I submitted a motion, through Secretary Graettinger to lower the Quorum to 500 at the last board meeting. The motion will be brought forward on the Monday, May 13th meeting, for its first reading and member comments. I am so very grateful to Director Graettinger for allowing this motion to see the light of day. On the printed agenda. there should be a motion, sponsored by Diana Graettinger, Secretary of the Board. I do not know the motion number yet, but please sign up at the entrance to the Sundial, and sign the form stating you want to speak to the lowering of the quorum. Please offer your commentary as to why the lower quorum is of benefit to the members, or other reasons you may come up with. The current quorum of 1250 is too high and we will never have a membership meeting with the numbers set so high. The members need to have a chance to be a partner within the RCSC and this would include being able to participate in the annual membership meeting. There is no fear to lowering the quorum, as there are many fail safes written into the bylaws should something interesting happen. All motions made from the floor are automatically put on hold and given to the board of directors for further action. Out of the 500 members, in order to affect a change, it would require 251 votes of the affirmative to affect the change. And still, it gets rested back to the Board of Directors. I have not asked for, nor am I even including any type of proxy vote, rather a straight member by member availability to have an annual meeting and cast one vote per member. I wanted to write this and send it to the Daily News Sun for publication, but I missed the deadline for the newspaper, so I am now looking for ways to get folks out to speak in favor of lowering the meeting quorum for the RCSC. My intent is for the membership to become a completely integrated piece of the RCSC processes. To have the members be able to active participants in an annual meeting, offer to vote on items which are relevant at the time, and have their voices heard. It feels to me to be a natural extension of the open meetings now adopted by the Board of Directors. If the Board truly does value the members and supports open communication, please vote to lower the quorum. It would be such a great olive branch offered to the members to be able to have open meetings and complete annual meetings, I believe we can start to look at the membership as becoming an integral part of the RCSC, with such great support offered if allowed to participate. Please get the word out anywhere you can there is an opportunity to lower the quorum and are in need of the members to come and sign up and speak as to what the advantages can be with the quorum lowered to 500. All we can do is ask, and hope that the board also wants to have a more open relationship with the members.
So you are aware, the next board meeting is scheduled for 9 am May 13 at the Sundial auditorium. The agenda isn't out yet, but will be soon. If you want to speak for or against the motion you need to sign up and so indicate you want to speak specifically to the motion when it is read and before it will be voted. There was some confusion regarding speaking to motions at the last meeting. There is a time for general comments but specific motions need be identified because if you wait, the motion will have been voted on by the time general comments are made.
Even after watching the last video of the meeting Emily, there are more than likely questions. Motions take three readings; failure to get a second or a majority of the votes will kill it. Some of the stuff they read or talked about had no action taken, which caused me to question how it worked. It’s all going take some time to work out the kinks and get even those on the board to understand It. Imagine how those of us sitting watching live or on video how confusing it appears. I still wonder why we couldn’t have just opened work sessions like other committees? In spite of it all, having to do their business in an open format makes it a far better process. We all win as those elected and in the minority aren’t just ignored or treated dismissively. Their positions are allowed to be heard and answered. Having been there and done that, this is infinitely better.
Thank You Em, I am doing much better. It was scary there for a few days, but just to ornery to stay down. I won't be at all surprised if a motion is introduced to clarify how one can get a motion to the board. There seem to be an insistence they only come from the board or committees. There has to be a venue available to take motions from the floor and not cause such a stir. I know I caught the board off guard with my desire to make a motion, but members and motions should not be an exclusionary process. There needs to be a way to allow motions from members to be added to the agenda if they are valid, member affecting, motions. I realize my motion is going to be like trying to get a peanut uphill, using your nose while on all fours. It is not a favored position by the GM, and I am not sure how separate the board and the GM are now there are open meetings. I am hoping the board is becoming the autonomous operation it should be, and looking out for what is best for the members and Sun City.
Let’s face people, Jan and the Ekettes have had this motion for at least two weeks and spite of Title 33, this has already discussed extensively and it is going down because Auntie Jan wants that way. I will admit that they will go through the motions (no pun intended) but this motion stands about much change as president bone spurs breaking out always telling the truth. Call me a cynic but I have been here for fourteen years and anything management wants they receive. I am sorry I missed today’s (Monday) meeting but was unavoidable so I will have to see what went down as under their rules, today was the first reading which also, in all likelihood involved discussion. My prediction is that Jan is standing by our bozo outside counsel who started this in the first place. She will never admit she did something wrong. One more point that sticks in my craw, it was said by Jan or president DeLano that motions of this nature had to be introduced by an officer. I personally believe this is bull and I am counting on CM, who is a veritable research animal, find this in the corporate documents. Personally I think that this alleged policy was pulled out of an orfice. So help me on this one CM. I don’t mind getting up at the next meeting and exposing them, this evidently is my lot in life. I know know shareholders, i.e., members, can present motions at annual meetings without Board interference at public corporate meetings. If you have ever owned publicly traded stock and received voting materials with motions listed, you know what I mean. Although RCSC is a non profit, the members, in a sense are stockholders as they have voting rights. Think about it. We are not second class citizens. In closing, I would like to point out that CM and her faithful Indian companion, Dave Wieland, caught Jan and the Board in a supremacy of statute argument several years ago which they were vilified by the rest of the Board. Ultimately Jan consulted outside counsel and was advised that CM and Dave were correct. No apologies from anybody. Just to point out to the readers that these two always fought the good fight and actually won. They were also not Jan’s favorite Directors. The truth hurts and it’s always funny.
It is the 13th aggie, spot on. The agenda was sent the other day via email and there is no motion regarding Carole's reduction in quorum size. Here is the exact verbiage from the agenda: 3.Member request to lower membership quorum to 500 from 1,250 – Secretary Graettinger. You can see the agenda here. I would disagree with your assessment GvD from this perspective: Annual membership meetings of stock holders do have the ability to submit motions from the floor. We would as well, as long as we met the quorum requirements to actually have a membership meeting. It is the tragedy of what we have allowed to happen. The day we went to unreachable quorum numbers we changed the dynamic of how the community was both built and run. Frankly i do not believe it was the recommendation of the attorney, but the whims of a GM who wanted absolute control contained in a boardroom where she set the tone and the tenor. Next Monday will be an interesting test of just where the board stands regarding whether it is moving away from the GM running the community. One last thing: i have never heard only an officer of the board could submit motions. Any board member has that right. In fact, the beauty of the open meeting is a minority position board member can introduce a motion (as did Stella regarding re-implementing Resolution #32) and the only obligation to move it forward is a second. Next Monday indeed will be interesting.
Well Bill, regarding the attorney, Jan has said on several occasions that she discussed the quorum number with the attorney and the current number is what they agreed upon. This essentially confirms your point from a different perspective. As for member motions , the RCSC has presented us with a Catch 22 if a member motion must be done at an annual meeting. We need to have a quorum at the annual meeting in order to present a motion to lower the quorum, with no ability to know if it will be adopted. Then there is the question of proxies which can be used in a public stockholder setting, but Jan squashed this option several years ago because of ARS and what could do. I believe the raising of the quorum from 100 to 1250 was based on this logic. I still maintain that Jan will somehow prevent the
I have a stupid question. I asked for a motion, was advised to fill out a motion and submit a motion about lowering the quorum. So, why do I not see a motion to lower the quorum? Why is it an agenda item? If I am following the rules as they seem to be making them up as they go, where does a member go to know what to do when, and avoid the slight of hand which seems to be occurring? It takes so little to confuse me anymore.
Goodness, you guys are cynical . Seriously, give them a chance to see if they stay the course with the open meetings. If they don't, then we can storm the castle and...oh wait, given our ages, we should probably do a 60's style sit in or something less physical eh?
Yes, we'll see how it goes on Monday. If it looks like the BOD is starting to backslide on the new open meetings, I suggest we start paying our annual assessments in coin as a protest. Nothing in the docs to prohibit it.....yet!
I only mentioned "if" they started backsliding. My hope is that they will continue to make every effort to be transparent.
Cynical? Of course, it's part of my moniker. In my opinion, the RCSC has been increasingly screwing the membership out of its ability to have any significant input, oversight, or control over them for more than a decade. They changed the quorum to preclude member meetings, they rewrote the by-laws and board policies, they've disbanded member committees to preclude member involvement. They stopped releasing detailed financials so members could judge if their money was being well spent. The Board and GM now control everything. These are exactly the things the PCA (T33) was intended to prevent. And now they've used our money to buy lawyers and legislators and lobbyists to circumvent the law. Why shouldn't we expect backsliding? My feelings toward the RCSC now borders on complete disdain. I have found their politicking, their golf partisanship, and their "corporate attitude" all run counter to my sense of fairness and community spirit that we should expect to exist within the RCSC. The by-laws and board policies today bear little resemblance to what they were when I moved here; the board and GM lied to us as to why they changed the quorum, they lied to us about the ramifications of T33, they've lied to us about their screwups while building the new Fairway rec center, the upgrades to Marinette, the solar, etc. They've worked against board members specifically elected to foster change. In the time I've lived in SC, the RCSC has enacted the PIF and increased it 5-fold. They spend our money lavishly on amenities granted some members want (eg, $50-mil on golf). Yet they refuse to spend even a few hundred $K of our money for state of the art IT, audio-visual equipment, better sound system equipment, etc. that other members want. They won't spend our money for theater facilities, not even for comfortable seating for the weekly movies that are repeatedly asked for. They won't spend money for popular activities like bus trips. The RCSC clearly demonstrates it is not for all the members, just for some. By my measure, we've given the RCSC far to many chances already. Continuing to hope they will do the right thing needs to end. The Concerned Recreation Members (CRM) needs to reactivate, raise money to spread the truth and file lawsuits or whatever else needs to be done to give the membership back control of its RCSC.
No offense EL, but I've been hearing the "give them a chance" and kumbaya mantras for as long as I've lived here. I apologize if my posts are perceived "mean" in your eyes, they were not meant to offend you. The facts are the facts, the truth is the truth, a lie is a lie. It's past tiresome to me. The chips will fall where they may whether I comment or not. So, silence is enabled.
IC is spot on E, things have changed in ways that 20 or 30 years ago would have gotten the board recalled and the GM fired. Seriously, the slow drip of concentrating power into the hands of a small minority is in absolute contrast to how Sun City was built. We have a rich history of debate, strife and challenges that worked through a half dozen differing issues. Some of them went on for 25 plus years (incorporation); as a community we were better off for having lived and battled though them rather than letting the powers that be simply dictate what Sun City should look like and become. I am in the process of reading Ben's latest efforts. The time frame is 1980 through 1985 and it is remarkable reading; things i had no idea about. He is taking the two local newspapers of the day, reproducing the relevant articles and summarizing events month by month. The way those living here then engaged in the process of self-governance is so far removed from the sanitized version we have is almost unbelievable. How did we fall so far from a community that cared to one where almost nothing matters is beyond my comprehension. BTW, there's nothing wrong with having opinions. We don't have to agree with each other on every topic. In fact, better if we don't. We just don't have to be a horse's ass when we disagree. While some may find that kind of Trump mentality attractive, most normal people see it for what it is; rude.
Rather than reply to threads that cover many topics and barely stay on topic I thought I would express my opinions in this thread, so here goes. T10 vs. T33 - It really doesn't matter whether we are governed by t10 or t33 with regard to closed (secretive) sessions. Closed sessions can and probably will continue whether we like it or not, as the internet has made that very easy to do. If the board continues to allow secretive sessions then the board is part of the problem and their claims of supporting and advocating for more transparency will become mute. The GM/Board effectively has tied the hands (and lips) of the community with regards to having a voice in its governance. Constant by law changes and other restrictions have made it completely impossible for the community to mount any resistance to the GM/Board and its decisions. We have only ourselves to blame for the current state of affairs in Sun City. Quorum - I don't see the quorum ever being reduced or at least lowered to a point where there is a possibility that the quorum will be met. I'm basing this on the number of participants that show up or have shown up for the board meetings and member exchanges. Open meetings probably will not increase the number of participants. Also, those that show up are usually there to support a specific agenda and not to protest actions of the GM/Board. I believe the majority of Sun City residents either don't care about their governance or don't feel their voices are being heard, so why bother to show up and get involved. Sun City History and Facebook - I did reply to that particular thread and to summarize - Social Media according to Lady Gaga (and I agree with her) is the toilet of the internet. Golf - this is a topic that gets little or no exposure either on this forum or by the GM/Board. It is however, a topic that will become more and more important to the community long term. What it is going to come down to is how much the non golfers are willing to pay to subsidize the small number of golfers in the community. If I believe the numbers posted on this forum that 50 million has been spent on golf to support the 10% of the residents who do golf then obviously there is an in-balance here that has to be corrected. Will that ever happen? Probably not in my lifetime as any attempt to turn any of the golf courses into green spaces or other uses will be met with hoards of people showing up at the board meetings and many very expensive law suits. Before any attempt to convert a golf course is even considered there must be extensive, independent, and costly investigation of all the facts and figures regarding the golf courses. It cannot be left to the GM/Board. All facts and figures must be obtained by independent sources to insure the data gathered is accurate and complete. I would never trust data submitted by the GM/Board as their agenda has been to preserve the status quo with regard to golf. Also, any conversion of a golf course to other uses will come with its own associated maintenance costs. What if anything is the LRPC doing with regard to the supposed decline in golf? What if anything is the GM/Board doing in the same regard? There are many questions that have to be asked and answered concerning golf and Sun City. If you want to see the masses show up at a board meeting, just suggest that a course is going to be repurposed or suggest a raise in your rec fees and or the PIF to support golf. How about having the golfers pony up more to support their lifestyle and not depend on non golfers subsidize them. I'll probably have more at a later time, but I thought I would at least express my opinions now just to see what kind views the thread gets and how many replies it gets. As of my post, there were 18 replies, and 363 views.
Can anybody say "sham"? Yep, when the replies are all of the same stories and excuses the GM has used for the last 10 years as to why the quorum should not be lowered, it is quite evident to this author there are no open meetings, the GM still controls the board, and they are buying into it hook, line and sinker. SO, go and get your warm fuzzy feelings, believing there are now open meetings, but all one has to do is see how one board member was shut down while still speaking and its clear, there are already controls in place as to who gets to speak, who doesn't, and by all means, protect the GM's position at all costs, and to the detriment of the members. No wonder no one is involved anymore, the GM has neutered the membership into submission. She has made it clear it is her way or the highway, and damn the fool who tries to stand in her way.
