The SAC...revisted.

As we approach next Thursday's vote on the PAC waterfront setting, it might be worth a quick look back so those following now get a better handle on how we got here. We're not talking years ago, this abortion we are addressing can be traced back to the spring of 2023.

It was called: The Strategic Alternatives Committee (SAC). In my opinion, it's formation was one of the single best actions taken by the RCSC since they passed the PIF in 1999. It had the potential to solve and resolve all or most of the discord coming from the Mountain View delays and subsequent overbuild proposed the year before.

Anyone who participated, either in person or watching online, understood the challenges of diverse views and competing agendas. It's never easy and this committee and subsequent town hall gatherings made it clear, those competing agendas were in full bloom.

Too bad, because once the architect (Marlene) was brought in, it appeared as if we were on track to finally getting the Mountain View project done and not breaking the bank. Her project M proposal was modest compared to all the other suggestions.

It focused on Mountain View as the recipient of both the PAC (in the remodeled auditorium), an improved pool and small fitness area, substantially more outdoor pickleball courts and a refreshed look to the dated facility.

As i look back, after all of the time, energy and money invested, was there a larger outcome in play? Was the agenda behind the scenes always to get the PAC on the water at Lakeview? I don't know, because frankly the whole water front site was never mentioned; at least in public.

It gets worse though, because we still have no idea what the "elements" are going to be at Mountain View? The idea we should hold MV up as hostage to the board getting what they want/see as our future at Lakeview is shameful. Those living down and around MV deserve better.

That said, those living in Sun City deserve better as well. This notion we should commit our future to a three week plan submitted to the community on Oct 31 and then jammed down our throats within 21 days is utterly nuts. No one in their right mind would suggest we do this without proper planning.

I don't know how we got here? I know i have followed this as closely as anyone in the community and i can tell you all, it is folly to charge ahead with a PAC at Lakeview without proper planning and community involvement. It's simply not how we have done business over the years.

 

And now we see it was all done for naught! Based on the last email blast from the RCSC, it appears they are only doubling-down on the Collins motion!

Talk about throwing good money on top of bad, everything spent on Marlene's work and design is being washed down the drain, only to spend more money on a another architect firm?

The SAC was a good idea but the implementation was wrong by placing most of its members each having personal agendas!

If they do go ahead and approve Collins motion then perhaps the Board does need to go, considering all the time and money spent on the SAC committee and Plan M?

Just my opinion

 

Bill, refresh my memory....was Plan M ever voted on and approved by the Board?

 

To my knowledge, the board never voted on Plan M. After the conclusion of the Town Halls, the Board discussed the topic in an Information session after an Exchange. The GM attends those meetings and reiterated that "just give me the elements that you want" so we can get started.

Several board members composed the presentation that was presented at a Special Session held at Mountain View auditorium on January 18th. Those slides were the elements that the Board wanted. The slide show started off with the Mountain View recreation center but towards the very end, it changed course and asked the question "what about Lakeview?" The members were able to speak following the presentation and many of the speakers were Members who had sat all summer on the SAC committee. Watch the (LINK) YouTube video once again to refresh your memory. The next steps taken by the board were at the January and February Board meetings where the motion was made to present the elements (from the presentation) to the GM and have him go out and secure an architectural firm. I voted "yes" at the (LINK) January meeting, but after doing a lot of soul searching about the fact that the board had gone full circle from listening to the SAC and the Members who attended the Town Hall and their unanimous suggestion that Plan M go into effect to now proposing Lakeview as an alternative, to this newly proposed idea of Lakeview, at the (LINK) February board meeting, I voted "no" as did John Fast. Both John and I resigned from the Board shortly after that.

So, to my knowledge, the Board never voted on Plan M.
Jean Totten as One Day at a Time

 

Here are my 2 cents: I have not been involved in any of the committees having to do with PAC, Mountain View, nor any discussions about Lakeview Center even though I do have an interest in what happens. I am going to assume some thoughts and that usually end in disaster, but my mind is open for change if I am incorrect.
The RCSC Board has become messed up ever since Karen McAdam was poorly treated in her ouster. There are many members have come and gone primarily due to their biased reason for being on the Board. No one should be on a community board with personal agendas. I realize that is nearly impossible, but that is the way it should be.
We did have General Manager problems, and I think we still have. I do not see his connection with the Sun City citizens as a whole. His sole vision is only on the Corporation.
As far as putting the Sac at Lake View seems to me pretty stupid when there is plenty space at Bell in the SE quadrant. I see no reason that it could not be redesigned at Mountain View. The Architects knew what the Board wanted and simply supported their desires. It is my opinion that Lakeview is our most beautiful Recreation Center and there should be an extensive study how it should be changed for the future.
Mountain View has been on the back burner for too long. Let's stay the course and finish Mountain View before any other new work is considered anywhere. We definitely need to look at what do we want Sun City to look and feel like in 10 & 20 years down the road.
Consider looking at other new senior communities and what are they offering. For one, I would like to see better restaurants, gathering places around a lake or pool with wine and mixed drinks. Places that would attract conversations and community get togethers. We (I) don't want Sun City to be a community where old people exist until they die. I would like a more vibrant community. Is that too much to ask for?
Thanks, Bill, for letting me say my piece.
Lloyd Maple

 

Agree 100%. I have been saying that for a long time, however I am persona non grata here. My nieces and nephews (all 40-55) most who live in Scottsdale and Phoenix do not want my home, just the money. They think SC is depressing and said it reminded them of a place you go and wait to die. I took a boatload of berating for those statements. The Gen Xers are active, like to bike to their favorite coffee spot, go hiking and on and on. They like to be where the action is. My niece who is 55, lives in Scottsdale, is always on the go. There are about 15 in their group and I get tired just looking at her facebook page. I can't even imagine any one of them sitting in a theater chair to watch a play. She is a grand mom now, her daughter could not wait to go back home to Oregon.

The BOD wants to spend like the government instead of fixing what we have. There are 604 homes for sale here now according to Realtor.com. We are already 400 behind in home sales according to Tom from last year. They raised the PIF/CIF and annual assessment. Gen Xers are not going to want to pay that kind of money to move to a place with no restaurants, cyber cafes, walking/biking trails. We are being priced out of the market.

Part opinion, part from Gen Xers mouth
Proud Aunt of 5 Gen X
5 Millennials
all have been here in Sun City, and
7 Gen Z

 

Well said Lloyd and spot on. For some odd reason organizations get caught up in the minutia of bias and are hesitant to be open and straight-forward regarding the problems. We know from our history we were built around a belief we would ultimately become a city. We didn't and everything that followed was about putting the pieces in place where we would make do relying heavily on those who lived here.

We called them volunteers; they are and have been our lifeblood. We also know the one organization with the most influence, the most money and highest visibility is and always has been the RCSC. They are and should be the glue that holds us together. It was why while serving on the board i was so frustrated. I know you know the impact of abandoning the "City of Volunteers" and becoming the "Fun City" was such a tragic decision.

The brand changed, the mental image changed and we in essence told members to just have fun. I felt like i was watching Alfred E Neuman all over again; "what, me worry?" Seriously the idea might have worked if the rest of the community wasn't so reliant on volunteers. The RCSC could survive on it's own, at least that's what the theory was. Once members were taken from the equation, we came to understand just how short-sighted those choices were.

It's a long slow road back, it always is for organizations who by their very nature are hard to steer. If the RCSC board and the current management team have any hope of surviving they need to figure out the Mountain View remodel fast and get it moving. The Lakeview piece of the puzzle should be am event where at the center of the process is an effort to build a sense of community and ownership.

I'm not sure they are smart enough or inclined to look at it that way.

We'll see.

 

This is good information. I was recently approached by several individuals who told me they missed me being on the board. OMG I am not universally despised for speaking the truth. The observations made on this thread are consistent with my experience on the board. Those Board Members without a strong agenda other than community unity are destined to become disgusted with the process and its participants. So be it. When I started the SAC I was hoping to plant a seed of compromise and unity among the participants. If we all looked at data in detail, perhaps we could find a compromise that worked for all. What started out as a noble undertaking quickly devolved into Shakespear tragedy worthy of several academy awards. I refused to be run over so I was removed. Quite predictably, the truth ultimately revealed itself and the perpetrators were stymied by the members.

The Board and GM continue to have a choice - Make Community Unity the highest priority by making data-based decisions that are transparent to the members or continue with the pursuit of individual agendas. It all starts by engaging the membership to develop a Master Plan that all can live with.

Best Regards and God Bless,

John

 

Is there an acceptable path forward besides the voluntary or involuntary exits of many or all board members? Like Bill mentioned above if the Board and GM has any hope to regain credibility, they better figure out Mountainview fast and they should be up front with the members. I really do not see that happening.

Best Regards and God Bless,

John

 

Call me an optimist, but i've always been a glass half full kind of guy. I do believe this election will shake things up more than anyone expected. Nothing awakens people more so than an ugly jolt of reality. It's pretty obvious the board and management (even from someone who hasn't been paying much attention) are not on the same page.

The tragedy here is coming out of SAC, we had a modified Mountain View proposal that was modest in cost and easily attainable. The one question mark was could the existing auditorium be refurbished and at what cost. To steal a poker term, here's the "tell" on what the alternative plan was: Marlene told us all they needed to to a structural study on it to determine viability. Many of us were stunned it had not been done already (fall of 2023). To this day, it still has not been done.

I know the argument was the two costs, new or rebuild, were similar in dollar figures; but were they? Unless or until we see the "elements" arrived at for Mountain View, we will never really know what the alternative outcome was. Given what took place last Thursday, i can easily speculate. That would be unfair to the board, so just show us what your grand plan design was so we know.

Moving into 2025, there best be a "come to Jesus meeting" between the board and management. What has been playing out publicly has been a bad look all around. The GM works for the board, but if the board can't get their shit together, this thing can go south quickly. Been there done that and it's exactly how we got where we are today.

 

Agreed

 

With all the false statements, discussion without facts, discussion with facts, back tracking of statements, meeting delays, etc., etc., etc., we ought to treat the decision making like a school bond levy. Put together the plans, designs, costs, time line etc., then go to the members with a proposal, not the other way around. This process in my mind is ass backwards, and no wonder people are upset.
The SAC was almost there, until the sabotage or if you will, hostages taking happened. The BOD ought to go back to plan M, make some adjustments and move on. It will be a great facility and needs to get done now.
Lakeview will have its day and will also turn out great. Let’s get going in the right direction. Get the plan accepted by members and move forward! Focus, focus, focus! Amen and God Bless America.

 

I am no expert in urban renewal planning for a 55+ community and neither is anyone on the Board or Management. The difference between me and them is I admit it and they pretend like they are experts. Recently, a great colleague of mine who is an outstanding researcher sent me a bundle of whitepapers and information on the subject of urban redevelopment. Sadly, I do not believe any board member, or the GM actually cares about what experts say. AND NONE HAVE BOTHERED TO DO THE WORK BECAUSE THEY ALL CAME IN KNOWING THE ANSWER. What I am seeing is a combination of arrogance and ignorance which spells disaster.

As I continue to pour through this treasure trove of data sent to me by my colleague one sentence from the oldest urban development organization in our country founded by Teddy Roosevelt struck me like a bolt of lightning: "This latest edition continues to be a testimony to those energetic community members who believe that no community issue is too large to tackle if everyone works together."

BINGO. One secret to management dominance that quickly becomes apparent to any GM, particularly the current one, is to use the members money against them and "encourage them" to fight each other for the resources they provided but management controls. Another secret is to stroke the ego of the Board members who have an agenda and work with them to implement their agenda by providing exclusive "confidential" information and resources to support the Board member's cause. Finally, when all else fails, arbitrarily use libel, slander and disciplinary actions to discredit those who dare to disagree. Before I ran for the Board, I was made aware of incident reports filed and acted upon against a community leader for rolling her eyes. Really? Most recently, the current GM has chosen to take disciplinary action against those seeking recall of the Board. The current GM has stated there is an increase in "BAD BEHAVIOR" and the president of the board stated he is meeting with the GM daily to manage crisis. Go figure?

In my opinion, a desire for revenge only hurts those that dwell in the desire for revenge. I experienced that with one current board member who is terming out and felt unjustifiably punished and banished. In my opinion, she was hell bent on revenge and achieving her agenda. What folks don't get about me is I have no agenda other than engaging members to find creative cost-effective ways to make our community better. That is my only gig. I am a firm believer in well thought out master plans developed with the help of experts and have the guts to take the punches from those agenda driven few. I believe that a master plan will defang the GM and make Board service less traumatic.

Best regards and God Bless,

John

 

That's a pretty strong accusation! I hope you have some facts to back them up, which I assume you do.

Care to share those facts with the rest of us?

 

Wasn't the recall petition initiated by a couple living on the lake? How can the GM take disciplinary action against residents. Will he be taking action against all who sign the petition as well?

 

I don't believe he has that authority?

He can certainly discipline his own employees, but the Member/residents are a whole different story.

 

Hmmm. A little pompous? I'll sign. Could it be the board and GM are getting a little too arrogant?

 

Yes Tom - The Putnam's received a letter from RCSC that Faith's comment at an exchange or board meeting was inappropriate. Here we go again, weaponize the incident report process so you can attack the attackers.

 

True, look it up in the bylaws. The Board has a hearing for disciplinary action.

This is bad if the GM or Board is taking action against the petition circulators. Although I have encouraged people not to sign the petition, there is a bylaw that allows for them to the right to do it. And I was one who thought the petitions should be allowed on RCSC property as long as they do not interfere with Members activities. Please tell them stay within the rules.

 

Wow, now i'll have to go back and watch the video from it. I remember she went to the mic but i don't recall anything remotely close to being out of line. I guess revenge is the new normal.