Interesting Months Ahead

I too have lived with the results of that same GM, and saw and experienced the losses of member benefits. Restoring a printed product has not a Title 33 issue, rather a member entitlement issue.
I was asked to offer results as to what we, the RCSC, could do to improve outreach. There was a question about how to grow the circle. Printed products can and will do that. Tangibles do that. Electronic media is fleeting, a printed brochure gives you the impression over and over again. Something to read and reread at leisure.
Printed products such as those offered to the residents of RCSCW is invaluable for members outreach and promotion of the community. The cost, as quoted by another community delivering the product reflects an amount achievable. If the RCSC can throw how many millions of repair bunkers that offer value to how many people? Yet the idea of outreach to members, potential buyers and recent purchasers at a possible price of $100k a year to revamp the visitor center and provide print media is too expensive?
The need for a community outreach venue is critical for this community. A printed medium starts the process in the right direction. Every community needs something to share with the public what they are, who they are, and where they are going. A good newspaper and colorful brochures do that. The newspaper offers branding of the community, and we need to get the word out about who we are. A newspaper offers the visibility and tangible benefits that nothing else can.

 

Tom, it is hard to accept your argument that members are part of a process that they do not participate. How can you bellyache about something you know nothing about? Our insurance is way too high and the Board should not approve the renewal. Fine, no insurance coverage we close all the rec centers and golf courses plus all the clubs have to shut down until we have coverage again, which would be a long process and might cost more than the original coverage. Enjoying this process?

As for MV, nobody knows the cost, you think you know the cost but you don’t. The reason why, until the final architectural plans are done with the architect’s estimate for bidding, that is when we know. On a personal note, I believe the PAC is a white elephant and a waste of money. The Players just want a vanity place that will dark most of the year. I also don’t buy the argument it can be used for lectures, concerts and as an alternative site for the Sun Bowl concerts in event of inclement weather. Just think 9f cramming the usual 5,000 attendees into a place that safely holds 400.

I done want to censure members, rather I welcome their voices. The flip side is that I have attended too many meetings where members have complained when it was evident that they were misinformed or had no idea what they were talking about. I found out a long time ago which travels quicker in Sun City, rumors or the truth?

 

Wasn't this what you fought ARS so very hard to avoid? So was she right? You had some pretty harsh words for her as I remember it.

 

Yes, no and yes as she litigated on other peoples money and contingency basis. Her sole contribution was $100.00. How did lawsuit work out? Huh?

 

Too bad for us. SCW is doing very well and where are we? Maybe they just know how to attract better, smarter people eg their website where you can actually join meetings via zoom. Or maybe their BOD treats the residents like adults making members want to be more involved. I have a sneaking feeling if any Board or Committee member spoke like they do on this site they would be dismissed. What do you think about that, huh?

 

Nope, her underlying argument was for Title 33 because the statute made it easier to sue the organization. Her bottom line and those that signed on to the lawsuit was monetary awards. Her efforts to solicit funds were rife with the promise of those joining the action being compensated. The attorneys who took the case were fresh off a settlement and ARS convinced them there were millions more looming.

I’ve long argued for Tittle 33. There were additional costs associated with falling under it versus Title 10, but the benefits to the members was worth it in my opinion. I never bought into the logic of suing ourselves.

 

I'll let folks decide for themselves whether that statement is true. One of your responses to Anne.

And yet again we come back to the same nonsense. You demand "unsurpassed amenities" with no way to pay for them. The board of directors in 1999 created a planthat fit perfectly within the structure of the articles of incorporation when they passed the Preservation and Improvement Fund(PIF). You babble on about the history of thecommunity but you are clueless as to the origins of the PIF. Let me help you out once again:
DEVCO did the same thing by creating a point of sale charge to payfor the amenity package they gave us.
And I see you are still crying about Title 33. Really? Even our Articles ofIncorporation make reference to the RCSC falling under Title 10:
Article VI
Indemnification of present and former Members, Directors, Officers and employees, and agents of this Corporation shall be governed in accordance with Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 10-1005, Sub-Section B of theRevised Arizona Statutes. The provisions therein set forth are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof with the same force and effect as though set forth herein in full.
Here's the problem: You say things because you want them to be that way...unfortunately the documents and the history prove you wrong time and again.I'm sure you mean well...but...
In any event the reality is simply this:
We have been self-governed for near on50 years, we've rebuilt the community where we not only have unsurpassed amenities, but we have the lowest cost in the country for them. Try as you may, that's just the way it is no matter how you twist it.
BPearson
,
Oct 10, 2013

Did anyone just try to sit down and talk with Anne or did you all just attack like a pack of hyena's which seems to be the MO here. It's what you did to me. I did not know one soul on this site, but I never stood a chance. No one does here once you state your opinion of someone, so that person has two choices, give up or fight back. Guess we will have to wait and see.

 

I was talking about the plan for MV which was shot down about 5 years ago. Lots of bellyaching.
And also the plan to build a PAC on the Lakeview lawn bowling greens. Lots of bellyaching shut that plan down.
I stand by what I stated in previous post.

 

Josie,

I have read the ARS briefs and the judge's ruling and based on what I have been subject to for standing up for what is right my suspicion is everyone attacked like a pack of hyenas. Sun City did not win the lawsuit - they got the law changed. IMHO that did not benefit the community in the way a meaningful dialogue would have. I suffered tremendously for standing up for what I knew was right. As you can see from my other thread, the reward for standing up for what you know is right is the Board misusing its position of power to punish you and then those seeking to be powerful "lobbyists" doing a hack job on you on social media. The Board admitted that they went so far as seeing if they could use my money to sue me. OMG, if this had happened in any of the fortune 100 companies I worked for there would be hell to pay.

I agree with you and apologize if you too fell victim to the Sun City hyenas. It is a very vicious cycle particularly when your financial resources have dwindled. My advice is going into self-preservation mode. Save yourself and do whatever it takes to preserve your sanity.

Bill,

I appreciate your opinion of the ARS suit and the background material you gave me. I was not there and can only speak from my own experience. Based on your description (everyone was in it for the money) I would have expected the judge to rule that ARS should be thrown in jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit like Steve Collins concluded I filed. At least she should have been held liable for all costs incurred by RCSC. I am certain she suffered greatly but believed in her cause. Despite your characterization, the judge ruled that no costs should be awarded to either side. It is impossible for me to reconcile your version of the events and what an impartial judge wrote.

John

 

I met with Anne three times for coffee and to listen to her concerns. We would start out great and 10 minutes in the whole mantra on the GM and board being corrupt would start and she would lose me. In my 22 years of involvement I have seen nothing close to payoffs, bribes or theft.

I’ve seen bad decisions, but that’s a far cry from corruption. Anne hated the PIF and the comments posted above were all about and the question she refused to answer; without the PIF, how would we pay for those unsurpassed amenities? Her problem was there was no other answer.

I ran into Anne a couple of years ago and her first remark to me was do you still hate me. Nope, I told her I never did. I disagreed with her actions, but it was her right to try and change things. It was costly and divisive but some have argued my actions have done some of the same things.

 

Oh my sanity is just fine. I have reached out to about 5 companies, about to reach out to the 6th. Once a plan is in place there is no need to fight any more. I am working on something a little different, however the two could tie in. You could better answer that than I can.

Was going to get a bumper sticker made that says: Sun City - the rat race is over, the rats won. But it's not over yet.

 

Oh Bill, seriously! You were horrid to Anne. You forget I knew her, and all I have to do is a quick search to prove it. Frankly I am surprised she was out a couple of years ago as she was extremely ill at that time. I hope you gave your condolences on the passing of her husband.

 

Not sure what you are talking about John regarding my remarks about the case. I've never suggested nor supported the board take the action to recover their costs, either against ARS or you. When a member of her group called and asked me to testify at the trial i politely declined. My version of events was pretty simple to quantify, the plaintiffs were asking for monetary relief. Their attorneys were looking for a large settlement. You know that, it's why attorney's take cases on a contingency basis.

On the other hand, as you pointed out, you weren't looking for a monetary settlement, you wanted (if memory serves me), injunctive relief allowing members to vote. It's like comparing an apple to an elephant. There is none.

 

Please, do so. I'd love to read all my horrid comments to her. I often have said i thought the idea of suing ourselves a bad idea.

I'll wait patiently.

BTW. Disagreeing with someone isn't horrid, it's disagreeing.

As long as you are searching, i looked, 190 times i referenced Title 33; knock yourself out.

 

Bill,

"Her bottom line and those that signed on to the lawsuit was monetary awards. Her efforts to solicit funds were rife with the promise of those joining the action being compensated. The attorneys who took the case were fresh off a settlement and ARS convinced them there were millions more looming." If your conclusion is true, I did not see any indication of it in the court papers I laboriously read. Perhaps you could provide me with the evidence behind your conclusion?

Thanks,
John

 

Well what the hell, this thread has been shredded. There were 9 counts of alleged state violations, all asking for monetary awards, plus legal fees. Here is just one example:

COUNT NINE
(Violation of Statute – PIF)
164.! Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully herein
165.! PIF that RCSC charges is an unlawful and invalid transfer fee under A.R.S. § 33-
442 and A.R.S. § 33-1806. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1806, for example, RCSC is not entitled to
charge fees relating to the transfer of the property in excess of $400.
166.! When PIF charges are combined with the standard $300 “transfer fee” that RCSC
charges all Owners, the transfer fees that PIF charges range from $1,000 to $3,300.00. RCSC’s
imposition of PIF charges, therefore, violates Arizona law.
167.! Each Plaintiff and class member who has paid PIF charges, in addition to the civil
damages and remedies requested above, are entitled to recover civil penalties pursuant to A.R.S.
§ 33-1806(D) in an amount of no more than one thousand two hundred dollars each for each
time that a PIF charge was assessed in excess of $100.00.

I have zero interest in debating the merits, flaws, faults or even the outcome. For anyone who is interested, this link is from the Annereport with the complete complaint filed by the attorney taking the case. What is interesting is the awards requested were based on the RCSC being obligated to function under Title33, which they weren't and had never been.

 

I as well have zero interest.

 

Had the lawsuit been soley about Title 33 over Title 10, more people would have agreed.
But the financial counts, if they had succeeded, would have completely destroyed Sun City financially and so most people stayed away.
I never have been a fan of lawsuits and would never sign on to a case where we sued ourselves.

Seriously, can we have some patience, as Dave mentioned, and wait until bylaws and other topics are presented?
The rumors that fly around this community are insane.
Wait for the facts, please.

 

I will not waste my time. "Anne of Cleavage" was use so many times it was sickening. We all know how hateful you can be. No need to prove it. You have stated many times you don't care what people think of you, and if your words hurt too bad. Anne did not deserve what some of you did to her. Just a bunch of jackals and hyenas. The good thing is that some are like Luke jets when a person first moves here. A lot of folks think the jets are way too loud, obnoxious and annoying. As time goes by and you hear the same noise daily it has a tendency to become less annoying, the presence starts to dissipate, and then finally you barely hear the noise at all.

 

Well said on both counts E. The monetary settlement they were looking for would have crushed the RCSC and left all of us reeling. The argument was the insurance company would have paid for it was silly at best and we are still paying the price for the near two decade long efforts.

More importantly and back on topic is the coming four months. Love or hate the board, their actions of scheduling a boatload of town hall type meetings is exactly what they should be doing. The question is really; will they listen or care what members think? I'll patiently wait and see.