For anyone that has followed my writings over the past years, you know how much i dislike politics/politicians. My work life put me in a position of dealing with way too many of them, most often walking away feeling like i needed a shower. Doesn't matter the party, they all have become way too full of themselves and the so very little they accomplish. When i found Sun City, i was in awe. Somehow they had built a community free of the trappings of a political process. I've written of it a hundred times; Sun City is self-governed, and has managed to withstand all of the pressures to become just another local city government. Much of it has to do with the documents drafted in the very beginning that were filled with checks and balances, safeguards if you will. Most of which have been slowly weeded out in the past ten years (but that's a topic for another time). This piece is about something wholly different. While most of us groan when a politician opens his or her mouth, in Sun City we have been represented by people we elect, our neighbors and friends. So imagine my surprise when this story was relayed to me this morning. mind you i didn't hear it, but i have no doubt it is 100% accurate (names with held on purpose). Following the member/exchange meeting last week, one of the board members was surprised by those in attendances comments/anger. Said board member went on to state why he/she was disappointed. She/he felt the board had become far more transparent and cited this logic to support that position: In that the board had elected to tell residents about the purchase of the Chinese Buffet rather than just doing so in an executive session, it was clear the board was being far more open than in years past. I was aghast. Let me get this straight; the residents of Sun City elected you to represent us and and idea you would consider not telling us what you are doing (at the very least) is beyond my comprehension. The reality is you should be using the community as a sounding board to see if the crazy ideas you are dreaming up behind locked doors make any sense at all. Arrogance beyond belief.
This is the point. What has happened in these 10 years? What is the decades long driving force behind removing the checks and balances? And what is it that the force doesn't want checked?
In years past I have attended a law seminar specifically on issues of condominium and hoa's ... Two areas of association management that keep lawyers working are defect litigation and mismanagement by board members. Mismanagement generally involves selective enforcement of governing documents and *unprepared elected board members. Being elected to lead a community association requires a great deal of preparation and education. That is rarely the case however.**arrogance and *unprepared to lead board members usually go hand in hand.*
I'll get back to your questions in a bit V, but let me touch on fixj's points. You are spot on regarding HOA's. One only has to look at Sun City and their 386 individual Condo Associations to understand the problems associated with commonly owned property. For starters, they do fall under AZ Tittle 33 covering Planned Communities and hence by law have to perform their duties in accordance with the statutes. The good news for them is most owners aren't out to get their neighbors if they don't do it just right. Hell, most of the time the association is happy if they can find volunteers to fill the board positions. Sadly, some can't and are just paying to have professional management companies run it for them. The good news is it gets done in accordance with the law, the bad news is it's expensive. But back to the RCSC board. In the 13 years i have lived here, i have known most of the RCSC board members at least by name. In almost every case, they have been well intended and committed people who cared about Sun City. Sometimes they ran because of a personal agenda, but that's all part and parcel of the process. In the end, the goal was to make Sun City a better place to live (at least through their eyes). I've written this before, and i have said it to many of the potential candidates i have talked to before they ran. In my previous life, there was a concept called "group think" we relied on to move people. During me 3 years on the board, i watched all too often in the collective setting how people would compromise their positions. It was almost always more comfortable to fit in than fight for what they believed in. The board is led by the officers who hold more sway and who work more closely with the management team. Ultimately, the one constant in the process is the staff while the board is ever changing. The whole point is, board members get elected with and for all the right reasons and end up leaving having become part of the problem. They vow to be more communicative and more open while over the past ten years, all of us have participated in carving out the resident safeguards built into our community documents. Sadly most of the time those of us doing it aren't even aware of what they/we did. I will say this, i never saw a time while on the board we even considered doing community business in executive session and then not bringing it before the community with our vote (other than the occasional employee or resident actions which are closed for public consumption). The very idea current board members think they have the right to conduct community business that impacts all of us in executive session and without voting it at board meetings is beyond comprehension. Let me repeat, beyond comprehension and what is disturbing is they may be being told that it's okay to do that.
In your posts I have seen several times where you have referenced 3 Officers. Are these 3 Officers a separate entity outside of the board? What is their function and if they are separate from the board how do they get chosen/elected to serve. I am confused. I thought the board was elected by the residents to formulate and make decisions reflective of the wishes of the residents. In essence they work on our behalf. If you are saying there are 3 other individuals that hold sway over the board, then why have a board? Do board members sign a non-disclosure agreement? If so I can understand why board members bend to the will of the 3 Officers. Based upon your comments on 3 officers I can only assume that board members are simply there to be a buffer between them and the 3 officers. Apparently the board is told what to say and what not to say. Please educate me.
Actually there are 4 officers SCR; president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer. They are elected by their peers in January; of course the oddity is you have 3 new board members who in most cases know little or nothing. While serving on the board, i had no interest in being an officer and to be honest i wasn't well liked by some of my fellow board members. They will tell you each board member is equal, but that certainly didn't seem like the case to me. Most board members come respecting the positions and tend to hold the officers in higher regard. Having served on countless boards and having run a non-profit, i found all of the strata to be BS. Each board member should be equal, with each having a singular vote. I just never got off on titles or positions...i was always more focused on what we could accomplish. They aren't told what they can say, but they are limited to where they should be talking. Posting on boards like this is frowned on as is speaking to reporters. They don't sign a confidentiality agreement, but their oath of office does place limitations on things they can talk about; executive session being the most notable..
