Petition

A while back i posted a comparison from our documents of the duties of the GM before 2006 and compared them to what they are now. The results were clear as we saw a position where the GM was subservient to the board to one where the GM's position was enhanced 10-fold. Those changes were written by the GM starting around 2009 and approved by a vote of the board members.

With each passing year, she enhanced her role and shrunk theirs. It wasn't until near the end of her term she allowed the board to take the reigns and that too became a disaster as her replacement was more fixated on supporting them than he was about the members. One only has to recall the Sept 2021 board meeting that lasted two minutes with the board racing out the back door, the presence of armed off-duty police officers and the threats to have us arrested for being in our own building. Then add to the manure pile, the sham membership meeting where we reached a quorum, had properly submitted motions on bylaws and were told we had no right to vote on them. It gets better; doors locked the minute the meeting started and the lost video of most of the meeting. No wonder he is long gone.

It's been a rocky reversal. John is right, the current GM is actually doing some really good things; especially when compared to his predecessors. On the other hand, he comes across poorly at times and has done (with or without board knowledge or approval?) some really dumb stuff. Can he learn? Will he learn? Will the board force him to become a better version of himself?

The last question is the one most intriguing to me. I watched in stunned amazement from 2012-2014 as my co-board members gave away their authority/obligations of oversight. Then over the ensuing years, it grew worse. Water over the damn at this point, other than for informational purposes only. Non profit organizations with boards' elected for oversight invariably get caught up in this struggle, as they wrestle for control or freely give it away. It's not new and in fact is almost more normal (the chaos) than a perfectly functioning organization.

Tom's remark above is the exact reason why: Leaving one's personal agenda at the door is nearly impossible. Often times our personal agenda is grounded in the belief of whatever we are in support of is of value, most important. Which is exactly why the decision made in 2006 was so shortsighted for the community at large. With the safeguards and the collection of new ideas that came from committees gone, we lost that balance of power that had made Sun City so unique. In retrospect, it was simply a bad decision.

Control was contained in the GM and a couple of the top officers in the organization. It was never intended to be that way, but it is what we became. Now, moving away from a hierarchy of top down leadership is never easy and seldom goes well. Those serving feel they know more (they usually do, which is why we clamor for transparency), while the GM appears to believe he/she knows what's best for us. I would argue our past three GM's have all felt they knew better, which is exactly how and why we got to the point we are at.

That's why the role of the general manager is so difficult to fill. The 2006 hired GM had great people skills, incorporated some fun and aspects to our community and most of the membership loved her, as did many of her employees. In the end, thinking she new better than the community at large, she achieved her goals by moving away from the membership and keeping us a cheap place to live. We saw how that worked out didn't we.

Her replacement was short-lived, for a lot of reasons, none worth repeating. The new guy has shown some potential and also has shown his weaknesses. I'm always a fan of those who are willing to learn from their mistakes and missteps. We all make them, so while i get the reasoning behind the petition, i am not a fan of it. God love the effort to collect proxies as it would be great to have a quorum at the Membership meeting. It would be even better if there were bylaw changes being properly submitted that would have to be voted on. That's where the power of the membership is better placed/focused.

As always, just one man's opinion.

 

I think you touched on it Bill. The new GM doesn't bring good people skills to the table. He sits there and deflects, you can actually see it.
I am not sure if I would dismiss him at this time. I think he did some good things last year. I like others saw a lot of repair-maintenance happening on his watch. I am happy with seeing that he put things in action here in terms of repair and maintenance. I am more concerned about what he is not saying, more than what he says. I think he would like to run the place with all of his own ideas instead of doing the back and forth it takes to come to a consensus. Not sure how good he is on consensus with members, and this is hurting him and us. I am still willing to let the man know, but give him a little more time to see if he can develop some of these skills. I think members should be heard more than ever at this critical time before we build any more facilities. Because most members won't actually come to meetings, I think we should send out a questionaire either to every home, or tell membership that on these days you can come to your nearby Rec center and vote for things you would like to see in Sun City. I know ASU did that, but like everything else, it went no place. I am talking about a community generated vote on things done by us for us before we start tearing down or building. I think this is the only way we can validate what is most important to the community as it stands today. All ideas are welcome.

 

Eileen, thank you for your sound reasoning. If the current GM has demonstrated an ability to make sound decisions within the scope of the outlined duties, I don’t understand the need to terminate him. The board is responsible for the direction of work for the general manager. How were his duties and focus laid out? Did the board provide guidance and an appropriate level of direction and expectations to be met? If he has the business acumen to be effective in his job, he can be taught, if willing, the people skills needed to interact with members. Hiring anyone new requires another learning curve and to time allow the new person to acclimate to the needs of the business, working within a nonprofit organization, and establish themselves as capable.
In response to having meetings at the rec center, how about meetings at several rec centers simultaneously on a weekend? So many members still work and cannot attend meetings during the week. The multiple meetings at several centers can be small events inviting people to come and meet with RCSC officials to discuss and share ideas about their community and what they see as important issues moving forward. Multiple locations during an available time may get a greater number of people to attend. The one center with a room full of tables seems so impersonal for the goal of outreach. Again trying to meet the members at their time in their space and be open to listening and sharing information and ideas.

 

Yes, excellent idea.