This post by Jean Totten, known here on TOSC as One Day At a Time Call to Order - President Lehrer Membership Quorum Verification - Secretary Lenefsky Approval of Minutes: December 13, 2021 – In the past, if a quorum (1,250 people/proxies) was not met, the minutes could not be approved.) Motions: None Adjournment In past years at this point in the meeting, the Board invited members to make comments or ask questions. I’m not sure that this will be done this year because it’s not on the agenda. If they do allow us to speak, I plan to publicly thank the members of the Board who questioned the need for a raise in the yearly assessment (from $496.00 to $525.00 effective 1.1.23) and voted No for the membership. Those members were Steve Collins, Mike Ege, Kat Fimmel, Karen McAdam and John Nowakowski. If you, too, are thankful, please join me. The members who voted Yes to the assessment raise included Darla Akins, Dale Lehrer, Allan Lenefsky and Sue Wilson. Because the proposed budget did not pass, the Finance & Budget committee will be meeting this Friday, November 4th at 9 a.m. at the Lakeview Board Room, second floor, with the directive of working with management to propose a budget that will pass. As of today, the Friday meeting has been listed as open to the membership. Another important topic that might come up at the membership meeting is the Bylaw Revision. I hope that you have been reading Bill Pearson’s extremely informative thread, “Bylaw Rewrite….Objectively Speaking…..” here on TOSC. Bill does a great job of explaining what took place at the annual meeting last year (a concerted effort by many to reach the “impossible” 1,250 quorum) where 5 motions were brought to the meeting in a lawful manner but instead were referred to the Board for more study, and no votes could be taken. Bill explains what transpired in a year and why some of us are not enamored with the bylaw revisions. Be sure and read his article. In the last few months of the year, there are still many issues that need answers. I’m going to encourage you to wait to vote in the RCSC election this year until you’ve either attended in person or watched on our YouTube Channel both Board meetings in November. The Member Board Exchange meeting – where members can bring up topics/ask questions/make statements – is on Monday, November 7th at 9 am at the Sundial Auditorium. On November 17th, the more ‘formal’ Board meeting will be held; same time, same place. At this meeting, however, members cannot speak unless they sign up to speak on posted motions. Watching or attending these two Board meetings may help you as you decide who to cast your vote for in the election. Attendance in person at any of these meetings will indicate your interest in the process/system here in Sun City. This is your community. Your voice needs to matter!! Please try to attend. Thank you. Jean
Jean Totten again. I am behind in my reading and just caught up with the Sun City November SunViews. It was announced that the Community Survey details will be announced at the Annual Membership Meeting at the Sundial on November 1st.
Now that i have completed my "objective assessment' of the bylaws rewrite, the yawning question of the day is: why in the world would anyone expect anything from the RCSC at this annual membership meeting? Sometimes i use humor, sometimes over the top hyperbole, sometimes there's nothing better than good old common sense. In this case, the latter is the answer. I want everyone who attends to watch just how little the membership means/matters to the board and the management team. For years, the music to their ears was when the secretary merrily announced "Madam President, we do not have a quorum." Last year was terrifying for them and you could see the result. Lost videos, members having a voice, locked doors and them trotting out their attorney to keep them from allowing us our vote guaranteed in the Articles. No worries this year as the membership simply asks, "why bother?" They win, we lose...it's that simple...but is it really?
And why is it that at our annual membership meeting all the Directors sit up in front of the assembly? The Directors are Members first, they are Directors second, and if they are officers on the Board then that would be a third. So I say that any member of the Board who is not functioning in an administrative manner should not be sitting up front but should be sitting among the membership. It's THEIR meeting, not the Boards! The only message that sitting up front conveys to the Members is that they are superior to us!
I understand what you’re saying but I disagree. I think it’s very important for members to be able to identify who the board members are. After all, how many board meetings have over 500 members in attendance? I also found it interesting that I only saw one board member mingling in the room prior to the meeting.
The Members should know who their Board of Directors are long before an Annual Membership Meeting. After all, Directors don't vote themselves into office, they get voted in by the Members. If you don't know who your Directors are then that's on you. And if you're okay with the fact that Members can't vote at their own meeting then don't even waste your time to show-up. Voting at our own Membership Meeting is a fundamental right of being a Member, Robert's Rules says that as does the Articles of Incorporation. The Articles of Incorporation don't say go look to the Bylaws for additional requirements. It says Members can amend the Bylaws with no other strings attached. There are, by the way, at least 10 locations within the Articles of Incorporation that instructs the reader to go look at the Bylaws for additional requirements. That Article in the Bylaws is not only in conflict with the Articles of Incorporation, it fails to define just what exactly are the "affairs of the corporation" that prevents us from voting?
I applaud everyone's spirit and efforts to make SC a better place, a place with community spirit and governance. And I do hope the upcoming election helps move us in the community governance direction. But I'm not betting on it. Over a decade ago I concluded that the Board and GM, working in cahoots, were following a typical Corporate playbook in which they ignore, bully and keep changing the rules to preclude the members from gaining any semblance of participative control. Much of corporate America execute similar tactics until they're sued by their members/customers. I seems to me the RCSC is doing the same. We live in a litigious society that increasingly seems to be the only way to get results. Is there any chance at all that we can transition to a Board receptive to change? Perhaps a slim one, but history has shown that the Board/GM are crafty enough to somehow find a way to purge/muffle board members who don't concede to their agenda, replacing them with appointed directors of their choosing. I know many of you feel strongly that lawsuits are "suing ourselves". Well, how has not suing ourselves been working? Not well from my perspective. In the past 20-years we've lost ground; the Board has essentially disenfranchised the membership and become completely deaf to reminders about our history, what the AIs guarantee us, etc. They've shown us that our attempts to talk things out, to play by the rules, to do the right thing is a one sided game we're essentially playing by ourselves while they've quietly built an empire that's pretty impenetrable at this point.
Hey IC, i've long been one has lamented the idea we should not have to sue ourselves. To your point, everything has only gotten worse., certainly not better. I had high hopes under the new GM it would get better; it most assuredly hasn't. At the same time he was telling us at the meeting yesterday he was working things out with The POSSE an article appeared in the Independent (electronic version), the POSSE had broken all ties with the RCSC. The RCSC has virtually ignored them since the last member/board exchange. It is becoming more clear every day there is little interest from the RCSC in building a sense of community with other organizations. Why should they care when they can simply just raise our fees with little or no regard for the membership. It's the exact road i have been preaching against for years and now it appears to be our destiny. Very, very sad.
The members “should” attend annual meetings also, but don’t. Concentrate on what is, not what should be. Until like minded people are elected, nothing will change. Nobody is going to sit through meeting after meeting knowing that their opinions don’t mean anything to the board. Don’t blame the members. Get elected and change the process back to the way it’s supposed to be.
Roger That! I believe the only reason that this years meeting got as many members to attend as it did was because they heard about the proposed assessment increase! Other than that there was absolutely no reason to attend. There were no motions offered and even if there were they knew that they were not allowed to vote with any sort of definitive result on anything! I must, however, congratulate the Board. They have managed to alienate the membership to the point of complacency! It took them 15 years and several bylaw amendments to do it and they're not about to give that up. JFK said it best in 1962 when he famously said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." P.S. Nobody's proposing a violent revolution. I'm only suggesting that sometime things escalate to a point where other options may be required! Like the petition process!
I'm still lost on not just "suing ourselves" - but who do you plan to sue? The Corporation is owned by no one. The staff is not under Membership control and people keep saying "The Board" as if it's the exact same people every year. I agree it's incestuous, but whomever you sue this year, may not be there next year. I only see two paths for change: majority of Board members intent on reestablishing balance, and failing that, Membership change one step/one petition at a time. Either solution requires people wake up, become informed, and show up. Communicate, Educate, Participate. Where have I heard that before... ?
Come on Jeb, we know how frightening and intimidating it can be when an organization tries to communicate, educate and encourage participation. Frightening outcomes happen when members show up and ask those tough questions. You know, like why do you need more money when you haven't been spending what we have been giving you? Brutal question and clearly when faced with having to answer, the bluster, fluster and cluster became their go to answers. Then we get the folks with their hands in the RCSC's pockets screaming how mean we are. As long as they get theirs, everything is good. The simple reality is when you elect candidates who will listen to the members, things will get done. They understand the general manager works for them, not the other way around. Duh.
Well that's technically true. I'm not legally versed, but AFAIK anyone can sue anyone, including the Corporation and Board. The Board does have the power to dispose of all the assets if the choose to and do whatever they want with the proceeds; they also have the power to assess us whatever they want. Today, because of bylaw changes made by the Board and their lack of adherence to the AIs, the members have no powers in governance, not even to participate in the discussion if the Board so chooses. To me this amounts to a taxation without representation situation.
I'm not so sure that that's correct? According to the Articles of Incorporation: ARTICLE XII: "In the event of the dissolution or winding up of the Corporation, all assets not otherwise disposed of and not subject to any trust, shall be transferred as the Board of Directors may then decide for carrying out the purposes or similar purposes of this Corporation." Seems to me that if the corporation dissolves it needs to find another financial backer, organization or corporation that will take it over while continuing the same basic mission and original purpose? At least that how I read it.
Not to worry about dissolution gang, the RCSC has never had more money than they do right now. I more worried with the problems we will be facing, how will the hand picked few figure out how to cope when they have no interest in listening to the membership and they let the general manager make all the decisions. That's what the previous GM did and look where it got us.
