Where Do We Go From Here?

I was taken to task for some of my posts by a person I believe to be on the board. Made a suggestion that I don’t look for the positive outcomes possible. I now feel that taking the board to task for demeaning the value of the members and what they offer the community and more specifically, the RCSC, is a valid consideration.
The willful exclusion of the members who submitted modifications to the board is, at a minimum, heinous. Is this not just one more example of lip service to try to placate the members, all the while, running a separate agenda? If the committee members have been chosen, to the exclusion of members who have done their due diligence in being informed and involved, then this will be another example of not wanting to be a transparent process with the outcome predictable. Has the narrative already been written? Why bother to waste any more directors time or members time on what appears to be a sham?
Yes, I am angry that this is the way the board chose to exclude members participation. It’s one more reason the members don’t trust the board to make decisions in their best interest. The deck is stacked and the first meeting hasn’t even happened yet. Don’t take me to the woodshed and try to make me the one who spews negativity. Take a closer look at how you stacked the deck, then tell me how the process is to be trusted? My words were those of concern for the community and members. What has the board offered in the form of transparency? Where do you draw the line between accountability and blatant disregard? At what point does the community and the members matter? Why are these questions even salient at this juncture? Members are the community, the members voices are to be heard, and it’s beyond time for more than lip service to bring us together. It takes trust that you are going to do what you say, say what you mean and do what you need to do. Not a prefabricated committee that already has a bias built in. In my opinion.

 

Wow! I have been saying this for over a year. I have been berated, sworn at, and yes I fought back. The Boards have been awful for a very long time. All the SC worshipers did not want to see it. I have suggested numerous times we need a professional brought in to help fix what is broken. Didn't anyone think no annual member meetings for so many years was a red flag? $20 million in deferred maintenance is not a red flag.

 

Carole,

I could not agree with you more. This Board does not get it!!! If, as you suggest, Board members are on social media attacking members for offering positive suggestions, we have returned to exactly where we were. It is deja vu all over again. For what purpose? Do they realize that 1,700 members chose to witness their voices being disregarded regardless of the Board's apparent efforts to discourage them from attending the annual member's meeting. I believe this was the highest attendance of any meeting in Sun City history.

Even though I am incensed by this board action, I want to recognize that there have been some positive things happening. For example, some badly needed repairs have been completed. IMHO there has been an increase in communication from the board of useful financial information and a more common-sense approach to the budgeting process. The RCSC website is slowly taking shape. In addition, we have a well thought out mission, vision and value statement. We have committed to continuing the difficult discussions regarding the Mountain View site with an eye toward making difficult decisions hopefully based on data and logic. IMHO many have also recognized that RCSC does not have the bandwidth or expertise to create a meaningful master plan. Kudos to members of the LRP who stood up for what they believed in. We also made some very painful management decisions which hopefully signal a more symbiotic relationship between the board, management and members.

After my board experience, I have come to realize that we have a dysfunctional governance process which basically chews up all those that chose to participate and may attract some people with little experience or education that are "power junkies." I am an optimist and believe good people will rise up and say not in my community. Jean Totten is my role model for this can-do attitude.

 

John,
This harkens to me to ask those that can, help create a presentation to the board for a training/education program to support the RCSC. It appears to me, the need is great and it is needed immediately. Educational programs should be available to help the RCSC board members as well as those in the community desiring to learn more about the RCSC. This program will also prepare future leadership as those attendees who complete the program will make better Directors, having been involved in a program that benefits them and their community. This missing piece of community involvement is sorely needed and cannot sit on the back burner any longer.
There were several suggestions made earlier as to how to proceed. I think this is a critical step in helping the community become better informed and involved. It’s needed now.

Thank for your generous support of Sun City. Your posts are appreciated and I look forward to reading what you author.

 

Regarding the Ad Hoc Bylaws and Master Planning committees, this is what I would recommend that the Board do to attract the best candidates:
1) Determine the scope of the projects - # of people on the committee, timelines, and establish the intended end result
2) Solicit applicants through the usual avenues - email blasts, announcements at meeting, weekly email, article in monthly Update
3) Review applications - preferably two or three people who are not Board members or staff
4) Interview the applicants that the review committee selects (Board would do the interviews.)
5) Notify all the applicants whether they are selected or not
6) Announce the committee members to the general membership through the same avenues as described in #2
7) At the first committee meeting, the group should establish the norms they will use in their work.

I have been involved in selection processes similar to the one I describe. I think it generally works quite well. It's very important to not have any predetermined outcomes in mind. Committees only make recommendations to the Board and that should be made clear from the beginning.

 

Talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day. I believe members should unify and hire an attorney to make sure what the board is doing is legal.

 

I believe the Board is acting within their legal rights.

 

Janet, good suggestion on the ad-hoc committee - a longer version of the bylaw I suggested.

No need for a Master Planning committee - that is LRPs role. I developed the scope, interview questions, and a scorecard for selecting those for an RFI and scoring the RFI itself. The RFI is nearly complete and LRP will be reviewing the RFIs that are returned and submitting 3 recommendations to the Board for full RFPs - which is a management role.

 

Exactly why I presented the 2 motions I did on Members of Committees - Marcia had the wrong name on one of them. But yes, herein lies part of the problem. We need the Committee control back. Committees were established for MEMBER recommendations - NOT Board or friends of the 9 Board members.

 

So much for that transparency. It’s becoming more and more apparent that these ad hoc committees are only being formed to provide lip service for the board. When board members are directing the committee, they are going to decide the outcome.