Abdication of Authority...

ABDICATION: The word abdication is derived from the Latin abdicatio meaning to disown or renounce (from ab, away from, and dicare, to dedicate or relinquish). In its broadest sense abdication is the act of renouncing and resigning from any formal office, but it is applied especially to the supreme office of state.

I watched all of the Game of Thrones seasons, except this one. HBO ran out and i am too cheap to renew it just to see the final 8 shows. I have to admit, when i first wrote the header, i felt it should somehow fit into the stunning series about the battles over who would sit on the throne of the kingdoms of the north. After last night at least we know it won't be Cersei Lannister (or so i have read).

But this piece isn't about dragons, princes and mystical battles in far away places. Nope, not even close. At today's board meeting i took the opportunity to express my displeasure of their actions. Two things jumped out at me: First they dumped Carole's motion into the toilet to reduce the quorum to a more manageable 500. Clearly someone had written several of the responses read, and i found it quite pathetic to have to mouth someone else's words. It was a 9-0 vote.

The second action was really even more repulsive to me. I expected the quorum to be flushed, the second item was far more chilling. The board voted (i think it was 5 to 3) to give management the decision making process on what clubs got what space. The board didn't feel it was any of their business. In fact, one comment suggested the board was there to "support management's decisions." Don't believe me? Watch it once it is posted.

I took the opportunity to point out over the past twelve years we have moved miles away from the roots of the community built on a foundation of self-governance. History does matter and this board along with so many others since the GM was hired have abdicated their authority in ways i cannot even imagine.

If you have followed the two threads i have posted from the early 80's, the concept of a community built by and for the people is both powerful and compelling. It's a story of a truly democratic process and of those living here being deeply involved.

I guess in the end, if we are just going to let management decide everything, why even waste time electing a board?

 

"Can someone please tell Ida there is no state statute governing our quorum. PLEASE!! The statute states if there is no number assigned as a quorum, then the 10% becomes effective. Since there is already an arbitrary number, picked by Jan and the board more than 10 years ago of 1250, a 10% number is null."

Carol,
Yes, that is correct. I stated that. I also said it was not in the best interest of the Membership at Large to lower the quorum. There are many in the Membership at Large that agree with the premise of not lowering the quorum. There is still much that can be accomplished should we not get a quorum. There is much we can do to try to get the quorum with effort of the community and the open meetings are a big positive start. The Board has stepped up and I have to say Jan has also stepped up. Carol, let us agree to disagree.

 

Curious Ida: have you followed the articles I have posted regarding the 80’s? We have moved so far away from how this community was built it is shameful. Do you really believe by concentrating the power in the hands of a few we are somehow better off?

I guess the idea any kind of checks and balances is lost to some of you enameled by an autocratic President who feels “they alone” can make us great eh? It’s so frustrating to watch constitutional conservatives forget their values as our documents are flushed away and ignored.

Dang, sounds just like what is going on in Sun City.

One last question Ida, how did you like the statement that was read by Director Greattinger regarding the quorum? What do think the odds are she wrote it?

 

Why can't the membership make that decision for themselves? Why do they need the BOD to make the decision for them? If you are correct, Ida, they would vote to keep the quorum at an essentially unachievable number, a number some of us believe was illegally put in place initially.

As I recall, the Corp documents back when the quorum was 100 said the quorum could be raised with membership approval. Had the BOD adhered to the documents, the membership might have voted to raise the quorum because 1)the RCSC was lying to the membership, saying the quorum needed to be raised to comply with the law, and 2)there was a lot of anti-ARS feelings at that time. On the other hand, the membership might have voted it down because what had been good enough for SC's first 40-years was still good enough.

We'll never know how they would have voted because the BOD chose to not give the membership any say at all. Instead they modified the documents, increased the quorum, etc. Since the BOD had already made document changes to preclude gathering petition signatures on RCSC property, etc., and now with an unachievable quorum, they were effectively insulated from member backlash. The image of a Director standing red faced on the stage at Mountinview saying tersely the RCSC belongs to us (ie, the RCSC)... we (ie, the BOD) can do whatever we want still haunts my mind. That act made me realize the RCSC was not in a WE relationship with SC. It was now an US and THEM relationship.

Time has passed. Directors have come and gone. The GM remains and continues to exert her influence to avoid member input in the management of the RCSC. Members continue to try to recover the quorum. This groundhog day can not end until the GM's tenure ends, as far as I can see.

 

Damn IC, i've forgotten that moment in time when the board member said that; "the RCSC belongs to us (ie, the RCSC)... we (ie, the BOD) can do whatever we want still haunts my mind." It perfectly captures the mentality of those who get elected these days. What's so sad is when they are running, needing your vote, it is a whole different story. They look at you and blather on about how if they get elected they are there for you. In a pig's ass. The fact not one board member sees the advantage of having an attainable quorum number to hold a membership meeting tells me they don't want to have membership meetings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is behind this kind of corporate thinking.

You said it, there will never be another opportunity to create an organization to challenge that authority. The documents have stripped us of that ability; for sure, it wasn't done by accident. I've now come to see it was done coldly and calculated. It may well be the one and only time they put together a strategic plan and made it work.

 

My answer was attached to the quote that I posted from IC. see above "Why can't the membership make that decision for themselves? Why do they need the BOD to make the decision for them? If you are correct, Ida, they would vote to keep the quorum at an essentially unachievable number, a number some of us believe was illegally put in place initially."

I believe the membership can make the decision. Like I said at the yesterday meeting if anything was to move further a ballot should go out to the entire membership for vote to make that decision. Otherwise, it falls on the elected Board to make the best decision for the entire membership and I believe they did. Also, as I said yesterday, in my opinion a 500 quorum is not in the best interest of the 33,000 members at large. At this point I can accept the 1250 quorum of the 33,000 members.

 

Interesting you ignored the quote by the board member Ida when that decision was made. Hardly a surprise though as you have ignored most of the other comments as well.

 

I can only smile as i read comments and hear former board members talk. Apparently we all want to believe whatever role we filled while on the board was 100% perfect. Rigorous honesty has never been a human capacity most of us want to embrace. Far easier to look in the mirror and tell ourselves just how good we are and what a great job we have done. That's why reading back over those years when we truly were self-governed are so enlightening. Especially given they were written by reporters watching it unfold who had no bias or skin in the game.

Everyone wants to believe they are right. As you study the history of the community, you quickly come to understand, there was never one right way. At least back then they were honest, or perhaps smart enough to know being right isn't captured in a singular construct. By concentrating power and control at the management level, where the boards role is to support management (your words Jerry, not mine), you end up riding and dying with their choices and actions.

Think about it in these terms: The choice to make golf the end-all-be-all for the past 10 years was strictly a management decision (albeit endorsed by a board made up of a majority of golfers). Should golf rounds continue to diminish, then what? What's the contingency plan? Will the GM finally be held accountable? Of course not as she will have moved on and we will be left trying to play catch up with other communities that have built a structure around the wants and needs of generation X.

If you listened closely to the meeting from the other day, you heard now the Mountainview project may be further away than we had been planning. No surprise as the Grand Ave project will be a cluster flock. Costs will be way higher, security will be a far bigger issue than they are preparing for and that's just for starters. The antique car restoration club has issues with the design of the building at Grand Ave. When they broached the topic did you see any real interest in fixing or addressing their concerns? Wouldn't it make sense if you are building something for them, you listened to their suggestions. They probably have a better handle on what works than the former tech guy, now the assistant general manager. I thought when we finally got rid of the last ass gm we would try and do better. Silly me.

We know there have been issues with the solar. Did you hear any reports on how they are getting their head around that? Nope. The only thing we heard (a month or two back) was they had fired the employee overseeing them. Was that because he was telling people what a mess they were or was it because he was doing a crappy job? Isn't that something that should be front burner? Not if you can't spin it into a positive. Organizations have a marvelous capacity to self-promote and pretend everything is great. Think not? Take a look at the NRA these days.

There's a reason our documents were written the way they were. Those folks were willing to admit they may not always be right. By allowing more voices to be heard, there was a better chance they would get it right. The past 12 years, we have watched as the numbers of voices heard has diminished. Now we know the main function of the board is to support managements decisions. How freaking sad is that?

 

My point to posting this is that the BOD doesn't have their finger on the pulse of SC; instead they listen (apparently) to the GM and their like minded friends and assume this represents the SC majority. This doesn't say they are right or wrong, it says they don't know for sure. Successful managers listen to both sides of a situation, gather independent facts, then try to prove in their mind that both sides are correct. By doing so they fully understand the strengths, weakness, and consequences of both. Only then can they be sure they're making the best decision they can.

The motion to reduce the quorum was voted down in 2-weeks or less. I suspect none of the board was involved over a decade ago when the quorum was increased, so I'd guess none had firsthand knowledge of the facts. Given that, I wonder how many board members actually did any due diligence before voting -- did they investigate the factual history of the quorum – ie, why 100 worked successfully for 40 years, why it was changed to 3500, what/how documents were changed to bypass member approval for the change to 3500, how after telling everyone the law required 3500 they could legally reduce it to 1250, why there hasn't been a quorum reached since they increased it, etc? Did the board consider the benefits/risks to not having member meetings -- after all, it's been over a decade since a quorum was reached? Of course, we have no way of actually knowing what each board member did since it was all done in secret. Personally, I suspect they acted more on GM hearsay than fact. Just like Eastern Airlines, they never actually tasted the "eggs"!

 

One day IC you and i need to have a cup of coffee. I am almost always amazed at the things you say, they are that good. I'm not easily impressed, but dude, you impress me.

Due diligence is laughable at the board level. When the information is fed from one source and multiple options don't see the light of day, outcomes are a given. Boards don't have to be right, they do have to make decisions based on knowing all the facts. During my years on the board, there was seldom room for choices. Research was whatever they gave us. The reason i was so disappointed the other day at the meeting the other day was; what i saw was spoon fed pablum being regurgitated by the directors. When Diane read the statement regarding taking Carole's "motion" it was deja vu all over again. We never wrote our own summaries, they wrote them for us. Guess who wrote that pile of crap?

The mantra coming from the board regarding the quorum has been a constant. It's hard to believe not one board member over all the years since the change has had an opinion in opposition to what the GM thinks. Of course, if your philosophy is you are simply there to prop up management, why would have ever have an independent thought of your own?

 

Dang, saw a letter to the editor from Noel Kasper yesterday in the Independent. Great to see he is alive and still kicking. He was a regular at meetings back when we first moved here. He often voiced his displeasure at some of the stupid from the board, but was always pleasant about it and sometimes funny with a dry sense of humor. Sounds kind of familiar.