Thank You to the Board

Those of you who are occasional followers of this site or are a little interested in how the RCSC functions, may be scratching your head about this post. Not that it isn't lucid, but there's more to the story that wasn't written, and most assuredly is worth elaborating on. It truly was a sea-change moment.

This past Thursday (April 25) was the second open meeting conducted by the board. Work sessions are now gone and the RCSC board is conducting business in front of those present at the two monthly sessions. It is a different way of doing business for everyone, and in my mind, the way it should have been done for years.

CMartinez was walking in, as were my friend Ben and I. He was a parliamentarian for much of his life and Carole stopped to ask him a question. For those that don't know, years back the RCSC had an expert on Robert's Rules of Order in attendance to answer any questions about conducting business. It was a safeguard on any number of levels. He didn't tell me what she asked, but once the meeting started, it became quite clear.

When CM got a chance to speak during the open mic portion, she asked a question about being able to submit a motion for board consideration. I leaned in to Ben and pointed out, the only way she could submit a motion to the board was if we were at a membership meeting where we had a quorum and it received the support of the 50% of those in attendance. Quite doable when we had quorums of 100 and quarterly membership meetings. Unfortunately the board changed the quorum back in the summer of 2009 and we've never had enough members to ever hold a membership meeting since.

Back to the story: Carole persisted and President Delano asked her to submit the motion in writing to the board. To his credit, he didn't try and shut her down. She thanked him for helping her understand what she needed to do. Another wave of speakers got through and Carole stepped to the mic again and stated she had written the motion calling for the RCSC to adopt a new quorum requirement of 500, rather than the current 1250. At that point Jerry pointed out a board member would have to carry the motion, members didn't have the capacity to submit motions unless at a legal membership meeting. She could however leave it with them and perhaps one of the board members would submit it.

There was a brief silence where everyone was looking about. Finally one board member, Director Graettinger told Carole to leave the motion with her and she would present it at the May meeting. Truly a watershed moment. As board members we had been trying to get the board to buy into a smaller quorum, but it never got out of the work sessions. I've written numerous times about "group think." It is a technique from my previous life we used and even taught. I watched it too many times not to understand how and why it works. As a board member, i understood perfectly, it was a way of life at the RCSC. It's how leadership gets people to go where they want them to go.

It was why we always wanted to see open meetings. What happens in the light of day is always different from what happens in the vacuum of backrooms. Accountability is almost always shuffled aside when there isn't a bright light shining on the decisions that are being made. I've written it before, board members run for all the right reasons. They don't get elected to represent their neighbors and friends and then do things to screw them. The problem has been the structure has been tilted to play follow the leader.

What happened this past Thursday may well be the start of a new and improved process of self-governance. I don't know what will happen to the motion Carole submitted and Diana will carry. Motions need to be read and approved three times. In each case it need get a majority of the votes to move forward. Time will tell how many of the board members will understand the significance of their vote. The reality is we have never had 500 members in the room at once for an annual meeting. Even if we did, for a motion to pass from the floor, it would mean if there were 500 card holders there, 251 of them would need to vote yes on the motion.

While this action is important, the bigger issue is the board has the chance to do something because it is right for Sun City. I understand perfectly how and why we got to where we are today. It wasn't because of the board setting the course, it was because they elected to follow the lead. In this case, they can reverse a bad decision made years ago and start to set it right.

Kudos to Carole for pushing and at least at this point, for the board to step up to the challenge.

 

We'll see Carole. Taking it is one thing...moving it forward is another. You know how the GM feels about this, now we'll see exactly how the board feels about it.

 

You would have to go back before the current GM to see how meetings differed. They still had work sessions, but the membership (every three months) and the board meetings (every month) had a parliamentarian seated next to the stage to answer questions (if they arose) regarding Roberts Rules of Order. So we are clear, the membership meeting convened only if there was the required quorum present. They ran concurrent to one another. Obviously the potential for legal issues arose when motions from the membership could inject them (during the membership meeting). And, as i have stated in the past, if a motion from the floor passed by a majority of the members present, it was by by-law action referred back for study by the board. It was a safeguard for anything off the wall passing by a handful of members.

I do like the change in the last two meetings; a lot. In fact, at least one board member commented as they were leaving how much better this way was. It is allowing board members to do what they were elected to do...be leaders, not followers. Damn, that is a nice change. Let's hope they keep it up.

 

I remember the quarterly member meetings -- I liked them. As I recall, members spoke much like they do at the interchange meetings. The meetings got contentious however when ARS was close to mustering a quorum and the board seemingly got scared she'd succeed. To bad they didn't trust the rest of us to vote most of she and Noel's ideas down. Her history with the board was long and tenuous, but instead of working out a compromise the BOD tried to slap her down. Force and disrespect almost always begets an in kind response. I'm not defending ARS, but the BOD could have, in hindsight, handled it much differently and probably diffused her wrath long before it got to the point of changing the quorum and disenfranchising the membership -- and her lawsuit.

To me, the current strategy of a once a year member meeting fails to motivate members to participate at all. Why would members pay attention to what's going on day to day if they only get a chance to act once a year. This isn't supposed to be like partisan politics, it's our Rec Center! Yes, I know the board decided (without member approval, might I add) to change to "yearly" because of lack of attendance and an assumption the members don't care. That's a cop out as far as I'm concerned. If the BOD really wanted the members involved (and they should) why wouldn't they involve members more and give them a reason to attend -- and I don't mean free milk and cookies as a reason, I mean something substantial to be involved in, to approve, to learn about, or whatever. Instead they disbanded member committees and distanced themselves further. This sent the message they didn't want member input, etc. The ugly fact is the BOD has done little of any substance in a long time to indicate a willingness to embrace a partnership between the membership and the RCSC. Instead they have projected a we're in charge and you members get what we decide attitude -- take it or leave it. You can blame the GM for overpowering the board and creating that attitude if you want, but the BOD is ultimately responsible and they must own it. As you've said, Bill, few BOD members have walked the walk of their pre-election talk. Secrecy is not good in the public sector.

T33 is a chance to rekindle a partnership by opening the RCSC kimono and giving members a way of participating. Based on the lies the BOD are telling and the money the they're spending for legal help, change RCSC documents, buying big wig politicians and lobbyists, broadcast emails, etc, it's seems clear the BOD doesn't really want members involved in guiding the RCSC to provide what the members want. Actions speak louder than words -- they obviously don't want T33 -- I believe it's because they don't want to open the kimono, don't want members knowing about anything the BOD should have been/be held accountable for. In short, the BOD seems to want to maintain their status quo, to never give any significant info or control to the hands that feed them -- ie, the membership.

Many here laud the cost benefits of living in SC based on our low assessment fee for rec amenities. More amenities at lower cost! We often think of the SC and RCSC as interchangeably in that context. We shouldn't when comparing assessments with what other communities charge. Assessments in similar communities often fund much more than just their rec center, they include road maintenance, landscaping, etc. A more useful fact would be knowing how the per member costs really compare, RCSC vs other communities' allocated rec center costs. Apples to apples! For sure, the cost to live in SC is lower than most others, but that's, to some extent, due to being in an unincorporated area, our older housing has lower taxes, no school taxes, the fact roads and related landscaping are owned and maintained by the County, etc. Those savings have nothing to do with whether the RCSC performs at a lower cost per capita than other communities do for their rec activities. Agreed, it is not easy to determine, what with differing amenities, etc -- but we members should figure that out somehow since, well, we're paying the bill! And yes, the PIF (or whatever name other communities call it) needs to be included in the analysis since different communities account for those costs using various accounting treatments in their fee structures.

 

You are spot on regarding how this fiasco was handled IC. It all could have been avoided with a little common sense. I wonder if Noel is still alive. I always liked him.

I have to tell you i was on the board when we moved to an annual meeting (and voted for it). I knew we would never reach a quorum without trying something radical. I never expected we would reach a quorum at an annual meeting either, but i was sure the board we see the error of an unreachable number and make an adjustment. Foolish me. I was also there as the flushed the long range planning committee ( i voted against it). As they were pondering it, i posted a treatise regarding alternatives to committees, it's posted somewhere on these pages. It was pretty good and what i was advocating for was to hold two annual town hall type meetings with real topics. There were any number of hot button issues back then and we could have stimulated interest with a meaningful agenda. That went over like a fart in church.

There's some truth in your argument with some communities having greater obligations. The reality is we are still one of the best deals going. The PIF is a factor for those shopping for an age restricted community. One of the TOSC regulars had looked long and hard at Sun City. He bought in Festival because they had no PIF. He was writing long narratives back then and in his summary he did an evaluation factoring in the SC PIF compared to what he was going to pay in Festival. It was only a handful of years before it balanced out and then it was all downhill form there, but it was a factor.

 

I don't know. The last time I saw him was when he and ARS were walking my neighborhood trying to gather support and donations, maybe a year before the lawsuit was filed. He wasn't in good shape.

Yes, I remember. There was a thought that making a party out of the meeting would attract people to attend. I remember the claustrophobic/introvert in me thinking "who would want to go to a party with hundreds of people they didn't know?" As I recall I made some suggestions to motivate attendance; one, they should close all of the RCSC for the day -- no golf, no bowling, no pools, no gym, no clubs, etc. The closure would be a reminder and with nothing else to do, more would show up. Another was that the HOA of a community I lived in before moving to SC made their annual meeting mandatory -- a fine was assessed if you were a no show and you hadn't given someone your proxy. We always got a quorum. Of course both garnered the same fluff in church your ideas did.

 

Hey IC, i kind of glossed over your point and it shouldn't be lost, ever. There was no way ARS could have impacted the RCSC. The safeguard built into the by-laws from a motion from the floor was golden. A minimum of a month for the board to "study" it and by then they could have rallied the masses to vote down stupid. So simple, but instead we started down a course of changes that were a complete contrast to what those who came before us created.

 

So if a member can request a Board member to bring forward a motion as we saw at the last meeting, why is it necessary to wait for an annual meeting? There are about 35,000 RCSC members and it says a lot about their willingness to be involved when the voting numbers are so low. People show up for their special interest issues only. Just the way it is.

 

Not the way it has to be aggie. If the board set a goal of growing the numbers of involved residents, they could see larger turnouts. It doesn't happen by accident. And to be realistic, they will never grow the numbers involved by more than five or ten fold. Management by special interest is the worst possible way to achieve good outcomes. Want proof? Look back over the last twelve years.

Don't look for board members to be agreeing to take motions from the floor from members as the new world order. Carole shocked the the board with her proposal and when she followed up with it in writing there were some stunned looks about what to do next. Director Graettinger taking it was an even bigger shock. Now we will see if it gets a second at the next meeting and can get through for a majority vote for it to move forward.

Having open meetings was a good first step. Now we will see if they are willing to buck the GM who has always liked the safety of removing the power from the floor and putting it in the hands of a few.