What Does Member Outreach Look Like To You?

John,
We all need to care about our community, as we are in need of a better plan for us, the members, to come together and shape Sun City. The ideas offered are all excellent ideas. I have been working on a case as to how to best use the time and technology to make a plan that can be implemented and executed in a short period of time. I am not for wasting any more time on what surely needs done to make meaningful progress for the members. We have some suggestions that are ideal starting points, just working on the logistics.
The need to reach the members at level that engages and invites them to want more is a crucial element, in my opinion, to member outreach. We need members to take pride in their community and be glad they are here. This is bigger than a breadbox but in stages, is most achievable.
I understand this is a complete change of thinking for the board. I fully comprehend the enormous importance these activities have, but if it can be planned for success, we might even achieve a positive outcome. Baby steps

 

There-in is the problem CM, what makes you think there is/will be a "complete change in thinking by this board?" There's been a slew of ideas, suggestions and proposals, all valid, all doable and all helping mold and reshape that sense of community we ran from. It's a great start, where will it go?

We all agree, they've taken several positive steps. That said, do you see anything telling you/us they have any real interest in letting go of some of the control over the outcomes? Will the LRPC suddenly give members more leeway? Will the new bylaws working group with 4 board members actually draft bylaws restoring some sense of them working on behalf of the membership? Will the new GM and next appointed board member be more member focused? Will the new RCSC website once launched be interactive? Will the triArc efforts at MV get us over the finish line?

I have no idea on what those answers are? Time will tell and i have no crystal ball. I know this, after 22 years of writing and working towards restoring the value and values Sun City was built on and around, i'm tired of trying to make a difference. It's time others step up and speak out.

Several of you have shown an interest, perhaps you all will be more successful than i have been.

 

I don’t have a crystal ball either Bill. But is it better to stop trying all together? I know you had a great deal of interest in the Lakes Building. Here’s my take on what would have happened if we actually acquired it. The GM would have had her way with it, and Sun City still wouldn’t have those amenities. The talks we tried to engage in talked about remodeling so the corporate offices could move there as well as the visitors center. I don’t remember any forward thinking for demonstration kitchens or lecture facilities. Why, because at the time we were discussing the Lakes building, the deconstruction of member involvement was deeply in.place. Her rewriting of the corporate documents was in full swing and with each presentation to the board, the members lost a little more. Which is why adding the Lakes Club was sabotaged so well. The repeated stonewalling of us was frustrating, being told no meeting could be arranged. Then the building without the dirt? Was that a reality or another attempt to make the acquisition appear even more difficult. While we listened to one reason after the next, the building was sold to the Core, and they got a complete building with the land.
So, the building is not available to us for any price. Which makes me look at the Acuity building and think if we should carefully consider what could be. Is there possibly the space needed to remodel it into the features needed? I mentioned in another post some of the grass area would need to be removed for parking.
Do we lose another Sun City commercial property? Just my opinion.

 

Bill, John, Jean and everyone else, I have a question. Could a placeholder for the open board position be aggressive enough to start to enlist the desired changes and start grooming one or two candidates for the election to continue the momentum started by the placeholder? Right now, with the current board structure, the learning curve is extensive. So the new board members elected this fall leaves them caught in that same cycle of uncertainty while trying to learn the ropes. What if the placeholder for the current opening on the board doesn’t have the same learning curve and can start to effect change sooner? And the placeholder has someone or several others on board to support the current changes, then these are the candidates running for election in several months? It’s creating a small group of interested parties to be in on the ground floor of introducing the needed changes then having candidates ready to lead the way for continuation. Far fetched? That means someone stepping up now for the vacancy, winning the seat and building a team that would have the opportunity to keep the needed changes moving forward.
Requires an immediate decision by a former board member to make the choice to participate. It also means finding the next potential candidates who are willing to work with the placeholder to stay abreast of the action items and be willing to continue the efforts.
Wild idea brought on by outrageously high blood pressure. It happens. Too far fetched? Who would want to step up and volunteer for 6 months to help get the process started? Who could be recruited to continue the campaign?
Thinking outside the box.

 

What has changed is that many years ago, you had collaboration with the former boards and members. You had listening and collaborating.
Just like a tennis match...the ball goes back and forth...both ways, from my thoughts to your thoughts. Thoughts were being respected and taken in. What sadly has developed now is an us vs. you and that is what is killing us. How can you build trust when you have some BOD transmitting to members, "thanks, but we will decide for you" not a good way to run a community.

 

CM, The difficulty in applying is the board votes on the replacement. Not likely to be a change agent. Definitely not me as I have been told by more than one board member I will not even be allowed to participate on committees. CM are you going to apply? I like your community spirit, and you may be far enough out from your board service to fill the bill.

 

Regarding the former Acuity facility at Thunderbird and 111th: (April 2024)
General info that was in the Sun City Indepedent article, print edition, most everyone gets it delivered free weekly. Some read it, hope most do for credible local information.
“The board was offered a chance to purchase the former Acuity Specialty Hospital at the intersection of Thunderbird Boulevard and North 111th Avenue April 21. The offer was not made with a set price being discussed. The facility had been to auction starting at $1.6 million, but the highest bid of $2.95 million did not meet the price required for its sale, prompting the seller’s agent to contact RCSC.”
#

• Source: Sun City Independent RCSC invites resident input on opportunity Board offered 4.6 acre building for purchase Posted Thursday, April 25, 2024 By Scott Tynes | Independent Newsmedia
#
Per September 2024 UPDATE, RCSC proposed bid on property was declined, page 8.
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-09-September-Sun-City-AZ-Update.pdf

Still listed on Loopnet: https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/13818-N-Thunderbird-Blvd-Sun-City-AZ/35214524/

 

The discussion of sales price becomes interesting. All those years ago, the price of the Lakes Club was bandied about at $8M as I recall. Then the remodeling cost was on top of that. The parking lot was going to be an additional cost, as the parking at the club itself was limited as I recall. The interior needed significant amounts of work, and the discussion was to do portions at a time to mitigate some of the costs. The Lakes Club could have been ideal, but would have also been quite expensive to redo.
When looking at Acuity, the price would be for the entire property, making the speculation about size a need to look at how much more parking will be available, what would the space be designed for? Would it still be a possible location for the corporate offices? I have not done any serious consideration of the property other than read loop net.
The Lakes Club or something similar is not going to happen here again, as there aren’t any other properties that size. Would having an architect look closer at Acuity and offer an assessment of what could be done?

 

Carole, As I imagine the Lakeview remodel, I beg to differ about ever having a community space. I have ideas and so do others. IMHO Accuity is not a good investment if our plans are to move member services and corporate there.

 

Sorry I realized my comment was a conclusion without citing the data to support it. RCSC has a less than 50% utilization rate of indoor flat floor space. Adding more to this underutilized complex makes no sense.

 

If the data shows a 50% or less utilization, why is that? Why, then, when discussing creating intimate meeting spaces or small coffee shops, the attempt to create this atmosphere is not explored? I had the impression there was no usable space to create such venues. Is this not the case?

 

Carole, I do not have a crystal ball to tell you why we are at such low utilization of flat floor space but that is what the data shows. Perhaps we are using space inefficiently or perhaps there is simply too much of it for what we do. Don't know, don't care. My question is why in the world would we be considering adding buildings when we have such low utilization. To me the answer is how do we increase participation to soak up some excess space. Again, this is an area where expert urban planners and space planners can offer invaluable insights.

 

There was only one flat space with more than 50% utilization; at least that was the case when the RCSC produced it showing 27 flat spaces available. I suspect that includes venues with collapsible walls to create distinct areas. Think about Sundial with the massive auditorium, yet with the potential for three divided sections. Interesting in that i may well be mistaken. Perhaps someone can find the document (done in 2022/2023).

I know when i saw the Sundial auditorium was the only space (60% plus usage), i was shocked and my immediate reaction was to adopt the same thing Sun City West did; create a utilization review committee. Spaces sitting empty that much of the time need to become better utilized. It's one of the reasons i have bought into the argument the RCSC doesn't need more flat space to sit empty and increasing costs to the membership.

I recall the numbers regarding the Lakes Club differently CM. Rosskamp, the owners of the building, not the land, owed 3.2 million dollars on the property and they said they would not take a loss by selling it. The assistant gm at the time toured it with us and he claimed it would cost 5 million dollars to renovate (no idea how he knew other than a wild ass guess, which is how we have done business for too long). I think that's where you come up with the 8 million dollar price tag. The land is owned by the Sun Health Foundation.

The point was never about what could have/should have been. Nope, the point was the membership should have had the ability to listen to the pro's and con's of buying the building and voicing their opinions. The GM knew exactly what she was doing by having the board lead the charge to keep it "top secret."

The bigger tragedy of not buying it is the fact we own another property, the Grand Center. And, that 8th center has come with more than its fair share of problems including security and failed technology (to say nothing about the increased costs to maintain it). It kicked the Mountain View project down the road and left us all standing here fighting over the PAC and other related items. Tragic.

That was then, this is now. Adding more space when we don't use what we have well is folly; in my opinion.

Member outreach; TRUE MEMBER OUTREACH, may well have solved all of our problems. Unfortunately we lived through times we watched the general manager decide what was in our best interests, and the board gleefully supported her every step of the way.

 

Okay, I will wholly agree with your assessment of the situation. The rubber stamp that was bestowed upon the GM was allowed and perpetuated by the board members of that time. The collusion between the GM and the board presidents was unmistakably evident. You and I witnessed it firsthand, the GM created the policy, and was rubber stamped by the board president and supported by the bulk of the board members. We couldn’t get anything done because of this symbiotic relationship between the selected board presidents and the relationship with the GM. Is it a mere coincidence that they were all former military officers, or that they all were golf buddies? Could be, I have no proof of any impropriety, but it still felt like collusion to me when we sat in the boardroom and tried to get something accomplished. It felt as if the decision was in the bag and there was nothing left to say or do to affect the desired change. Just my opinion, as it felt so exasperating and futile to me to try to get something done.
The Lakes Club would be a perfect example. The decision was made, information was withheld or not truthful in all instances, and it cost us the opportunity to join in the battle to win the property. Can’t change the outcome, but it still stings to know we were played.
There has got to be a starting point to begin to build a relationship with the members that is meaningful and sustainable. It has got to be genuine with a commitment to keep it simple and real. It also needs to start now. This board has the ability to be change agents. Will they do it? Has anyone asked them to change their daily routine and rethink the status quo? Has there been a reason for them to rethink how they do business today? Has anyone offered a plan to rethink the current method of doing business and seek a different approach to their current mindset? The current approach to the input of ideas and strategies is to create a vacuum where ideas are not always allowed to flourish. If I make a suggestion to the board members about an idea I have, how is it handled? Is there any feedback as to the value of the idea? How do the members find out if an idea or suggestion was accepted? How can someone find out if their idea has merit after it has been presented? Is there further discussion going forward about the concept? This is where an interactive website would be invaluable. But I don’t think the redesign of the current site is going to support that type of interaction.
If the board chooses to become more responsive to members and open the lines of discussion and interaction, then the positive changes can begin.

Sorry, covered several topics. Needed to say more than expected.

 

To start, I think the Grand Center has been a white elephant since it was built. Just my opinion, as I have a lot of notions about its existence and its value to the community. An extremely long discussion for another time.

How does one get the board to understand the value of doing something different? How does one emphasize the importance of doing business to include the members in an ongoing digital dialogue? How much does it eventually cost to do business in the digital environment and not actively engage with the members?
Yes, there is a point to this post. The website is being worked on to include web access via phone and expand the content for better visibility for the users. What I haven’t seen is applications that allow for interaction with real time content. I haven’t heard of any development of real time communication with the website and the availability to retrieve data or information that is relevant now rather than the story line built that is not kept current. Websites need daily monitoring to keep them relevant and salient to the users. Information and content management needs to be real time, not yesterday’s news. Data needs to be delivered real time, and answers to questions need to be answered quickly. This type of interaction is essential for the success of the community. If a user has to spend too much time seeking the information needed, they leave the site. If we want to engage members, present and future, we need to engage people in ways that work. I hate being the naysayer, but a redesign of what is currently in place is not going to provide the digital footprint needed to be effectively integrated and interactive.
We also need to integrate golf into the website in a way that allows for the scheduling of tee times, but also reduces the losses currently being experienced. I completely agree with the need to pay for the scheduled tee time as it’s reserved. The gaming of the system needs to stop now to maximize the revenue stream for golf. A well designed system can do that and provide data output for tracking. Once the reservations are made, the only refund would be for rain.
The cost of maintenance for an integrated website will become a monthly payment to whoever the vendor is to develop and maintain the site to ensure its accurate, consistent, and providing reliable service to the members and staff. The only way to avoid monthly fees is to hire and manage an onsite IT department. The cost component is definitely in favor of a professional development team led by a company that is capable of providing and maintaining such a network service. The way the RCSC does its data management and website presence is not conducive to member involvement or satisfaction. This is in no way a slight to the work being done by the committees. I just feel that they are not being able to provide a smarter, leaner solution to digital needs for today or the future. They are limited to trying to revamp a system that uses Wordpress as its primary source. Wordpress does not offer nor have the capability to be digitized to be used for today’s needs. Just my opinion. The committees and the directors are doing a great job trying to provide a better website. My example is trying to make a Yugo perform like a Ferrari just ain’t gonna happen.

 

Eileen,
Your comments did not post. You may have accidentally gotten your cursor into the top section of the screen and then the comments you make don’t display separately.
Good rule of thumb I try to use is to hit the return twice before starting a reply. It will assure you of a fresh screen to reply on and make sure your comments are included.
Take care and thank you for listening.

 

Thanks Carole,
Yes, I agree with you that The Grand Center is not so grand. I wrote to BOD some 15 years ago asking to buy Lakes Club. We missed a real great opportunity there. That was an original Del Webb building built as the private dinner club and the sales office. I have been here since early 70s.
I think we should renovate our structures and keep them modernized and updated to work for today. I like the idea of putting in some kind of indoor-outdoor cafe-lounge. That would be nice.
I think we even eventually should look at updating Sundial again. John Fast has talked about professional studies done on space and usage. We should focus on that as well, and keep the existing buildings working for today's membership needs.
Everyone has put in very good points. Thank you.

 

Also, it's my understanding that there is no RCSC employee capable of writing code so whatever package we get from the web developer that's it. I hope it is flexible enough to add, modify, and delete items because, I for one, anticipate the need for flexibility, that I won't go into here.

 

Now that's a scary, expensive thought!
Jean Totten