Should members vote on the big stuff?

Should members be entitled to vote annually on the big stuff?

I argue that this is a missing component of RCSC’s governance and answer the question with a huge YES! It is obvious to the casual observer that RCSC does long term planning (i.e., PIF project selection) based on the requests of management and the preferences of whoever is on the Board. This new board new plan approach to PIF spending quite often does not include meaningful member input and is rife for controversy. Member input is limited to voting for directors, serving on committees if the Board approves you, observing committee proceedings, and three minutes a month to address concerns. This, combined with the scant information available for projects on the PIF list, is hardly what I would call meaningful participation in this very important process.

I along with others believe it is high time the members be given the right to vote on the big stuff annually and be provided with sufficient detailed information (i.e., a completed business case) on any given project to understand what is being voted on and what alternatives were considered. All of this information would be contained in the master plan which we are proposing be professionally developed.


What do you think?

 

I think you make a good point!

Perhaps, if the Members were more involved on how, when and where those PIF dollars were being spent we wouldn't be waiting 10+ years on the renovations at Mountain View! I can hardly wait to see how many years the scheduled renovations at Lake View, which is next on the list, gets kicked down the road!

This crap where one Director decides we need to spend $1.5 million dollars on a dog training facility is ridiculous and has to stop!

However, with all that said, the number-one problem we have is community complacency! When only 40-60 people show up at board meetings and only 1,200 Members vote for their new board, how do you expect to get a fair involvement of the entire community rather the few squeaky-wheels?

Something definitely needs to be done so that every new year when new directors are installed, they need to stick with the plan (Master Plan) and not sway the board to their own new personal agendas!

Let's face it folks, we are losing our community to complacency and selling-out the community to people who would rather purchase a home in SC to become a landlord rather than a community member. And when those renters die, the house doesn't get sold, we don't get another PIF or CIF, alls we get is a new tenant!

 

Interesting question and one i've argued/debated over the years. It would appropriate to understand how we got here, from a couple of perspectives. First off, the PIF was passed by the board to insure we had money in hand so as not to have bump up against the Articles of Incorporation that required a vote of the membership for any "indebtedness" of $750,000 or more.

That Article was written before the PIF was passed and before we had a funding stream. Going into any serious debt would have required a vote of the membership which would have included how the debt would be paid back/off. The most obvious method would have been through an assessment that members would have had to vote on and would have been in addition to the rec fees (now called the lot assessment).

I suspect the popular wisdom was almost nothing with a big price tag would have been approved. From a historical perspective there are two examples that come to mind. The most recent was the RCSC purchase of the Sun Bowl. That was done in 1981 and a mail ballot was held with a $2 additional charge (from $40 to $42) per person per year. It was a wildly popular venue and the vote was 15,755 to accept to 9,788 opposed. Oddly, there were 2,059 ballots returned with no markings either way (don't ask, i have no freaking idea).

The second time was 4 years earlier. In 1977 the RCSC acquired 7 of the 8 golf courses for "$10 and a cup of coffee." The deal was actually way better than that, as DEVCO threw into the package all of the golf equipment and provided a cash subsidy to make sure the courses were solvent. There was no vote by the members. We also know the board president, Myron Waggoner, reported in the newspapers the golf courses would be "revenue neutral" and would pay for themselves, and it was stated in the documents as such.

Their fear was they would become a "money pit." It would be curious to see these days, if that same offer was being made, would we have "voted" as a members to own them? Neither here nor there, but a direct correlation could be made as we look out over the 10 year PIF budgeted projects and we see $45 million dollars allocated for golf courses and golf course out-buildings; would we vote for that expenditure?

I thought i heard the general manager say there are now 34,000 members, which was surprising, because the last number i had heard was 32,500 members. Maybe some of the rental property owners have sold them off and we have increased the numbers of those owning homes and living here. The real point is; there are less than 5,000 more-than-casual golfers in the community, so would a vote by those who never step on a golf course be inclined to vote for that kind of money being spent? Again, no idea other than my perception of human nature being what it is.

The other piece of the puzzle has been the RCSC's movement away from membership engagement. I know they claim they listen, but compared to 2000 when the PIF first came into existence, they are a million miles away. Sorry, but that ship has sailed. For years, nothing in the community of any consequence happened without being run by the Legal Affairs Committee.

They were the guardrails that kept the RCSC within the boundaries of our documents and the laws coming from the state and federal government. Yes, we had an attorney of record, but they were the first line of defense for anything foolish being done. They were also the first committee the general manager got rid of when she was hired in 2006. I would argue it was the beginning of the end, but what's the point?

Following their demise, the long range planning committee was neutered in plain sight. It was shocking to watch as the one group whose primary purpose was to prepare us for the future, were told they only had any say over 25% of the PIF expenditures over the next 10 years. And then it got worse when they overstepped their bounds with the 6 million dollar Marinette project. Once that was done, we were told their work was done and the committee was disbanded as well. Don't ask, i have no idea yet again.

A lot of history with even more water over the damn. I lean more towards a bylaw that limited any additional spaces added to the amenity package having to face a vote of the membership. For example: The Grand Center, the Thunderbird building, the Lakes Club had we been smart enough to buy it years ago, because those purchases while paid for out of PIF, added costs that all of us would have absorbed in our yearly lot assessment. You know, like they did for the Sun Bowl when they told members how much that additional space would cost.

Even with that mindset, it's been disconcerting at best to watch the machinations over the years as board after board has invited members to participate in grand planning schemes and then run off and just do what they want/think is in our best interest.

All of which just means; the road back to whatever happens just might be a bumpy ride.

 

What I find amazing is all those numbers add up to 27,602 community participation!!!! What happened?

 

Mail ballots always work better than walk in votes, so there's that. But clearly Tom, back in those days, members were engaged and involved. They took ownership in their community as a source of pride. I watched in horror as we ran from it and just wanted folks to move here and have fun.

The rental side of the equation is a bit more troubling because the RCSC enjoys what many call "double dipping." They get the owner's lot assessment on every property and if the renter buys a privilege card, that get that as well.

It's why i have long argued at the point of sale being our best opportunity to reach them and help them understand their role in shaping a sense of community. Instead, we treat them/it like a throw-away. It is exactly how we got where we are and it wasn't by accident.

 

I remember when my parents moved out here in the early 70's, they were visited by the ladies from the Welcome Wagon! Perhaps something that should be considered again? How about making it a sub-committee of the Outreach and Communications Committee with a budget?

 

My short answer “No”. My reasoning is based on my experience of group dynamics.
The cost to coordinate a community vote, ballots mailed, literature printed and distributed and the collection of the ballots is an expensive task and we, the members, pay for that cost.
Once a vote is taken, there will be those wanting a recount or some other referendum to amend the vote because the outcome was not fair. With only about 1200 people participating in these elections, I don’t think the apathy goes away because of the cause for the vote.
As stated before, when asking for more money from the members, you can almost predict the outcome. It pretty much won’t matter the reason, every time there is a perceived cost the members, there’s a negative reaction. Guess what folks, the cost of gas, water, seed and labor has gone up and those costs need to be addressed.
With a vote of the members dictating projects moving forward, what is to stop a group from forming a voting bloc in order to get the outcome desired? What about the ability to contest the vote?
The system in place has its limits, but to put this out to a member vote looks to increase costs and cause additional delays in anything needing to move forward. Having expenditures be a member vote item is, in my opinion, not a productive option to address constituents needs.
Until such time we have an informed and interactive process of including members on information shared, it seems to be a process lost to ask for a vote on any expenditure. Current method of posting numbers with a written summary is inadequate, in my opinion.
So, my answer to should members vote on expenditures is no.

 

Thanks for providing valuable input and context. Several of the concerns raised are very real but may be less of an issue than we think since the proposal only allows members to vote once on a choice of expertly developed master plans (Good, Better and Best) and the voting in subsequent years is only on changes to whatever master plan is adopted. Not sure if this works best but it can be tweaked by the members annually if flaws appear in the future. Based on my discussions with many uninvolved members, their appears to be two broad camps of members: Those generally younger members who want better amenities because they use them and those generally older members that want the least expensive possible amenities because they either do not use the amenities very much or don't use them at all. I am not sure which is the majority or if there is a clear majority. There are clearly very vocal groups of members advocating for the best for their favorite activity.

The one idea to increase member engagement in the annual membership meeting is to make the voting process more fun and informative and less adversarial much like Warren Buffets annual shareholders meeting.

Thanks again for the background and insights. I will propose this "member vote on the big stuff" tomorrow at the exchange meeting and see what the reaction is.

 

This post appears the decision whether members get to vote will be made by the 4 or 5 former board members on this blog. Where does the Board come in? Are they taking direction from you? It would just make sense to me that the people who pay to live here should not be kept in the dark. Why don't you all ask the members what they want? But then that might engage them.

 

The context of the post states there exists a concern about several members being able to create special interest group, called a “bloc” to direct the outcome of a particular election. At no point is there a reference existing board members even being involved.
This was a rhetorical question about how things could go, nothing pointing to a specific outcome. I was responding to a general topic with an open subject. At no point did I mention board members or authors on TOSC. If I see a post seeking specific information as to direct the work of others, I will then submit a comprehensive report.

 

That's pretty direct.

There are many people in this community who are very unhappy with the way things are going. All the talk about transparency and you say unequivocally NO, members should not have a vote. Things are being talked about. Just read the last 3 Independent papers. The opinion pieces are dripping with discontent. 3 people on my street are moving out. 568 homes for sale right now according to realtor.com. The number keeps going up. 568 does NOT include pending/contingent.

I have read many of the posts here since 2013. It's the definition of insanity on steroids. Just keep doing what you are doing though.

 

As usual “the devil is in the details”. I would need to know more details. A couple years ago I stated that the members should vote on anything $7,000,000 or more.
Maybe I said $15,000,000 or more?

 

Please reread my post. I mentioned former board members making decisions on this blog.

The original topic was "members be given the right to vote on the big stuff annually and be provided with sufficient detailed information (i.e., a completed business case) on any given project to understand what is being voted on and what alternatives were considered." People do vote on election of BOD, but not very many do. Then the usual complaints show up about people not being engaged. Maybe this subject should be brought to the members? Should a link to this site be posted on other platforms?

 

As it sits today I think we need to focus on fixing things and enhance what we have, not add new. Home listings are the highest I have seen in about 3 or 4 months. I check regularly. Sales are the lowest in years.

 

Permitting member votes on these items would effectively 'pierce' the Title 10 Veil, thereby transforming the structure to resemble that of Title 33. This action would contravene the board's duty to the corporation as stipulated in the articles of incorporation and also threaten the Title 10 status. Therefore, I wouldn’t anticipate the board's voluntary approval of this proposal. I could be wrong…but don’t think I am. We’ll see.

 

The devil is always in the details and sadly we seldom ever have the depth in those details. I've become weary of the argument that a "bloc" of members can control anything. Let me explain why:
* When the GM drafted the language removing married couples from serving on committees together, the argument was they were too (two) powerful.
* When the GM convinced the board to get rid of the Long Range Planning Committee, it was because they served only wanting their agenda met.
* The resulting outcome was the GM and typically the board officers became the driving force, with the GM's agenda being most prominent. We all know how that worked out for us.

Anyone who has paid close attention to Sun City's history knows we have witnessed no less than a dozen activist groups that have formed over a myriad of issues. Some were successful, some not. In most cases, their effectiveness was most often fueled by whether the members at large bought into what they were fighting for. It's how activism works.

Which is exactly why i almost always look to our history, the blueprint works. The problems started when we scrapped what i have often called the "perfect community documents" and created a top-down driven organization, reshaped the path and excluded the membership from the process. And to be clear, exactly why i posted the two incidents; one where the members had a vote (Sun Bowl) and one where they didn't (golf courses). There were others along the way but further back in our history.

Had nothing been dismantled, we wouldn't be having these discussions. Now as we try and claw our way back and restore the relationship where the members have a voice, we know from watching up close and personal, those having the control (power), will always be hesitant to let go. From the GM through the board, they tell us they want to listen, but their actions almost invariably scream otherwise.

These frustrations we all feel often fuel the fire to overreach to fix past mistakes. Would we be voting on a "master plan" in total? Or, would we be voting on individual aspects of a master plan? Would board's have the ability to change the master plan as they see fit, or as needed? Would state mandates override what we voted to pay for?

The devil is always in the detail Tom...and always will be.

 

Isn't that exactly what is happening here...on this very site? During one election a preferred list of candidates to vote for was posted here by Bill. If that is not trying to direct the outcome of an election, I'm not sure what is.

 

How did that list of preferred candidates work out? Not vey well. At least two quit after the first year.

 

Talk to bill, he recommended them. I didn't vote.

 

Just pointing out a fact and if you didn’t vote you have no right to belly ache.