Nope, not talking about big picture national elections, not even looking at the state's array of wildly different choices (not going there). Many of us learned long ago, all elections are local, and in this case, right smack dab in our own backyard. Literally. Unfortunately after 15 years of telling RCSC members to just have fun, we've reaped exactly what we have sown. I would argue it was done on purpose, others would say not. Either way it worked and had not for one event, life would have gone merrily rolling along. It was 2021 when the RCSC board of directors decided to fire one of their own. Karen McAdam was challenging the board to resolve the question over closing the pickleball courts at Mountain View. She was adamant that reducing the number of courts to a single venue (Marinette), the community would be well under-developed compared to neighboring retirement communities. She was 100% correct. After years and years of no one showing up and paying any attention to what the RCSC was doing, they were ill equipped to deal with controversy. In 2020 they had fired Barbara Brehm because she questioned financials. It didn't create a blip on the screen. Apparently they felt doing it again would go unnoticed. Oops, dead wrong. Suffice to say, the termination awakened the sleeping giant. Members have been attending in numbers hearkening back to before 2000. Interest has spiked and everything is being measured and judged. In another thread, Jean Totten (OneDayAtATime), posted the list of candidates for the RCSC board. There's 7 of them, soon to be 6. Reading down the names, i am encouraged for the first time in a very long time. For anyone who has watched the RCSC meetings, it's clear there is significant divide going on. The majority of 5 have flaunted there status as motions by the minority have been voted down or all too often, they have had no right to even present them. I know better than most the difficulty of serving in the minority. The good news was they never fired me, more often than not, they just out voted us. It is how it works, i understood that when i ran. Back from 2012-2014, i at least had the opportunity to say my piece. What should happen is every board member (all 9 of them) should have an equal voice. Equal weight given to ideas and suggestions. Sadly, since i left, the brazen efforts to write the membership out of the discussions and shut out minority board members has become the norm. Worse yet, with every step, the board granted more authority to the management team as the gm rewrote documents. To call it a paradigm shift would be an insult to paradigms. Truthfully it was seismic. I know, the term is earthquake related, but it's been that massive. Board's have given almost all of it away. With nary a whimper, they allowed almost anything and everything to be at the discretion of management. We can argue why, but from my perspective, doing so abridged their obligations to be the members representative. Loyalty, fealty to the RCSC and the management team was the new measuring stick to be a board member. I just got an email from a member who signed my petition. He told me he never has paid attention to RCSC elections, but now that he signed my petition, he will. Let me be very clear, he is almost like every other RCSC member out there. Most have adopted the philosophy, who cares? What's the difference? In years past, there wasn't much reason to care. The majority controlled the outcomes. Those of us who understood the dynamic, knew the change would take a two year cycle. It would mean those believing the membership should have a voice would have to endure and survive not just one election, but two. This year has been painful to watch as the minority have been crapped on, month after month. The majority, had they been given the chance, would have dumped at least one, maybe two of the board members. It takes 6 votes and the most they could muster was 5. Now they are faced with the potential shift, with those believing the members should have a voice becoming the majority. I find it one of the most exciting prospects in more years than i can count. In coming posts i will explain why. Let me be perfectly clear, these are my opinions, and my opinions only. However, i will be very specific and i will use absolute examples of why this election matters. Why it is so important to vote for change and not for the status quo. Stay tuned, should be fun, and informational.
You mentioned that the GM told you that RCSC should be run like a business. Even if that is the case, the BOD still has to answer to the shareholders (members). It’s high time we exercise our rights and re-establish our power. It’s time for the tail to quit wagging the dog.
That is the perfect analogy Larry. The previous gm was very good at moving the needle to the management side of the equation. It's time to right the ship and get it back on course. Self-governance isn't just a quaint phrase, it was a way of life the leadership of the RCSC ran from. Many of us have felt they should have running towards it. Now is the time.
To be clear, the board has not only relinquished most of their decision making process over to management, they have now interpreted the bylaws in such a manner that any opinion or decision from the Membership (i.e. to amend the bylaws at their own Annual Membership meeting) must first be reviewed by the board before it can be acted on! When the hell did that happen? There was a time when the Members had an opportunity to amend the bylaws at their annual meeting, but that was when the Members were included in the co-governance of Sun City. But it now seems that every new board gets to interpret the bylaws in a manner that meets THEIR needs! And if a bylaw is that ambiguous that its meaning can be changed at the whim of the current board, then there's something drastically wrong with that bylaw. They need to shit or get off the pot (pardon the expression). If they can't define which "affairs of the corporation" are the ones we're not allowed to infringe upon, then it's whatever THEY want! Voting for the right people to sit on the board this year is more important then ever. Choose your candidate wisely! And PLEASE attend this years Annual Membership Meeting on November 1st at 9:00 am at Sundial. Yes, it will be another waste of your time but we need to let the board know that we're not happy campers!
After today's member/board exchange meeting, we are one step closer to the new bylaws being passed. While there were several comments relative to them, it sounded like the chairman of the ad hoc committee is delighted by their "consensus" agreement. Hopefully i am misreading his sentiments and when the committee meets one last time, they are able to work the bugs out of what they have proposed. As i said early on, i will await the final draft before passing judgement, though i was pretty pointed about what i have read so far. As Tom noted above, whether it's the old bylaws or the "new and improved," there's virtually no value in wasting one's time going to this year's annual membership meeting. While we can vote, it will be meaningless. To be really, really clear, as i mentioned at today's meeting, it would be refreshing to see the board looking at the membership as partners, rather than terrified of them wanting to destroy the community. But, hey, maybe that's just me not understanding the value of the board building impediments to the membership having a voice. I'm sure after reading the letter to the editor today in the Independent, the first grade teacher/board member could easily explain to me the value in shutting the membership up? Sadly, it's a technique old time teachers used to incorporate, making those youngsters sit in the corner and be quiet. Or, better yet, writing on a chalk board 100 times, i will not interfere with the board doing what they want to do.
Bill, as unlikely as it is, the board still has time to make a few amendments to the bylaws before the Annual Membership Meeting. 1. They can reduce the quorum to 800 and limit the proxies to 10. 2. They can eliminate the bylaw that requires ALL VOTES at the membership meeting must be done by ballot. 3. But of course it's out of the question to think that they would allow the Members to vote on amendments to the bylaws where the results would actually be conclusive. (that's where we need to vote the right people onto the board so we can force a definition of just what exactly are the "affairs of the corporation" that we can't infringe upon.) Of course they will need to waive the second readings but if they're currently happy with what the revised bylaws are saying, then there should be no objecting to making those changes now? I also think an argument could be made that the first method of voting should be a voice-vote. That is the simplest method as per Robert's Rules but if that vote is indeterminate, then the chair could call for a standing vote, and if that too is indeterminate the chair calls for a standing-counted vote and if that too is indeterminate then a vote by ballot is also an option but I believe that type of vote has to be approved by a majority vote of the members (But gee, how can that happen if we're not allowed to vote in the first place? The chair can however do it with unanimous consent). These are the normal progression of steps that the chair should take when determining the results of a vote. I make this argument for a voice-vote based on what I saw at the last Annual Membership meeting. When Ben Roloff took that straw vote on the 5 bylaw amendments it was overwhelming and the result was nowhere near questionable. I think a voice-vote would be pretty telling right off the bat without having to go to the next method of voting, but those other methods would still be available. After all, if you can get 800 members to show-up at an Annual Membership meeting it's because they have something they feel needs to be addressed and most all will probably agree on what the results of that vote should be or else they wouldn't have shown-up for the meeting!
They're not going to do any of the above Tom. After watching and addressing the board yesterday it's pretty clear the shell game is near on over. I will try and remain optimistic, at least until the ad hoc committee meets this week and seals all of our fates. Who knows, maybe the motions we made at the membership meeting last December will magically morph into looking something like we actually proposed. I'm skeptical. (Yikes, both optimistic and skeptical in the same paragraph). If you watch the video from the member/board exchange from Oct 10, you will clearly hear/see my question regarding the "quorum" adjustment. Yup, delighted they reduced it from 1250 to 800; though we/ proposed 500. I value compromise, it's the work world i lived in. But numbers regarding the quorum are meaningless when you throw in the rest of the equation to establishing the members rights under the Articles of Incorporation. The quorum figure is really only there as a means to an end. According to the Articles, the end is "the membership having the right to prevail in issues regarding the bylaws." This isn't some crazy Bill Pearson notion or fanciful wish on my part. These were the rights established in a document that was written 50 years ago and has standing precedence over all the crap they have shoved into the bylaws to strip us of our rights. This is what happens when the leadership is terrified of the membership. When a handful decide those of us living here want to destroy the community. It's is utter nonsense. Yet here we are. Great, only 800 for a quorum. Last year with the massive turnout, we didn't have 800 in the room. We only accomplished that through proxies. And lets be very clear, there were some members who were proxy beasts, collecting a hundred or more. Now they can get 10. I wanted the chair of the ad hoc committee to confirm what i was reading in the new bylaws. He did. Once we reach a quorum at the annual membership meeting (not the one this year, there's no point in even trying), we can properly submit our bylaws for posting. We will also be allowed to vote on them; unlike they allowed us to do in 2021 thanks to the RCSC attorney who told us we didn't have the rights guaranteed under the Articles. (BTW, the attorney had an ethics violation filed against him, no determination yet by the state bar) The bylaw motions (because that is all that is allowed under the Articles, which is a good thing), then are referred back to the board for study. They have 45 days to come to a decision. Oddly enough, the bylaws then say they can either tell us or not tell us their answer within said time limits (don't ask, i have no clue). Once they tell us, or don't tell us, we then have the right to request a petition to collect signatures, which would be 10% of whatever the membership is the July before. The great news is, we can do so on RCSC property. That made it clear, we best be careful when gathering signatures. I only mention that because i could show you incident reports filed against members of the Sun City Advocates that when you read them they would make your toes curl. I hate saying they have weaponized the incident reports, but someone chuckling at a committee meeting? Really? But i digress. Once we have carefully secured 3200 plus signatures, we then have the right to hold another membership meeting where we yet again we must attain a quorum on a number of members that hasn't been reached but once in the past 13 years. I guess if there is a light at the end of the tunnel, it doesn't look like the board gets to "study" the motion again. As i pointed out at the meeting, all through the 80's and 90's, under the same identical Articles, with quorum's of 100, the membership made and passed motions at quarterly membership meetings. Imagine that, and the community and the RCSC is still standing, still functioning. Hard to believe and harder yet to understand how we became so far removed when it comes to memberships rights. I think i summed it all up pretty clearly. Back in those days the board wasn't terrified of the members. They looked at them as partners in running the community they all loved. Of course back then, everyone thought of it as a community, and not a simple business proposition. Stay tuned, there's more.
