Member Engagement - Who's job is it?

FYI, did you ever think that the secrecy is to keep rumors from spreading like the last committee where you and Jean Totten were specifically told the rules that was said in the room stays I the room, but NOOOOO you and Jean posted within a short after the meeting ended . You both were warned and it was decided to close further meetings because certain members were untrustworthy and was interfering with our work.

 

I don’t feel the history or sarcasm is warranted here. This is a new committee, formed to complete tasks as assigned. I posted my own concerns about this committee meeting without any comment about who the members are or sense of direction given to the committee.
It seems that every time a committee is convened to consider bylaws and amendments, it becomes an exercise in futility. People meet, they provide ideas, then for one reason or another, there’s no completed work to show. So, yes, there is a great deal of interest in this committee, both for the way it was handled and also for what the committee purpose is being instructed to do. What is the timeframe given for a final report? Will the committee results be available for review by the members? And if this committee is meeting outside of RCSC rules for meetings and committees, why is this committee exempt from adhering to established practices?
The need for the work to be done is a definite need. Yes, this committee is under the watchful eyes of many.

 

Teachable moments, we are surrounded by them. Dave's remarks about two visitor's comments regarding the Bylaws committee are classic examples of the folly of secrecy. What in the world being discussed about bylaw changes was so "top secret" that information "leaked" was going to impact the outcome?

Does anyone have any idea just how dumb that sounds? Really Dave? You were on the board (as was i) when the GM would rewrite them in the privacy of her office and the board would rubber stamp them with nary a peep. Good God, how or why the members having a say or a voice in the bylaws is dangerous might be one of dumber things i have heard.

And let me share another teachable moment from our history: Everything DEVCO did was an event worth promoting and using to kinder an emotional attachment to the community. In my opinion, the RCSC board of directors squandered another opportunity to engage members with an announcement of who was on the committee, the time lines and the ultimate goals. Instead we cloaked it in secrecy.

Nothing new here is there: One step forward, two steps back.

 

As usual Dave makes up his own reality.

First of all, they kicked us out at the start of the second meeting so how much in-depth discussion could have really taken place that was worthy of reporting?

Secondly, I believe it was because some guests vocally expressed grunts and groans on what they were actually hearing and raised hands to inquire but were ignored.

Hence, the Chair had no interest entertaining comments or questions from the guests so rather than properly preside over the meeting he encouraged the committee to just have us kicked out.

Tell me Dave, what was the overwhelmingly important secret information that was revealed?

You just didn't want anybody reporting on how badly the committee was run.

 

The easiest way to measure success of anything done is through outcomes Tom. Even with all of the secrecy and all of the hours put into the project of drafting, arguing and hiding their efforts, it all turned to crap. Begs the question: How did that work out for us (the members)? How did allowing the GM to rewrite the documents in the comfort of her office with no help from anyone work out for us (the members)?

I've long been a fan of the theory that things we do in the light of day generally are best served. And those things kept hidden away suffer when exposed to the harsh light of scrutiny.

But of course, that just one guy's opinion.

 

Well, if you asked me I would say they've started out on the wrong foot.

First of all, these upcoming meetings between the authors of those motions and amendments and the committee should have been held prior to the Annual Meeting so that they could have been filtered out to which ones may apply and which ones may be contradicting the others, but the truth is, EVERY motion and amendment should have been presented at the meeting.

57:7 However, as already stated in 57:1(4), all bylaw amendments of which notice was given are entitled to be considered, as a matter of the rights of their proposers, and a bylaw amendment is not dropped simply because it would conflict with one previously adopted. This procedure does not violate the normal parliamentary rule as might appear, because when any bylaw amendment is adopted, that amendment becomes a part of the bylaws immediately; and it is the bylaw language as thus amended, rather than the previous language, which any bylaw amendments subsequently considered would now propose to modify. (RONR 12th Ed.)

Secondly, since they didn't do that they should have at least allowed some of those authors to become part of the committee, not only because they submitted perhaps controversial motions, but because they are apparently better well-versed in the current Bylaws than the average person or else they wouldn't have noticed the discrepancies.

My question is, can they successfully amend and rewrite the Bylaws when they have little knowledge and understanding of the rules they are supposedly governed under (i.e. Their State Statutes and parliamentary authority)

It was Einstein that said, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Just my opinion.

 

That Einstein guy must of been pretty smart; wonder why more people don't pay attention to those words of wisdom?

 

I am not a supporter of duplication of efforts, but would it make sense if those who have a grasp of the needs of the bylaws and amendments draft the corrections needed and present them to the board? I know there’s a formal committee formed by the board, but what if those who are separate yet qualified put their heads together and wrote the needed changes then had their version submitted for review? I wonder what differences would arise between those familiar with the system versus those assigned to the process would look like? Not trying to create an “us versus them” rather a different approach to how this line of action could benefit the RCSC and the membership. I am not volunteering any one to author an amended version of the requisite documents, but it sure would be an interesting discussion as to what the outcome would look like. There are those in the community who are extremely well versed and qualified to author such documents and I, for one, would surely like to see what they brought to the table. It is also a huge undertaking for anyone to prepare such a detailed report and presentation, so no one could expect others to do such a feat. But inquiring minds would like to know and see what their thoughts look like with their finished product. Just musings from the peanut gallery about structure and process.

 

I believe the full intention of that quote was "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."

 

Okay I did not mean to shut down the discussion. I was merely musing about what could be. Remember, I am the peanut gallery merely thinking out loud about what potential could be. Mea culpa

 

I don't generally like to call out people but in IMHO Preston Kise's actions appear to be a major hinderance to member engagement. As many others have noted he seems to have his own agenda. Some of the instances I found troubling were as follows:

At one LRP meeting I attended he seemed to rewrite substantive sections of the secretary's report to fit his narrative. For what purpose?
He seemed to discourage the development of BP 16 forms and did not want to engage in discussions of a master plan when he was chair of the LRP.
IMHO he presented the Quail run golf course "$6M rebuild" as a project in process but I never heard anything about the project when I was on the board. I was fully aware of the ADWR items on the PIF schedule, but they were always presented as turf reduction and drought resistent grass seed initiatives. Some have questioned whether RCSC followed proper bid procedures on this project, and it seemed to at least raise the appearance of impropriety.
Most recently the Bylaw Committee he chairs has decided to exclude anyone who made a motion to amend the bylaws from serving on the committee to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The motion makers will be allowed to testify for 5 minutes in front of the committee. This has created a great deal of ill will. Part of me finds this particular action an expedient and not offensive. Maybe because I have drafted so many articles of incorporation in the for-profit world and witnessed the debacle on the first bylaw go around (and that was led by a very competent retired judge) that I cannot see how this committee will accomplish much of anything.

On a more positive note, I think the Master Plan initiative could be a catalyst for reengaging the members.

 

Since Kise is on the board of directors, the process of removing him is lengthy. It would appear the next best option is for him to recuse himself from the committee and ask for another director to replace him.
Perhaps these issues need to be presented to the board during the next meeting. Or perhaps allow the board president to handle the matter expeditiously. Either way, if the new committee is to proceed in an environment of trust and transparency, it must also have a director beyond reproach.

John, I trust your honesty and integrity and have no doubts about what you have presented here on TOSC. The steps forward for the benefit of the community as well as the validity of the board moving forward will need to be made to the board itself. There may be members who read this site, but actions need to be taken from the board itself. I hope you will seek to contact the board president to seek a resolution,, then if one not found, take the matter public. You have my support.

 

It's also my understanding that there will be no public notice as to who's on the committee and no guests will be allowed in the meetings. So I suspect, unlike the SAC Ad Hoc committee, there also will not be any committee summaries posted.

This, in my opinion, is absolutely reprehensible. Seems some our Directors have crowned themselves King of the Committee.

What really pisses me off is that Chairs and Co-Chairs are pretty much instructed (I don't know by who) not to cast a vote during committee meetings, yet they seem to have no problem dictating how the rest of the committee should function and involving themselves in discussions and debates of an issue. They can't have it both ways!

Truth is, both the Chair and Co-Chair can cast a vote in committees, however, if the Chair wishes to abstain, the Co-Chair can certainly vote because he/she is not presiding over the meeting. Only one person Chairs a meeting.

That is not the way committees are supposed to function or the way to Chair a committee. Committee MEMBERS make the decisions by casting a vote, of the committee, not something determined by the Chair.

I won't bore you with the parliamentary rules that govern committees, but believe me, they are out there but the Chairs seem to push their own agenda, which is why this Ad Hoc committee has gotten off to a bad start and probably won't get any better.

 

So, why assemble a group of people to work together on a project only to have it potentially fail? What I am hearing is that some directors or only one director, is sabotaging the overall process involved with committee meetings. How many times can a committee be assembled to review the bylaws only to have the director decide the outcome? Once again, window dressing with a predictable outcome, nothing accomplished,,squashed by the director who is supposed to be directing the committee.
There are members waiting on a positive outcome from the committee, but it would appear the committee will be stymied by the very person who is responsible to direct their work.
I also have a personal concern for those wanting a positive outcome from the bylaws changes. How many times can the members be led on, expecting positive results only to be let down again with no results.
I know there has been talk of training for the directors. This whole situation truly emphasizes how dire the need is. This also includes a need for emphasis on the role of the directors within the scope of their roles in their committee work. This truly grieves me for those who give their time to the committee, but also the members who end up with no resolution to their needs. When will the RCSC ever realize that doing the same old things over and over without positive results is not progress.

 

First, if anybody is dealing in an alternate reality it is you. The first meeting was strictly organizational and putting together the ominous task before us, remember there were a ton of Board policies that were made into by laws because Jan was afraid of losing the Anne Stewart lawsuit. We discussed how we wanted to divvy up the mess and come back to the next meeting with ideas. As you or Jean asking questions, we were never going to entertain that, you were just guests to sit there and watch.
I don’t have either of your posts but the word around the campfire was that members started calling other Board members on what we’re doing before we even had a chance to brief them. Alan was seriously pissed about that and we decided to close the meetings so no one was harassed over things they didn’t know about. I want the meetings closed from the first day knowing something like this would happen. I was not disappointed. I have no problem with the new committee being closed to outsiders, just based on my previous experience. I just want to see the finished product.

You have also held a grudge, in my opinion, that you were not chosen for the committee and being asked to leave. You are already going into By Laws committee bitching 2.0 mode. I suspect you will be leading the charge against the new product whatever it is because that is what you do.

A rhetorical question, if you could not attend 6 months of by law law committee meetings, how would know that they were poorly run unless you had a person on the inside and I have a real good idea who it was if that was the case.

 

Don't anyone hold their breathe regarding positive improvements and member engagement. I have raised many of these issues mentioned by John and FYI to board members and the Chair . . . . apparently, there is no need to answer my questions. In fact they were evaded and only what was deemed okay to answer was answered.
I wanted to know who the members of the "working group" were that I would be presenting to - I was not provided an answer. I was also informed that the group would be closed to member attendance. Why the secrecy?

This could have been a great opportunity to demonstrate transparency and provide timely communication around the "working group". The comments on this page say it all. Really unfortunate.
And how about explain why the change to "working group" from "ad-hoc committee" as is addressed in the bylaws?

I was flat out told by the Chair, after reiterating my questions (how will you remain unbiased? and who are the members that I/the motion preparers will be presenting to?), that "he was done with the conversation". No courtesy of - 'we won't be releasing the names of the members', or any kind of response - just flat out evaded both questions.

The President at least provided me an answer that he chose not to participate to eliminate the perception of him bringing bias, as well - but did not comment on the Chair choice. Nonetheless, he made a true effort to answer other questions I had relative to the 2024 Finances . . . . room for improvement but truly took the time to answer.
I still have considerable concerns with our financial reporting and focus on a number that is less important than explaining the Net Excess/Deficit BEFORE Depreciation figure. This is the figure experts use to show the true financial picture of an organization.
I'd like to understand where the 2023 $2.6M excess and the $300k deficit went. I'd also like to know what the specific plan is for 2025 to ensure it doesn't happen again and it should be communicated with "stakeholders", members . . . e.g. what specific expenses are being cut? How are we improving our revenue generation to offset higher expenses?
I have a list I could also share relative to questionable past actions . . this bylaw issue is a piece of a bigger issue we currently have ... manipulation, as one person called it. Managing RCSC/our money like it was your own would be my expectation.

 

Perhaps I will, or perhaps I'll just stop giving a crap because they do what they want no matter how many times you try to point them in the right direction. Seems they're too good to take advice from people who may actually know more than them and it's not just about the bylaws. I would think you've run into a similar situation in the F&B committee meetings?

At the very least I'm hoping for is a shorter version than what currently exists, and hope it's better than that crap that came out of your committee filled with duplications and contradictions and many things that just didn't belong. Your work turned out so good that it failed to pass the vote!

So let's see what happens this time. Instead of having only 2 Directors lead the charge, we now have 4 Directors leading 2 different groups. And how will each group accept the decisions from the other? Or will the Director's just step-in again and have it done their way?

At least I won't be wasting my Summer away in meetings.

Have a great day!

 

That's an interesting question!

Perhaps those committee members will be shielded behind a screen so they can hear us and ask us questions but we won't be able to see them and know who they are! Lol!

This is TOP SECRET stuff don't you know!

 

All I can say is WOW! And there was a comment that 2024 was a bad year for the RCSC. It appears the hits just keep coming. From what I’ve can surmise, there is a complete lack of transparency and communication teeming around this board and certain directors. As if there isn’t already enough distrust of the board and the directors, it’s now coming to light what actions have occurred to justify this decision. Apparently, there is no easy answer to the current situation. I do know, from my perspective, I have no faith in the process moving forward and feel this is another exercise in futility. The lack of accountability for certain actions is not acceptable and I feel there should be consequences for the actions of those responsible for the deterioration of the boards integrity. I will also say this is a violation of the fiduciary responsibility as sworn to in the oath taken by each director. Not every director is culpable, but every director on the board has a duty to protect the integrity of the RCSC to the members. To allow any behavior contrary to established ethics expected from the board is reprehensible. Nothing more can be said about this matter moving forward until the issues are addressed. In my opinion.

 

It's ridiculous - I asked 3 times and it was evaded all 3 times - after the 2nd ask and before he said he was "done with this conversation", he responded with "The whole working group will be at the meeting to listen to each of the presenters."
I asked for specifically who I would be presenting to. I'm sure my question about how he would remain unbiased based on him knowing why I'm asking the question was not one he wanted to hear. Definitely a valid question - particularly when it was called out that the motion presenters who wanted to serve in the "group" would exhibit a potential bias or view of . . . . hmmm - good for the goose, not for the gander.