My Bylaw Amendments for the Members Meeting

Thank you, Mr. Emerson, for bringing common sense to these bylaw additions or changes. I, also, support long range planning but business should not come to a standstill while it is being developed.

 

I'm voting "no" with you, Dave.

 

Bless your heart. False narratives. You bought here knowing exactly what you were getting in to, and if you didn't know that's on you.

 

Eileen, this is how she rolls. Get use to it. She says I constantly made death threats which obviously were pulled out of elimination orfice. She also has invisible people she talks about.

 

So, I’ve yet to hear or read what penalties will be imposed, if any, for noncompliance from ADWR. I mention because golf is not just important to
Sun City, but all of Arizona and I can’t believe that the state will allow literally 100’s of golf courses disappear because they can’t afford to comply. I won’t be surprised if this mandate is reversed be it’s ever implemented. Too many dollars involved in tourism.

 

Hello Harry,
Thank you for your observations. I want to clarify that the motion does not pause any ADWR required projects. There are several exceptions to the pause for time to think this through provision. One of the exceptions is expenditures necessary to meet regulatory requirements like ADWR. On the Riverview maintenance facility I understand that the LRP has already come up with solutions that are 1/3 the cost and the need is not immediate. I ask that you carefully reread the motions as they are very carefully drafted so as to assure transparency (video recorded meetings), expert unbiased analysis (urban planner) and member engagement (members get the right to vote on the big stuff.)

Thank you,

John

 

I truly appreciate the open and honest dialogue for and against the motions. In my own words this is the objections I have heard from about a dozen people:

• The members won't vote to spend money to preserve and improve RCSC facilities.
• The master plan process will delay building something my group wants

I can understand the fears and have heard antidotal evidence that there are members like that. All I ask is those who will vote for or against giving members the right to vote on the big stuff is what message we send to members. One way to interpret a no vote is the RCSC leadership wants (takes) your money but does not want your input. And we wonder why our members are apathetic.

 

Here’s where I see a big problem. A special interest group could form a voting bloc and create a coalition to vote for or against an issue that could be considered a “pet project”. The vote would carry, forcing the RCSC to proceed on an unfavorable course. The members are then stuck with a decision they don’t agree with. As long as the apathy continues within the membership the way it is now, I see potential for great abuses within this proposal if accepted. I think building a more cohesive membership is a greater challenge and need.

 

SCG - Is the potential for abuse greater than building dog training facilities? Won't the members at least be aware that a large group is seeking to manipulate the process?

 

They won’t be aware until it’s possibly too late. How would the members know of a special interest group manipulating the vote prior to the election? They would be stuck with a vote approved measure and the associated costs.
This measure could also place needed changes and updates to the centers in jeopardy of being placed on hold or delayed indefinitely due to the need for a vote to approve.

 

Most important question. Who pays for these new costs moving forward?
A new management team member
Printing, mailing and tabulating votes
Recounting costs
Added staff to support this new position
To name just a few. What is the cost estimate to the membership to implement this new policy?

 

Were you aware a plan for Mountainview was presented yesterday at the LRP meeting and the architects are presenting a plan at the board meeting? Were you notified of these?

I will attempt to answer your questions.

1. Members will get the same notice as they do with board motions and the vote is only once a year.
2. Members are not stuck with anything if they vote it down,
3. There is no jeopardy to needed maintenance of the facilities because they are included in the master plan.
4. The urban planner is a consultant with a cost of between $40k and $140k.
5. The master plan is required to have real cost estimates not fake placeholders.

Clearly, SCG you do not trust the members to vote for the betterment of their community. If that is the case, we have much bigger problems than having no plan.

John

 

John, you can not trust the members to vote for the betterment of their community. The members will only vote to promote their own special interest. In a slightly more perfect world, the elected Board of Directors would vote for the betterment of the comminity. In our world, the vote is made by a small number of the population and this same small number would vote on any spending measure with their number expanded by special interest groups.

 

ADWR understands that there are those who would rather pay a penalty than reduce their usage of water. So the penalties I heard were that ADWR will continue to reduce your allotted amount of water.

 

Although I very much like the idea of a Master Plan, I believe that allowing the members to vote on what projects can and cannot be done would be a violation of the Articles of Incorporation that states "The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by a Board of Directors and such Officers as the Board may elect or appoint."

It's difficult enough that many decisions already go thru the Finance and Budget Committee as well as the Long Range Planning Committee, and to add an approval of the Membership would probably guarantee that nothing will ever get done.

 

I've elected to stay removed from the discourse for the most part; simply because it's been really good to see others so involved. The good news is as we approach the annual membership meeting, there is a heightened interest level that fairly well insures a quorum. The bad news is, there is the potential for the divisions to be made worse than they already are. I see no way the board looks at many of these "bylaws" as anything they would be interested in. On the other had, dangling the idea of members voting on the "big stuff" will stimulate some to vote for them (if they even allow it). Tom's point is well taken above, as he has asked often, what are the affairs of the corporation?

I've written often, we had the nearly perfect documents in place; and then they were destroyed. Water over the damn, but they way they were written with quarterly membership meetings and a quorum of 100, where the membership had an instant opportunity to prevent bad decisions being made. The board recognized that, and any efforts for foolish were quickly squashed. And, the board respected the committees and the role they filled. And then both were dismantled.

Now, in an effort to restore the memberships voice, we are faced with motions of "bylaws" where we are trying to claw back our rights. As i read some of them, i see overreach that will handcuff the board. When i say that, i understand the purpose/nature of the effort, but the real question is simply this for me: Will the general membership meeting bring us closer to returning that sense of community that we have lost, or drive a larger wedge?

I recall vividly that first membership meeting when we met the quorum (2021) and how ugly it got. We blew past the 1250 necessary requirements and it all went down hill from there. Doors were locked, lies were told, members refused a vote we were entitled to and then the lost video. Nothing good came from the meeting because the board and management were hell bent on shutting us/it down as much as possible.

Sadly, i see yet again the potential for a similar outcome. If the board allows a vote on some or all of the motions, we may well find ourselves in an ugly place. While the theory/logic of what is being promoted sounds good, the question is really, what is the practical application and what it does long term to the community? We already are caught in a doom loop of being unable to complete the simple task of the Mountain View remodel. Frankly, that is embarrassing.

We cannot afford another three or four years of shuffling about. Sorry, that is illogical to me. MV has to get done; quickly. I was glad to hear Tom T say yesterday's meeting and presentation was good. He's often been critical/outspoken (in a good way) and to see positive remarks tells me there is hope. Beyond that, the Lakeview rebuild is the single most important event for our future and needs to be dealt with with some urgency. I see that as a community building exercise and one we open up for the membership's involvement. I like working within time lines, but if we are forcing all the "big stuff" to a vote, those time lines will far more challenging.

I noted there will be more "bylaw" motions being submitted and so who knows how long the list will be? Not speaking for or against any of them but i do encourage members to attend the annual membership meeting and listen to what is being proposed and the arguments for and against. That is how this process is supposed to work, which is a good thing. The bad thing is, we should never have come to this. Regretfully, we have.

 

Anyone bother to read this week's SC Independent?

 

This is the part that scares me a bit; you will find in the Bylaws Definitions the following:

1. “Business Affairs of the Corporation” is defined as all matters conducted by the Corporation, excluding amendment of Bylaws, that are not in violation of its Corporate Documents or The Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act in effect at the time the matter is conducted.

So it seems to me that there may be a pissing contest between Bylaw amendments that infringe on the "affairs of the corporation" and the definition that says Bylaw amendments are excluded from infringing on the affairs of the corporation!?!?!?

This is what happens when things are done without going thru the proper venting process. If we had a Standing Bylaws Committee that was required to review potential amendments before they come-up for a vote we could avoid the collision that's about to happen!

 

Well said Tom, which is exactly why i suspect the membership meeting will dissolve into a pissing contest and an angry mob. Hopefully i am wrong. I can only speak as a former board member, who if faced with this kind of a motion, i would be hard pressed to want to see it pass.

Here's why: While on the board, when we had the chance to buy the Lakes Club, both Carole and i pushed for the board to open up the dialogue/discussion on whether the members wanted or thought it was a good idea to buy the building. We wanted the input, we never asked for a vote on it. Ultimately the decision would fall on the board (not the GM), but that would have only happened with proper vetting and with the membership being given the information on costs and what we would have used the building for.

The problem with a vote on any given issue is those who live here that do nothing and only are here because it is a cheap place to live, will almost always vote against increases that asks them to pay more. Tragically we created that kind of a community mindset for many.

We know historically of two similar events. The first, the board did a mail ballot on the purchase of Sun Bowl. The vote came with a $2 per person increase per year in the rec fee (from $40 to $42). It passed, but certainly not easily. The second one was far more consequential, with the purchase of 7 golf courses. Members were given no vote, only a promise the members wouldn't subsidize them. I still question whether members being asked/allowed to vote on it if it would have passed...especially given what we know now.

To be clear, members over the years before that, had voted on taking ownership of rec centers when being offered to them by DEVCO. They passed every time, as those living here understood owning the amenities was the best way to insure they would always be under our control.