Spec. Session

Does the board have a clue what the majority of members want? After all this time and all the meetings, I don't think they do.

 

How about a membership vote after plans/design are complete?

 

How about a membership vote after plans/design are completed and accepted by board? Add members vote to this list?

 

NO! to a membership vote! Let the Board do the job they were elected to!

 

The membership had multiple opportunities to express their preferences and opinions.

The Mountain View motion presented at the board meeting this Thursday, 1.25.24 allows for member comments prior to the board vote. And again at the February board meeting, unless the second reading is waived Thursday.

Enough is enough…”me thinks!”

 

I agree it needed to move forward a LONG time ago. But I thought this was all about the members now and what the majority want.

 

Never was a proposed membership wide vote about Mountain View. The board makes final decision. Member input was vigorously enlisted for consideration, in contrast to past boards!

Purpose of the Strategic Alternatives Committee was for and by the members! https://suncityaz.org/rcsc/strategic-alternatives-ad-hoc-committee-sac/

Timeline of work concluding with Presentation to September 28 Board meeting. https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/SAC-Meeting-Agenda_update8.17_JMT.pdf

Additional member input was and continues at board and exchange meetings.

SAC Motion Approved – 4.5.23 – Treasurer Fast:
I move that all work on the Mt. View project option 2 and building pickleball courts at Lakeview be suspended until a committee of representatives from all interested groups can be appointed to address strategic issues and alternatives. The work of this committee will be presented for member review and comment at the September 2023 Board meeting along with all data gathered by the committee.

Charter
Develop and Present Strategic Alternatives to our Members by our Members for the currently suspended PIF budgeted project at Mountain View.

 

I believe I would be hypocritical if I didn't believe the Members should decide, HOWEVER!, under the present circumstances you would only be playing to a stacked deck of limited Members with personal agendas.

Here's how I see it and its just my opinion!

Lets just say, that unlike our HOA communities within the RCSC where the membership at each HOA meeting is fairly limited and most attend, the entire Membership of the corporation is somewhere around 35,000 Members. So let's just look at the facts for a moment; even if a decision on the final design of Mountain View is presented to the Members at our Annual Membership Meeting in March for a vote, do you honestly think that it's a fair representation considering a quorum of 500 is less than 1-1/2 % of the total Membership? What do the remaining 34,500 Members think?

When you can't even get more than 0.2% of the membership to give a crap and show-up at monthly board meetings I think what they are saying is that they either don't give a crap what happens or that they are happy to simply allow the Board and management to do the right thing.

Just like the previous Town-Halls and Exchange meetings, and even those members of the SAC committee, those with the loudest voices are those with a personal agenda. Dare I say the SAC committee members all had a conflict of interest because they were specifically placed on that committee because they each had a special interest, which really clouded their efforts because instead of considering what was best for the entire community, they simply advocated what was best for them!

Leaving the final design up to the members is a fools errand because you will never satisfy everybody and no matter what the final design comes out to be, the Board and management will take the blame!

Let's get on with it!

 

There have always been member comments allowed at board meetings. Don't get me wrong because I believe someone needs to be in charge and have the final say make decisions based on expertise, funds and possibilities. What has happened all of 2023 appears as a dog and pony show which is unfortunate. Less people will participate next time due to false hope and no majority consideration which was supposed to be what it was now all about.

And exactly why a quorum of 500 was a poor decision.

 

Yep. New year, same old issues. This is why I did not vote for the recommended folks listed.

 

The board must listen and respond to the voice of the membership. No better way to do this than to let members vote on the plans. Voting can be done as board election voting is done. Simple as that.

 

I have no problem with moving on. Just add membership vote to the process list. Vote as voting done for board elections. Simple as that. How many members voted in the last board elections? I believe about 1500 people. Not very representative. And much concern about golfers taking over the board.

Leaving a $27 million decision to 9 people is not wise. If I were a board member I would prefer the membership vote on the completed plan. Would take much pressure off the board and personally I trust the membership to choose wisely.

 

And which loud voices would that be? The Pickleballer's, the Player's, the Lawn Bowlers? Who?

We all know there are members on the board who are advocates for certain amenities whether it be pickleball, golf or something else. Will they ever agree?

Time to shit and get off the pot and just do something instead of these never ending back-and-forth disagreements that has gone nowhere and gotten nothing but delay, after delay after delay!

The Special Session told us that nothing will be done for at least a year, which means new members will be on the board with a whole new set of concerns!

 

Fyi- Please read my reply to your other response. I agree we need to move on. No problem. Check the rest.

 

Again I'll say I suspect 2023 is an example of why Sun City moved against self governance. I imagine nothing was getting done which affects home sales as well. Though many residents have great ideas the community is too large to take it as far as the Mountainview project has gone.

 

I'm trying to avoid being involved, but let's discuss that comment about "why 2023 was an example of why Sun City moved against self-governance." Duh, really? Don't mean to be picky, but what we learned in 2023 was exactly how bad Sun City performed without self-governance (2009-2022). Every step of the way was an exercise to run further away from membership involvement.

How well did that work out for us? Here's the answer: 1). 15 years behind in technology. 2). 20 million dollars in deferred maintenance. 3). A small select group of board members approved a 42 million dollar (projected) boondoggle that would have exploded to well over 50 million dollars over the 8 years proposed. 4). Pushing members away, rather than attracting them to be part of the solution. Worked out brilliantly eh, and we're just talking about the big ticket items.

That aside, last year was chaotic. No surprise there and yet they shutdown the MV Taj Mahal and started asking/talking to members. What we all found out is everyone wants what they want. Part of it was driven because no one cared or listened to what members thought; for years. It was all lip service. Mountain View should have been done years ago. The theater should have been built years ago. The golf courses should never been allowed to deteriorate like the did and we never should have allowed non-residents better access and prices than members.

Through it all (2023), they stayed the course; through it all, they hired a GM and through it all, they held more open meeting formats than any time in our history. That said, it ultimately comes down to them taking the data and making decisions. The "elements" spells it out pretty much and even they will be adjusted based on certain criteria. Think not?
1). The mini-golf will be re-opened way before expected and as members requested.
2). The pool will be renovated and enhanced as members have been demanding.
3). The theater is an interesting discussion and for those of you who haven't been paying attention, the question posed by the players was: Where will we perform when the old auditorium is torn down or refurbished? Their argument was legitimate, but the suggestion the RCSC rent the old Olive Branch senior center for 2 or 3 years and then renovate it was crazy ( the projected cost of rental and remodel was in the million dollar range). They suggested the Sun Dial stage may work, but it has the highest utilization of any flat space in all of Sun City. Perhaps the music room at Fairway, but then again the conflicts of time were compounded by how it would have even worked with no stage or dressing rooms.
4). The above discussion (in #3) is muted as the players can continue performing at the old auditorium until a new performing arts theater is built at Lakeview. I've always believed that was the right location simply because it is centrally located and frankly i would prefer a larger venue with more seats and more entertainment options. In the end, those are both simply my opinions and mean nothing. My only point is, it can work.
5). I've long supported more pickleball courts and less lawn bowling. Here's the oddity; i am a lawn bowler and not a pickleball player. My opinion has nothing to do with my personal preferences and is all founded on data. The data tells us we need more courts and the data tells us we don't need 7 greens. Data matters. either you believe that or you don't.
6). There will be a new fitness area and shower arrangement, but this idea we need something akin to Bell or Fairway is crazy. At best, mirroring in size and scope the Marinette center would be way more than adequate.

All of the above are just my opinions. Anyone who has payed attention to SAC knows there's dozens, maybe hundreds of similar ideas floating about. Which ones are better? Which ones are worse? Those are all subjective and should be left to the board to sort through. I also think the new GM and CFO have a pretty good handle on what we can afford and what we can't. There's so much on their plate trying to play catch-up, we simply can't afford to be buried in massive cost overruns and slow construction projects.

In summary, the users at Mountain View deserve prompt and decisive action that will serve their needs with the least disruption as possible.

 

How is it considered self-governance if the majority of members may want to spend all the available money at one place yet the board says no? They don't officially know what the majority of members want. Was anyone at the least keeping track of comments and tallying anything? Maybe the majority doesn't mind older technology and would rather spend it all on a PAC. Not saying that is the correct way to handle it but asking how is that self governance. It's been allowing more opportunity for comments which is good but I wouldn't consider it self governance if a majority vote isn't taken.

 

Yes Bill, I was wondering when you were going to comment. Nice to hear from you. One thing I was wondering is whether the Players are okay with moving. They seemed adamant about staying at MV.

Also the plan to leave the auditorium standing after the new PAC is built leaves an ugly sight. Along with the dome idea will double the ugliness. I hope I’m wrong about the ugly instead of “wow” appearance.

Wonder if MV will get the $10 million or so being spent at Lakeview for the PAC? Where is the ghostly “5 year plan”? Just a few thoughts as I watch the football game. Oh and I believe our former GM deserves much credit for keeping the lake project at about $8 million. So many thought it was going to end up double that amount.

 

Self-governance is an interesting discussion and one without absolutes. It's like debating whether we (the USA) is a democracy or a republic? One i hate by the way. But alas, our 60 plus year history is filled with a host of both more and less membership involvement. The simple reality is our documents (Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws) allowed for members voices to be heard in varying degrees. In fact, until 2009 when the GM started rewriting bylaws everything was geared around hearing members voices.

That all changed and from my perspective, for the worse. The language changes weren't enough though as the community's identity all morphed; going from the "City of Volunteers" to the "the original Fun City." While it was subtle, it was supportive of the idea those buying here should just have fun. As committees were dismantled and neutered, the tiny crowds following the governance paid little attention. It's how we got so far removed from a structure built on accountability and responsibility.

Those have always been the keys to effective self-governance. When the members (obviously not all of them) are involved and take ownership of the process is far more inclusive. We can debate how much is too much or not enough, but when there's virtually none, it all falls apart. Then compound it all by the board not holding management and the GM accountable, everything gets away from us.

I always use history as the benchmark. We know the RCSC in 1981, invited the members to vote on accepting the Sun Bowl. What you don't know is the Legal Affairs committee had recommended the board reject the first two offers from Meeker/DEVCO. It wasn't until the final offer that included a host of protections and subsidies for them to finally recommend approval. Even then, the mail ballot (that included a $2 a year increase per person) resulted in 27,000 plus votes.

The oddity was i made that similar suggestion to the RCSC when i was on the board (2012/2013/2014). When it appeared we had an opportunity to buy the Lakes Club, i asked the board and the gm to hold town hall sessions and see how the community/membership felt about the idea. Sadly, by then they were beyond wanting or caring about what members wanted. I wasn't asking for a vote, i just wanted feedback.

All of which begs the question: What should be voted on? There's roughly 32,000 plus members with many of them not using any of the amenities. Would they ever vote for anything that would increase their fees? Should 4000 golfers dictate who gets to use our courses? Should 1200 pickleball players decide (with their vote) we need indoor courts? If we really want to know how much we need a PAC, should we get the actual costs and do a mail-in ballot for all 32,000 plus members?

I've never lobbied for a "member vote" for anything other than electing officers and in the case of the annual membership meeting, voting on bylaw changes that have been submitted timely. I've spent 20 years encouraging members to get involved, speak out and up and hold those elected accountable for their actions. That's just my opinion of what self-governance is and how it works best.

 

On September 17th, 1787 Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” to which he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”