URGENT UPDATE ON SUN CITY LIBRARIES

RCSC Board Eblast Friday 4.05.24 5:36pm

The RCSC Board sincerely appreciates the avid interest of our Membership in our two Sun City libraries.

Our Mission Statement continues to drive Board decision-making:

“To maintain a financially sustainable corporation which provides our Members with a wide range of high quality amenities, recreational opportunities and social activities to enhance each participating Member’s sense of well-being and purpose.

” In pursuit of these goals the Board works closely with the Management team, sharing agreement that these words drive everything that we do in Sun City.

Last Thursday the Friends of the Sun City Libraries (FSCL) published a press release expressing their concerns about potential library closures, based on a letter they had received from Maricopa County Library District and a conversation with a member of the RCSC Management team.

This triggered a significant number of emails to the Board of Directors expressing concern and asking for verification. In the meantime a campaign to Save Our Libraries has begun.

The Board would like to clarify a few things that have popped up via this campaign. While the Board was aware that lease renewal was on the horizon, the Board has not been discussing potential library closures for the past two months. As a matter of fact, the very first Board discussion on this matter took place this past Tuesday in Executive Session. Given the Easter weekend, this was earliest opportunity the Board had to discuss the issue after it came to our attention.

We’d like to clarify that Management never had any intent to close the Bell Library without providing alternative space. It is true that Management intended to sever the lease with MCLD for the Fairway branch.

The Board is constantly learning. In the vast scheme of items to which we direct our attention, there had not previously been any occasion for the Board to consider the role that libraries play in our community.

In the past week we have learned a lot, and we have come to the conclusion that Management concerns about the Fairway branch require additional research and analysis.

In the interim, we have directed Management to withdraw the notification of Fairway lease termination to provide the Board with time to conduct a thorough analysis, to ensure that we are meeting the needs of members, staff, and the community at large.

With this in mind, we are requesting that MCLD agree to a one-year extension for both libraries as we work through this.

We wish to be clear that the lease extension request is not a mechanism to allow us to shut down libraries, but rather a mechanism to allow us to do due diligence and involve Membership input.

We are grateful for the presentation of data that shows the prominent role libraries play in our community and the robust use they enjoy.

Please be assured that there is no attempt to hide, manipulate, or deceive anyone as we move forward.
#
https://mailchi.mp/61b640b55fbc/board-meeting-agenda-monday-7514917?e=f18f779945

 

Well...if you ask me this is the RCSC's attempt to pick-up a turd from the clean end!

They know they screwed-up big time but instead of coming clean they keep on trying to push this off as something that is no big deal at this point in time. Meanwhile, they have yet to explain why not all Directors were aware of this issue until it was made public by The Friends of the Library!?!?

So far, nobody has disclosed when the actual lease agreement expires? Is it the end of the year or is it possibly in June?

Let's see on Monday! Many questions need to be answered. And why all of a sudden they need to check the data? Seems to me records have been kept and we already know the usage numbers?

 

Darn, we got caught and this scam isn't going to work so we'll just play the folks another way "going forward"!

First of all, IMHO this release is poorly written and doesn't address the big issues at hand. OK, maybe Fairway is needed as the temporary indoor dog club space until they can force relocate another club and the new GM is in agreement so he can hold on to his job after the sundial painting decision but why is our Sun City Board still holding the Bell library hostage with a "one year extension"? Some expense figures have been floating around about the annual library expenses at slightly under $120K per year, or $3.50 per resident. Granted buildings are aging and one time expenses will surely to be in the future but who is their right mind would not consider a community resource like the libraries an essential resource?

See you on Monday!

 

But why is the homeless a concern for the library at Fairway but not the rest of the facility? Another BS excuse.

And if the homeless is a problem, let's spend million of dollars on Mountain View less than a mile away!

 

Not quite. This is a lot bigger than the libraries. Resign and replace.

Any bets this will somehow turn out to be the resident's fault??

"You mentioned that people who move here do so to be stress free and have fun. Yes, they do. But they should also have a feeling of responsibility to their community. No, you can't make someone feel responsible. (Just look at some of the conditions of some of the homes here. Either they aren't feeling responsible, can't afford to maintain or are absent owners.) There has to be a better way to invoke this responsibility into Members or eventually their will no longer be a RCSC."--------from Two Steps Forward, one step back

IMHO Two Steps Forward 20 years back

 

Interesting comment E. Before anyone jumps to the ready, let's get a little more practical. I think it's great they sent the release from the board and explained how we got here. Of course the response was to call it bullshit. Okay, to each their own. Believe whatever you want. I have no inside information other than what i read and what i know.

If i were on the board and this had happened i would be asking for the 5 year utilization figures from each library. I would want to see the trending over those 5 years. Did they go up? Down? Stay the same? We've been slogging along saying data matters, let's see it. Then, as a board member, i would want to see the yearly costs the RCSC is absorbing by owning the libraries including utilities, maintenance and any other related costs. I would want to see them for that same 5 year period. How much have they increased? Decreased? Stayed the same? Then i would want to know if there are any long range (5 years) capital improvements. Specifically, what equipment (if any) needs to be replaced. What are the projected costs?

It's called fulfilling their fiduciary obligation. It's how decisions are supposed to be made by the board. It's easy to become emotionally attached to just agreeing to 5 year leases at the two locations, but doing so without knowing what the costs are is irresponsible on the boards part. It may well bare out the two libraries are money well spent, or not. Data will help them decide.

Ultimately, the board has an obligation to make decisions based on having all of the information available. Interesting to note, that doesn't mean they have always make the right decision, but they have to have made the best choice given the information they had. Failing to get it is when and where they get in trouble. There's always options available and i can tell you some of the obvious ones have been ignored, and that's just wrong.

 

I would, if I. I, I, I. Ten I's. You were, and we are still here in this ridiculous situation. When are you all going to figure out what was done over the past 15 to 20 years has not worked?

 

It's interesting to read all of the responses, both the relevant and those that aren't. Those that aren't aren't simply show how little they know or understand either our history or exactly how good this community is. But alas, no time for those wallowing in their misery. Wallow away.

I have been writing (i guess i could say we've been writing but that would sound silly wouldn't it?) for years; what we stumbled through since 2006 hasn't been working. Just duh. The culmination came the end of 2022 and since then it's been swimming up stream trying to restore what those 15 years lost and cost us. It won't be easy or fast and it will be painful. We've been making decisions for years based on emotions. We've treated data cavalierly and without much application to reality. We allowed management the ability to make every decision. and expected what they said was right or true. We trusted they were doing their job.

Anyone foolish enough to think things can be fixed in a year or two simply doesn't understand how organizations work. Our systems have to be rebuilt from the inside out. Processes refined and defined. Documents re-written and implemented. The anger is understanding but it is misdirected. Time will sort all of this out, and the community will be better for it.

 

Probably true but will we still be alive to reap its benefits? Not many of us have that much time left?

There are many things that can be fixed now and they can start by telling us the truth, and about things before they actual happen!

 

I did see in an old piece in the Arizona Republic that the county's fiscal year on the lease ends in June, while the RCSC's fiscal year ends in December.

 

I've now read several comments like yours Tom, all suggesting the board's statement was garbage or an attempt to fool the members. Somebody help me here, which part was out of line, or untrue? They spelled out pretty clearly where they were and what has happened. Management had overstepped their authority (although boards have given those responsibilities away for years) and when they found out confronted the general manager who had aggressively been pushing the no-payment lease with the county. Between the shit-storm of controversy and all the negative press and social media they sat with the gm and bought some time to do what they were and are supposed to be doing as a board; OVERSIGHT.

I wrote this above yesterday and i am curious how it is wrong? "If i were on the board and this had happened i would be asking for the 5 year utilization figures from each library. I would want to see the trending over those 5 years. Did they go up? Down? Stay the same? We've been slogging along saying data matters, let's see it. Then, as a board member, i would want to see the yearly costs the RCSC is absorbing by owning the libraries including utilities, maintenance and any other related costs. I would want to see them for that same 5 year period. How much have they increased? Decreased? Stayed the same? Then i would want to know if there are any long range (5 years) capital improvements. Specifically, what equipment (if any) needs to be replaced. What are the projected costs?"

Please, somebody that is being overly critical of the board (the GM owns the mistake BTW), explain how by doing their due diligence as a board they are wrong? We know virtually nothing about the lease and the related costs. We can assume they have gone up substantially over the past 5 years, but that is merely an assumption. We know there were 146,000 visits over the past year, how does that compare in each of the past 5 years? Is it trending up or down? A lot or a little? Looking forward to the next 5 years (the length of the lease members are clamoring for), what are our projected costs for yearly maintenance and capital improvements? Perhaps the best statistic to support the library is the number of visits compared to other amenities owned by the RCSC. All of this information is attainable.

Over the years we've let emotions, egos and whomever turns out or up at meetings dictate how we did business. Our decisions were fueled by everything but data. The move back to functioning how a board is supposed to be run has generated that same mindset, scream louder and harder and just give us what we want. I am a huge fan of our libraries and of maintaining both of them. I've written that repeatedly. I'm even a bigger fan of the RCSC board of directors making decisions based on having the correct data in front of them and then deciding what direction to take.

The Friends of the Library have done an amazing job of putting on a full court press. They've stayed away from personal attacks and let the membership take the lead in the name calling and the vitriol that is strewn across the social media landscape. There's a couple of reason for it, with the obvious being they want and need the libraries to be around with the RCSC picking up the bulk of the funding (in conjunction with the county absorbing their share).

The other reason, the one they don't want to talk about, is our/their history. We know there will be some ugly increases coming in the next several years for RCSC members. The cost to catch up with past mistakes is going to have to come from somewhere, and we all know where that somewhere is; the membership. The board has an obligation to in fact do their due diligence in every decision they make. I know that makes some of you uncomfortable, but that is exactly what boards are supposed to do.

It is why i haven't been piling on the board and have been supportive of the libraries and their continued importance to our community. You can't demand change by the board to be more responsible and then get angry when they are. You can get angry at the general manager for aggressively acting out before consulting with the board, but the reality is prior boards gave the GM more leeway to do just that. You can and should show up on Monday and expect to be heard. You also should be civil with your comments and remarks and be looking for and proposing solutions.

Hopefully that's not too much to expect.

 

SAVE OUR SUN CITIES LIBRARIES confirms June.

“RCSC has communicated that they do not plan to renew the same agreement with the Library District. Instead, they have informed the County that they plan to move the Fairway location to a month-to-month lease starting July 1 in order to allow the library time to vacate the premises completely. The Sun City (Bell) location will be renewed for one year, but they will not renew after that.”
Sue Blechl, Friends of the Sun City Libraries Board of Directors President

From URGENT UPDATE ON SUN CITY LIBRARIES, March 28, 2024
https://saveoursuncitylibraries.weebly.com/press-releases.html

 

The other reason, the one they don't want to talk about, is our/their history. We know there will be some ugly increases coming in the next several years for RCSC members. The cost to catch up with past mistakes is going to have to come from somewhere, and we all know where that somewhere is; the membership.

A couple of comments from others:
"Are we now supposed to accept that for the past 15 years we have had incompetent people running Sun City?
"The citizens of Sun City shouldn't be held accountable for their [BOD/GM] ignorance or stupidity."

You also should be civil with your comments and remarks. No words for this one.

I don't have the money available to help dig you all out of this hole. Is it time the issues of Sun City are made available for those beyond the reach of The Sun City Independent?

 

Well, first they said, "While the Board was aware that lease renewal was on the horizon, the Board has not been discussing potential library closures for the past two months."

They later say, "in the interim, we directed Management to withdraw the notification of Fairway lease termination..."

So they obviously had previously planned to shut down, at least Fairway, or it wouldn't have been necessary for Management to withdraw the termination notice?

 

And of course we all know by now that's no longer true, they've agreed to at the very least (so far) a one year lease. I know eo you were trying to show us the lease ending date of July 1.

 

We also know the gm overstepped his bounds and when the board found out and addressed it last week and they withdrew the lease termination and offered a one year extension.. What's untrue or garbage in that?

And, i am really curious why anyone who fought for the board to start acting like a board and making decisions based on data rather than emotions, is upset they are incorporating due diligence into their processes?

 

The garbage is that at least some of the board knew about it for two months, but nobody mentioned a word. We only found out about it because The Friends of the Library told us after they received the termination notice from the county.

Seems to me that everybody now wants to throw the GM under the bus when at least some of the board had two months to mention it?

 

First, a five year utilization study of the libraries would include years when they were either shut down during the pandemic or people were hesitant to enter public places for fear of catching Covid. That is still true, to a degree. I agree with you, Bill, that those utilization numbers should be compared to other amenities but, due to the pandemic, we need to take those results with a grain of salt.

Additionally, while the costs to RCSC have undoubtedly gone up in the past five years, we should also look at the amount of funding that MCLD has provided our libraries and citizens during the same period. I would guess those figures would be greater than five years ago, too.

We have had the ASU study, focus groups, working groups, the Strategic Alternative Committee, a Long Range Planning committee, biweekly Finance and Budget meetings, all made up of RCSC Members. I don't believe closing the libraries was ever discussed with or recommended by any of these groups. The Members who served on those committees deserve some answers as to why this was not presented to them during their long volunteer hours trying to make Sun City a better place.

At the very least, I believe the Members should be informed about what "other purposes" any Directors and Management have mentioned or considered for the library's space. Under normal circumstances, they might want to have firmer ideas formulated before presenting them, but these are not normal circumstances now that the word is out. Are there plans for an upscale dining restaurant or coffee shop in the library space for socializing as the Long Range Planning Committee has recommended? Will the library spaces be replaced by indoor air conditioned pickleball courts which was a contentious issue with the SAC? Will one of them become an indoor dog training facility at $1.5M? Will the Corporate offices move into one of the current libraries? We don't know because we haven't been informed! The rumors will continue until the Board and Management lay their cards on the table for all to see. I am not talking about the financial details of the contract with MCLD, but the transparency that is so often touted so that Members can have their input. And not a year from now while Members are left in the dark while they "study" their options.

Do we need an ad hoc committee, made of RCSC Members, to study this library issue? Right now I think there is a trust issue with the Board and Management that will take a great deal of time and effort to resolve.

BTW, can someone tell me the differences between the Long Range Plan that was just presented at the March Board meeting, the "master plan" mentioned by either the Board or GM, and the five year rolling financial plan which we have not seen yet? Sorry, I am confused and getting anxious to see how they fit together.

Janet Curry

 

Due diligence? What a mess for Sun City. Where was the due diligence on the $1.5 million vote on the indoor dog training or “socialization” facility? Sorry if a am treading on this particular thread. I consider it all BOD talk. And I do appreciate all the conversation.

 

I hope that was not a lrp presented at March meeting? I thought it contained 4 recommendations gleaned from the ASU survey. Janet, I too am confused about a “master plan.” Whose terminology is this?