I won't be at the March 14, board meeting. I have any number of thoughts that i would express, in lieu of being there, i want to share them here with you. One of the columns i wrote for the Sun City Advocates was entitled One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. the meeting Monday will be more backwards steps. Before i go there, let me post the RCSC Board President's comments from the February Sun Views. She said this: "Let’s start 2022 by getting off on the right foot and leaving the past behind - please. Your concerns and frustrations are real and acknowledged, but in order to move forward, everyone–board directors, those who take the time to attend meetings and residents throughout the community need to commit to participating and becoming involved with the understanding that nothing will change overnight." Starting with the good, we 100% agree; we need to commit to participating and becoming involved. 100% and we have been doing just that since Karen was fired. I for one support the idea nothing will change over night, nor should it. Organizational change is always slow and tedious. It is so by design. See, we're still on the same page. Good start. In the article, she talks about holding a member/board exchange a month. Another idea we are interested in. There are lots of details to be worked out and i am/was willing to trust them to do the right thing. After all, that's what her article was all about, building a better working relationship within the community and the membership. As always, the devil is indeed in the details. Now we find out the move to a member exchange comes at a cost many of us see as too high, too much. In exchange for the less formal meeting, the president wanted to barter away our comments at the regular board meeting (other than on agenda items) to grant us the ability to speak at an exchange meeting. One less option to be involved during the month. Last month the board rejected that offer. By-law changes need a two-third vote (according to Robert's Rules of Order) and with one member missing the vote was 4/4. Motion died. The president was furious (my impression). There were a couple of reasons it went down. First, the requirement for stripping the members right to comments was unreasonable. Second, with a total rewrite of the by-laws via a committee, the suggestion was made to do this on a three month trial basis. That would have gotten us to the summer months and hopefully by then the ad hoc by-laws committee would be working diligently. Frankly, many of us were fine with the action. If the board truly wants our involvement, shutting us up is hardly the way to do it. So, where does the immorality come in? Simple as we now know the plan for reconsideration is being proposed by taking away "member comments" at board meetings. The president has told us they only allow us to speak at these meetings due the generosity of the board. That and the fact the by-laws gives us the right to speak. When the agenda came out and there were no board or member comments at the end of the meeting, some thought it might have been an oversight. Then when the revised agenda came out Thursday, they were still left off. It's pretty obvious at this point the board president has decided she can just strip us of our rights insured in those by-laws. It also appears as if she is pressuring board members to go along with her plan to "help give us a voice." It's utter and unfettered nonsense. Think not? Let's recap where we (the membership) was the beginning of 2009. The by-laws gave us the following: 1). 4 quarterly membership meetings a year with a quorum of 100, which included one of them in January that was to be the annual membership meeting. 2). At those quarterly membership meetings, should a quorum be reached, motions could be made from the floor to be considered by the board. By the way, if the board took crazy actions, those membership meetings grew in proportion to the foolishness of the proposals being considered. Safe guards for sure. 3). Two monthly member/board exchange with a free-flow of ideas. When those were done, the board would gather for closed door work sessions where often items brought forward by the membership were discussed. 4). One monthly board meeting where member comments were solicited and discussed. 5). Committees where their suggestions were often adopted. This was just 12 years ago. Our documents gave us any number of rights and more importantly, opportunities for our voices to be heard. They weren't trying to stifle comments, they (the board) understood the community elected them and they needed to listen to what was being said. So what the hell happened to have fallen this far? I'll spare you my thoughts and just leave you with this: The proposal to be voted on Monday is ludicrous. Allowing one meeting a month for member comments is just another in a long line of takeaways from the membership rights and our obligation to be involved in the self-governance of our community. If president Lehrer's comments made in the February issue of Sun Views are true, she has to comprehend you don't enhance involvement by taking away rights, but by adding to them.
Perhaps I've not had enough coffee this morning but am I reading this correctly? You're saying that the present Board is thinking of reducing our monthly meetings to ONE ??!! And the reason is because they're going to allow us to speak at it??!! So, they're giving us something that we wanted.....and taking back a whole meeting??!! Please tell me that I'm reading this wrong.
Not wrong just misstated. The motion to reconsider equates to this. One member exchange a month where we can say stuff in a less formal setting. One board meeting per month where our comments are limited to motions. If there are no motions or if the ones on there are similar to the correct length of a pool noodle, who the hell would get out of bed? The meeting will be done in 20 minutes and it would only take that long due to introducing all the staff and management team. The change is a sun net loss, not a sum net gain.
It appears that the board president (Dale Lehrer) is using the power of the pen. She has removed Member Comments and Board Comments from the agenda. I view this as retaliation for 4 board members standing up against the motion by Director Ege. His motion took away a one board meeting per month and added an undefined Member/Board Exchange meeting. The motion by Director Ege was amended, removing a 2 hour meeting limit. It still failed (on the 3rd reading). It was a complex motion with little description of the Member / Board Exchange meeting. It took 3 readings to get board members and the membership to understand the flaws and problems with this bylaw exchange. Had this motion passed, the 3 readings of a motion would be reduced to 2 readings. President Lehrer seemed more than disappointed by it's failure to pass. A board member and several members suggested the Member/Board Exchanges be held on a trial basis. Work out the flaws, then propose a better bylaw change. This appears to be rejected by President Lehrer. Her way is the only way. The motion's failure should leave things as they were (status quo). Same type of agenda, same comment agenda items. However she has taken the pen (as a weapon) and attempts to punish us by removing all general comments. She claimed to have put in a lot of effort for the first Member/Board exchange. She claimed at prior meetings that this new Member/Board Exchange meeting is for the Members and not be controlled by the board.. However she never shared any details of what she had set up for this meeting. Even some board members asked questions about the meeting. They were responsible for voting the bylaw proposal down. President Lehrer, why are you punishing us by taking away more of our voice (member comments)? President Lehrer, why won't you tells us the details of what you planned for the Member/Board Exchange (the one voted down)? President Lehrer, why didn't you tell us how the meeting would change dynamically to meet our needs (Board and Members)? President Lehrer, why do you expect members to TRUST YOU, when you shut down a board member's comments and prevent a board member from introducing a new motion? Transparency is not there. This year started out better than last year ended. Now its getting worse than last year. If we can't get positive change now, then it will have to come at the next election cycle.
Perfectly summarized LC and the questions are so directly pointed. President Lehrer, can you answer any of these? Or is it simply because you think it's your right to do what you want? I purposely posted the changes the RCSC has made since 2009. Would it surprise anyone if i told you every time they took the members voice away, it was done with the words, "it's better for you with these changes." The simple reality is, it was for the sake of the board and management so they weren't under constant questioning from the membership. The entire structure we have been forced to accept is and was to insure the general manager had complete control. If you think not, ask yourself, how could she spend 25 million dollars subsidizing golf with nary a word uttered by any board member (even though they knew golf was supposed to be revenue neutral). In my humble opinion, i doubt any of them knew just how much was diverting to golf. Now with the 990's posted, we know exactly how much. If you think not, i will be happy to provide any board member with the documents from 2009 and you can see how they changed. Taking rights from members, oversight from the board and making the management the sole arbiters of their actions. I get it, i really do, its way easier to get things done if no one is watching, questioning or challenging. Those qualities were the single piece that made Sun City so unique, different than almost every other age restricted community. The push to become like all the rest is a tragic mistake and one boards along the way should be held accountable for. No one will be and without a massive effort it will only get worse. Witness Monday's side show. Sadly, as our documents were dismantled, so was our ability to hold anyone accountable. Worked out great didn't it?
ATTEND THE BOARD MEETING IN PERSON TOMORROW (3/14/22) Briefly Stated: It is important to attend tomorrow's board meeting in person. The agenda is simple and the board will most likely be surprised with a large turnout. Board President Lehrer has removed general Member Comments and Board Comments from the Agenda. I can only hope that some board member(s) attempt to amend the agenda to put this back on the Agenda. Hopefully we will seem some discussion (pro and con) as to why this was removed. Maybe it will be put back. We must remain calm and respectful. Our presence alone will speak loudly! This cannot and should not be ignored.
I've heard some rumblings, but will wait to watch the meeting before commenting. Was the parliamentarian at the meeting?
Just finished watching the Monday board meeting; interesting. Clearly the parliamentarian's role is now to support the president in whatever she wants done. Perhaps the most surprising aspect was the learned judge explaining how we have to follow Robert's Rule of Order rather than our own by-laws. Even when Director McAdam straightened him out he still looked befuddled. Looks like it will be 9 more long months before the majority shifts and the voice of the community is restored. 9 more long months of the president deciding who gets to submit motions, or at least which ones are placed on the agenda. But wait, any board member can submit a motion and it should become an agenda item and as we now know now thanks to director Akins, our comments are limited to motions. Why do i suspect we are going to see many more motions becoming agenda items? Better yet, now that those member/board exchange meetings are ours, i suspect the topics up for discussion will take on far more substance. I for one have a long list i want to throw in front of the board, management and the reviewing public. Especially now since the president told us how much she is looking forward to being better able to talk in a less structured setting. You know, where every one gets to share their thoughts rather than the pesky Robert's Rules of Order getting in the way to shield them. I also found it refreshing to hear former board members recall the good old days and how much better member/board exchange meetings were. The problem never was going to the exchanges, the problem was to do so, they wanted to shut the membership up at the board meeting. Guess my old friend Don S forgot, while serving as the RCSC president, had two exchange meetings a month and one board meeting a month and never did they tell the membership they couldn't be heard. And lets not forget the quarterly membership meetings where the quorum was 100. Dang, rewriting history is fun. Life goes on. Sun City is still an awesome place to live. Sadly, Monday, the community took another step back and away from the process of self-governance. Where our documents helped create the most unique age restricted community in the nation. Transparency shouldn't be frightening to anyone living in Sun City. My best guess is by the end of the first member/board exchange we'll see just how interested those sitting at the front of the stage feel about open, honest and blunt communication. My best guess is they won't weather it well.
I awoke this morning pretty clear headed and fresh from last nights late viewing of the board meeting. When i tell you nothing surprises me anymore, i literally mean just that. For the past 15 years i have watched board after board roll back and relieve members of their rights and their voices. Best part of all of it is they look you straight in the eye and tell us they are just trying to make it better for us. Here's the good news; i happen to think they may be right this time. We, the membership who care enough to show up, need to become invested in much more depth and detail at each and every member/board exchange. We know, without a question of doubt, the past 15 years has produced some good stuff, and we know even more certainly there's been several classic blunders, missteps. What's been missing has been the accountability factor on the backside, the things they've done poorly. It's time to start talking about them. And frankly it couldn't come at a better time. With the by-laws ad hoc committee being formed, we need to drill down into how we changed so much. Now that we have the 990's in hand, it's time to start asking those difficult questions; you know, like how the hell did we arbitrarily decide to subsidize golf to the tune of 25 plus million dollars when in fact the courses were purchased to be revenue neutral? Like asking point blank for expenditures made from the PIF. Then there's the whole question regarding clubs? Every year they present their wish list. Now we find out rather than spending the assessments fees on those yearly fees, they simply stuck the money in the bank. Who decided that? Was it management? Was it the board? While i was on the board i questioned the general manager and she told me, "the large carryover from year to year helps me sleep good at night (quotations intended)." We know the boards have given management free reign to do so much more than they used to, is that a good thing, or a bad thing? See, i don't claim to have all the answers. I have always said the membership should have a voice in these decisions. As we diminished that voice and concentrated control in the hands of a few, there are lots of red flags popping up. The beauty of the change made at Monday's meeting is to utilize that time to peel back the covers and become invested in restoring our voices. Nope, not interested in placing blame, i am dedicated to understanding how we became so detached from a community built around self-governance and fixing it. The best news of all is maybe we will find out no one cares, and they just do as they please is perfectly okay. Maybe, as boomers, we're happier when we don't have to be concerned or even interested in how they spend, or sit on our money. Or whether they shovel millions of unapproved funds into golf. Or whether certain clubs get preferential treatment because they have board members with previous history with said clubs. Maybe it's time for us all to quit caring and let them have at it. It's another great day in Sun City and in my humble opinion, it's only going to get better.
In our continuing quest to help keep the RCSC on track, you might want to correct the minutes posted in your summary of the meeting on Monday. Seems to me when i watched the replay, the new agenda had dropped off the purchase of new exercise equipment (no reason given). The summary posted shows it passed. Always happy to be of help.
Unfortunately, this is because the learned judge apparently doesn't really understand the purpose and function of Robert's Rules of Order and the fact that the manner in which the RCSC maintains their corporate documents, that is not in compliance with Robert's Rules, only exacerbates the situation. And what can you say about the Parliamentarian? The 10th member of the board who apparently doesn't understand Robert's Rules either! What's funny is, the board continually remarks that the Membership wanted the board to function under Robert's Rules, but the only manner in which they comply is with their own interpretation of them. Director McAdam had the direct quote out of Robert's Rules regarding the fact that Director Fimmel's motion to Reconsider was out of order but the chair, along with the parliamentarian simply ignored the rules. And don't get me started on the difference between a "meeting" and a "session" because I have no idea where that explanation Director Lehrer read came from? Each one of those meetings, (unless it is an adjourned meeting), is the completion of one session. The situation only gets sadder and more divisive at each new meeting and without open minded board members I fear that the recommendations that come out of the Ad Hoc Committee will go nowhere! I hope I'm wrong...
Very cool eo, good to see they are still following the site. To your point FYI, i wish i had a dollar for every time we’ve had one board member or another tell us it’s our fault they are they are following Robert’s Rules of Order. Be a great down payment on the Mountainview project, those dollars add up when they keep shoving it in our face. Here’s the problem, they aren’t they just keep claiming they are. What makes it most interesting is the exact reason Robert’s Rules of Order exist is to insure meetings are run in a consistent manner. Let’s recap, by-laws first, then when they are silent on an issue, turn to the book, or in their case, turn to the parliamentarian. It was painful to watch as Director McAdam read the chapter and verse and the president told us she had done her homework and then had to take a break because apparently the dog ate her homework (or something like that). Seriously, not trying to be unkind here but the parliamentarian has blessed every action they have taken. Seems it isn’t what the Robert’s Rules says, but more what the president wants. Worry not boys and girls we’ll get through this and come out the better for it. It is of little wonder they twist Robert’s Rules to meet their needs given what they do to the by-laws and interpret them as they see fit.
And where they fail miserably is where they don't understand if they don't like what Robert's Rules has to say about any certain issue, they can write a special rule of order that will take precedence over that Robert's Rule! They seem to think it's an all or none thing with Robert's Rules and the parliamentarian is obviously not advising the board of their available options?
