50 million dollar project seems crazy.

 

In hind-sight I think the whole process on this was unfortunately mishandled. They should have first done an engineering study and figured out if the existing building was capable of renovating or needed to be entirely replaced. That would have, at the very least, have allowed for a much better understanding of what the actual cost would be. Remember, those dollar figures put on the budget for upcoming projects are simply place-holders with no real understanding of the actual cost!

Then they shouldn't have wasted so much time from when the original town-hall meetings were held and when the Long Range Planning Committee made their recommendations too when the final design was established, which still hasn't been done. Those first town-halls were several years ago!

The SAC committee shouldn't have been staffed with so many members who all had a stake in the game and a personal agenda. I think the community and their input should have been done much earlier in the game, then perhaps involve those who will be using the facility. After all, Mountain View is not a private rec center to be used by only those who live within close proximity, it's to be used by the entire community, who lets not forget, is paying the bill!

Hind sight is 20/20 and we all can be accused of arm chair quarterbacking, but if anything positive comes out of this is I hope they have recognized the failures of poor planning and not putting the cart before the horse. The need to establish a process for future projects that steps thru a series of "firsts" that will answer the questions and concerns before the big bucks are allocated. We can't just keep hiring and paying engineering architectural firms then canceling the contract only to hire another firm to start all over again!

In my other life as a project manager, we have always first established a PERT chart (Program Evaluation Review Technique) that graphically represents a projects timeline and displays all the individual tasks necessary to complete the project. They establish what needs to be done first before the next phase can even start.

Wouldn't it be nice if the RCSC used such a process and posted it on-line so we could all follow along with the project and its progress?

Just my opinion!

 

Still is difficult to believe we paid former architects of the initial plan “mucho dinero” and no such engineering study was done. Wonder who best to ask about what was done for that money?

 

I once read a book entitled The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right by Dr. Atul Gawande. The main thesis of this book was that other disciplines could/should benefit from using a checklist much like airline pilots use before taking off. Dr. Gawande is a surgeon and was concerned about the mistakes made in surgeries. He started using a checklist and the errors decreased.

Perhaps RCSC should develop a checklist that identifies each step of a construction and stick to it. I was shocked when the architect that designed Option 2 was not asked if the proposed minigolf and pickleball courts would fit on the footprint with all of the other amenities. That should have been a given!

 

Option 2 came out of the blue with the plan being to plow literally everything under and start with a blank slate. It was crazy and the board just wanted to appease everyone by promising everything to anyone with a request. It gets truly bizarre when you consider the 20 million dollars in deferred maintenance and the 2021 board had no idea how bad it was.

 

Just watched the last board meeting video. Anyone know the reasoning for the motion on doing an engineering study on MV, etc., was withdrawn? I believe I heard Director Fast say it was withdrawn by request of management. Wonder why the request? More delay I guess. I actually thought it was the best motion on the agenda.

 

As i mentioned in another thread, i too was surprised to see they pulled the motion.

 

They didn't announce it at the board meeting but Ben was told the RCSC hoped to have the waterfall up and running sometime in January.

 

Something like this for major PIF & capital projects would be most welcome!
https://suncitywest.com/capitalprojects/

 

This entire process is an absolute disaster. Is there anyone on staff that is competent and can direct the board in basic construction procedures? I would be embarrassed to admit to anyone that I was employed by RCSC. Every citizen board I have served on or even aware of had professional guidance to draw from. This is amateur night over and over for years at a time and no closer to a consensus than they were years ago.

 

CANCELLED. RCSC Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Wednesday, December 20 at 1pm: - Lakeview Board Room
Next meeting is Jan 11, 2024 at 1:00 PM
Budget & Finance Information:
https://suncityaz.org/rcsc/financials/

 

I guess this is one we will disagree on Larry. The past year has been enlightening to anyone who has had their butt in the chairs as many times as i have. From a simple comparison purpose, the changes adopted and proposed from both management and the board have been staggering in scope and actual outcome.

This community and specifically the RCSC has lived under the blanket of no information and one person controlling every aspect of our financial direction. It took us 15 years to get us in the mess we are in and digging out from under it was never going to be quick, easy or cheap. Hell, the board's cations in 2021, by promising everyone everything to stay in power made it even more messy.

The challenges are plentiful and this board has addressed everyone of them straight up and by asking the membership to get involved. Was it perfect? Hardly. Will it get better? Absolutely. It's simply a long hard road back, but for the first time in a very long time we are on the right path.

 

I don't believe this to be true. I believe the committee voted to not hold the next meeting until January.

 

This meeting was canceled. Our next meeting is Jan 11 at 1:00 PM. Someone didn't get the message.