Fun Active Lifestyle Community - Participants Wanted

As the thread title suggests, IMHO it is not possible to have a fun active lifestyle community unless the members participate. Duh! The thought leaders on this thread understand this axiomatic principal. Why doesn't the Board and Mangement understand that this is job one?

 

Define "member participation."

I'm sure you're not just referring to participating in the Clubs/activities? Participating in the governance is the most important part, but that can only be accomplished if the Board relinquishes some of its hold on every issue and begins to respect the opinions of the community and not their own!

When you feel as if you have no say in the matter, or your concerns are being ignored, you no longer have a desire to participate and that's why nobody shows up at board and exchange meetings and less than 4% of the community votes for their Directors!

Bottom Line: It's not up to the Members to participate. It's up to the Board of Directors to allow them too participate!

Just my opinion!

 

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.”

RCSC offers many opportunities for member participation in our abundant recreational activities and limited self governance.

Members have free will and choose whether or not to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

Improving RCSC engagement with the membership through outreach is a frequent TOSC topic.

Is it solely their responsibility? Personal,
neighbor to neighbor enthusiasm with invitation to participate is an effective, necessary element.

Are current active members sharing their excitement about anything positive?

 

What a great question, and one that board members need ask themselves in a very pointed way. The follow up remarks were interesting as well. As always, from my perspective, there's a historical factor driving my perspective, my take on the answer.

Had DEVCO and then even more-so Meeker decided to let new home buyers figure it out on their own, Sun City may well have ended south of Grand Ave. DEVCO's motivation was making money, and lots of it, and they did ($171 million dollars by the time they headed off to Sun City West). John Meeker, upon his arrival in 1965 ratcheted it all up twenty fold.

His goal was to sell homes and make money for the company, but he was more committed to building a viable, visible and sustainable community that would survive well past build-out. He knew/understood the single best way to do that was through those living here. Everything he did was about building a sense of community, one where the members took ownership and were both responsible and accountable for the outcome.

For those of you unfamiliar with our history, i get it, you simply don't know the lengths he went to. You should, but in all likelihood you probably won't. No one man/person was more responsible that Sun City exploded and 3000 like-communities evolved. He was the guy and for the most part, he is little more than a footnote, with Webb and Boswell overshadowing his efforts.

That was then, this is now. The tragedy of too many years with too many rebuilds of who and what we are has resulted in this mindset: It's nobody's job to help new home buyers understand how Sun City works. We've determined a couple of large room meetings per year should do the trick and if it doesn't, oh well.

The problem is, Sun City is unlike anywhere those buyers came from. No freaking comparison. Expecting a home buyer to assimilate and become aware of how Sun City works because they are now breathing our rarefied and self-governing air is silliness times 100. If we know nothing else, we should be acutely aware by how badly we have failed.

I know, i'm being critical. It's because the minute we passed the PIF in 1999, we should have assumed the responsibility of new home owner engagement. The logic for the fund was to be able to rebuild our amenities without shoving the costs on to those already living here. It was a great decision, but for whatever reason, we decided that when taking their money at the point of sale, we had no obligation to explain how and why the community works.

As those years raced by, we moved even further away from helping new buyers figure it out, fit in and find their way. The Visitor Center, when it was free-standing, used to do a good job. Once the RCSC took it over, that too evolved to the point where their doors are barely open. We've come to the point where because we schedule a large Sundial auditorium meeting once or twice a year, our work is done.

Is it? You be the judge and you tell me whether the results of our efforts have been good enough. Consider this: The fact that barely anyone votes for board members; the fact hardly anyone attends meetings; the fact one person showed up as a potential board candidate; the fact with each passing day, those living here drift further away from the tenets we were built on and around.

Look, i know my answer, i've been screaming it for more years than i can count. We now take $6000 plus at the point of sale; don't even the most skeptical of you think there should be an investment in those new home buyers becoming better versed in our community?

Let me explain it this way, if Meeker/DEVCO did what the RCSC is doing regarding new home buyers, Sun City would have died an early death. John understood investing in those first moving here would pay huge returns. They became his "25,000 person sales force." They sold Sun City and they insured Sun City would be here for all of us.

For my money, i'll listen and learn from John Meeker every time.

Great freaking question!

 

Yup! And that person was selected as the appointee for the remaining year on the Board!

 

WHO?? Image of the dark haired female lone attendee on the video is distorted ☹️.

 

Jana Mapes. She's currently a member of the COC committee.

 

Thank you, FYI

 

I agree with FYI’s question? What is the definition of “member participation”?
What is it going to take to have the board acknowledge the disconnect between the members and the RCSC? I posted, ad nauseam, definitions of fiduciary duties. To be of benefit to the beneficiaries. The members are the beneficiaries the RCSC should be responsible to. The corporate documents clearly state the corporation is for the benefit of the members. So, why is there such a disconnect as to making the members the primary focus to involve, nurture, and promote good relationships with?
The former GM did a splendid job in carving out the members benefits. That was then, this is now. The handwriting on the wall screams for the need for a relationship with the members. The need is extreme for the members to be engaged in a positive relationship with the RCSC and community outreach to the members is essential.
POS should be a small group of members greeting new buyers with information, a warm smile, a goody bag of sorts and a small pop of confetti to offer a real sense of welcome and appreciation. Two months after the sale should have a strong follow up with a welcome wagon type greeting, again with members present, offering additional support and information about the community, what is happening locally, and offer phone numbers and email addresses for the local businesses that may need to be utilized to assist with the move in.
At 6 months, a quick hello with a thank you note will go a long way towards building a strong community relationship. At one year, an anniversary card with congratulations and thank you for being the best part of Sun City.
This engagement entails staying in touch with the new home buyers, making them feel welcome and encouraging them to become an active, supportive, important part of the community. Not relying on a once a year open forum that is not interactive with the attendees.
Member engagement will need to be made a priority, and unless and until we acknowledge the strategic importance of involvement of the community, everything else is mere noise.

 

It's also important to put an emphasis on joining SCHOA, but after spending over $6,000 dollars for PIF ($4,000), CIF ($1,500) Transfer Fee ($300) along with the annual assessment of $650, it's kinda hard to ask for an additional $25????

I hope someday they can find a way for SCHOA (501-c-3) to associate with the RCSC (501-c-4) so that all new home buyers and existing owners pay their fair share! I think if you look hard enough and think out of the box, there might just be a creative way to have all home owners belong to SCHOA!

Is is fair to receive pretty much the same benefits that SCHOA offers to those who didn't join?

Just my opinion!

 

I think explaining to every new home purchaser the difference between the RCSC and the benefits of being a member of SCHOA could go a long way in helping new homeowners understand the benefits and the difference.
No, I don’t feel it is fair to have the same benefits offered to a non-member. I also feel that the $25 yearly fee is minimal compared to the benefits offered.
If you want to file a complaint against someone, do so as a member if you desire anonymity. It’s not fair to those of us who do join in supporting the community protections to expect everyone gets the same benefits as nonmembers. I understand the ability to get plot plans is one of the main factors. But the compliance officers have to respond to every request, and that’s not fair to those who pay for the service to have others get it for free.

 

Okay, take the following with a grain of salt because the text comes from a question asked to AI, but I found it very interesting and apparently it can be done!

Here's the question regarding how Members of the RCSC can automatically become members of SCHOA!

QUESTION: In Arizona, and as a member of a 501-c-4 corporation, how can you get each member to automatically join a 501-c-3 organization without breaking IRS or corporate rules?

Hers' just part of the response:

Potential Approaches to Achieve Automatic Enrollment

While true "automatic" enrollment without member consent is problematic, the following approaches can approximate your goal while maintaining compliance with IRS and Arizona rules:

1. Affiliated Organizations with Opt-Out Membership: Structure: Create a 501(c)(3) organization as a separate entity, potentially as a subsidiary or affiliate of the 501(c)(4). The 501(c)(4)’s bylaws could state that joining the 501(c)(4) includes an invitation to join the 501(c)(3) as a non-voting member or supporter, with an opt-out option.

Process: When a member joins the 501(c)(4), they receive clear documentation (e.g., membership agreement) stating that they are automatically enrolled as a supporter of the 501(c)(3) unless they opt out within a specified period (e.g., 30 days).

The 501(c)(3)’s bylaws should define this supporter category as non-voting to avoid governance conflicts, as voting members typically require explicit consent.

Compliance: Ensure the 501(c)(3) operates independently, with separate boards, finances, and activities. Shared resources (e.g., staff, office space) must be documented with fair-market-value agreements to avoid inurement issues.

Clearly disclose in the 501(c)(4)’s membership materials that the 501(c)(3) is a distinct entity with a charitable mission, and membership in the 501(c)(3) does not confer governance rights unless explicitly stated.

File separate IRS Form 990s for both organizations and maintain distinct records to demonstrate compliance.

 

I think you are treading into Title 10 versus Title 33. This creates a position of joining the HOA unless you opt out. With all of the other documents being tossed into the signing, it’s now an automatic sign up process unless you opt out? This in essence has caused the RCSC member to now sign to be a member of SCHOA, possibly not knowing this has happened. Let’s face it, not everything is disclosed clearly by the realtor, and to wait until closing seems to be a “gotcha”.
Would this also force every member to sign a new members agreement? And what could happen if they refuse? Just asking?

 

I'm not sure about that, but I am sure you know more about that legal stuff than me? But it's not as if you're changing the RCSC into a HOA, you're just kinda bifurcating the RCSC to encompass the membership of SCHOA!

Like the document you signed about the jet noise coming from the Luke Air Force Base? Lol!

I get it, it's all kinda tricky, but if you don't read the documents that you sign, who do you blame?

 

Tom, Please remember that the Sun City Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization associated with RCSC, a 501(c)4, with its own Board, finances and activities.

 

I agree, John, which is why I have repeatedly suggested that the Long Range Plan, Strategic Plan, or whatever it is called should have a measurable goal about more member participation. Any plan should not be strictly about capital projects or recreation centers.

 

Thanks for all the thought-provoking dialogue. However, defined or measured, I think we all agree more positive participation is generally better.

 

I understand that, and that's why I question why SCHOA can't also be defined as one of the "RCSC Organizations" as stated in our Bylaws?

The Bylaws also state that the RCSC is the organization required to appoint the Directors to the Sun City Foundation, so there seems to be some sort of permissible interaction between 501-c-3 and 501-c-4's?

 

Having served on both the RCSC board and the SCHOA board, God love you for looking for solutions. No idea if Tom's suggestion from AI would work, but don't hold your breath. Yes SCHOA membership should be way higher and everyone ever involved has lamented there wasn't mandatory membership.

The organization wasn't built to be anything but voluntary membership with compulsory compliance (via the deed restrictions). Everything stems from their Articles of Incorporation. A half a dozen years back when we were trying to redraft the clarifications, the suggestion was made to try and add a mandatory obligation and the attorney told us it would take a vote of approval by 100% of the owners.

Since then i've heard there has been some legal cases that may have opened the door abit. It's even been suggested that SCHOA is looking at alternatives. Even with that, i'm not holding my breath. I am more a fan of often repeated joint presentations where all organizations of standing works towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

Working together was how we were built...in my opinion it is still our path forward.

 

As I've heard from others, how smart was it to establish SCHOA without a funding source? What happens if nobody joins? It's even questionable to me if they have enough Members to cover their costs?

If we could somehow make SCHOA a part of the "RCSC Organization" we could not only increase the Membership, to at least the homeowners (but not necessarily those living under their own condo associations ) we could also provide them with their own office space!?!?!? (perhaps with a minimal fee like one-dollar?)

It's absolutely a crazy situation in my mind, especially when you consider that there are over 300 condo associations within our walls even though we're under Title 10 and they're under Title 33? And add to that, that every single home owner reaps the benefits from a Home Owners Association (SCHOA) even though they may not be a Member!?!?!?

What the heck am I missing? It's proven we can already blend a 501-c-3 with a 501-c-4 and we can blend Title 10 with Title 33 within the same corporation.

I think we're just not being creative enough and nobody wants to do the hard work to get it done!

Just my opinion!