So, who does the board work for?

Really? Just watched the member exchange meeting today...are you kidding me? I quote; “if it’s not a policy issue, deal with management.” Seriously guys, that’s the new normal? But wait, it gets worse, according to the Board president, management will make the decisions on who will get space when Mountainview is rebuilt.

Argumentative is now what we should expect from the board i guess? And here’s the funny thing, there was only a couple of questions on their blast email and the Payne legislation. It give them a chance to push their bill’s passage. Watch the comments from the board, more crap.

I wish i had been in the room, it would have been way more interesting. Comparing us to Youngstown was bull crap. Thankfully my good friend Ben Roloff was there and set the record straight.

Good job Ben, you were way nicer than i would have been.

 

The more i think about what i watched, the more angry and frustrated i get. We bought here for a lot of reasons, but none more so for me than the fact we are self-governed. The beauty of a community built by the people for the people was unlike anything i had seen in my prior life. It sounds corny, but the idea we run ourselves is enticing on so many levels.

Yesterdays video, where being rude to those stepping to the mic is beyond my comprehension. I've said it before, the oath where board members swear allegiance to the corporation is problematic...simply because they aren't elected by the corporation, but by those that live here. Chastising people who raise concerns is hardly the way to represent the constituents.

The whole New Years eve dance club shift was the classic example. The one member who brought up the email that was circulated about having to cut back on venues due to the cost of setup and take down is the perfect example of doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. For most, they haven't read the email, hence the confusion. The clubs office has determined they need to reduce the number of dance venues on New Years eve, too costly. To do that they are condensing the clubs by genre and in doing so, rotating who gets the largest (Sundial) venue. Sounds fair, but the net is the Rock and Roll clubs will be at Bell and their attendance alone (based on last years numbers) will accommodate half the number this years did.

If the new criteria is that we are going to do things based on costs, then we better look at what golf is doing to this community. Between the money hidden in capital expenses and the incredible dollar poured into the courses and maintenance buildings, we are upside down and there's only one alternative. That will never happen, but until we get honest about how money is allocated, we cannot even begin to have a reasonable discussion.

Honesty is really a challenge these days. One board member, as mentioned above suggested Youngtown lost their age overlay and "to his knowledge," it was because of T33. Yikes. They lost it because when they opened they didn't file the correct paperwork. As the laws evolved from the Fair Housing Standards act, they never went in and corrected their early errors. Making crap up may work in the Trump era for some, but the truth truly will set us all free.

Better yet, the folks in the front of the room trying to school Ben on Title 33 is laughable. As the Condo Owners Association president (which falls under T33) he's given presentations for years on it. As a county commissioner in WI for 20 years he has lived and flourished under open meeting laws. He understands the nuances of the laws and when folks sit on the stage making stuff up, it's too much to sit idly by and not respond.

Our age overlay is not in jeopardy because ofT33. And the idea that rentals are frightening is even a bigger joke. If that is the case, why the hell does the GM have so many of them? Is she helping destroy Sun City with them? Of course not, SCHOA monitors rentals, because it is who is living in the home, not who owns it. Life's a bitch when you just make stuff up eh?

Finally, Ben pointed out on Feb 25 (?) we will have our annual membership meeting, except we won't. Because we haven't had a legal (meeting the quorum) meeting since Sept. 2009. That's when the board increased the numbers to levels we have never met. The good news is, they will, once determining there is not a quorum, open the mic and perhaps then, we will have a voice in some of the nonsense they are spewing?

 

I wasn't going to post, as I have done quite a bit of writing over the last several days. So, here I am, writing again. Sorry folks.

After watching the Youtube of the member exchange meeting, and the way Ben was treated, I was appalled. After seeing information being made up as their lips were moving leaves one aghast of what else this "board" can come up with. My parting thought after watching the video - I think its time for a new GM.

 

If you watched the video of the board/member exchange from yesterday, then you will understand why many of us feel T33 is beneficial to those of us living here. Several speakers asked about their request for an indoor venue for volleyball and basketball. One of them even suggested it would add another location for the dance clubs to share. Apparently there was some hope that the Mountainview remodel would provide space for them.

Rather than dealing with their question straight up, the board president suggested no decisions have been made. It was at that point he stated they should be dealing with the management team because it will be their choice who goes there. Of course all we can do is speculate, because all of these talks have been going on behind closed doors in work sessions. Had those meetings been open (as they would under T33) they would know exactly what has been being said.

This is where it gets tragic because the simple reality is there are two or three primary changes coming at Mountainview. Obviously the performing arts theater is front and center, and the likelihood of that being an auditorium with basketball hoops is nonsense. Second is a large pool that will serve several water sports clubs and the community at large that currently loves their pool. Finally is a new fitness area and unless they are planning on scraping lawn bowling, tennis, pickleball, mini-golf and horseshoes there isn't room for anything else.

The point is, when meetings are open to the public, we aren't left guessing or being subjected to whatever the board wants to tell...true or falsely.

 

I hope Ben Roloff is amenable and available to teach the current board how to run open meetings. This of course would include lessons on tact, public demeanor and listening skills.

In order for change to be productive and informed, when T33 becomes the rule in Sun City, it will demand a board which is responsive, attentive communicative. Snapping at the attendees simply will not do.

All of the items being asked for will have to be discussed in an open forum, no taking it behind closed doors to scuttle the ideas. It will require open discussion, debate and compromise.

Everyone wants more, who is willing to give up something for the other. This will be a new forum for the board to discuss openly the things they would normally say behind closed doors.

One more thing, if we are trying to reduce costs, as stated, where are all of the dollars coming from for all of the requests, but more importantly, where are the dollars going which are causing a pinch in the budget?

 

Hey CM, great job on the Letter to the Editor in the Independent. Interesting to note the reference made to it at the Member Exchange. The reality is there are always two sides (at least) to every discussion. The tragedy here is we have never been willing to have more than one side.

What we are seeing now is the impact of the all-golf/all-the-time budgets of PIF dollars over the past ten years (or more). Boomers aren't clamoring for golf course renovations, they have moved away from the game and many have other interests. We put all our eggs in that one basket, while communities around us were looking to the future. They were studying trends and builders these days do not even build golf courses and run them. If there is a course on the grounds (and that is less likely), it's owned by golf course managers,so the liability isn't stuck on the developer or the community to carry the costs.

The price for this shortsightedness is we are always going to be playing catch-up on our amenity package. We begged the board to keep the long range planning committee active and engaged. We pleaded for a more open style of governance. None of that mattered because those elected were golf driven and the GM's agenda was blessed with little or no real debate. When there is only one side to the story, there's never a doubt about the outcome. It is why small picture Sun City fails to grasp the big picture needs/wants/expectations of the community at-large.

If and when the day comes we embrace T33, we will spend years trying to recover from the past 10 plus years.

 

The utter contempt the President of the Board showed toward anyone who DARED ask a question or make a comment was downright SHAMEFUL. And what is this we only deal with Policy? Management reports to the Board. If one has an issue with a Management decision or other related problem or complaint, this is a proper forum for redress. Directing them back to Management is like directing the fox to take it up with the chicken coop. The buck stops with the Board and it was painfully obvious they want to pass the buck downward. It is called a Board Member Exchange, folks. The only thing I saw exchanged from the board was disdain, contempt, and public humiliation.

 

Let me shout this one out to the board and the management staff in an effort to keep you from looking like fools: DO NOT GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WHERE YOU TRY AND SCHOOL BEN ON TITLE33, HE HAS FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU HAVE EVER OR WILL EVER KNOW.

Sorry for shouting, but it is embarrassing to see those we elected make fools of themselves. You all, we all deserve better.

 

I have thought long and hard about the question "who does the board work for?" and have come up with my own answer: no one. The board does not and has not represented the membership in any shape or form for many years.

When taking the oath of office, they pledge to protect the RCSC, the corporation. Pray tell, who or what is the corporation known as the RCSC? What is it that embodies the corporation? The closest thing to the "beings" of the "corporation" is the GM and the management team. Yet, we try and tell people the Board runs the RCSC. All of us know this is not a true statement. The GM has total control over the management team and staff and has issued board policies which state as much. The board of directors have no influence over the management staff or any other employee of the RCSC, only the GM can make policy and decisions in regards to the management staff and others.

So, the BOD, who is supposed to be in charge of the RCSC and its policies are not in charge of anything, and the GM, who is supposed to be taking care of the mundane of the daily operations has taken over the lead spot of running the RCSC. The BOD are figureheads, voted into place to fulfill the policies around elections. They are not in control of the GM, rather it is the other way around.

Will this board know how to function, once it is on its own to direct the RCSC and its members in the right direction? Will the President of the board learn how to address members in a respectful way? Will other members learn how to discuss items rather than say "it is being worked on"? It will be worked on, now, in real time, not behind closed doors, for a later resolution.

From now on, in the very near future, the board will "work" for the members of the RCSC, and I can't wait to feel the freedom of real discussions, in real time, with real answers.

 

Who does the board work for? Essentially, themselves. I know, you were hoping I would say the members, right?

Certainly we all want the RCSC to be more responsive to the desires of a broader range of members. And honestly, whether the RCSC adheres to T33-16 or not, they can be responsive -- if they want to. SCW has proven they can, so there's no reason (as Bill has often suggested) SC can't do the same. So why the T33-16 push? It's because many of us want to believe that adherence to T33-16 will ensure the RCSC will be more responsive to members; that openness will breed inclusion and accountability. But will it?

In reality, with or without T33-16, the RCSC can legally do pretty much whatever the heck they want. They, figuratively, could set, collect, and spend the assessment/pif money on anything from milk and cookies to the most wonderful of recreational stuff -- either way we members can't legally do much other than complain if we don't like their choices. Of course, if there's fraud, embezzlement, etc involved the sheriff would get involved. But otherwise we're serfs kept by the king, so to speak.

So what does this all mean? I'm not trying to paint the RCSC as a villain here, nor am I trying to spark conspiracy theory. The board is reasonably responsive, albeit with lots of defensive posturing IMHO. We members have cast our lot by not staying involved and simply blindly following their lead (ie, the lemmings SCR mentioned in another thread.). We havn't had a member quorum for 10 years -- that's not much of an indicator we want change. I guess is that most members are apathetic or have accepted defeat. There's a danger in that.

We're legally vested to the RCSC for them to provide "recreation facilities", whatever they decide that means. The RCSC has the legal right to set and collect mandatory assessments and PIF fees and then do whatever they please with them. They aren’t legally accountable to us in many ways, nor do they have to respond to us if we want to know details or provide input. If you think T33-16 fixes all this, it doesn't:

1. Under T10 alone the BOD can meet in secret and don't have to disclose much. The can preclude our participation on mostly anything except member meetings and board elections.
   
2. under T33-16 they have to open their komono and disclose pretty much everything and they have to allow us a voice in all their meetings (except those discussing personnel or legal issues, of course). A voice isn't a vote, however.

So that means in the T10 case we might feel/or not, like mushrooms. In the T33-16 case we will know for sure. In both cases, changing the board is essentially the only mechanism for change if the board is unyielding to member wants/needs. Under T33-16 the RCSC must allow proxies, so in theory, it's easier to boot board members if need be... but the reality is the number of signatures and member votes required under T33-16 would be historic in SC.

There can always bad actors even in the best of communities and corporations, both members and directors. And even with audits and watchdog groups, there's plenty of opportunity for the train to go off the tracks. Working together, SC can be the best it can be. Whether that actually happens depends on who we elect to the board. T33-16 provides an opportunity for members to become more involved and guide a willing board, the downside being things drag on sometimes due to more players in the discussion. T10 alone allows the board to act in a bubble and potentially leave the members wanting in perpetuity.

 

IC, always love your discussions and points of view. Great job in presenting both sides, it was a fantastic read.

You are so right, it is going to take a board which is willing to listen to the membership and pay attention to the their needs, wants, and desires. We don't have it now, and I have serious doubts if the current board members will be flexible enough to change course midstream. I feel many of them are so indoctrinated into the "follower" mentality, it may take until next year when the elections happen to see a new direction.

For one thing, I think the questions for the prospective candidates will change in thought and feeling. When a candidate suggests that "communication with the members" is their top priority, it will have a new direction to what does communication with the members look like, feel like and sound like. With open meetings there will be two way dialogue which will mean being apprised of what is going on, how it affects the membership, and immediate feedback. I truly believe we had a slate of great candidates this last election season, and it is kind of sad two of the openings went to what I will call for now the status quo. The board dynamics would have been so different if we had mostly new directors taking on the new charge.

To the statement "A voice isn't a vote, however" I say the rule changes to allow proxies and early voting can have a profound effect on outcomes. With those added factors thrown into the mix, the outrageous quorum now becomes attainable. Once the quorum it attainable, and you know your vote counts, it can be a huge change within the membership.

Yes, the RCSC has the right to do many things to and with the facilities, it is their duty to do so. But the membership has the ability to elect a board which will truly represent them, and with ballots mailed to homes and early voting, I see a great opportunity to have a greater turnout of members who may now become interested in what their community can do for them.

Thanks again for your writings, they are always appreciated.