Is it legal to exclude snowbirds from being directors

Article II, Section 2 does define non-members as Unqualified Owners.

You're either a Member or you're not.

SECTION 2: DEEDED OWNERS UNDER 55 YEARS OF AGE

Owners who cannot meet Member qualifications are considered Unqualified Owners.

1. An Unqualified Owner who does not occupy the Property may be entitled to purchase a Day Pass through the Cardholder Services Office. The Day Pass gives the Unqualified Owner the privilege of using RCSC Facilities while temporarily (14 days or less per year) in Sun City, Arizona. The unqualified owner is not allowed to bring guests.
2. An Unqualified Owner under 55 years of age who occupies the Property may be issued an annual Privilege Card for a fee, as determined by the Board, provided the Owner, who is under 55 years of age:

1. is not under 19 years of age; and
2. occupies the Property as his/her primary Arizona residence unless his/her other residence is farther than seventy-five (75) miles from Sun City, Arizona in which case the Underage Owner must provide proof that he/she occupies the Property; and
3. provided further that there is verifiable proof of at least one person 55 years of age or older occupying the Property at the same time.

SECTION 3: NON-OWNER PROPERTY RESIDENTS

Non-Owners defined as renters, tenants, lessees, occupants, those granted lifetime use of Property who are not Owners and reside in a Property and that meet the following criteria may be entitled to purchase a Privilege Card:

A Non-Owner may be issued a 30-day, 60-day, 90-day or annual Privilege Card for a fee, as determined by the Board, provided:

1. at least one Owner or Non-Owner who occupies the Property is 55 years of age or older;
2. the Non-Owner occupies the Property for the period of time requested as his/her primary Arizona residence; unless his/her other residence is farther than seventy-five (75) miles from Sun City, Arizona in which case the Non-Owner(s) must provide proof that he/she occupies the Property as well;
3. the Non-Owner is not under 19 years of age, and;
4. the assessments, fees and any and all other charges against the Property where such Non-Owner resides, are current.

These definitions belong in Board Policies. The Bylaws only require the qualifications to be a Member be in the Bylaws.

 

Thank you FYI, I agree, these should be in the policies.
As society has changed so has the need for better inclusion of definitions and standards in the documents.
There has been upgrades to the RCSC system, and it terminates into the Lakeview Board Room. The removal of older equipment has been completed, but there is no mention of expansion into the entire RCSC system or the inclusion of electronic devices or equipment being installed in the facilities. I also have not read of any additional plan for placement of equipment or facilities for the benefit of members. My concern is the lack of integration with the newly placed hardware. Electronic media is changing quickly and the need for immediate integration is needed to ensure all of the hardware and software is compatible and easily integrated.
I truly hope there’s an integrated solution for the immediate integration of all the software and hardware.
May there be an amicable solution that can be implemented quickly, otherwise the system will be obsolete before it gets off the ground. Having it installed only to the board room is not a benefit for the members.

 

From your lips to God's ears!

We started out more than 10 years behind. Catching up with the ever changing world of IT will prove to be a daunting task...considering the cost and supply chain availability.

 

My apologies to all for my emotional response posted earlier. And to John, a heartfelt apology to you.
The comment about a “ruse” struck me the wrong way and I became more than emotional within the thread. I can’t define why that word, over the many available, triggered such a response. Again, my deepest apologies offered to those who posted as well as readers.

 

My observation from this discussion is that there is no valid reason to exclude Snowbirds from running for election as a director and yet they are excluded. Like so many things in RCSC governance there are rules without reason and there are rules which Boards have chosen to ignore. Such is a the Fungus that erodes member's trust.

 

It's my observation that the Arizona Revised Statutes allows the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the corporation to prescribe the qualifications for directors.

It seems to me you may be conflating the difference between being a Member, (i.e. Members Rights) and being allowed to serve as a Director?

Just my opinion, but there doesn't appear to be anything stated in that State Statute that is ambiguous!

 

On this point I respectfully disagree. While the ARS provides corporations the choice, RCSC chose to give all members equal rights and responsibilities in its AOI. The AOI have precedence over the bylaws. Nothing ambiguous about it.

 

So what it comes down to is whether you adhere to the Arizona Revised Statutes and allow the Bylaws to establish the qualifications to be a Director, or the Bylaws are in conflict with the Articles of Incorporation limiting the rights and privilege's?

Do the Members have the equal rights to vote? YES.

Do the Members have equal rights to run and serve on the Board? YES, but with qualifications.

Rights and privilege's don't seem to be the same. Only the Board has sole power to amend Board Policies, while Members must first get approval from the Board to do so!

Bottom line is, we're not going to solve this issue here on the blog. I suspect it can only be determined by a corporate lawyer (hopefully not by the RCSC's). But with that said, complaining here won't do any good. This is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront of the membership and go through the Board and perhaps a legal aid committee.

Of course the Members have the ability to amend the Bylaws.

As stated earlier, we need to increase the pool of potential candidates.

 

Hello, so are room and facilities equipped with a wifi connection. Why can't just having wifi be enough? Just asking.

 

Eileen,
The difference has more to do with the ability to have interaction with the presenters and the audience, as well as other visual aspects of digital media. Streaming services are becoming increasingly popular and the mainstream avenues for delivering content. Wi-fi does support most platforms for streaming content, but suppose you want to take a class on cooking a new creation. If the presentation is live and interactive so you can comment and ask questions, this requires more digital media than just wi-fi. It requires video cameras, connectivity, and voice control to communicate the information correctly and effectively. If the clubs would like to have classes or have subject matter experts join them to enhance their team, they can do it electronically and not have to pay for someone to physically attend the location. It can offer members access to club activities and services while affording the members access to the information and possibly expand the reach of the club. This is just a small example of why having a digital footprint is important. This digital presence allows for members to be able to communicate in real time with real live people.
This is the digital world that can benefit the members. I also feel the other best way to communicate with everyone is through a community newspaper/newsletter that is published in print. Not everyone is connected electronically and by not having something offered that reaches everyone’s home is, in my opinion, not communicating with all of the members. There are those who will say just go to the local rec center and pick up a copy, but that’s not always an option. Not everyone still drives, or their driver is no longer available to them. Walking in to a rec center may also not be an option. And once again, should it be expected that the member has to come to the RCSC? Can’t the RCSC come to them?
My reasoning for digital media and why I feel it needs to be able to communicate and interact with the members.

 

FYI - We are in agreement this cannot be settled here. We must agree to disagree.

 

Is it legal to exclude members who still are working from being a Director? Where does it say that one must be retired to participate in governance? If we can consider part time residents, why not include members who live here week in/week out, just not available for meetings in person that are held during the day? It would mean offloading some of the daily workload to RCSC staff and committees, which is where some of it probably belongs anyway. It would make the newly installed media usable for inclusion of directors who cannot attend in person, but still be able to contribute. I realize there’s language to the effect that directors can’t miss more than a given number of meetings, but they won’t miss them if they attend virtually. Just a suggestion.

 

CM - I agree. If someone can handle the responsibilities and add vale, they should be welcome to join.

 

IMO snowbirds should be allowed to serve as should working residents. We had plenty on the 4 boards I was involved with when I worked.

Quite right, nothing will be settled here and has not been since the inception of this site in 2012. It's folks stating opinions and name calling. If the "retreads" (I despise that term) were truly serious you would get together in person and really try to do something. Belittle Anne Randal Stewart as much as you want, but she was the only person who got off her bum and worked hard to try to accomplish something she really believed in. She was not simply a keyboard warrior.

Good night and God bless.

 

I hope I too accomplished raising awareness and helping to push transparency at RCSC further down the road.

 

No Tom, it is not a loophole. Read bout the corporation again, word for word and then tell me how the RCSC fits in there.

 

John, for the upteenth time you have misconstrued my words regarding technology. I didn’t say I was against technology, I said that RCSC’s technology leaves much to be desired. Maybe this would make sense to you.

As for other aspects of technology, why would I vote for a candidate who has said they will not actually be in Sun City for several months a year but will live stream when necessary. Why show up at all? I just find this argument so wrong on several levels, like lack of commitment. Read Machiavelli, The Prince, where he states in substance, that it behooves a Prince to be available to his subjects. Seems to be the cornerstone of governance.

As for the ARS action, it was doomed from the start by incompetent attorneys, lawyers not familiar with this type of action and could have been ended within six months. Be that as it may, I admit the Debbie Lesko/AZ legislature thing was sleazy even by my standards and that is saying a lot being from Chicago. As I posted earlier, only in AZ would the legislature pass an ex post facto law protecting a business from an ex post facto law (Title 33).

As for my use of the editorial “we,” I am referring to the RCSC. I am surprised you did not realize that.

As for the by law committee rectifying as you say this by law regarding snow birds, I don’t know, but how could citizens of foreign countries qualify? This is sort of a can of worms.


.

 

The RCSC fits in because they are the owner of the license. Go check the license! We have 7.

The Bowling Alley's and Golf Courses are simply listed as the "Business Name" but the owners of the license is the corporation.

What I don't understand, and not sure why, is Brian Duthu and Mike Dirmyre listed as Licensee/Agent? If they do not live in Sun City and are not Members of the RCSC they can't hold the license. Just one more reason why the license is under the Corporation!

 

Dave, I accept your conclusory remarks as your conclusions. When it comes to governance of RECREATION I see no legitimate reason any member should be excluded. If you do have reasons I would love to hear them. I have read many versions of The Prince (including direct translations) and I believe the point was to keep your subjects dependent on you. John

 

John,
I would like to have you expound a bit on governance of recreation in order that I may respond. I believe I know what you are trying to say, but I want to make sure we are on the same page.

Yes, the Prince was making sure his subjects were dependent on him as that was how the changing economy of late Medieval was structured as opposed to the Feudal society of preBlack Death. Now government had changed of sorts that both the trade guilds and nobility worked together for the fast changing society rather than top down (nobility) controlling society in general. It was the basis for the society we have today.
D