Setting the record straight...

I danced around issues in the Let's Talk thread but rather than continue the Arizona two-step, let's get real. I want to be clear: I am doing this as a public service to those participating in this forum and as a resident of Sun City and not a board member of the RCSC.

Rather than posting snippets of the Articles of Incorporation to make arguments supporting claims I am trying to get buy-in for, I will post the link to the Articles and also cut and paste the pertinent ones. Using bits and pieces almost always works...at least until we look at them in their entirety.

We've been told how the RCSC is violating it's own "rules." Interesting when you consider the boards making those decisions did so in conjunction with the attorney who helped formulate them a good number of years back. Seems some feel they know better than both the boards that did it and the attorney that advised them.

But let's dispense with the banter and get to it. The two main charges are the RCSC is spending money without a vote of the membership and that we are treating residents "unequally. Both serious allegations on its face, but what do those pesky Articles of Incorporation really say?

First off we keep hearing the RCSC can't spend more than $750,000 without a vote of the membership. Here is the article they site:
Article X
The highest amount of indebtedness or liability, direct or contingent, to which the Corporation may at any time subject itself shall be limited to $750,000 or any greater amount which may be authorized by three-fourths (3/4) of the Members present at a duly called and noticed meeting of the membership, or in such amounts as may be authorized by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

So what does this mean? Simple, the corporation cannot incur debt of more than $750,000 without a vote of the members. Back in 1999 the RCSC Board of Directors saw the amenities aging and understood there would come a time when replacing them would be essential to preserving the way of life we all enjoyed. There were options and one of them was to ask residents to yearly vote on assessments to remodel, repair or replace them. It would have been disastrous and left the community in ruin.

Instead they looked at the history of Sun City and used a Del Webb technique incorporated in its earliest design. Every house he built had an impact fee attached to it. In essence he had the buyers pay for the amenities when they purchased their homes. In fact, each subsequent phase had higher fees as amenities grew more lavish. When he deeded them to the community, he simply gave us back what those owners had paid for at point of purchase (and got DEVCO out from under having to manage/run them).

It was in 1999 when the board passed what we now know as the Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF). It started at $700 and has increased to its present day $3000. The simple fact is, the PIF has insured Sun City would never incur any debt because we pay for those improvements with cash in hand...hence no need to ask members to vote as we are incurring no indebtedness. It was a stroke of genius and done so as to avoid passing costs on to those least able to afford it. And, was almost identical as to how Webb funded Sun Cities amenity package.

The second round of moaning is about how every member has to be treated "equally." Mind you, I love equality as much as the next guy, but ultimately we have to go to the written word to see what it really says (I am posting the often sited Article 8 Section 5 as the one that cries for equality) :
Article 8
5. The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities. Such Bylaws shall also provide the method for determining assessments to be paid by the Members.

When reading it one can easily get caught up in some imaginary intentions but the language is clear on its face. The by-laws are the document that define membership and determining assessments. Those are to be set by the board and cannot be in opposition to the Articles of Incorporation. It does say that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal (they are, one member, one vote) and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges (they do as their membership gives them access to the facilities, clubs and other amenities).

What it doesn't say is everyone will pay the same amount. I know some folks want it to say that but the language giving the board the right to set the level of assessments is without question within their purview. The reality is during the life span of the RCSC, various boards have waffled back and forth on single lot assessments versus a per person payment. I personally hate to see that type of bouncing around and hopefully our current structure is the one we will stay with.

There's way more, but frankly I have devoted more time and effort to this discussion than it deserves. People have the right to disagree and to state their opinion, but doing so by posting half truths and portions of the documents is wrong (perhaps even more wrong than begging for money so we can sue ourselves).

Here is the bottom line in Sun City: We have been a self-governed community from almost our earliest beginning. There's been 1000's of Sun City residents who have given freely of their time and talents to make it what it is today. It has been an evolution of growth and change the experts said would be an abysmal failure. They were dead wrong and after 53 years we have stood the test of time and are arguably the best value in the country. We have the most amenities at the least cost and virtually every day we update them with little or no cost to those who have lived here the longest.

I hate to be blunt...but Sun City is that darned good.

Here is the link to the RCSC Articles of Incorporation that is online for anyone/everyone to see.

 

Thank you for taking the time to post this, I thought this was all said and done with on another board, but apparently not. I'm sure those who have not been subjected to the controversy before appreciate the clarification.

 

Bill,

Thanks again!! Agree and I love RCSC and Sun City Arizona... can't wait to get there.. Very informative and I think it's fantastic...

 

Seriously. I have never seen more donation buttons on a website in my life. It's like they had eyes and were following you....

 

Ditto the sentiment and thanks, although I had read the Articles of Incorporation and most of what is on the RCSC as well as the SCHOA website.

 

Thank you, Bill, for taking the time to "Set the Record Straight!" It is unfortunate that the same arguments offered by the same person have to be countered over and over absent a definitive determination of the legal issue(s)--if there are any. And that's a big "if".
Bill, I assume you had your tongue planted firmly in your cheek when stating that you were not talking as an RCSC Director but as a resident when discussing RCSC issues. Nice try! That never worked for any other elected official either. You were obviously not speaking on behalf of the board, but...
Bill rightly admonished us to look at an entire document rather than one particular section to stake a claim, and he provided examples to us of other language within the same document (Articles of Incorporation) to clarify/neutralize/contradict arguments regarding inequality/discrimination etc. I went back and reviewed the Articles of Incorporation in their entirety, which came before the original bylaws or the current ones as amended many, many times over the years. The Articles state the Board may define membership as pointed out by Bill. He further pointed out that bylaws that are in conflict are trumped by the Articles. What he failed to point out was Article I defines members as home owners or residents of Sun City, AZ. Over time RCSC Boards have narrowed that definition so preclude some residents who are age qualified from membership, many owners from membership, and some residents who are also owners from being members. That reads to me as a potential straying pretty far from the intent of our original leaders if not from "the letter of the law."

 

Good comments F, but I have since the day I moved here been writing about the community. My perspective is as a resident first and whatever position I hold second, unless I am writing in an official capacity of whatever organization I am volunteering for at the time (in this case I wasn't, though I have been asked if it could be reprinted in the SunViews and of course agreed).

I put the disclaimer in the beginning of this thread because it was simply my interpretation of the documents as a resident. You are spot on, I am not speaking for the board, nor have I been given any direction by RCSC staff, nor a legal opinion by the attorney who has represented them. This is simply my opinion given my historical knowledge and what I read or know.

In my previous life I worked directly with contracts and all too often folks on both sides would twist the wording to try and fit what they wanted them to say. In the end I was always a fan of clear and unambiguous language so it wasn't left to some kind of WAG (wild ass guess) by those trying to cherry pick the meaning and bend the intent to fit their goals.

I have listened to folks spouting the claim about having a membership vote for any expenditure of more than $750,000. It drives me wild because the language they site is quite clear (though too wordy). I just finally have had enough and needed to get it off my chest.

Couple that with the fact we had a Sun City Foundation meeting yesterday, where we have been helping Sun City residents who have outlived their resources for the past 25 years and I was a tad testy. I have always loved the fact Sun City residents almost always find ways to try and make life better. I just find it so counterproductive to dwell on the negative.

I make no bones about this. I ran for the RCSC board because I didn't agree with some of the direction the board was heading in. I believe it is community first and corporation second. While that may get me in some sideways situations with other board members, it's just the way I am wired.

As Fairness pointed out, I too have some issues with the membership structure. So much so that it was and is one of my goals to try and address as a board member. In the end, boards are a cumulative of (in this case) 9 varying opinions and until there are enough votes to change it, it is what it is.

Ultimately I love Sun City; it's history is an abject lesson in how to build it right and I know our future is as bright as we want to make it. Nice.

 

''I have been asked if it could be reprinted in the SunViews and of course agreed).''

I'm sure you were gratified that the board or management liked your "vent" enough to request it be reprinted in SunViews. You can then add your name to the long list of board members present and past who have gone to war in a battle of words with annereport. The nine of you continue to take turns raging against annereport and its group of two or twenty sympathizers, while 35,000+ of us shake our heads. At best most people I know find the redundancy boring. At worst, the board is pushing perilously close to the line called "bullying." Bill, I can't tell you how much I admire and appreciate what you do for all of us in Sun City. But be careful!

 

I googled Anne Randall Stewart.
Interesting to say the least.

 

Thanks Fairness, your comments are well founded and frankly I would just ignore the endless ragging. However, in another thread where a potential buyer was drawn to the arguments made were really what prompted me to respond. I tried to make the response more along the lines of what the articles of incorporation actually say than a personal attack on who is saying them.

I am an absolute proponent of free speech. That said, the old "is it free speech to holler fire in a crowded theater really reasonable," is where I fall down on the side of common sense. I, perhaps, have a better sense of the history of the community than most and if you follow my posts, I often tie my arguments in from a historical perspective as I did in this rebuttal.

I am of the mind that all of these types of discourse be held in front of residents. Again, I stand in the minority on that subject with the current board and my hopes are simply we garner board members who are willing to pursue that direction in the coming years.

For the time being, I guess I will use the available venues to make the arguments. Hopefully they don't come across as personal attacks, but an attempt to educate, inform and give people the opportunity to make up their own minds.

I do understand your points F, thanks for joining in on the discussion.

 

Let's hope that this year's elections have a great turnout! There are more candidates lined up than there's been in a long time and cardholders can vote online for the first time. Residents can make a difference by researching the candidates and voting for someone they think will make the RCSC responsive to everyone's needs. It's also good to remember that the RCSC is basically a "parks & recreation" governing body. We have Maricopa County to govern everything else.

Meet the candidates at one of the forums and vote! Watch the local newspapers and the SunViews for details of the November election and candidate bios.

 

BPearson: "...I am of the mind that all of these types of discourse be held in front of residents. Again, I stand in the minority on that subject with the current board and my hopes are simply we garner board members who are willing to pursue that direction in the coming years."

The RCSC Board of Directors is required to hold open meetings with this type of discourse. They do not. There is no debate at all in front of anyone. (See State Statutes: http://azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/33/01804.htm&Title=33&DocType=ARS) Yet, the RCSC Board of Directors is planning to vote for $30 million worth of projects without a Membership Vote.


The RCSC board illegally increased the quorum to the membership meetings and when our attorney told them so they removed the quarterly meetings entirely. Sept. 26th is supposed to be a quarterly membership meeting. What better time for the members to come out and take it back in the face of multi-million-dollar projects that they may not want?

 

Note "or liability, direct and contingent". Article X is a borrowing and SPENDING limit of $750,000.
Note equal "responsibilities". Article VIII.5 provides for members to pay equal assessments. The only responsibility a member has is that of paying his mandatory assessments.
The claim that "virtually every day we update them [amenities] with little or no cost to those who have lived here the longest" is not true. A widower living here since 1991 moved to assisted living and was charged $3,000 and had his annual assessment doubled from per person to per lot. He is in a wheelchair and is never going to use the facilities again. And there are others who have paid the $3000 PIF and are not members at all, no vote, no facility usage, absolutely nothing in return.

If you are one of these, contact us to have your declaration included in the class action lawsuit against the RCSC to compel compliance with state statutes and the community documents.