Helping Members Understand...

As we approach the annual membership meeting on March 11, there is clearly some lack of clarity on our history and how we got here. To be sure, it's not a straight-line path or one that is objectively supportive of whatever side of the argument you come down on.

We'll go back to the beginning and answer the questions some of you may have. There's no sense of right or wrong, just the facts on how and what happened. The first incident of membership voting on acceptance and ownership of our amenities starts the end of 1960. The members voted to accept the gift from DEVCO of Community Center (we know it as Oakmont).

The second center, Town Hall (Fairway) which opened in 1961 took longer. Ownership was deeded to the members in 1965 from DEVCO, again by a vote of the membership. There was some concern about the cost to run it, but it eventually was worked out.

Every center after that fell in line and was quickly transferred to the members. Town Hall South (Mountain View) created a consolidated set of the three centers (1967). In 1968 they became the Sun City Community Association where the individual organizations were merged into one.

When DEVCO crossed north of Grand Ave, the Sun City Community Association had already agreed to ownership of the centers that would be opening; Lakeview, Sundial, Bell and ultimately Marinette. Part of the enticement for those south of Grand to merge was knowing they would be able to use the newer and bigger facilities as Sun City grew.

It was in 1972 when the Sun City Community Association became the Rec Centers of Sun City (RCSC) and also at that point where several of the existing centers names were changed. In part, some of those names came from member recommendations.

The biggest challenge/problem of transfer came from the golf courses. DEVCO had no interest in owning them once the community was developed and they had moved on. They had made any number of offers to entice the RCSC to become the owners. It wasn't until 1977 when a deal was finally done. Between the threat of DEVCO selling the courses to private corporations in conjunction with cash subsidies, all the equipment and a smoking hot deal of $10 saw them become member owned amenities.

We should note, there was no vote by the membership. There was no reason to, the RCSC had no obligation to take a vote. In fact, had members been asked, who knows the outcome? The most compelling reason for members support was the board president Myron Waggoner guaranteeing the courses would be "revenue neutral."

The next incident was 100% different. In 1981, with DEVCO deep into the Sun City West development, their goal was to unload the Sun Bowl. Repeated offers were made and it wasn't until the 4th one where the RCSC put the question before the membership to decide.

I've noted before, 1981 was easily the most tumultuous time in our history. The RCSC board was split between those wanting to move forward and those wanting Sun City to maintain the status quo. After a nasty recall election in the summer of 1981 (where the officers stayed in place with a mail ballot), the board was interested in rebuilding the divisive relationship that existed in the community.

Rather than just accepting the Sun Bowl from DEVCO, they created a mail ballot that was sent to every member. The offer was to take the Sun Bowl on a 3 year trial with a $2 per member per year increase in rec fees (from $40 to $42 per person). 27,000 ballots were returned; 15,000 plus for, 9,000 plus against and 2,000 plus with no for or against (don't ask, i have no idea).

There were other issues; smoking on RCSC properties and incorporation that required members voting, so there is certainly some history to look at. The bigger piece of the puzzle can be found in 1999 when the Preservation and Improvement Fee (PIF) was passed. And, what has happened once we had some money in the bank for projects.

We'll take a look at that later in the week.

 

Hi Bill,
I really enjoyed reading your knowledgeable historical on SC. I want to ask you, do you think it was a mistake that Del Webb Corporation left the running of SC? I would like to know your thoughts on this.
They would of eventually have left in any case as communities get built and established today, I am thinking of Sterling Grove out in far west Surprise.
Thank you. Eileen

 

Not familiar with Sterling Grove Eileen, but Sun City became what it did by virtue of those living here. The company (DEVCO) was convinced we would eventually become a city, so much so, there are maps at the museum with a site designated, "future city hall." Oops, never quite got there as incorporation was a non-starter. Sun City West followed a similar pattern, however their documents bundled their CC&R's into their deed restrictions which placed the governance in the hands of the Rec Centers of Sun City West, while ours remained with the freestanding Home Owners Association (SCHOA). Most of the senior communities were built along those lines and many of them were built as part of a city (like The Grand).

Back to our story, a dear friend of mine, Ben Roloff, had just moved to Sun City in 1997. He immediately got involved with an RCSC committee that was looking closely at future needs (akin to what the long range planning committee is today). While he was a special education teacher in real life, he was also a county commissioner in WI for 22 years. He had a great working knowledge of parks and recreation funding and he was a natural fit for that role.

In one of his first meetings, the committee was concerned with aging RCSC properties and not having the funding for replacing or repairing. As Ben liked to do, he quickly stated they had the same problem in his county and they adopted an "impact fee at the point of sale." One of the old timers looked at him and said, "that will never fly here kid."

Two years later, the Preservation and Improvement Fee (or is it fund?) was passed. I've argued it was the single best action ever taken by an RCSC board of directors. The origins of its creation is founded in the wording from our Articles of Incorporation, and i have argued the wording below was the supporting langue to give that gave the board the leeway to spend money on projects without a vote of the membership.

You be the judge:
Article X
The highest amount of indebtedness or liability, direct or contingent, to which the Corporation may at any time subject itself shall be limited to $750,000 or any greater amount which may be authorized by three-fourths (3/4) of the Members present at a duly called and noticed meeting of the membership, or in such amounts as may be authorized by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The creation of PIF gave the RCSC board the ability to spend money greater than $750,000 without a vote of the membership if they had the cash in hand. If they had the money in the bank, there was no indebtedness. To be clear, there were other safeguards in place along with a truly representative committee structure the board listened to and valued their input.

Virtually all of those safeguards were removed along with the value of committee work being devalued. It's one of the reasons so many of the actions by the board and general manager has raised the ire of so many of late. The oversight we were built around went away and decisions were often short-sighted or fueled by a GM's vision or a board's own personal agenda.

Looking back before 2006, the RCSC board remodeled the Bell center in short order. With roughly six months of planning and a year's closure (give or take) it was beautifully done and the members who groused about it being closed quickly fell in love with the new look (2004/2005). Better yet, at the same time, the RCSC board was working with the Long Range Planning Committee on the Fairway renovation.

This one was to be the granddaddy of them all with a projected 18 million dollar/5 year build-out project on the books. The center was to be leveled and because the footprint was so small, they needed to build up, adding a second story with elevators. The board met with every club and promised they would not lose their space and many got increased square footage.

It was the perfect example of a plan executed well and best of all, it came in approximately 2 million dollars under budget. There were a myriad of problems from county parking restrictions to water retention ponds but every step of the way they stayed on task. The result was another beautifully done renovation the members loved.

Both projects started and ended with membership involvement. Both projects had their skeptics and their critics. In the end, those six years 2004-2010 resulted in moving quickly and efficiently to meet the needs of the members while still providing the service expectations of the membership and neither project included a vote from the membership. I suspect mostly because everything they did was communicated at levels were those who didn't like what was happening had ample opportunities to voice their concerns. At the same time, those liking what was happening were even more vocal.

As the years passed and the general manager took more control and boards allowed her freedom with little oversight, members drifted away. I've argued they were pushed away on purpose, but it matters not, because we are where we are today. Had we never drifted following the Fairway renovation. we would either have finished the Mountain View renovation many years ago, or better yet, purchased the Lakes Club.

Most of the above is simply my take on how we got to this point in time where we are trapped in a setting where we want to vote on the big stuff. I'm not arguing it one way or the other, because i believe the membership should have a voice. My fears are we have attracted so many people who just moved here because we were a cheap place to live. And, when push comes to shove, and the money is on the line...cheap will win the order of the day.

If that happens, Sun City will not stay relevant.

 

My concern is with relying on members to vote in order to update, maintain or create facilities is the devil in the details.
Most folks would be happy if they were sure there would be no impact on them. Unfortunately, as time passes, costs are rising, and there will be a need for someone to pay for the cost. This doesn’t even include any of the community events we used to attend and enjoy.
I still feel in order to get members to want to be involved, the RCSC needs to engage them in community activities. There needs to be a buy in to the membership that shows they are valued and welcome.
If relying on the members to provide support for any kind of a vote in order to proceed with any needed updates or changes, I would fear nothing more gets done. The current level of member engagement is lackluster at best, and special interest groups could be the sole beneficiaries of their pet projects.
Until such time the members feel valued again for their contributions to the community, I greatly fear placing control in the hands of the members. I say this knowing the members are also investors in great numbers and keeping their bottom line costs low could be a detriment to the community as a whole. RCSC has not done anything to improve member involvement or offer any incentives for the members to participate in their community. We used to, at one time. I feel the members are drifting away from their community as they are not being engaged in meaningful ways to keep them involved. No more community social events to thank them for their membership has happened for some time. I feel the loss of these events has further distanced the membership from feeling they are a valued part of the RCSC. I feel we need to rebuild the sense of belonging to a community where members are valued.

 

No disrespect intended, but maybe if someone would not tell people no one gives a shit about them when they are applying for foundation help, and others did not spread false rumors that someone else is mentally ill RCSC might stand a chance. I won't even go into the person who can't type without using disgusting language. It's that type of rhetoric that turns into neighborhood block party talk that carries to the golf course and the bowling alley etc.

Add crime, that believe it or not people are talking about it, along with the board making so many bad judgements in 2024, a board member saying it's not their responsibility to make members happy...at a public meeting and on you tube, what else would you expect?

Just my opinion.

 

You make me laugh. You actually would have the audacity to say this entire community opinion is based upon what posters say on this social media platform? If the posts from Talk Of Sun City are sole reason for the decline in community popularity, then I would say that your comments and posts are a prime reason. You are quite intelligent and it’s a shame that instead of seeking out positive issues that bolster the discussion amongst users, there is always some negative comments you need to insert. I feel you could add so much more to the discussion than tearing down the comments of others and denigrating the community you live in. No disrespect intended. And yes, this is just my opinion.

 

Happy to make you laugh. It's not just TOSC. It's ND and other platforms. The top reason would be word of mouth though. Another reason is when I ask a question re the indoor dog facility pointing out bowlers have to pay not one person will answer. It's like the GM saying no comment. I don't know if you don't get out, don't talk to people or what. Long before I got on this site a guy bought in SCW based on what he read here and in The Independent. I could cite other instances but won't. I do know if all you people keep doing what you are doing and ignoring what homeowners want the negative posts in the Independent will continue and that will not bode well for Sun City.

As far as denigrating the community I live in it is my right to point out things that I feel are not good for the community, like the PAC. You don't like the dog facility however your reason makes no sense. You base it on the fact that it should be for all dog owners and they should not have to join BFDC. That being said bowling should be free as well. No club should charge a fee.

I felt so sorry for the Putnam's. They bought prime property on the lake and then got blindsided with PAC placement. Another couple who recently purchased has a different issue. Maybe these folks are working behind the scenes to try to get things changed too.

 

I don't understand your reasoning as to posting platforms. I post here, on TOSC. nowhere else. If it's due to word of mouth, then what kind of spin are you putting on what is being said to others? Is it a fair and objective assessment of events or dripping with disdain and loathing for the community?
Bowling is not a club, and by the way, is revenue generating. Bowling incurs significant costs to remain open and available for member use. Lane maintenance alone is quite costly due to wanting to keep the integrity of the bowling lanes themselves. AMF equipment is not cheap to maintain and almost impossible to replace. Are you willing to subsidize bowling in your annual assessment fee? There has been no site selected nor has a PAC been approved. How do you think it looks to others when you post misleading statements and non-truths? Are you maliciously trying to incite fear among the membership by the posts you make? If you were trying to proactively change things in a positive vein, then you could garner support. Rather, as I read the posts, they are intentionally misleading and incite anger and fear. Who does that benefit?

 

Nextdoor has a lot of info. Just tonight, the email, members don't matter. Let me just say from the day I joined here Bill shot me a welcome message. I did not have any interaction with him for many years. Talk about holding a grudge. Then the Bill followers got on the band wagon. Just because I disagreed on some things. Then your lovely post to me. By that time I was done. I inked out your name and showed a couple of folks what our board members like to say along with some from Dave. Then they started watching the meetings and reading The Independent. All because Bill did not like me or my political views from 2016. 9 years ago! Charming!

I offered to help here several times but was blown off, and yes every single thread from the day I joined is saved and cannot be altered. Oh yeah, I forgot Bill Doxed me too. Don't like what I have to say? Too damn bad.

#MDM

 

Bill,
I feel your fears are completely justified and that this community needs action and quickly. It’s one thing to recognize the importance of the people in the community and something else to stand up and demand action for the community and its members. My husband has joked that I am probably going to say or do something that will make others think and take notice. Little does he know how right he is.
I am crafting a strategy for a plan of action for the members to move forward. A plan to motivate the members to want to participate in their community again. The RCSC needs to step up and be responsible to the members, as they are the corporation. I want to see the members have activities to attend, hosted by the RCSC. I want the RCSC to provide the members with the best possible opportunity to participate with other members and engage and enjoy their community. I demand the RCSC honor the fact that the members are the corporation and that is who they are beholding to. It’s long overdue that the members prevail in all aspects of the RCSC business process and be resolute to the needs of the members within the community. Yes, the RCSC has a duty to maintain the facilities up to a certain standard. Yes, the affairs of the corporation are the directive for the RCSC, but it is the members who are the corporation, like it or not. Looks like I just volunteered to speak at the members meeting on behalf of the members. I will be the one with the bum ankle, but my voice still carries, bad ankle or not.

 

Carol,

Thanks for your inspiring words. As we get closer to the meeting, I hope we all understand it is OK to be passionate about the community we call home and at the same time strike a civil and conciliatory tone. It is not an "us" against "them" thing regardless of what transpires in the next few days. This meeting and the actions of members between now and then will demonstrate whether we can come together to do the possible.

John

 

As I have read these posts about our community and the actions the board has taken, with no regard for the members, I have come to my defining decision. Going to the Annual Members Meeting is going to be a huge calamity for those attending. I know I said I would speak, but now, I have no interest in attending. It’s clear to me that there were alternatives available for the RCSC to consider and pursue, and they chose not to. In doing so, this board has created a hostile environment in which members are being asked to attend. There will be a lot of people who are going to want to be heard, and I feel the meeting will degenerate into a mob mentality. Since the whole meeting was supposed to be a vote on amendments and they were suspended, the anger will be palpable.
I know there is a sentiment that some attendees are going to ask the members for calm and reasonable behavior. With that many upset people in attendance, most of whom feel disenfranchised by the actions taken by the RCSC, I feel this meeting is not something I want to attend. I had looked forward to speaking on behalf of the membership, but the crowd at the meeting is probably not going to be willing to listen beyond their own dissatisfaction with the board and its decision.
The action taken by the RCSC is pathetic and whatever chance there was to help support a rebuilding of community spirit has been missed. The slog of rebuilding the trust of the community is going to be a long arduous process and it’s going to take much more time to accomplish anything meaningful for the future. I am not saying it cannot be done, but the whole picture is now muddied with the members being the losers. I don’t buy the tagline that I need to attend to make a difference. We, as members, are not valued or respected by the RCSC, so how can being in attendance affect a positive outcome in the members favor?

 

Carile I'm not sure there are going to be that many attendees. Not one person on my block is attending and the scuttlebutt on Nextdoor after the email was sent out about no voting many said they were not attending. None of the golfers I know are going. There was a post with almost 100 responses of people saying why bother now.

 

Hello, I am not sure I now want to go because of the possible vitriol of the current situation. Without a clear, calm and decisive organized plan of action, I too am afraid this will be not a pleasant positive experience. I am unsure just what changes are being presented. I have been following for months, I understand what John Fast and Ms. Totten are doing but I am unsure of where members are heading with all the many proposals. You know many elderly folks in here may find a lot of this bad for their health. I mean that. I am very concerned about the tone of the meeting. I want to attend but I don't want it to turn into a slug-fest.

 

I am not sure if it has been emphasized enough what the amendments are asking for. The amendments filed by Jean clarify language of existing amendments as to make them easier to understand.
There is a request for a standing committee. Pretty straightforward and easy to understand. The amendment of concern for me is the introduction of member voting. Besides putting a lot of power outside the boards scope, I think the members should know more of what Title 33 of the Arizona Revised Statutes says and does. The proposed amendment places the RCSC squarely on the doorstep to losing Title 10 Corporate Governance and into the fray of Title 33, and the planned communities realm.
Title 33 governs a lot more of the power of the members, via legislation versus corporate self governance. Regulations in regards to the flying of flags, the height of flagpoles, and the type of flags are legislated. Political signs are limited to the number one can have as well as how early these signs can be placed on one’s property. Limits as to when they are to be removed as well.
The governing body of the community is also changed. Self governance and following the corporate documents would go by the wayside to performing under Arizona Revised Statutes. Meetings of the board are changed, how meetings are conducted as well as member information dissemination is legislated, not community controlled. Sun City would lose its autonomy over its own affairs to following prescribed procedures as defined in Title 33.
I am sure there will be those who say the proposed changes are not that severe. I say they are. Sun City may need some assistance in getting its community spirit back, but it’s our responsibility to make sure we keep our community as an autonomous community to continue to grow and thrive. I don’t want my life legislated, I want the community to come together and build a new consensus on moving forward.
I understand the need for the board to place this proposal on hold for review as the implications for the effect on our community is huge. The additional costs of administration of the rules are going to raise costs.
I know having a vote on the proposed changes was planned by those who submitted the proposed changes. Now we have nothing to vote on. It would be ideal if the proposal for member voting for community expenditures was withdrawn. The other options in the proposal have already been approved by the board. If I wanted to live like Sun City West, I would move there.
Now, there’s a filed lawsuit against the RCSC to demand a vote. I can’t begin to express my feelings of concern about this action. Be careful what you ask for, as the RCSC can cancel the meeting and allow litigation to proceed without a Member Meeting. All within the framework of the needs of the corporation.
The RCSC made a big decision when it withdrew all of the amendments for consideration, and now the community and the members are going to be in the lurch. Even with a quorum, there is nothing to vote on and I suspect the tone of the meeting will eventually have the board members walk away. What kind of meeting is that? In my opinion

 

Seriously everyone, all 6 to 10 on this site, are experts on everything. What don't you people understand about what SC has been doing isn't working? People who live here think it's a joke, and if you took the time to read and research you would get that. But you don't. It's just laughable at this point.

 

Gee Josie, are we feeling a touch inadequate because you can’t run with the big dogs and are relegated to peeing on the porch with puppies?

Carole has a paralegal degree from USC, sadly she has not written any articles for Law Reviews.
John Fast has a JD from University of Toledo and sadly an MBA from same. Don’t know if he has written any scholarly articles.
As you are aware I have a Bachelor of Arts degree from Southern Illinois University. My attempts at scholarly articles were required papers written for my various classes from late Sophomore through Senior year. Rather than go to graduate school, I was accepted at Southern, I joined VISTA and spent four years learning law. I was then hired by the premier surety bond company as a trainee and spent the next thirty years learning as much as I could ascending to the right hand man for the branch manager because of my seniority and my knowledge of the business and both the Chicago market. When I retired I told the long retired VP who hired me that what I don’t know would fill an encyclopedia. He told that attitude is why I did so well. Thanks Mr C.

Your degree is from where, I forgot you don’t have a degree but you were a secretary. I had great respect for the secretaries I worked with as well as the clerical because I knew they were the backbone of our branch and they made we underwriters look good. Thank you Shawna, Geri, Linda and Lisa for allowing me to receive the first word processor because my handwriting was so bad and threatening to quit if Mr.C didn’t send me home because I was so ill I barely functioned. Hope you enjoyed the wine at Christmas and no, the Super Bowl pool was not fixed.

 

Whatever happened to "To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the Members of the Corporation,...?"

Seems like it should read, "To do anything and everything necessary to deter the interest of the Members of the Corporation."

 

You are a funny guy Tom. You amuse me.

 

Thanks Dave! I'm glad you think what the RCSC is doing is amusing.