Delay Requested

I wanted to let folks know that I emailed the board about the upcoming membership meeting. No one will probably listen, but I wanted to offer transparency to everyone who reads this site.
In my request, I asked the board to postpone the meeting for two weeks. This would allow the attorney time to review the submitted amendments and render an opinion. Before the scheduled membership meetings, post the reviewed amendments so members can review them. Then at the membership meeting voting could occur and the business portion of the meeting could be conducted.
In changing the date, it would be with the distinct understanding that existing proxies would be honored despite the date change.
I thought this might be a credible solution to the current dilemma.
No, I did not consult anyone else on this action. Besides, no one on the board listens to me anyway. If my actions offend anyone, I am sorry, but I thought it seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

Thank you, Carole!
Will the RCSC suggested review process be possibly completed in two weeks?

“Because of these concerns, the Board requested an opinion from our legal counsel. The recommended opinion was to pull all motions and refer them for review and possible revision.

Based on opinion from our legal counsel and feedback from our community, the Board will form an ad hoc Bylaws review committee composed of Directors and RCSC members. This committee will review the current Bylaws, including all submitted member motions.

The Board is accepting applications from members who wish to be part of this committee. Contact the Corporate Office with a brief resume.”

Source: RCSC e-mail blast 2.25.2025

 

Based upon the existing submissions, and the ability to put the nose to the grindstone, in my estimation, yes. There is no need to drag this process out for weeks. I am really tired of the dragging of feet that seems to occur within the RCSC process. This is our governing body, and I believe it needs to work more than 3 hours a week. The membership meeting is important. So get busy, do your due diligence and get on the ball. The attorney is a paid consultant, he earns a comfortable salary from the RCSC, so, Heiting can step it up as well.

 

Just wondering when that will happen because the decision to establish a special, or any, commitee must be done at a meeting of the board?

So I would assume they could call an Executive Session because it does pertain to a personnel issue if they are going to appoint Members to the committee, or else a Special Session, or wait until the end of March at the regular meeting of the board.

 

My concern is the amount of time being spent on the review. I was just logging back in to clarify my earlier comment so now I hopefully answer and clarify at the same time.
There were some amendments submitted that were fine as written. They didn’t need to be pulled off the table, in my opinion. The ones causing concern then become the focus. With the number of amendments needing attorney opinions reduced, the timeline for review is reduced.
Putting together a committee for review may be redundant. If the attorney deems an amendment not suitable for consideration, then it will not need a review. How many amendments do you think are needing to be considered in the review process? I feel there will be one removed completely from consideration because it changes the structure of the RCSC governing process enough that it could change us to a Title 33 community. My opinion. There is one more, I think, that may need discussion. Again, by the time the attorney gets done, the language may have changed and that should go back to the original creator. I understand that desire to create an ad-hoc committee, let them have their time, then make it appear that the community had input. But this adds more delays.
The reality is the attorney pulled all of the amendments. There wasn’t a need to pull them all. Why is it necessary to get bogged down in a lengthy process again? My opinion.
So as I view the possible process that can be done, it can meet an aggressive timetable. Again, my opinion

 

It is my impression that our Directors on the RCSC Board, our governing body, work MUCH MORE than three hours a week. It turns into a full time job for some of them.

 

Tom, I hope you are on the ad hoc bylaws committee this time as you know the most of any Member that I know of. You were snubbed the first time around. Your insight would have been so helpful to the work of the committee. Btw, I am not applying for either the bylaws or master plan committees. I think I have found my place on the Foundation Board and want to put my time and energies into helping there.

 

Janet,
I hope the directors have started to honor their commitment to the community and give it the time and attention it needs.
There has been times when directors showed up for as little as 3 hours a week and felt that was adequate.

 

I think the bylaws committee needs to be a standing committee for the service of the RCSC and the members. Having the regular review of the bylaws as well as being the single point of contact is an excellent idea and needs to be incorporated as soon as possible.

 

I concur with Janet you are the most knowledgeable person with respect to the corporate documents and Roberts Rules. You have my vote.

 

I agree, Carole, the bylaws committee should be a standing committee.

 

Yesterday i was going to post all of the motions proposed by members for the annual membership meeting. It was entitled, "You Be The Judge." I went to post it after cutting and pasting and when i did, i got the error message; "must be less than 10,000 characters." So, i cut and pasted it in half, imagine my surprise when the error message read yet again; "must be less than 10,000 characters."

Dang, i knew there was a ton of language/bylaws proposed, but i had no idea it was as excessive as it was. I've always come from the principle of keeping it simply stupid (KISS), but clearly the submissions were over the top. No excuse for not selecting those that made sense and didn't inhibit the board's ability to function; the challenge then would have been why his and not mine?

It would seem to me common sense to go back and sort through the myriad of motions and find a number of them that are relevant and make sense to present for the members consideration. But, what the heck do i know eh?

 

The fastest way to disenfranchise members will be to spend hours at a board meeting reading hours worth of motions. A serious vetting process should be done prior to presentation to the members, but once again the can is getting kicked down the road. This group is the meeting isn’t, least productive organization I’ve ever been a part of.

 

Larry,
It would be nice to present a copy of the motions to each attendee as they register. This would be the best way to also incorporate the voting process by announcing the vote is being called on motion number? and proceed. The reading of all of wording as written means the meeting will never end. I know there will be discussions about each motion, both for and against. The more we can curtail the time spent on process and more on the subject of the meeting, the better chance we have of conducting the business at hand.

 

I don’t believe very many people are willing to spend hours listening to all the motions. Has to be a better way to do it

 

The annual membership meeting was doomed the minute the motions started pouring in. The breath and depth of them was stunning to try and read. Imagine printing them out for 500 plus attendees, reading them in total and allowing for floor debate/discussion, before taking the vote. We would have been there for days. Like i said in another thread; we set ourselves up to fail.

On the other side of the table, someone dropped the ball; BADLY. I would love to know who was foolish enough to shit-can the whole lot of them? The board, the GM, the attorney? Whomever it was need stand up, step up and take ownership of being arrogantly naive enough to think the membership wouldn't push back. Seriously. this board and management team continues to shoot themselves in the head and wondering why they are bleeding to death? Guys...self-inflicted wounds.

Was there an answer? Of course: Sort through the motions, find the ones that should have been voted on, refer the ones to the board for study that impacted the "affairs of the corporation," and the ones that were language/verbiage suggestions refer back to the bylaws committee they would quickly create and inviting those interested to be a part of the process.

In conjunction, before sending the blanket sorry we dumped them all for study email, reach out to the 10 members who submitted them explain what they are doing and why. This is simply a common courtesy extended to members who took the time and energy to draft their ideas to put before the membership. The RCSC really needs to do a better job in how they interact with the membership. This isn't a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, we've long been telling them that.

It is interesting to note. some years back (2016, 2017?) the board president sent a letter to the Independent that was also included in the SunViews where he told us all the RCSC doesn't really need an annual membership meeting. It was mind-numbing to read at the point of release, but it fairly well explained the mindset that had become boilerplate in how they viewed the membership (maybe eyesopen can find it in the SunViews and post it, she's a dynamite researcher).

We saw it up close and personal in 2021 when we blew past the quorum of 1250 and the panic set in with lies from the attorney and board and absolutely pathetic actions from the GM when he locked doors and then "lost the damning video." I had hoped through all of that we had gotten better, the decision to not allow any motions tells me a wholly different story.

As my best friend and mentor, Ben Roloff often said, "we can do better."

 

Back in 2021 when the BOD did the exact same thing to the over 1,250 Members present, our champion, Ben Roloff, stood up and conducted a straw poll on the 5 motions that were made that meeting. We need a Ben Roloff for the meeting on Tuesday, March 11th.

 

Ben is gone and the five motions we presented were clear and precise. It made it easy for Ben to do that because there wasn't volumes of text to digest and debate, just common sense motions. It took some time, but most of them have been adopted.

 

No can do! I suspect there may be a parliamentarian at the meeting.

Straw Polls not allowed, but there are ways around it:

45:72 Straw Polls Not in Order. A motion to take an informal straw poll to “test the water” is not in order because it neither adopts nor rejects a measure and hence is meaningless and dilatory. If the assembly wishes to discuss and take a vote on a matter without the vote constituting final action by the assembly, it may instead vote to go into a committee of the whole or a quasi committee of the whole ( 52). Under these procedures, the assembly considers the matter as would a committee, and its vote while in committee of the whole (or quasi committee of the whole) serves only as a recommendation to the assembly, which the assembly is free to reject just as would be the case with regard to the report of any ordinary committee

 

“ (maybe eyesopen can find it in the SunViews and post it, she's a dynamite researcher).” BP

Went to the RCSC Press and Publications webpage:
SunViews and UPDATE archive editions available:
2011 - 2015, then nothing until 2024!!
2016 - 2023 are excluded, WHY?

https://suncityaz.org/rcsc/presscommunications/