Member Engagement - Who's job is it?

If you find yourself without an answer to the above question, I suspect you are not alone. Even though I tend to be a vocal advocate for members to be involved in the "big stuff" and I try to be a positive example, I don't think it is my "job" to actively seek out ways for members to engage in the decision-making process. I have no authority to do that. Bill P has pointed out that our sister community SCW has a torch program to help new members understand the governance process. Does that engage members to want to be involved? Not sure.

I ask the question as a way to find out what you think? What say you?

 

John,
The TORCH program is a program designed for the residents of SCW to learn more about their community through the hands on experience of classes that incorporate interactive learning and education courses. These are instructor led courses that are offered to the members of SCW. Those who attend say they completely understand how their community works as well as ways to stay engaged and support their community. When I researched what it would involve to bring a similar offering here, the first thing I recognized was commitment. The program requires the participation of the governing board of the community to want to see such a program succeed. It’s through the commitment to those who attend that they will complete the training program and participate in the community development. One more reason the governing board of SCW are all graduates of the program.
Yes, I see the real potential for expansion of such a program here in Sun City. Before it can get off the ground though, it will need a structured program with appropriate curriculum, and a commitment from the RCSC to stay the course.

 

I wasn't sure where to post this news, but this thread is perfect. We know the TORCH program has been alive and well in Sun City West for 15 plus years. We know they graduate almost 100 people per year who understand and appreciate the concept of self-governance. We know those who go through the program are well grounded in the communities principles and values.

We also know they just had their election for 4 open board positions the end of March. We also know they have 18,000 rooftops compared to our 27,oo0 rooftops, making us a third larger population wise. So, with all of the things we know, here's one you don't know, but should: "The Rec Centers had a record 10 candidates in this election. A total of 6,693 members cast ballots, for a 26.9 percent turnout."

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

 

Bill,

It is my understanding SCW allows all member owners to run for the Board whereas Sun City does not allow snowbirds to run (+/-35% of population). I think most would agree they have a much more professional approach to governance than we do, and their board does not appear as afraid of their members as our board does. Unfortunately, neither of those observations help answer the question of whether the Board or Management has any responsibility for member engagement. Clearly there is a lack of accountability in that regard.

John

 

Agreed John and it is interesting to note Sun City West elected to operate under Title 33 rather than Title 10. There was a fascinating struggle circa 1998-2000 where a community action group, SWOOG, formed and rather than getting into a lengthy and expensive court battle, they just agreed to follow Title 33 which features a much more transparent and open style of governance.

We decided to fight it, and hence, we are where we are and they are where they are.

 

I believe engaging the membership starts with the RCSC meeting the members in their local community. There are numerous recreation centers here, yet the expectation is the members come to the RCSC meetings for engagement. What if there were director/member outreach meetings once a month at one of the various rec centers? Timed to last no longer than an hour and affording the opportunity to meet at least one or two members of the board and chat. This would be an excellent way to do outreach on a personal level and encourage member participation. If a specific topic were selected, then keep the discussion on topic. I always thought the expectation that members had to come to us to talk was always against my views of what being a director for the community was.

 

John, It's everyone's responsibility!

 

Janet, I agree with you. Whenever I meet a newbie I go out of my way to make sure they know what is available and they are always amazed. I like Caroles suggestion as well. But for some reason it is not happening.

 

Hi Carole,
I really like your idea on this here. It would be less intimidating to be able to talk privately to some of these directors, eye to eye.
I've written to several over the years, but like this idea of open availability to have a private conversation.
This would help a lot! Great suggestion.

 

I have always considered the board members to be the representatives of the community on behalf of the RCSC. That’s how Bill and I worked while on the board. We made every effort to be out in front with the members and remember who we were truly representing.
Asking board members to go out and be in the community with the members may make some rather nervous and I understand why. Not all people are willing to have civil discussions and come become terse with the board members. For this reason, it would be advisable for at least two members be together to offer support to the fellow board member and the community who took the time to participate.
Most people are very happy to see their governing committee members present and are very kind and supportive of those serving.

 

Yes, I like that, good ideas, Carole.

 

So, the question is about who is responsible for member engagement. My question back is what kind of engagement are you seeking? Once there are parameters set for what type of engagement that is being sought, then from there, a plan can be formed to meet the need.
Is more active participation the goal? Is there definition as to what amount of engagement is desired? Is this a goal to reach for and how will the outcome be determined?
No, I’m not trying to be contrary, but am trying to reign in a the topic of member engagement. Wide spectrum of potential direction in regards to what type of engagement is being sought. Would more hits to the website be considered an accomplishment for outreach? Sorry, but I think there’s a need to decide what kind of engagement is desired then set the goal for an outcome. I see so many ways to increase the involvement of the community, just needs the opportunity to grow the idea and create the right venue for execution.

 

Carole, IMHO yes to all of your questions. I would start with a short survey to establish a baseline for member satisfaction and member engagement. No more than 20 questions. Just brainstorming here but once that survey data is compiled and analyzed generate a list of ideas to increase the quantity and quality of member engagements with RCSC facilities, people and programs. Rank those ideas from high to low based on likely impact and cost. Try a few high potential ideas (Beta test) and see if it moves the needle. If it doesn't find out why. Adjust and refine until you have moved the needle significantly (i.e. increased good positive member involvement)

 

It will be interesting to see if (and when) the new and improved RCSC website comes out if there are any interactive capabilities with it? The fear of two-way communication has long held organizations back from adopting the dynamic and flexible potential that exits when embracing change. I would argue we've always played it safe and clung to static sites where we tell people what we want them to hear.

That doesn't make us unique; most organizations prefer the status quo, whether working well or not. I can tell you the stories of the efforts we made back in make working years that changed how members looked and felt about us, and honestly when Carole and i were on the board, we tried to implement some/several of them.

The reality of those ideas was it created more work for the board and the GMs goal was to lesson the burden on the board and shift most of it to the management and staff. The majority of the board loved the idea of less, and the ideas died a quick death in the boardroom. Most non profit organizations are hard pressed to change, unless of course there is a firestorm of controversy.

Sun City West is the perfect example. In the late 90's the infighting was fierce and a group was formed with the acronym SWOOG. Their goal was a more open style of governance. It became heated and ugly, and the board looked within and decided, we have nothing to hide. They embraced Title 33 (rather than Title 10 like we cling to) and their evolution to a more transparent style of governance created a more user friendly construct.

Are we at that stage where the board wants/needs to change? Evolve? Become more user friendly? I know they won't wrap their arms around Title 33, but is there a sense of urgency to do better? To hire the right GM? Engage the members more effectively? Or, do they think everything is just fine as is?

Tough questions and ones that could be easily answered with John's suggestion for a simple survey.

 

I get it, but nothing seems to make a difference. We've talked about this in the Election Committee Meetings on how to get more Members involved and the answer always seems to be that no matter what you do, each Member has to decide, on their own to get involved, and free donuts, cookies and coffee may bring them out, but do they really understand what they're coming out for...other than free donuts, cookies and coffee?

You can't refute the reality that each individual has to come to terms with themselves before they change their ways, whether it's about drinking, quitting smoking, attending Exchange and Board meetings or voting for new directors each year.

There needs to be a cause that affects each individual Member to trigger their desire to get involved, and as long as most Members are really unaware of what it takes to truly function as a community, nothing will ever change.

Just my opinion!

 

I agree with the freedom of choice analogy, but the flip side is if you’re not actively working to engage and allow others to be aware of activities and access to opportunities, then have you not negated the opportunity to choose?
If we don’t do outreach, creating opportunities to be involved and engaged, then the opportunity is lost with each passing event where the community could have been invited or informed about a chance for inclusion. Kind of like “if you build it, they will come.”

 

The problem here is we are pretty much built to the max designed around The greatest Generation and Boomers. Gen X wants a whole different lifestyle. Boomers are getting old and not able to do as much.

Generation X is ready for senior living. Here’s what they want. - MarketWatch

 

Thanks Josie. Here is some of what was said in that article:
Builders are taking note of Gen X’s preferences, said O’Connor, the 55 Plus CEO. Those include a desire for more intimate spaces for smaller groups, almost like a cafe setting, so they can socialize on their own terms, rather than a need for big conference rooms at the clubhouse to hold formal parties. Boomers’ weekly card games have also morphed into board-game nights for Gen X, she added.

 

Like Rich Hoffer did in 2017 which sort of worked but eventually no one came and the idea was ended.

 

My family Gen Xers tend to form bonds with small groups of people, 10 to 30 depending on what they are doing. Christmas caroling parties are large and include kids and the Barrett Jackson pre-party generally have a lot of people. Biking/hiking groups are small, maybe 10 to 12 and usually start or end with breakfast/ lunch at some cute outdoor cafe. Their daily activities are hiking, biking or pickle ball. They enjoy small gatherings at each other's homes, and a few have multi-generational homes.