One of the problems with using your own name and owning whatever you write is you become exposed to people perceiving you in ways that may be inaccurate. This week has been one of times. Nope, i do not regret taking ownership for what i say and am always happy to engage people on topics so we can have a civil discourse. In all likelihood, i will continue to function that way as long as i keep scribbling my thoughts for public consumption. The article Rusty posted on line for the Independent and will probably be in the Independent next week prompted a couple of calls to me. One of them i have talked to at length and the other i will call back later today. In both cases, the suggestion was made i go down and testify when the senate hears the Payne legislation. Thanks to one of the callers, he sent me the link for the house hearing. I watched it in its entirety and was stunned by the poor performance by the author of the bill. Clearly he didn't write the article for the Independent and the drafting of the legislation also appeared beyond his capabilities. When he wasn't losing his train of thought, he'd mumbled crap about Youngtown and hoped it sounded coherent. I'm not trying to be unkind, but had anyone with an ounce of common sense been there to offer rebuttal, it never would have gotten out of committee. Neither the RCSC or there attorney offered much in the way of defense or offense for that matter. I've read ARS's claims they moved the hearing up from 2 pm to 1 pm and never told them. It certainly appears to be the case because when they called 5 or 6 names to testify, no one stepped forward. And, it seems like the kind of game that could get played. Its why i hate politics. I have said before, i have testified in Washington DC at the senate during the time of the Enron hearings and numerous times at the State capitol in St. Paul. I'm comfortable and confident in those settings. For some it is intimidating, not sure why but i thrive on it, especially when it is a topic i understand. Here's what you need to know. I said no in both cases. I will not go testify, not because i don't want to see T33 a part of Sun City's oversight, but because of what the lawsuit represents. ARS and i went to coffee/lunch several times before i was on the board. Like i said i am always willing to talk to people, and i did agree with some of things she was saying. However, when she went off on a tangent about crooks and scoundrels she started to lose me. The bigger issue was/is this. In her arguments and in her lawsuit, she wants the PIF to simply go away. She claims it's not fair/equal, hence it should be gone. When i asked what the remedy should be if that happened, she stated quite emphatically, "that's not my problem." I've written this a hundred times, maybe more: The PIF is the best thing the RCSC board has ever done. We can argue how and where the money is spent, but without the PIF, Sun City would be hulking shell of dilapidated buildings and golf courses. The only recourse would have been to vote for assessments over and above rec fees and nothing would ever have been passed and consequently nothing ever would have been rebuilt. Just as an example, the Fairway rebuild would have taken a membership vote where they would have assessed each home a i time $500 payment. Think it would have passed across the community? Yes, i am comfortable with T33 as part of our governance process. No, i won't go get in the middle of a legislative setting that in the long run somehow hurts Sun City. I write what i write, say what i say and get involved because i love the community. I have no interest in seeing it take steps backwards because i am bitter and trying to get even. Sorry, but that's just me.
Bill, Your integrity and honesty have always been beyond reproach. Many may not always agree with your position or support your stand, but your ethics and ability to stand by your word at all costs is what makes you so great at creating these great posts you do. It is great to hear of your decision to say "no" and the journey in which you took to arrive at this decision. I, too, support the PIF, as we do need to maintain the facilities in a way which makes them attractive and usable for all of the members. The legislative process in this case is one filled with pitfalls which could cause a backlash no one wants to be a part of. Here is looking forward to T33, and a member focused board and a compliant GM. Thank you for your thoughts on this issue as well as the others you have shared in the spirit of community.
Hey Carole, thanks for the kind words. We do what we do, not for the recognition, but because we believe it to be for the good of the community. It's why i preach on people to know and understand the history of Sun City. There's always been disagreements over direction and we've survived it all quite nicely. When i first ran and went on the board i suggested some mandatory reading for board and management alike; basics like Jubilee and Meeker's 30 page journal entry, A Look Back. Simple stuff but the nuts and bolts of how we were formed and why it worked. What's the saying? Like a fart in church. Yesterday i had a lengthy discussion with one of the guys involved in the lawsuit. He wanted me to testify before the senate. It was a good discussion and one he was/is passionate about. Again, if you know our history, you know lawsuits played an integral role in Sun City's formation. Of course the simple solution is to do things in ways you don't get sued, but a little late for that eh? When i told him why i wouldn't testify, we had a good debate. The fight over T33 is almost meaningless in relation to the bigger issue; the PIF. While he wanted to downplay it, many of the original plaintiff claims were regarding the PIF. ARS hated it and wanted it gone, which was odd because she always railed about the importance of "unsurpassed amenities." You can't have them if you cannot afford to pay for them. I explained the PIF was a mirror image of what DEVCO did during the course of the 18 year build-out; each home paid an add on to the cost and when they gave the amenities back to us, they simply returned what we paid for at the point of sale. The mistake that was made was the RCSC should have started an "impact fee" the day DEVCO left. He argued the PIF was illegal and immoral; that people should have a say in whether they paid it or not, and how it was spent. For the record, it was not illegal when it was passed. In 98/99 no one was clamoring for T33. We were under T10 and the board has/had the authority to change and pass by-laws amendments. From a practical point, the way they did it was painful to no one. When homes sold, new buyers would pay the fee when they closed on their home; if they didn't like it, they didn't have to buy here and pay it. I know the argument, sellers got less for their home, but realistically as amenities were improved the value of the home increased because of those upgrades. The better point was regarding community involvement in how the PIF money was spent. The very idea the one vehicle (the long range planning committee was disbanded) only added to his argument. Language changes to the quorum and other community documents, lack of surveys and the GM declaring the golf PIF budget was "off limits" also moved us away from the role the community played in helping shape direction and become a more management/board decision making process. It was impossible for me to argue that when i've said and written the same things for years now. The one point he made is similar to one you've stated Carole: The judge ordered in his ruling the RCSC must adopt T33 and they have refused to do so. I thought i read it was a temporary judgement and hence they didn't have to immediately comply. He said that's not the case and seems to me, you said the same. Legal is way above my pay grade, so how do you see what the judge ordered? Far from me being critical of judges, i will leave that to our president; but my fear is if the state passes the PCA legislation, is there a chance the judge will go overboard and find in favor of the plaintiffs because of the RCSC's actions regarding T33? Simply put, falling under T33 is the size of a gnats ass compared to an adverse ruling on our Preservation and Improvement Fund. Are we simply fighting the silly fight at the expense of losing the battle?
I would imagine Sun City West has a big stake in the results of this lawsuit as they, too, collect a PIF.
Bill, The judge made a ruling, in a single statement which says "The RCSC is a planned community and falls under the Planned Communities act. Sorry, but when the Judge made his decisions, he included the reasons why the RCSC is a planned community, as well as other citations as to how he arrived at the decision. Nothing temporary about it, it was a direct order to the RCSC to fall in line with other planned communities, as I read it. When writing about this ruling, I have danced around the issue by stating things like "fallout" or "repercussions" may be in the offing. I have also eluded to what the costs may be to the RCSC by blatantly disregarding the ruling. There will be fallout, but its any one's guess as to what extent it lands. As for the PIF fee, it is established in other planned communities, so I see no real precedence setting there. Sun City may have been the first but since then, almost every community involved with the PCA has some sort of facility buy in agreement if there are recreation and other venues for which the community is responsible. Judge Brodman may make a statement to the mention of it in the suit, but for him to remove it all together would have a devastating affect on all PCA's which have to maintain recreation facilities. I don't feel the judge is looking to set a new precedent, rather clarify some of the outstanding concerns brought forth by the suit. The inequities of the facilities agreements and who has signed, what version, trying to make it mandatory even if not signed, well, that may take on a new twist for sure. Could he order refunds for all facilities agreements and make the RCSC execute new ones all over again? Could he make the facilities agreement obsolete, and order per person charges and remove the per household charges as they are now? He may state having the per household fees for the sake of projecting a budget for the RCSC is a direct violation of Fair and Equal Treatment under the Federal Housing Title. Could he order two cards per household be given, no matter who the second person be, as the charges are clearly in favor of two people? One will have to wait and see what that twist takes. I wonder what kind of penalties the Judge will levy for failure to adhere to his ruling. There will be some sort of backlash for refusing to obey the order, but no idea what. Also, the fact the Judge made the ruling prior to the change in language as to the RCSC and "sole purpose", the judges ruling takes precedence. So, adding the language to the new "bylaws" has little weight to the ruling. Should the ruling the RCSC is a planned community and falls under the PLA be reduced to a Judgement, this is when monetary sanctions could be added for failure to adhere. As for the phase two of the suit, seeking it be declared a "class action", that one will be iffy. If the conditions of Sun City, the PIF, its fees, and its facilities agreement were so abhorrent, why did so many of these people have so many additional properties in their names, using them as rentals? I feel the class action status should have been what the RCSC went after first, get a judgement against the class action, then go to the rest of the suit Now, we are left wondering if the blatant disregard for the judges orders will have a fallout effect. There is also the issue of the plaintiffs (ARS) seeking a delay in the original hearing date, set for March. What else could they be conjuring up to add to the suit, in the form of an amendment to the original petition to the court. Not a positive sign in my book. I am not a lawyer, and the items mentioned above are pure speculation. Judge Brodman appears to want to settle these issues in a fair and meaningful way and not take on a precedent setting role in his decisions. I feel he is looking at the law, as in Title 33 versus Title 10, seeing where the RCSC is the same or differs, and where the blatant discrepancies are. In my opinion, he has a lot of room to make the RCSC adhere to the T33, lock, stock, and barrel. It will be interesting to hear his take to HB2374, and whether or not he strikes it down as illegal, and countermand to the suit he has already ruled on.
Bill you mention the “new bylaws”, I’m a little confused. What is the purpose of converting 21 Board Policies into a new Corporate Bylaw? Does it somehow make it easier for the Board to change or elimate the rules? And am I the only one that is (concerned, annoyed, etc) that the Board says, in February, they will “open” rulemaking to include Members starting in April, then drops all these changes in March that basically removes the need to ever meet about policy changes? Is it just me? What am I missing here?
Here is a small portion of the ruling Judge Brodman gave. Sorry, I didn't see the question about how to find the case and read it earlier. The obligation to pay assessments is expressly set forth in the Facilities Agreements that RCSC and its predecessors have required owners to sign as a condition of purchasing property in Sun City. (A copy of a typical Facilities Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 to plaintiffs’ statement of facts.) These Facilities Agreements are regularly recorded and run with the property. Even if the Facilities Agreement is not recorded, an owner must sign a Facilities Agreement as a condition to purchase or transfer.1 The Act applies to planned communities. Sun City is a planned community. A.R.S. § 33-1802(1) defines “Association” to mean the following: “Association” means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association of owners that is created pursuant to a declaration to own and operate portions of a planned community and that has the power under the declarations to assess association members to pay the costs and expenses incurred in the performance of the association’s obligations under the declaration. Here, as it relates to the plaintiffs in the instant lawsuit, RCSC is an “association” pursuant to the Act. It is a nonprofit corporation created to own and operate portions of a planned community and it has the power to assess Sun City residential property owners for the cost and expenses incurred in performance of the Association’s obligations. To read the full ruling it is at: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/JONamesearch.asp# Case # CV 2015-012458, minute entry for 09/04/18
I'm not sure what they are trying to do, i'll try and stop by the Member Exchange today and pick up a copy of it. There are volumes i'm told.
Well Bill, as a newbie to the site I look forward to posting in the future. As far as Kevin Payne being the author of the bill, I have advised several people that having heard Kevin speak he has either the intelligence nor the skills to draft something like this. I am of the opinion that Senator Rick Gray is behind this being a Sun City resident and all. As for the lawsuit. ARS has always done her moaning with other people’s money. If you go to her website, the record of donations was taken down, otherwise you would have seen that her contribution to the $40,000 was less than $500. So much for her dedication to truth, justice and the American way. She has no real legal experience or knowledge as evidenced by ridiculous posts over the years. The actual litigation process has been insisted by an attorney who was looking for a big notch on his belt but understood nothing of Sun City, it’s history or the evolution of the governing documents. The compliant and amended compliant are a joke as plaintiffs are listed who have no real standing, something a 1L or a half way decent paralegal could have told you. Defense counsel was appointed by the insurer whose expertise in class actions I believe revolve around product liability. This action is out of there league. The judge I believe really does not understand Sun City’s composition or history, hence he would have ruled that SC was not covered by T33 as T33 was passed 35 years after SC was founded. I leave you or Ms. Martinez to look up the legal term on that. Well, I sort of went off on a rant here and apologize for that. I had a long time friend of mine, who is a retired attorney, review the action and sort of came to the same conclusion as me, minus the ARS stuff.
Hey GdV, welcome to TOSC. Interesting comments, more later. BTW, never a need to apologize about a rants it’s part of the joy of posting.
Your comments GdV are interesting in that i couldn't tell where you fell down on either side. Unfortunately most folks are either pro or con regarding this issue. You managed to malign in order: Kevin Payne (rightly so after watching his comments at the hearing), ARS, the attorney representing the plaintiffs and the judge. Well done. The problem of course is the "second rate" attorney has convinced the judge at this stage we do in fact fall under T33. I have no legal background so i won't even speculate on the suggestion because we were built out by the time T33 came into existence, we are immune to falling under it. I suspect there is ample legal precedence to support or deny that claim. We know when Sun City West was facing the legal threats by SWOG around 2000, they elected to embrace T33 and avoid the massive costs and headaches associated with the pending court cases. Funny, because when i suggested we do the same and take away ARS's entire legal claim i was fairly well scoffed at. If only eh? The interesting part of your claim is regarding T10. I, and others on this site, have written extensively about the RCSC having moved away from a more democratic form of governance to an autocratic one. The GM has led board members down a path of change that from a historic perspective is troubling. Community involvement was at our core, and as the control has been management/board concentrated, Sun City has suffered for it. I understand why it happened, i just think it has been wrong-headed. T33 would get us better focused on the roots of how the community was built. Finally, your comments regarding the suit and some of the plaintiffs was spot on. My recollection was there were originally some 70 people with claims. I was told that wassn't true, but i vividly recall posting a thread on here citing the numbers and linking to the court filing. Some were utter nonsense and focused on the PIf and how they were impacted at the point of sale because there wasn't a dollar amount listed in the facilities agreement. My guess is by the time they went to court, they weeded out the worst of them to pair it down to the number they currently have. Anyway, looking forward to a fresh prospective of all of this. welcome again.
Thanks for the comments Bill. Being opinionated. I believe I know of what I speak, because I draw on research and personal observations. There are actually two groups I run with on T10 and T33. Although I despise the term “originalist” for the purposes of the lawsuit I am because when you come down to it, this was always a vengeance suit by ARS. She did not want to fork out the money to pursuit it so she went around as a Playmate Paul Revere whining about how the RCSC wronged her and they can do it to you. So she conned a group of people to fund this vanity action. There are other actions she did after the filing that could land her in a world of hurt if pursued. Having said that, because SC was formed 35 years before T33, I have always believed that it was an ex post facto regarding (shows you I was awake during civics in 8th grade, high school government class and government class at the university) the law suit. Since my life is empty I went downtown to review the pleadings ( as they are known in legalese) and it was mentioned in a brief but never argued in court. I consider this appalling and certainly my suspicions regarding the competence of the attorneys. I personally I think they mismanaged this from day one. I also found the judge to be a bit obtuse regarding this action. This has been a monumental waste of time and money. Now that I have that off my chest, I am for transparency as delineated in T33. I am just worried because of our litigious society that the term member troubles me. Can they vote in our elections? As deeded property owners and our corporate being reworked, will they be running for office be next? What other legal land mines are in T33. I spent a career always thinking that I knew what would happen if everything goes right, what can go wrong and what am I going to do about. I think we are about to go on the greatest learning experience since that incorporation dust up some years ago. Obviously I have my popcorn ready, metaphorically. The Board and it’s Directors are becoming autocratic mainly because management really does not value dissent of any type. What we need is to run consecutive slates in consecutive years thereby essentially taking over the Board. Probably a pipe dream but it does give you pause to think what could be possible. In closing when it comes to ARS I think of the Elvis Costello song “ I used to be disgusted, now I am just amused.”
Some 20 years back we were in Vegas with my folks. We took in a show at the Stratosphere where there was a hypnotist playing. He invited about 10 people up to the stage to participate in his act. I found it compelling and bounded to the stage. Of the ten, 8 went under quickly the other two, me and another guy, remained alert and unaffected. At which point he asked us to go sit back down. After the show i went and asked him why we didn't go under. His reply was in the form of a question: "are you overly analytical?" I started laughing and replied; "way too much so." Hence, rather than just enjoying your comments GdV, i immediately start analyzing them. What i get is intriguing, because in some cases you say/suggest the same things i have along the way. In other cases, you pay as much or more attention to the details of the case, certainly more than i have. You strike me as an insider who has been around the block and perhaps has grown weary of some of the nonsense but cannot let go of the potential we could achieve if only people gave a crap. So, thanks for joining us here and pushing the envelope a bit. You are right about the legal dilemma of T33, the management/board has an obligation to act in accordance with the law. If not they can be sued 6 ways from Sunday. That said, one only has to look to Sun City West and they have managed to adopt and embrace it with hardly a blink of the eye. No question it is a learning curve, but when one has the liability to continually be in contact with their insurance carrier about their errors and omissions clause, they rapidly adjust and refrain from doing the stupid. If you are an insider, you know management has created fear of T33 by their constant drumbeat of the evils of it. If not, you logically can understand why the GM wants/loves the ability to control the community and those elected to serve it. Way easier to do what you want when you want than having to listen to the maddening crowd. And there-in lay the frustrations of my years in Sun City. As good as this community is, we could have been so much better had we simply followed in the footsteps of John Meeker and learned to listen before acting. Instead we (the RCSC) act and then pretend to listen. It is counter-intuitive to how i learned to function in making a non-profit work more effectively.
