Member Engagement - Who's job is it?

Go to the 1 hour 1 minute and find out why they decided to call this a working group. It was to specifically avoid the committee rules and requirements as stated in the Bylaws.

Without having a specific Bylaw defining and allowing for "working-groups," and the rules that would apply to them, working-groups do not exist!

This was originally defined as an Ad Hoc Committee, which is one of the only two types of working-groups allowed by our Bylaws, that can make reports and recommendations to the Board for further consideration.
1. Standing Committees
2. Ad Hoc Committees

So where, in the Bylaws, did the authority come from to establish a working-group that's functioning outside the rules of the organization? And if it is just a rag-tag unofficial working-group, should the gatherings be held on RCSC property?

And how does a rag-tag, unofficial group manage to get the work they have accomplished to the Board?

Would I have the same benefits if I decided to gather a group of my own friends and rewrite the Bylaws? Could I get RCSC space to use? How would I get that rewrite to the Board for consideration?

https://www.youtube.com/@suncityaz7348

 

From VP Netteshiem's presentation member engagement means tell us what your group wants, and we the Board will tell you what you get... Do you trust this Board to make those decisions? the wheels have fallen off.

 

A good friend of mine sent me an image today with this message - fits my situation yesterday perfectly:

"Manipulation" is when they blame you for your reaction to their toxic behavior, but never discuss their disrespect that triggered you.

 

Now, now SBB, deep breath, you may be one of them sooner than you think. After all, you received a personal invite at the meeting yesterday to join them.

 

Good to know you heard that . . . interesting to call out someone who has contributed significant time on LRP and helping to move forward what I believe was John's initial and common-sense suggestion for a long-range plan - e.g. Master Plan. Not to mention BP-16 work. Pick on someone that hasn't been contributing.

Deep breathe is good, but truth is hard to swallow sometimes and necessary to reflect on to move forward in a better manner.

Onward.

 

Is it within the realm of possibility to move onward with truth, transparency, and democratic principles? I hope and pray so!

 

Do you think it is with this board?

 

It is and they can do better. It's like i told them at the Exchange, trust the membership, nobody wants them to fail. It was the lesson learned very quickly following Sun City's opening; trust the members. It was the defining principle until 2006 when the message become; don't trust the members, let the GM and the board make every decision.

It was folly then, it's still folly to this day. Transitioning back is hard. Self-governance is hard. Letting go is hard. Thinking only the board or management have every answer is even harder still because when they are wrong, everyone sees it and knows whose fault it is/was.

 

I would prefer the BOD error more on the side of transparency.

 

As would most of us.

 

I believe this board is totally controlling the narrative. I write intelligent well laid out letters, and I stopped getting replies.
I am in doubt many on this current bod. Many of them are full of themselves and they think they supply all the answers.
I'm not sure if they want to be open to resident input. I am discouraged at present.

 

Eileen,
Not defending this current board of directors, but they, too, could be shell shocked. There were two new board members just elected this past election. One of the experienced directors resigned, and I have some misgivings about one that I won’t address. So, the attorney for the RCSC probably has told the board members to either not respond or to be selective on what to respond to. Rather than cross the line and broach a taboo topic, all communication has been stopped or stifled.
I believe the majority of the board members want to do the right thing, but lack clarity on exactly what that is right now. Every day, the board seems to dig itself in deeper and at some point, they are going to need to stop, get some bearing on what has happened and what needs to be done. It will then take the sum total of them all to find the compass and find the right balance and direction.
I don’t think they are slighting you as much as they don’t know how to proceed.

 

H

Hi Carole,
I had no idea on these events you've just described. They are coming off as very reticent like you said.
I wonder what is going on behind the curtain.. I had a desk attendant tell me earlier today that our former GM may be under some kind of investigation. Not sure what that could be about. Thanks

 

I will reserve judgement based on some information I know and understanding all the nightmares this board is dealing with . . . . . there are some transparency issues that shouldn't be that hard to accommodate - most organizations do what I'm referring to as a normal course of business. I guess we just wait, watch and see as we've been doing - me for nearly 4 years - wish I would have paid attention sooner - but I hadn't moved here yet - so I was clueless.

 

We all get frustrated SBB, and the more we get involved, the more frustrated we become. It's why i preach the history aspect of our evolution. We didn't get her overnight, it was a steady drip, drip drip of moving away from the membership and into the open arms of the general manager. Think not? What board member in their right mind would vote to do away with the long range planning committee (because their work was done)?

Yet that's what we did because that's what the GM wanted. Stay with me here, while serving on the board, we used to give the GM her evaluation by going around the board room table and telling her what a great job she was doing. My evaluation was she was the most manipulative person i had ever met. The board went crazy; little did they understand i wasn't insulting her, but criticizing them.

The RCSC used to be better run. The day to day operations were all the general manager did. The board was way more hands on, and the committees voices were listened to. When we changed, we trusted the GM to do the rights things. Oversight fell of the table. It was perhaps the board's worst sin. Volunteer boards paying a GM a good (not great by any means) salary tend to rely on them, and in our case too much. They relied on her vision for a better Sun City.

That's what happens when you bet it all on one number, sometimes you lose. The hole we dug was deep and the mistakes trying to dig our way out have been challenging, to say the least. Multiple GM's, board members quitting, hastily made decisions by outgoing board members all add to the misery index. Compound it by members angered by it all, and it becomes even more difficult.

As the meeting was ending the other day i was chatting with a couple of board members. Damn, remember the story about my experience with our GM's evaluation sitting around the board room table? We were told the board is in the process of drafting a general manager evaluation form along with defined general manager duties. I was delighted to hear that and we all should be gobsmacked an organization the size of the RCSC should have to be doing that after all these years.

It's what happens when you let the person running the organization, have free reign. We grew lax and we became comfortable in believing everything was good as long as we kept the lot assessment low. Now this board is working overtime and trying to claw our way back. The biggest problem is their fear of letting go...too much. I heard the president talk about liabilities, the reality is, the ultimate decision has always been on their backs. Years past, they turned to and trusted the members to help them make it work.

It was why i made my plea the other day, they simply can't do it all alone. And rather than look within, they now have 4 board members serving on the bylaws working group. It looks/appears like they don't trust the membership when they do stuff like that. When they arbitrarily reject everyone who submitted motions because it would look bad, only makes them look worse (in my opinion).

They are trying to do the right things, and yet here we sit with frustration festering and members stewing. As i told them the other day, they simply cannot keep being so insular, there's too many problems for them to fix on their own. The excuse membership communication is lacking because they are too busy only expands on how far removed from reality we have become. One would expect, after 65 years of existence, our member communication would be an automatic, a given.

The choices made over the years have created vacuums they are trying to fix and fill. Let members help you, our history has taught us that is how we best function. Running from it was a bad choice, running back to it may well be your/our salvation.

 

BP: we used to give the GM her evaluation by going around the board room table and telling her what a great job she was doing. My evaluation was she was the most manipulative person i had ever met.

Unfortunately, even if the one or two lone soldiers have it right, not enough to move in the right direction. I know you made an effort.​

BP: We were told the board is in the process of drafting a general manager evaluation form along with defined general manager duties. I was delighted to hear that and we all should be gobsmacked an organization the size of the RCSC should have to be doing that after all these years.

It’s utterly ridiculous that it’s taken this long to be evaluating the GM properly.​

BP: We grew lax and we became comfortable in believing everything was good as long as we kept the lot assessment low.

Keep the assessment low and neglect needed maintenance to show we had a BIG carryover . . . . such a smart decision.​

BP: The biggest problem is their fear of letting go...too much. I heard the president talk about liabilities, the reality is, the ultimate decision has always been on their backs. Years past, they turned to and trusted the members to help them make it work.

Unfortunately, this is the truth – there were not just 2 chairs, but a total of 5 board members in the LRP meeting on Tuesday. We are working to ensure wise spending or at least show wise spending through reasonable measures, but we’ll see how this all turns out . . . not so good so far. While I understand and appreciate that the Board believes the LRP committee is crucial – letting go and listening is a much needed part. There are some very smart and resourceful people on the LRP committee at this moment. We already lost one valuable and talented member . . . . let’s not lose any more.​

BP: It looks/appears like they don't trust the membership when they do stuff like that. When they arbitrarily reject everyone who submitted motions because it would look bad, only makes them look worse (in my opinion).

The whole approach to this was a MAJOR missed opportunity. Maybe the stress of it all has impacted judgement. It’s completely the opposite of transparency. Interesting they don’t see that – or do they?​

BP: The excuse membership communication is lacking because they are too busy only expands on how far removed from reality we have become. One would expect, after 65 years of existence, our member communication would be an automatic, a given.

Timely and forethought communication might help this issue a bit, removing some of the large numbers of emails they indicated they receive. One member has been doing a terrific job on turning this around with the Mt. View communication - even in the style chosen.​

BP: Let members help you, our history has taught us that is how we best function. Running from it was a bad choice, running back to it may well be your/our salvation.

The choices made around the bylaw “working group” are a prime example of how the board needs help, if they want it . . . . the approach and decisions fly in the face of what you are trying to point out. ​

 

Great discussion all. IMHO, only by discussing our shortcomings can we overcome them. What I observe is the board trying to display a position of control. I would much prefer they concentrate on humility, wisdom, engagement and oversight. Job one, two and three for the board is recruiting a high-quality GM who understands the context of the position. IMHO, the bylaws have been a mess for a long time and will be a mess after this secret society finishes their work. Using the ready fire aim approach almost always ends with a wounded foot.

In another thread I laid out course corrections I think the board should consider. I suspect that certain board members will dismiss them out of hand because I made them. I wrote recently to one of the Board members that contrary to his apparent belief I wanted the board to be successful. I can either be a beneficiary of good governance or a victim of bad governance. why would anyone choose to be a victim. Come on!

 

Here's where board members get it wrong, most every time: almost every RCSC member wants the board to be successful. Because we disagree with them most assuredly doesn't mean we want them to fail, it means we want them to get it right. It' what happens when everything becomes personal rather than embracing that tired old mantra, "it's just business."

In our case it goes deeper; "It's just community."