A Lone Voice in the Wilderness

I guess it's just me that care's about Robert's Rules of Order, and I think that opinion will be validated by the lack of comments/replies this thread will receive!

When I read the article in the Independent today regarding "Pickleball at Lakeview" it just drove me crazy...again!

I'm referring to the motion by Director Nowakowski that was ruled not germane. He wanted to amend the motion that would have approved $50,000 dollars for detailed architectural drawings to convert the tennis courts at Lakeview to 16 pickleball courts.

Director Nowakowski wanted to amend that motion to make sure the new Lakeview courts would adhere to the USA Pickleball Association standards and that amendment was ruled to be out of order by the Chair because it wasn't germane?!?!?!?!

Are you kidding me? To amend a motion that's all about building Pickleball courts with an amendment that would require the courts to conform to Pickleball Association standards is most certainly germane!

The ruling was not only flat out wrong, it causes me to question what kind of advice is the Chair is receiving from the parliamentarian? Anybody with a copy of the 12th edition of Robert's Rules can read for themselves the meaning of being "germane". (See RONR 12:6)

I welcome any discussions. And for any board member reading this that disagrees, please tell me why I'm wrong! I'm always open to being corrected!

 

I tend to shy away from discussions regarding Robert's Rules of Order; i'm just not that well versed on them. We all asked the board to add a parliamentarian because the point was it would be a person who would render decisions based on RR. Clearly, she has an entirely different agenda. Seems no matter what the president wants, she rules in her favor. I was around back in the day when the parliamentarian was the norm. Their job was to insure the board president follow the rules, not make them up as they go.

What's really tiring is when they throw in our faces we asked for it. No, we asked for a parliamentarian who knew Robert's Rules and then followed them. Not created her own set of rulings that justified the presidents actions. These last three board meetings have proven what a sham the entire process is. I wonder of their is any type of standards boards for RR?

 

The board is like a carnival game, looks legit, easy to win a giant plush toy, except all the games are rigged!

The milk bottles are weighted, little shooting range ducks, too…etc.

Yet people keep playing, hoping to one day win.

Thank you, Tom, for revealing the board’s Robert’s Rules trickery.

Their despicable actions are coming to light in every area. They’ve duped us for too long!

Blinders are off!

Slowly, but surely, we’re going to finally win!

 

I'm going to say it's not really about Roberts Rules. It's about Abuse of Power - plain and simple. Lehrer's ruling was an Emperor's New Clothes moment; some guy walking down the street buck naked and she's saying "look at the wonderful cloak". My jaw dropped. As Tom said - the object of the Motion was detailed drawings; the object of Director Nowakowski's Amendment was those very detailed drawings. They are not just 'related' - THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING! She rattles off a citing, leans into her beard, and WA-la - everyone's eye's glaze over... I'm actually kind of disappointed the Board Members aren't challenging her on things this absurd - I think it's fairly simple to Appeal the Decision of the Chair. I know some of them think 'what's the use - her yes-men will just vote in her favor'. But I think it's important for people to see (especially with election around the corner) who exactly supports clear and unadulterated Abuse of Power.

 

Absolutely! All someone needs to do is appeal the ruling of the chair. If it gets a "second" it goes to a vote by the entire board and everybody gets to see where each member stands and who's side they're on!

 

I think Collins tried that once and the parliamentarian ruled him out of order?

 

Can't say I remember that happening but not surprising! More malfeasance!

 

I'd watch back the videos but it is painful. Not sure of it was an actual vote on a motion, but Steve challenged/questioned one of her rulings and asked for a vote by the board and it was ruled out of order because she had ruled and that was that.

As J EB said, simply an abuse of authority. It's good to be Queen.

 

I know this sounds bad, but some Board Members maybe spend too much time and energy trying to explain or be reasonable. When dealing with malicious, irrational, or simply unreasonable people, that's a waste of time. They may be better served just following the process: i.e. the wording is precise "Appeal the decision of the Chair" "Second" - I don't believe an explanation is required. I actually believe the people who will not listen to reason is at or approaching minority. Either get rid of 'yes-men' or open their eyes and I believe we will reach a tipping point.

 

Yeah, but that's only one side of the coin! What I'm more concerned with is what the final Bylaws will look like once the Ad Hoc Committee get's done with them.

The Board is, and has been doing things that does not currently comply with Robert's Rules. I'm anxiously waiting to read and see whether or not they have amended the Bylaws so that they do comply. I'm not holding my breath...but I am making a list of things I need to look for! I just hope we get more than 3 minutes to comment!

I do cut them some slack because Robert's Rules was not always the RCSC's parliamentary authority, but now that it is, the Ad Hoc committee needs to make every attempt to make sure they do comply.

 

Question for you FYI: If they remove the reference to Robert's Rules of Order in the bylaws, does that mean RR isn't the fall back document when the bylaws are silent on an issue?

 

That's exactly what it means. If the Bylaws fail to establish a parliamentary authority, then all bets are off and your only guiding rules for the corporation comes from the federal and state statutes and whatever rules the boards now make-up! And when there's a question about a made-up rule...where do you go to get the answer when no other authority has been established?

But I think you already knew that answer and that's why people were so against changing "shall" to "may"!

 

I did know the answer, but thanks for verifying it FYI. The bigger question then becomes if Title 10 is the backup authority to silent bylaws, is it then the State that has the authority to come in an insure they are adhering to State Statutes?

 

Dave Wieland is the self-proclaimed expert on the law so perhaps he can better answer your question!

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Dave is no exception. That said, he does tend to wander. He has ample background in financial matters, my problem is when you try and drill down on comments he tends to become illusive. Frankly, to his credit, he at least engages in the discourse.

Which is where and why i become frustrated with the RCSC. They have zero capacity to engage, to rebuttal or even just step up and tell us we are wrong. One sided dialogues become boring. I've been engaging in them for as long as i have lived in Sun City. Hell, even while serving on the board, there was little in the way of discussion. They were far more comfortable of just saying something and then proclaiming, because they said it, it was right.

Think about the past year plus, every action has just been deemed they are in the right. Fire Karen, of course; let Barbara go, no problem; walk out on 200 members last September, we'll have you arrested for trespassing; lose the video from the most important meeting in the last dozen years, oops; lock the doors so members can't come in after 9 am, sorry; wave the readings on massive expenditures, so what? Technology is 15 years behind, nobody's fault; letting non-residents flood our courses at cheaper rates than members enjoy, threaten members with huge increases; allow them access to our web portal, no big deal, only 10,000-12,000 rounds a year; shut out and up minority board members, lean into the parliamentarian and blow them off.

The list could go on and on and on. Why bother? They honestly believe it is their right to do whatever they want. We are wrong to challenge or question them. So to Dave's credit, at least he's trying, which is way more than i can say for the bulk of the board or management.

 

What scares me the most is the fact that Dave has admitted that he doesn't own a copy of Robert's Rules and he's on the Ad Hoc Bylaws committee!

How can you assure that the Bylaws will comply with Robert's Rules if you don't know what Robert's Rules requires?

After all, Robert's Rules is, in fact, the parliamentary authority specified in the Bylaws?

 

It is FYI and my best guess is when you see the finished product, there will be no reference to Robert's Rules of Order. Out of sight, out of mind, another problem solved. But will it be the solution, or just bigger headaches because then state statutes govern?

 

You're probably right? Just one more step to further isolate the Members from the Board/RCSC.

Without a parliamentary authority, there are no "guard rails," and the decisions are up to the whims of the chair and the assembly.

 

Here's the other thing we should never lose sight of; this ad hoc committee has no ability to pass anything. All they can do is make recommendations to the board. The board ultimately has the authority to whatever they want, or in the case of the last general manager, whatever she wanted. Not sure if that is still the case now with the new GM. We'll see.

 

And they get the sole power to do so according to the articles of incorporation, and if the Members disagree, they will need to go thru the petition process and get 10% of the Members to sign. But of course that's only if the board/RCSC even allows a petition? And don't forget, you can't collect signatures on RCSC property!

We live under a rigged system!