Idea's on how to keep the momentum going...

Kim-Sandy Kline said:
"My question to you is any ideas you could share on how to keep the momentum of Sun City residents participating going."
==================================================================
I hate to be redundant, but the answers are often forged from the fires of redundancy. So let me forge away. I know there's always multiple answers to most questions, but in this case, we need to take a page from Sun City's history. Oddly enough we heard the phrase used by triArc at the Mountain View session and one of the reasons i bounded out of bed at 3 am in the morning and started writing; "Is Sun City Back?"

A lot was said that night but two words made my heart sing: "Community Engagement."

I will be so bold as to say; the board, current management and whomever is hired as the next general manager has virtually no chance of addressing the multitude of challenges we are facing without engaging the membership. Sorry to be such a pessimist, it's not my nature to be that way, it's just as a Sun City historian i gave grown to understand every issue we faced was solved by the community members; not be a general manager, not by 9 board members, not even by DEVCO employees who had the financial backing of the Webb Corporation.

Let's be very clear, Sun City isn't financially broke, we have a lot of money in the bank and are debt free; always have been, hopefully always will be. Money alone cannot fix the fractured nature of a community that divorced itself from the concept of self-governance and turned inwards with a blind eye to bigger picture Sun City. We bet on the idea we could build a better mouse trap by telling members to stay home, have fun and they (management and board) would take care of everything.

It didn't work and now we are left with the cleanup, catch up and rebuilding of a structure where the trust, the partnership and the relationships between members, organizations and leadership has to improve and i mean improve quickly. Paying anyone lip service or pretending they matter will only exacerbate the problems.

We already know that's going to be difficult. I've long argued everything starts at the top. It gets really hard when those at the top refuse to let go or engage members and other organizations and embrace them as equal partners in finding solutions. Over the recent past history the erosion of trust by both sides has been stunning to watch. That statement alone screams the problem to us...there should not be two sides.

What exactly does "community engagement" mean? Different things to different people, for sure, but there is one common thread; members have to be part of the solution. The board needs to open their arms and make members comfortable that this is the real deal. Blunt honesty is critical, trying to mask bad decisions with dumb statements is poor form and self-defeating.

Let me give you an example that just happened. We heard the good news the board was going to form a bylaws committee. I know Tom Marone well and frankly he's paid more attention to our documents than any member i know. He submitted a motion for the annual membership meeting. You know, the motions the board shuffled off to Buffalo. He also applied to be on the yet to be named committee and was told he had no chance, the board decided anyone who had submitted motions could not serve.

Dumb idea in that those who took time to submit motions, obviously care and were/are committed. When Tom and i talked about it, my immediate reaction was this wasn't about Tom being on the committee. What i read into it was there were members who submitted motions they didn't want on the committee. Maybe i'm wrong, i doubt it. I know enough to know some members who apply for committees aren't always a good fit. It's why we give the committee chair some (too much) latitude in who is on their committee. (And why there was a motion to allow a committee vote).

My point is simple: We took the good act of telling members we were going name a committee and then we compounded the good act with a foolish one that leaves members angry and distrustful. One step forward, two steps back. I know people accuse me of being blunt, guilty. You cannot fix our problems with half-truths. If there is someone that doesn't fit on the committee, politely tell them so.

K S-K mentioned two things, sticky buns, which were my mothers go to Christmas day treat and surveys. We can leave the sticky buns out but let's talk about the ASU survey. I didn't take it, way to cumbersome. I didn't participate in the initial followup group but i did attend the final workshop session with 80 plus members. It was amazingly good.

Like so much of how the RCSC has been run, great plans, little or no follow up. It's how you wear people out, ask them to get involved (member engagement) and then let it all fall through the cracks. Ben Roloff and i took the ASU professor who oversaw the survey on a tour of the Del Webb Sun Cities Museum. We got a chance to talk away from the maddening crowd and she said she was delighted with the information collected. Way more participation and she loved the answers. As we walked and talked about Sun City's history, she saw the results of building that sense of community. She told us flat out, the survey had the potential to be the next step and she also told us it was out of her hands and now up to all of us.

Great ideas, great efforts are meaningless without an action plan behind them. We had none. It's part of the problem with an ever evolving board. Key players leave and whatever they had working dies. We've long argued for at least one committee chair be a member, not two board members. One only has to look at the LRPC to see the impact of musical committee chairs and how self-destructive that is.

Continuity comes from the membership's involvement. I know we've beat this to death, board members are stretched too thin, and rather than expand the role of members, we shovel more on the backs of the board members. The changes the committees endure creates anger and committee members quit, board members change and the downward cycle continues.

This has gone on long enough, but i haven't even come close to the bigger picture we need paint for Sun City to begin to heal the mistrust built up over past years. And to be really clear, there are a lot of easy to implement suggestions where we grow the membership base of support through modest and targeted "member engagement."

Stay tuned.

 

My apologies to anyone who read the above post from last night. I was initially going to start it's own thread but elected to leave it where the question had been asked by Sandy-Kim Kline for continuity purposes. When i checked my emails this morning and saw one from Tom Marone, i decided to step up, out and away from where it was buried. This whole topic is too important to be lost to the former GM discussion.

I know some board members read TOSC and i make no bones about the fact i want them to read what i write and at the very least digest options from the remarks members make here. Tom said it was okay to follow up with my initial report above. Late last night, after i had posted the story on Tom being denied the opportunity to serve on the committee, a board member sent him a "clarification" on why he would not be considered; or any other member submitting a motion.

To keep it short, the answer was a question of "fairness." The board apparently felt anyone submitting a motion would have undo influence in lobbying for their own motion. As i told Tom, there's some logic to the excuse, but it fails the smell test when it comes to both appearance within the community of members and the ultimate effort to craft the best set of bylaws possible. Tom Marone would be a great addition, i know this because he has in his hands years of previous bylaws and has followed their demise and crappy rewriting from when they were good to the abysmal state they are in today.

I've long argued, the board should have, for lack of a better term, their own consigliere. No, not in the way Robert Duvall was to Marlon Brando in the Godfather, but an advisor they could ask about whether an action they were taking was smart, or dumb? Think about the missteps over the years that had they been avoided, how better positioned we/they would be as a community.

With that bit of movie trivia and local committee member drama out of the way, let's dig into K S-K's question. I hate when people ask me stuff and i try and answer just before i head off to sleep. The problem is, i don't sleep. I toss and turn and mull over the options, solutions and pitfalls. Seriously, i am that invested in wanting the board, management and community to dig their way out of the hole we have dug ourselves int0.

One of the first things we learned in crisis or chaos management was to prioritize. Larry mentioned it in his response and it was spot on. Pick a target and get the damned thing done. Easily the number 1 priority is Mountain View. They have a great start via triArc and the more they keep that moving towards conclusion (even though it's several years down the road to final build out), the more members will respect their efforts. I hate to minimize the challenges, but based on what i saw at the MV session, they should be able to keep it moving even without a GM.

We know the bylaw committee is on the to do list. In my opinion, they borked it up already, but nothing says i'm right. It's just my opinion based on what i know. Once again, get it going and working towards a targeted date. I will give you all a hint that Tom and i agree on, keep the damned things short (18 pages like in the days before JE) and make them fit exactly how the RCSC functions. That was Tom Marone's secret sauce BTW, he understood how they should work/be written.

Let's get serious about fixing the mess. Nothing, and i mean nothing is more important than communication. For as long as i have lived here, the RCSC has argued their outreach to members is exceptional. Is it? Personally i don't see it, feel it. I find way too much stuff that goes on is lost in the shuffle of too much stuff going on. We can do way better and the answer can be found in the waiting arms of the membership.

Before the summer's break invite interested members to participate in a communication council meeting/gathering. Call it a white board, call it a community brainstorming session, but try and bring members together to begin to reconstruct our internal communication networking. Make it an a targeted end of year dated project with an eye on how we best reach members. We know the new website is soon to launch, which would be a great catalyst for expanding how we bring more members to the party.

Think in terms of the old telephone tree. Back in the days before the internet and phones weren't carried in every pocket, any matter of any import was sent to a hand full of folks who had their contact list and their job was to reach out and spread the word. Imagine now days how easy that is to pull off with contact lists on your cell phone and your email contact list. I know the RCSC can do it, but that takes members out of the equation.

I will tell you straight up, i have mentioned this to several board members and staff over the past year and while the light bulb goes on, RCSC employees have been terrified of doing anything more than what the GM tells them to do. This isn't a new phenomena, it's been going on for years. Employee initiative has been stifled which is not all that uncommon in non profit organizations. The suggestion: The clubs are the perfect starting point for expanding an outreach program where we use the old telephone tree concept to communicate with members who are often out of the loop other than at their clubs. Then, to enhance it, include like-minded organizations to spread the word as well.

As long as we are there, how about enhancing the idea the 400 plus employees of the RCSC are more than robots performing the same mundane tasks day after day. How about a program where they are encouraged to bring ideas and suggestions to their boss (they all have them) and see if anything springs forth. I saw John Fast posted bout an interaction with employees and how positive it initially appeared to be. Would it surprise anyone if i told you when i was on the board i was told not to talk to employees, it wasn't my job. Okay, but i often had employees stop and talk to me because they knew i was interested in what they had to say. I know Steve Collins does much the same, perhaps others?

See, we need to break the mold of what was/has been. What about rather than asking the members to come to us, the board went to them? I've read the comments about the Exchange meeting being less than productive. I like the format, but what would happen if we had quarterly listening posts with two or three board members at different rec centers at staggered hours of the day or evening? You know where it would be an informal meet, greet and chat. No mics, no video (unless there was an upside value to it) and just members getting to know board members on a more intimate level and sharing their concerns and ideas for the center.

Here's the real shocker, the eye opener; none of this is new or foreign to me. When i ran for president of the local union in 1995, i promised the members we would change/evolve from a top down driven organization to a bottom up/member centered one. We did all of these things and more. We needed members to be involved and take ownership and when we did things like i have mentioned above, we began to grow the circle and regain their trust that we were there for them .

There's more, way more and even some instances in Sun City where we incorporated these same techniques. I'll share them later, but suffice to say if we truly want the RCSC (not just the GM) be an agent for change, it has to start with the board focusing on the membership; what they need and how the board and management can make it happen.

Stay tuned, this is fun/interesting?

 

Bill, additionally, a highly effective outreach strategy to consider is where active members are encouraged to personally invite and support one or more individuals to visit their group or participate in a specific event or initiative. The emphasis is on personal connection and advocacy, rather than mass advertising or impersonal recruitment.

 

100% eyesopen and when Paul Herrmann i first began the effort to get a boomer club going, we foresaw the possibilities of it being a mentoring program for newcomers. Ultimately others stepped up and we got out of the way. All these years later, they are going great guns as the Next Gen club has more of a focus on the social aspects. They are very welcoming and a real asset within the community.

The more i write, the more often the word community stares me straight in the face. I know historically everything was about building that sense of community, and what is most curious is that was the technique DEVCO used to sell homes and make a massive profit. John Meeker understood, community was the best single hope for Sun City to survive after failing to incorporate.

It would be fascinating to see just how many of the recommendations that came from the ASU working group have been used? I know Tom T said some of the suggestions made their way to the Long Range Planning Committee, just curious who took the initiative to embrace those suggestions? I've always been a fan of white-board spit-balling as a tool to let minds open up and ideas to flow.

While it may sound trite or overly simplistic, one member at a time ultimately works. We know the compounding effect of programs that rely on personal relationships most often create the most solid of foundations to build from. I cannot overstate this enough; boomers typically don't want long term commitments; which is why clearly sated goals with targeted ending dates tends to attract those looking for a variety of volunteer options. Add into the equation a fun endeavor and one is almost insured success.

 

It's probably time I respond since my name has been mentioned regarding the Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee.

Am I disappointed that I wasn't selected to be on the committee? YES.
Was I surprised when I was not selected? NO. In fact, my wife predicted it when I first told her I submitted by application. (The wives always know )

You see, there's sort of a history of this. This wasn't the first time I was denied membership to an Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee. In fact, the last one, which was chaired and co-chaired by Kat Fimmel and Allan Lenefsky, I properly submitted my qualification but was not even offered the interview that was afforded to others. And to add insult to injury, I wasn't even allowed to sit-in as a guest in those meetings.

Who knows? Maybe it is me?

Look, it is what it is. It's a violation of my Rights as a Member of the RCSC, and it's a violation of our very own Bylaws, but it's also what we have seen happen time and time again in other committees. Directors ignore their own rules and they put themselves ahead of the Members.

I will be quite content to spend my Summer not attending meetings and be just as happy not to have my name attached to whatever comes out of the committee.

I have no hard feelings, only disappointment in the manner the Board decides things. I believe Bill was correct when he implied that the Director(s) decided to take the cowardly way out, and rather than explain to certain people that they may not be a good fit for the committee, we'll simply deny them all.

Perhaps a little interview should have been in order to test the knowledge of the applicants before denying those who have submitted amendments. But of course, would the questioner even know the right questions to ask? We know how that turned out the last time.

Have a Great Summer! Life is Good.

 

Tom, I have already said that the reason for denying you consideration for the by laws committee was specious at best and you should have had a fair shot.

That said, you were being a touch disingenuous regarding your attendance and On Day at a Time attendance at the first by law committee. At the very first meeting both of you were welcomed and the chair stated clearly that what was said during the meeting remained confidential. Both of you violated that the first day and sent out posts stating what happened. At the next meeting the chair chastised both you for violate the confidentiality rule and that if violated again we would close the meeting to visitors. Again both of you violated that rule and both of you were asked to leave and all meetings after that were closed for the remainder of our work. Both of you threw a hissy fit over this blaming the committee for summarily closing meetings. While true, both you were responsible for this due to your failure to adhere to the rules.

The word around the campfire is that the new committee will be closing the meetings while doing their work. Good idea.

 

I hate having to respond to YOU, but I fear I must. I will say it only once, I do not recall the circumstances happening in the manner you stated, but then again, you see things differently than most others on most situations.

 

Your initial post, Bill, was brilliant. Thanks to KSK for asking the question about momentum in the community. In your post, you stated, "I will be so bold as to say; the board, current management and whomever is hired as the next general manager has virtually no chance of addressing the multitude of challenges we are facing without engaging the membership." I couldn't agree more. You went on to say, "Over the recent past history the erosion of trust by both sides has been stunning to watch. That statement alone screams the problem to us...there should not be two sides."
Let me give you an example that just happened. We heard the good news the board was going to form a bylaws committee. I know Tom Marone well and frankly he's paid more attention to our documents than any member i know. He submitted a motion for the annual membership meeting. You know, the motions the board shuffled off to Buffalo. He also applied to be on the yet to be named committee and was told he had no chance, the board decided anyone who had submitted motions could not serve. Dumb idea in that those who took time to submit motions, obviously care and were/are committed. When Tom and i talked about it, my immediate reaction was this wasn't about Tom being on the committee. What i read into it was there were members who submitted motions they didn't want on the committee. Maybe i'm wrong, i doubt it. I know enough to know some members who apply for committees aren't always a good fit. It's why we give the committee chair some (too much) latitude in who is on their committee. (And why there was a motion to allow a committee vote). My point is simple: We took the good act of telling members we were going name a committee and then we compounded the good act with a foolish one that leaves members angry and distrustful. One step forward, two steps back. I know people accuse me of being blunt, guilty. You cannot fix our problems with half-truths. If there is someone that doesn't fit on the committee, politely tell them so."

Seven of us submitted motions (Susan Bjorn, Philip Cea, Lori Ellingson, John Fast, Tom Marone, Steve Oaks, and myself - Jean Totten); only three (Philip, Lori, and Tom) applied for the committee. Philip shared the note with me that he received from the president of the Board:

"Perhaps there was some misunderstanding here.
I believe it is the intention of the Bylaws working group to permit the individuals that submitted proposed motions to explain their rationale to the working group.
However, including the individuals that made motions as part of the working group was thought to suggest bias by the working group in favor of motions proposed by individuals that were also serving as members of the working group.
There was no intent to slight the individuals who took the time to propose motions, rather the working group felt the membership would not feel the working group was being objective if those who made motions were also part of the decision as to which motions to include in the revised bylaws document.
Hope you will reconsider willingness to serve the Sun City community.
Thanks for your participation in the process."

I don't know if Philip understood what he was trying to say, but I sure didn't. I dissected it below with question marks as to what it might have meant.
THEM: I believe it is the intention of the Bylaws working group to permit the individuals that submitted proposed motions to explain their rationale to the working group.
^^Someone believes it is the intention of the Bylaws group (group or Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee??) to permit the individuals (Members ??) that (who) submitted proposed motions to explain their rationale to the working group. (Who is the working group? The Ad Hoc ByLaw Committee?
THEM: However, including the individuals that made motions as part of the working group was thought to suggest bias by the working group in favor of motions proposed by individuals that were also serving as members of the working group.
^^ However, including the individuals (Members ??) that (who) made motions as part of the working group (which/who working group???) was thought to suggest bias by the working group (which/who working group???) in favor of motions proposed by individuals (Members ??) that were also serving as members of the working group (which/who Working Group???) THIS PARAGRAPH is clear as mud.
THEM: There was no intent to slight the individuals who took the time to propose motions, rather the working group felt the membership would not feel the working group was being objective if those who made motions were also part of the decision as to which motions to include in the revised bylaws document.
^^ There was no intent to slight the individuals (Members ??) who took the time to propose motions, rather the working group (which/who working group) felt the membership (the entire 30,000 of us or just the folks who were involved??) would not feel the working group (which/who working group??) was being objective if those who made motions were also part of the decision as to which motions to include in the revised bylaws document.
THEM: Hope you will reconsider willingness to serve the Sun City community.
^^ (I, We ???) Hope you will reconsider willingness to serve the Sun City community. (Strange combination of words.) (Even though we are turning you down, please consider volunteering to serve us again.)
THEM: Thanks for your participation in the process.
^^(The participation that you still haven’t told us if you will be included in the Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee purview? The amount of time that some of us took composing, creating, and proofreading our work? Will those contributions even be looked at?)

Last year, a member of the community stood up at the Annual Membership Meeting and stated that this Board needed help. Please, please, get the help you need.

 

Jean, I think (just guessing) that the "working group" pertains to the 4 Directors that will preside over two separate groups of committee members?

It has to make you wonder why they would assume there would be "bias" without interviewing anybody? The motion I submitted was just one specific item although there are many other issues that I consider needing review.

Look, it was the wrong assumption putting the Board (which is a subordinate assembly to the Membership BTW) ahead of the Membership but the easiest way out of a potential situation.

And why is the Board subordinate? Because they are elected by the Members!

 

Tom and Phillip,

Don't be offended by the form rejection letter. Believe me there is no form of rejection letter that RCSC uses so Tom carefully chose his words. I did not apply as I don't respect the abilities or motivations of the chairs of this committee. I respect you for applying. Even if you were appointed and advocated for the bylaws you made a motion on, you would still only be one voice of many so the reasoning given is either complete baloney or misinformed. It is becoming clearer by the day that this board is out to spend money as quickly as possible to achieve an agenda so that no one else can input or stop them. Same play different actors.

I continue to advocate for engaging expert assistance to formulate a member approved master plan. Maybe the next board will take that up.

John

 

I have made suggestions for ways to promote good will and seek to improve the situation within the community. The term “outreach” is an indication of a willingness to engage with the stakeholders in a way that creates a positive impact for all involved. The feeling generated was hopeful that the corner had been turned and the members could seek ways to improve the relationship with the board.
Then comes the clear message to the most knowledgeable members of the community that they are not welcome to participate in the discussion. The message is clear as mud as to why members are being excluded. Is this how to keep any momentum going?
“there is one common thread; members have to be part of the solution. The board needs to open their arms and make members comfortable that this is the real deal”. The real deal appears to be predetermined to a predictable outcome, one that has been repeatedly demonstrated by the RCSC directors. When the decision was made to deny access to the most qualified members, it demonstrated the refusal to come to the table and build a true community.
In order to achieve community engagement it’s with actions that promote a sense of belonging and respect for those who have the capacity to participate in the change process. This respect has been lost once again, through the actions of the board to subvert the committee process. It wasn’t bad enough to withdraw all of the proposed changes, nope, now it’s time to say those who submitted changes will not have a seat at the table.
As I read the statement about the exclusion, I also asked myself about the fiduciary responsibility to the RCSC and the membership.

• A fiduciary has a responsibility to act with caution, honesty, transparency, confidentiality, loyalty, and good faith.

Based upon this definition, it would appear to this reader the tenets of fiduciary responsibility have not been fulfilled.
It is so disappointing to hear these conclusions from the board. Once again, the board chose to ignore the needs of the members and act against the interests of their constituents.

 

I remember it differently too, Tom. If I recall correctly, guests were only allowed to attend the first meeting. When you and the other guest arrived for the second meeting, you were asked to leave. I was the only one on the committee who thought the meetings should be open so I agreed to go along with the others. Alan wanted it to be a unanimous decision. I regret that I went along with that decision. It wouldn't have made any difference but, at least, I would have been true to myself. I felt there was some coercion to get people to go along with that. Not only that, but Members have a right to see how the bylaws are being developed and the process. I hope the new committee works in open session. There is no reason to hide behind closed doors.
p.s. I can hear Dave typing already!

 

Tick, tick, tick, space, tick, tick, tick tick.

 

Well said CM and sadly many are clueless about what we are talking about, lamenting. Let me help them understand using the haunting refrain from an American classic song; "Don McLean's American Pie." These words rattled through my head last night after reading your remarks: "The day the music died." Don't start humming them yet, you'll never get them out of your head.

For Sun City's first 45 years, the membership and the leadership trusted one another to have each others back. Hell, we didn't always agree, but we did respect one another enough to believe in both the right to disagree and ultimately resolve differences. Our documents were built around safe-guarding the principals of shared responsibility. Member's opinions mattered and there's many instances where the members efforts resulted in outcomes beyond what those in leadership thought was right.

The community at large was viewed as smarter than a general manager, or a nine member board. Think about that for a minute and a half; the potential for solving problems using a large segment of the population, rather than being caught up in small room trapped in group think. Where committees had a real voice and poorly thought out ideas contrived by the board being quickly shut down at one of the quarterly membership meetings when 100 plus members showed up. Or, the GM having no real standing in anything other than running the day to day operations.

Safeguards; and then the all went away. "The day the music died." In 2006 we hired a GM and within three years (a complete turnover of the board), Sun City as we knew it was gone. Carole and i were on the board shortly after it happened, most often voting against the execution of members rights and we simply lost every vote. every fight. The GM rewrote every bylaw, made every decision, the boards job was to rubber stamp it. They did good in that arena.

It wasn't until 2016/2017 with the GM was losing interest, and she allowed the board more of the decision making process, but always with her thumb on the control button. It's long been my contention, there comes a time when a person stays around too long. The transition over the next several years became even more obvious, with the GM's impending retirement, the board started taking the reigns and after all those years the board was not interested in co-ownership of the process of self-governance.

They (the board) had learned their lesson well; pretend you care about what members want and then just do what that small minority huddled around the board room table thought was important. The argument was they had more of the facts/information to make those critical decisions; did they really? Why not share them and let those interested and participating have a say?

Here's my answer and why i have taken the time to tell those reading this: Many/most have no idea what Sun City was before 2006. Some remember when the GM made every decision and once she let go of the reigns and the board suddenly had the power, they liked it, felt like it was their job to carry us into the future. Today's board has no clue how much more effective the community was run when self-governance was real and not some myth were those elected believe they have all of the answers.

This thread was/is written to help board members and the membership grasp the importance of shared responsibility. Ultimately the board has the right and responsibility to make those decisions, but ignoring or worse yet pretending the members matter is folly. I saw at the triArc MV session what appeared to be a throwback, to those days "before the music died." It was the reason for my excitement.

Was it real? Or was it memorex? Self-governance isn't some catchy phrase to help sell homes or a community. It was a purposeful construct and the premise Sun City was built on and around. We were unique, revolutionary and it inspired buyers that moved here to accept the concept that ownership meant accountability and responsibility. We believed in it at one point in time; the question is, do we today?

We can propose, write and craft a dozen great ideas, but if the board doesn't believe in that concept of self-governance any more, just tell us. We're all grown ups and if you (the board) wants to ignore us, i will be the first to understand. However if that's the case, we can all just hum a few bars of American Pie and explain it away with 2006 being; "the day the music died."

PS. It won't make your job easier to ignore the membership.

 

I think most people believe that a fiduciary responsibility only pertains to finances, which it's not. A fiduciary responsibility also means doing things in the best interest of those you represent.

I honestly don't believe the Board understands that because I've heard the excuse of the "fiduciary responsibility to the corporation" to many times used to thwart a request from the Members.

 

I have commented many times about the changes I have seen in SC only to see you respond with "we all know you hate SC" (which I never said BTW, I said it was failing), but as you say so often that's a story for another day.

I know you love to write, the more flowery words the better, however IMO comparing the decline of this community to the deaths of three rock and roll icons Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson, and the pilot of the plane Roger Peterson (or the death of anyone) makes me think you might want to re-check your values.

 

Spot on Tom, it's been ground into them for a number of years now, your fiduciary responsibility is to the corporation and to the corporation only. It always brings a smile to my face when my answer to that remark is to read the Articles Of Incorporation that says this:
Article III
The general nature of the business in which the Corporation is engaged is as follows:

To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the Members of the Corporation, including, without limitation, the following:

1. To establish and conduct a general social, cultural, recreational and amusement enterprise for the benefit of its Members and do anything lawfully necessary or convenient to accomplish such purpose, including, but not by way of limitation, to purchase, acquire, develop, sell, lease, own, operate, and manage theaters, playhouses, agricultural projects, riding stables and corrals, libraries, opera houses, golf courses, baseball and football games, tennis courts, dancing facilities, lawn bowling rinks, horseshoe pits, croquet courts, travel clubs, card games, shuffleboard, swimming pools, skating rinks, lecture and conference rooms, and facilities and equipment for such arts and crafts as ceramic work, sewing, woodworking, leathercraft, lapidary, photography, fine arts, jewelry, shellcraft, mosaics, etc., and any and all facilities necessary or incidental to accomplish the general purposes of the Corporation.

2. To coordinate, implement, and aid the various recreational and social clubs which are now or which may become duly recognized as such by this Corporation.

3. To promote cooperation in all matters of interest and benefit to the residents and/or homeowners of the area within the bounds set out in Article I, who become and remain Members of this Corporation.

4. To contract, coordinate or operate, with other organizations, associations, corporations, or individuals in carrying out and conducting the activities and endeavors for which this Corporation is formed and in effecting the benefits and results sought to be gained.

5. To purchase, lease, option, contract for or otherwise acquire, take, own, hold, exchange, sell, or otherwise dispose of, pledge, mortgage, hypothecate, encumber any and all classes of property necessary to the fulfillment and furtherance of the objects and purposes of the Corporation within the limits prescribed by law.

6. To issue such notes, bonds, debentures, contracts, or other security or evidence of indebtedness upon such terms and conditions and in such manner and form as may be prescribed or determined by the Board of Directors, within the limitations prescribed by Article X hereof.

7. To purchase, acquire, own, hold, sell, assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge or otherwise acquire, dispose of, hold or deal in the shares of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes or other security or evidence of indebtedness of this or any other corporation, association or individual, and to exercise all the rights, powers and privileges of ownership, including the right to vote thereon, to the same extent as a natural person might or could do.

8. To lend or invest its funds, with or without security, upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed or determined by the Board of Directors in accordance with Article VIII, Section 7, of these Articles of Incorporation.

9. To borrow money and to issue bonds, debentures, notes, contracts, and other evidences of indebtedness or obligation, and from time to time for any lawful purpose to mortgage, pledge, and otherwise charge any or all of its properties, property rights and assets to secure the payment thereof.

10. To act as surety or guarantor, agent, trustee, broker, or in any other fiduciary capacity.

11. To make and to perform contracts of every kind and description, and in carrying on its business, or for the purpose of attaining and furthering any of its objects, to do any and all things which a natural person might or could do, and which now or hereafter may be authorized by law, and in general, to do and perform such acts and things, and to have and exercise all the powers and to transact such business in connection with the foregoing objects as may be necessary and required.

12. To do all and everything necessary, suitable, or proper for the accomplishment of any of the purposes or attainment of any of the objects hereinabove enumerated, either alone or in association or partnership with other corporations, firms, and individuals, as principals, agents, brokers, contractors, trustees, or otherwise, and, in general, to engage in any and all lawful business that may be necessary or convenient in carrying on the business of said Corporation and for the purposes pertaining thereto, and to do any and every other act or acts, thing or things, incidental to, growing out of, or connected with said business, or any part or parts thereof; the designation of any object or purpose therein shall not be construed to be a limitation for qualifications or in any manner to limit or restrict the purpose and objects of the Corporation.

13. To transact any or all lawful business for which non-profit corporations may be incorporated under the laws of the State of Arizona and in pursuance thereof to exercise any or all powers granted to corporations in general under the laws of the State of Arizona.

The foregoing purposes shall be construed as both objects and powers and the foregoing enumeration of specific purposes shall not be held to limit or restrict in any manner the powers of the Corporation.

This is the reason they exist.

 

It's obvious they just don't get it.

It's tradition that at the start of my Veterans organization meetings we all read out loud the preamble to our Constitution. Perhaps the Board needs to read that paragraph at the beginning of their meetings as well?
"To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the Members of the Corporation, including, without limitation,..."

 

Having a fiduciary responsibility to the RCSC, as written, beckons the question: who is the corporation? We, the members are the corporation. WE pay the entrance fee, under the title of PIF. We, the members, pay a yearly assessment fee for the privilege of belonging to and being a member of, the RCSC. Feel free to say the board is beholden to the corporation, just remember who the corporation is. There may not be shareholders, as normally defined by corporate standards, but the members are the stakeholders who should be the most important focus. Attempting to belittle the value of the members, by manipulating their voice and contributions offered, is demeaning.
I have some suggestions for the board members, seeing as how I have been chided before for not offering solutions to the problem. First, off load the mundane tasks to a facilities manager. Don’t have one anymore? Hire one. A good one is worth their weight in gold for the contribution to the community. Second, reconsider the ad hoc committee staffing. This community is full of talented, passionate and knowledgeable individuals. Don’t be excluding anyone that offers value added to the project at hand. Third, make communications the first priority of the board. If you are not willing to make the members feel informed and a piece of the total picture, you can almost guarantee things are going to continue to degenerate. There have been so many suggestions offered, pick one and go with it. Most of all, let’s make a commitment to members, who are the corporation, to seek out the best possible solutions for the RCSC. No corporation can be successful if the members are ignored.

 

Here is my 2 cents worth, an idea:

For those tech savvy:
I would like to see an app that shows daily activities. A complete daily community engagement calendar. One that contains an interest indicator so the user could receive notifications that this club meets at this time, with possible ties to a calendar app. Also to include Board meeting updates, etc. That could drive community engagement from this generation forward.

A way to gather data on a rolling basis and touch every household:

Annual dues. Include in the annual dues statement a wish list:
State to the members that in a perfect world and if they could choose how to allocate their lot assessment, which areas would they choose?

Example:
Members - (30%, 40%, 50% whatever the budgetary percentage is for that fiscal year) will be applied to operating expense.
If you could choose how to allocate the remainding portion of your Annual Lot Assessment which areas would you choose?
Golf ___ %
Bowling __ %
Tennis __%
Pickleball __%
Pools ___%
I don't care and this is BS make it stop: ___%

This could reach even those that aren't tech savvy at least on an annual basis. I know, this isn't how we have done it, we do it differently. However, this could be a potentially community engagement moment that gets folks to think and allows at least some high level data gathering even if people don't use the facilities.

Thanks for reading!