Is the Board’s Action with respect to the Annual Members Meeting Legal?

Since I have had a few strokes, it takes me some time to put together the format and the content. In other words, I am slow. But I know what the structure should look like and am going on memory and Dave’s help from prior post. If there’s anyone else reading this that would like to help, all help is appreciated.

 

I have to comment on this lurch to filing lawsuits on this site. Expressing opinions, differing points of view, healthy discussions are all healthy and our 1st amendment rights. The tone and proposed action is contrary to getting anything done. I listened to President Foster’s explanation at the board meeting yesterday and the action, logic, and legal basis make utterly good sense to me, and in all our interests. The board is taking action in response to the members actions submitted, and while the first communication, left quite a bit to be desired, his explanation framed the current status quite well. As has been pointed out there are now very few people following and interacting on this site, this will hopefully die a natural death. Please consider the following as you draft your legal arguments:
-Who do you think is paying all the RCSC legal fees? We are.
-The total motions submitted were 31 pages, most of them from former board members who could have stayed and directly influenced the outcome
-Some of the motions were competing; some did not make sense. Some staff work is necessary to sort this out in a logical fashion so they make sense
-Some of the motions could have been offered for a vote but give the board a chance.
-Did you want the board to go against legal advice? Back to bullet one
-The motion to pass a master plan was passed yesterday, while not with all the constraints John wanted but is a sound course of action
-The board will study all the 31 pages and come back to all of us with recommendations to proceed. Did you expect them do this in a week
-There are anecdotal instances of people already choosing to purchase other than SC. Great.

Lastly, consider our new marketing banner: “. Buy a home in Sun City to enjoy your golden years, where you can be involved in endless controversy, lawsuits, and the finest vitriolic environment in the southwest, while playing mediocre golf courses “

 

The above named plaintiffs come before the court seeking injunctive relief and action against the named defendants. The relief sought is to allow the plaintiffs, also known as voting members of the Recreation Centers of Sun City (RCSC) the opportunity for an annual meeting in accordance with the Corporate Documents as outlined within. The RCSC Directors, as named, have stated voting rights are removed from the membership while the Board reviews the motions brought before the Board. There exists ample opportunity for the Board to review the motions and approve the process as outlined in the Corporate Documents. In denying this membership the right to vote the board has effectively cancelled the membership meeting. The opportunity for the membership to vote and decide the future of the corporation is only allowed once a year. The action by the board of denying the membership vote is against the corporate documents as written.

 

Harry Emerson, thank you for your support and input. I agree that taking legal action is a last resort option. But I also think that there’s ample time for the board to review the submitted documents and render a recommendation before the meeting date.
My initial thought was to postpone the meeting for two weeks, then review the board recommendations for moving forward.
I am posting what I have written so others can view the document. I am not sure I want my name on the document as I have no horse in the race.
I always prefer an agreement versus a legal action. I am just trying to craft a document that could be submitted to the courts if that’s the best option for moving forward.
Note: I said could, not will

For now, I will make an effort to contact the board and seek out other options for moving forward that don’t rely on legal action. I also don't see a recommended date for a follow up meeting in which the members can ask questions then take a vote.

 

Well said Harry and for those who missed it, watch the board meeting yesterday and several of your concerns (beyond the annual membership vote) were addressed CM. The tragic reality from the forever running last law suit was the impetus that allowed the GM to shove so many of the changes at us. The quorum change and a host of others were all part and parcel of the projected efforts to "save us." How did that work out eh?

Sorry, but the idea of suing ourselves never made any sense to me; it still doesn't. Yesterday was a great start to move forward. Let's be clear, it was only a start. Those filing the slew of motions for the membership had to understand the sheer weight of them was insane. That said, there were any number that could have been allowed to come forward for a vote. There were logical reasons to table some of them, so sorting them out rather than categorically stuffing them all was simply lazy and irritating to the membership.

Hopefully everyone will come to their senses and we can work towards solving the challenges we are facing with inflation and an entirely different generation of home buyers looking at Sun City as their new home. There's way too many problems to be wasting valuable time and resources on hurt feelings and perceived slights.

While i get accused often of clinging to the past, the reality is our future should be our focus. I've always understood that, too bad others haven't.

 

As of this writing, I am out the the drafting business. I can see that I will be plastered against the wall for being an author.

I would much prefer the board postpone the meeting for two weeks, do its due diligence and then conduct the meeting with the amendments presented in a suitable format. I feel there is adequate time for review with a 2 week postponement. There should be no delay of vote once the review is complete. The board would need to accept all proxies as written and forgo any arguments as to timeliness of the proxies. I can author documents, but will no longer do so at the risk pf my personal safety. I feel pursuing this in a legal forum will become a divisive maneuver that I personally don't condone. I again will state "don't kill the messenger"

 

Gee.

IMO they went about it in the wrong way. A lot of people wanted to go. Now they don't, and if they do someone said it should be a good show and he was bringing popcorn. As soon as they realized it wouldn't work they could have sent an email blast explaining why and maybe postpone the annual meeting. The way it was done just pissed people off, and after everything that happened in 2024 this is just another bad look.

Josie P, Wednesday at 9:28 PM

 

CM, do not look at this as a long term action. It is strictly for urging the Board to hold the Annual Meeting and allow membership vote. Once that has been completed the case is moot. Strictly declaratory and injunctive relief. Couldn’t John be listed as pro se on the action? This would allow him to be in Court and argue and it would circumvent the problem of being licensed as an attorney in AZ. One thing about this, if filed, I want to be listed as Of Counsel. That is my price for assisting.

Your thoughts.

To Harry Emerson regarding payment of legal fees, those would be covered by the Directors and Officers coverage, minus the deductible. Outside counsel would be brought in, but considering the cluelessness of the last bunch on the Anne Stewart suit, it was clear to me they did not have a clue how to respond to a class action of that manner.

 

I will fight this. This person does not have the temperament to represent anyone, much less our community. I have enough disgusting vitriol to share. Members should have a say in who does or does not represent them.

 

Josie,
Had I wanted to continue with the filing of court action, the person owning the action has the right and responsibility to name whomever they want as a participant in the action. If you don’t like that, file your own petition to the court. The representation of the principals of the case is done by whoever speaks to the suit.
So what are you doing to assist in the members meeting in regards to the voting being curtailed? Unless you have better knowledge of the matter at hand and can provide legal representation of your own for the benefit of the members, you have no standing.

 

I guess we will find out if it comes to fruition.

 

With all due respect to John Fast's background, I have to admit I have some concerns with this approach. As you know, pro per litigants face a significant uphill battle—especially in Maricopa County Superior Court, which....has recently dealt with RCSC matters and....did not rule in the members’ favor in its most recent decision (thanks in large part to Director Gray’s legislative efforts). Just a few things worth considering.

 

Dave,

I would much rather have the meeting postponed, allow whatever the attorney decides to be the outcome, then discuss a member meeting and a vote. I find it prudent to take extra time to consider the situation on a case by case basis and move forward accordingly. Jumping in to litigation is always risky and I don’t condone that action at this juncture. I would rather move the date forward.

 

Did anyone watch the meeting video? The board should proceed with caution, as should ex-officios and committee members. They said there is a large number of late payments regarding assessment fees. That could have several reasons, people don't have the money or people are just angry and putting off payment as long as possible are two reasons. One person said send to collections! Another board member with a cooler temperament said let's wait and have the foundation reach out to see if people need help. Which solution do you think will end up with better results?

If you or anyone decides to sue, a licensed attorney respected in the state of AZ would be preferable to an atty wannabe not licensed anywhere. But what do I know?

 

Ya know, Josie, you complain the most, the longest, and the loudest on here about everything.

Why don't you take all this pent-up energy that you have and start with something constructive for a change? Start fighting for the Members. Carol and Dave have done some of the work. Build on what they have accomplished. All of us on here just get so tired of your constant vitriol.

As for me, personally, I'm not in favor - at this time - of pursuing anything regarding a lawsuit. I would rather have a sit-down meeting with the Motion Makers, the BOD, and their lawyer (who we pay for !!!) and try to come to some sort of understanding that the Annual Membership Meeting for 2025 is a truly messed up affair but need to be. How can we adults fix it so that the meeting actually does become a meeting OF THE MEMBERSHIP. That's what I would like to see happen. I know John has already contacted the BOD. I did yesterday.

 

This coming from a grown woman acting like an 8 year old posting garbage here to clog up the main feed with crap from some author because she doesn't like republicans.

I shared the reason for my contempt, and I am standing up for the members by rejecting Dave as a representative for this community. He is not a licensed attorney, not even an attorney. I truly don't think you people understand how disgusted the residents really are. Actions of the board and crime are making people angry. People are angry about the shape of golf courses. There was a letter in the Independent from someone who was having trouble paying her assessment so maybe you should start reading the opinion pieces. They are not favorable.

I could not care less what you think of me. All I know is I have been watching this community fail, yet the powers that be keep talking about all the good that is happening.

 

Josie,
You are standing up for the members? Ha ha. As I understand it, you are washing your hair that day and unavailable for the meeting. One can file suits for any reason and you don’t have to be an attorney. Should myself or anyone else choose to go the litigation route, we choose, not you, the representation. YOU have one helluva lot of nerve calling someone out about the BS posts being made. Your constant negativity and hate towards the other posters is palpable. I truly wish the powers that be would just remove you so conversations can continue in a positive light without your constant negativity. In my humble opinion.

 

Yup, once I found out I couldn't vote I remembered I was busy. Chris forgot to mention how many others on that ND Thread decided the same.

And all of you have a helluva lot of nerve for the way I have been called out. Police report on Dave, decided to pursue libel/slander on you. I have already gone over why this is the way it is, not going to do it again.

The owners have copies of all the crap said to me including your little psychological profile. Dave's F rants and much more. Why do you think the rules got updated and your name was restored. Can't have 2 accounts.

You can relax now tho. I will be out of commission for quite some time, so keep calm and carry on.

 

[QUOTE="Josie P, post: 39199, member: 36194
“Chris forgot to mention how many others on that ND Thread decided the same.” J

FABRICATION!! Can’t “forget” something not known! DO NOT ENGAGE WITH ME AGAIN, you have been asked multiple times.

 

Good Lord Chris, I was answering Carole, not you. I have you blocked everywhere. Unfortunately you can't block here. It's not always about you.