Recall of Directors

Sorry Janet, but i don't recall the members asking for the Visitor Center to be moved to Fairway?

 

The Board did not "kill" the idea of the PAC at Lakeview.

As mentioned in SC Chat on FB, LM (Someone you know quite well.) stated: "Further, didn't the motion to move funding to create a site plan for the entire property get the results to at least allow the evaluation and develop a plan for the ENTIRE property in 2025? Wasn't that the goal? Their preference was LV....a site plan could conceivably build one new building."

 

I don't know, I had been following meetings for over 2 years with regularity. It seems more like a bait and switch thing kind of happened. It was all about MV for a year or more, then suddenly some new board members come in and then things got muddled and then suddenly the Lakeview idea was presented and MV was no longer in the equation. I just wondered how that all happened, and no explanation for the change up. I think engineering, plans for all properties should happen. I don't care if it takes a year, let's do it right instead of running by emotion and some board members impulsive mindsets.

 

“I think engineering, plans for all properties should happen.” EM

An overview was done.
https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TA-Selection-Process-PAC-10-31-2024.pdf

RCSC Board of Directors Planning Session Presentation (PDF)
held on Thursday, October 31, 2024, at Sundial Auditorium
RCSC PAC Site Overview | 9 Sites
+ RCSC PAC Viable Sites | 3 Sites
- Mountain View - Lakeview East - Lakeview West
+ RCSC PAC Preferred Sites | 2 Sites - Lakeview East
- Lakeview West
+ RCSC PAC Recommended Site | Lakeview West

Meeting available on RCSC YouTube.

 

And our own SAC met and voted on Plan M, thinking that management was going forward with it. And after 4 Town Halls, the majority of the Membership desired to have Mountain View renovated and Plan M put in place. Granted, these are not engineering plans, but we have strayed soooo far from the original purpose of SAC and Mountain View renovation. It should now be called Lakeview Renovation while Mountain View gets put on hold.

 

Yes, I saw John Fast's post. There was no meeting of the Board with the architect. However several of the Directors were at Lakeview for other meetings and business and may have been seen together. The architect was there but must have met with the GM and perhaps one of the officers. Wow, everyone thinks they know so much when they really are making some assumptions.

 

Yes, that is entirely correct. I just wanted to know how all that happened. I thought MV plan looked great, and was happy for those folks over there. Someone did a change up, and that is all I am trying to say.

 

I agree. My comment had nothing to do with the Visitors Center being moved. It was about plans for LV and MV. I do not think the Visitor Center should be moved to Fairway. In my opinion, the RCSC management has too much authority. The boards that I were on, with similar net worth and operating budgets, would have always approved any major decisions about moving amenities or expenditures. Something is definitely wrong here!

 

Perhaps I should have said "killed the motion" which is essentially what they did. No one knows what the LV plan will be. Last year, Jean, you told me you wanted a grander PAC at Lakeview rather than the multipurpose room at MV. What do you think should happen now?

 

They killed the motion and propsed the creation of a site plan for the entire property. I'm guessing - and it's too bad that I have to guess - that the "entire property" meants the entire Lakeview Recreation center campus. Meanwhile, Mountain View still sits waiting for their entire campus re-do.

As far as what I told you last year that I would have loved to see at Lakeview was the round building excavated and a building erected that could house the Visitor/Welcome Center combined with a large Community Center area for Members to drop into - like a student union. No fees, maybe a coffee area, patio tables outside overlooking the lake. I thought that would have made an impression on any visitors who were at the center. What better way to "sell" our community.

But now, after careful consideration, I feel that RCSC should put a moratorium on building and get its act together. What I see is not a well-run non-profit corporation - regardless of whether it's approximately $30M, more or less.

Does that answer your questions, Janet?

 

Yes, thanks, Jean. I don't think we can hold up Mountain View any longer.

 

For those considering signing the petitions, you are asking for Directors to be recalled. You are NOT signing it to fire the GM.

 

I ask only one question Janet - How do you state with certainty what the rest of us do not even know about? Special access perhaps?

 

The Board indicated they would continue to work with the architects at their last meeting. No special access here.

 

I only wish I could believe you.

 

As I sat and LISTENED to the initiators of the petition, I was wondering how we could have gone so far astray in so little time. Of course, as a self-professed friend of Karen McAdams, Janet will not reach out to hear the petitioner's concerns. I tell you what Janet, I will arrange a meeting for you and I to discuss why the Petitioners are so upset. Yes, Janet, I understand that you, Karen and Anita feel a standalone special purpose PAC is essential to being a well-rounded community. I disagree and feel that Sun City has so much underutilized indoor space that building more and charging additional fees for the upkeep is pure lunacy. But I do agree we can wisely direct more resources towards the performing arts and be better off for the effort.

Sadly, I recently witnessed the current GM harassing the recall petitioners and have reached the end of my tolerance with what I view as his arrogance and incompetence. Requiring a big screen TV in his office, having a personal assistant, closing libraries, dog parks, moving visitor centers and building multi-story buildings in someone's back yards without proper consultation with those impacted is simply not acceptable. It is time to move on...

Best Regards and God Bless,

John Fast

 

You can believe me, John. I may be the most honest person you have ever met. To a fault. However if I have been asked to keep something confidential, I do.

 

John,
You are making some very incorrect assumptions about me. I will be happy to meet with you and one or two of the petitioners. I just arrived here on Monday so I have been somewhat busy getting our home in order for the winter.

I have never said that I thought we should have a stand alone PAC and I don't recall ever talking to Karen or Anita about a PAC at all. Perhaps in general terms with Karen some time ago but never with Anita. I have stated on this blog that I think Lakeview would be a good, central place for one. Same with Bell Center. Never in my wildest dreams did I envision one on the lawn bowling greens! I live close to Lakeview and go there about four times a week during the winter. The lawn bowling greens are busy a lot of the time. Not so with the shuffleboard area. The mini golf and Hilltop Park nearly always have people using them. The swimming pool is busy on warm days with many of the same Members there often. Why would I want to make Lakeview less appealing? I will stand by my opinion that a place of 30,000+ should have a venue of some type for live performances. On this blog, I believe I talked about my ideal PAC would include a space for visual arts as well. I also indicated that I didn't think RCSC could afford that on its own. One should be able to dream and brainstorm openly without being attacked.

I have some of the same concerns with some of things the GM has done this past year.

John, your unfounded accusations are unsettling. Please send me an email with possible times and dates to meet. Tuesdays are out until late afternoon because I play golf those days and am on the scoring committee after golfing. Also I have a Foundation meeting on Thursday morning.

As always,
Janet

 

Janet,

You have restored my faith in your integrity and that is very important to me and all the other members. Two board members reached out to the petitioners, and I see a ray of hope. I had some really positive discussions with Rick Gray who reached out to the Petitioners. I think we really need someone with his proven experience as president of the Board. Steve Collins also reached out to the petitioners, and I am so grateful for that. I would love to have someone with Steve's experience and dedication to the members as vice president.

I hope you didn't take my comments in the wrong way, but I really think we are being led astray by individual board members agendas and egos. You stood up when a board was trying to bully their way through the bylaws. Steve also stood his ground. That takes guts, determination and a love of your community.

I too believe that Sun City is still the one for everyone.

Best regards and God Bless,

John Fast

 

Frankly, John, I don't understand why you questioned my integrity in the first place. Hearsay?

I am glad that some Board members are communicating with the petitioners. If I had an "in" with the Board, I would know which ones they are, but I don't. Nonetheless I hope this negativity can be resolved. It may be too late for those running for election.

My involvement in our community has no purpose other than to improve it. My experiences have strengthened my resolve to do that. I may be happier if I just played golf instead.

See you soon,
Janet