VP Netteshiem explained in the orientation session when discussing the origination of RCSC: "In Sun City we believe opportunities should be limitless, choices should be endless, and life should be enjoyed to the fullest. Picture and entire community designed around the freedom to do what you want and be whom you want. Life really is what you make it, and nowhere is that as true than Sun City, Az." You had me at hello. My check is in the mail for the first available house. I love how Chris summed this up as "Life really is what you make it..." IMHO this sums up perfectly the essence of cooperation, collaboration, community, engagement and participation. Some may find this statement to be too Disney like to be believable. I like to think of the statement as aspirational for all three major stakeholders: Members, Management and Board. What do you think?
Let’s forbid the playing of the child’s game, Quaker’s Meeting, where the board and management silences the membership: Quaker’s meeting has begun No more showing teeth or tongue No more laughing No more fun Quaker’s meeting begins NOW!
I remember when the time limit was introduced for member comments. There were several meetings where the comments became more of a debate that carried on for quite a long while. There were debates going on rather than the delivery of information for the board to consider. There was at least one time when a member refused to yield the floor and it became difficult to get the meeting back on track. It was then the time limit was set, and it has stayed that way ever since. Which means if you need more time to present your ideas, you have to get back in line to continue the discussion. The ability to communicate with the board should be an open microphone to be able to communicate with the board. The dilemma is what to do when the discussion between the board members and the RCSC member becomes contentious. What is the best strategy for stopping a member with a particular issue unique to them from taking a filibuster type stance and refuse to yield the floor? This is why the 5 minute rule was adopted. So, once again, the masses are punished due to the error of the few. Folks who have an axe to grind can get on the microphone and abuse the privilege of engaging the directors, and instead, try to verbally abuse the board members, sometimes collectively or call out a single director. Without the time limit, it can become unruly. Does having unlimited time at the microphone make it possible for members to feel they have an unfettered opportunity to be heard? Personally, I have always considered the time limit when considering addressing the board. This is the reason I don’t go to meetings, because I know what I want to say will take longer than the allocated time, so I just don’t go. I have multiple ideas but they will take time to explain the reasoning behind them, what the idea is and what benefits it will provide. So, rather than try to cram the information into a snippet of time, or plan on repeated trips to the microphone, I don’t speak at all. Once an idea has been developed, it becomes organic, and requires time to offer an explanation of the context as well as the proposed benefits and outcomes. I can’t do that in five minutes or less. I know this about how I describe my ideas and their applications, the benefits, then the conclusion. So, I say nothing. I don’t go and offer my input as I don’t have the time to do it justice. So it becomes a why bother moment. Is this the way other members feel as well? Don’t know as it would take more than 5 minutes to get the answer.
I'm a huge CN fan, she appears to get it. Her remarks were mindful of those first documents written by the DEVCO marketing crew in the early 60's. I've read virtually all of them and they did two things: Left me in near tears and made me want to move to Sun City. Of course, by then we were already here, but the message was that powerful. I just finished a book and will write a review for it to be included in it. The subject is retirement and includes about 20 pages on Del Webb and the magic of the marketing of the community. I met the author when he visited the Museum and several of the ads will be used in the book. He knows of what he speaks; he spent 48 years in the marketing industry and has watched it devolve into a business where 20 and 30 year olds define what retirement and senior communities should be. I've long argued DEVCO's ads, words and videos would still be well received to this day. Updated for sure, but using real seniors, real life scenarios and real opportunities within the community to sell it for what it is. The potential is and always has been enormous; we simply chose to run from it. We were under the assumption being the cheapest would keep us viable. Foolishness at it's finest. Both Chris and the folks during the triArc MV presentation looked and felt like the took the words off the pages of those early marketing materials. Emotional attachment to the community so many of us love has always been there. For many, they saw that as clinging to the past. I was never one of them. A Disney land for seniors? Indeed, i'll take it all day long, every day of the year.
Carole - no longer 5 minutes; only 3 minutes. Perhaps if our BOD would have posted hours each week where they could meet with Members perhaps in a Round Table Format it would help avoid the Members having to get back into line to finish their thoughts. Jean Totten
Oh my Jean, Are you suggesting another change to help interact with members? Don’t mean to be facetious, but with the changes I have suggested, and now an additional way to engage the members, it’s like WOW! The biggest challenge is for the directors to prioritize what needs to be in their immediate purview and what can be accomplished by allowing others, such as committees or or small work groups to attend to.
Thank you for the observations and thoughts. I sometimes become frustrated by the lack of opportunities to contribute thoughts and ideas but still believe we have one of the most solid foundations of any 55+ community. Hopefully, some board members will take the time to read some of the thoughts from the thought leaders on this site and ponder the suggestion. I like to think CN and perhaps TF gets this because I hear some of the suggestions in their dialogue and not in others. One of the things those that have dealt with me quickly realize is I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. IMHO my community beliefs are well founded in the data that has been made available to me but will always be flexible enough to address changes in circumstances. I only ask that those who were elected use sound business judgement (based on data) and act as reasonable people would with the same or similar fiduciary responsibilities. No more, no less. In CN prepared remarks I find hope. But actions speak louder than words and we have no clue what actions are going on behind the scenes. When the big reveal comes, I hope it is prefaced with this is the data and here are the conclusions we draw from it. It would be truly tragic if we heard the same old thing again: We (or TriArc) decided this is what the stakeholders wanted and here is the conceptual design that we spent hundreds of thousands to develop. We know we can't please everyone.
Not to get technical but...can you show me when and where that rule was introduced, adopted and documented or was this just one more off of the cuff rule floating out there in cyberspace to silence the Members? And remember, Members can only comment on motions that are on the agenda! No motions, no Member comments!
FYI, There was no vote, only a decision by the GM. I think there may have been a notice to the members as they entered the meeting advising of the change. As for the change to not allow members comments after the board meeting, as I recall, during my tenure, comments were allowed. Sometimes, the meeting would last until 1pm. You don’t get that long of a meeting with just board business.
IMHO - There has to be a better way. I for one would like to see more written submissions and less oral presentations. Just one man's opinion.
