Committee role - A different philosophy (candidate information)

Do you ever think to post responses on the proper site?

I see that you have gone with the reactionary crowd on transgender people. Have you ever been friends with just one, ever talk to one other than say shit like this or ever try to understand being transgender? My guess is no unless your total experience is watching one episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race. They are citizens just like you and me but somehow baseless cruelty is the order of the day. If you are a Christian, you are a damn poor one. What would your dead Jewish carpenter say about this?

 

Inadequate or non existent. 2120 S Michigan

 

John Fast, during the reign of Jan Eck and Bill Cook, this method of governance by handing over issues of control to the general manager did not redound well to the membership of RCSC. So why do you want to go back to a failed method of leadership and management?

 

Tom McClain, I was probably too brief in my comment about lightening the load on directors. For avoidance of doubt I would be in favor of Committees picking their own chair. For day to day operations I would be in favor of having a solid forward looking plan in place that has standards (e.g., Replacement Policy). For the really big stuff, Buying property, constructing buildings, complete remodels I would be in favor of RCSC having a long range plan in place developed by an expert and vetted by the members. Finally, I would be in favor of providing some resources to the board and having the lawyer report to the Board. I hope this helps clarify. John

 

Nice tune. Some of the changes (opinion) and esp. the first guitar break, are very similar to those by Mickey Baker on "Love is Strange."

 

Ha. A few googles and "In 1963, Cortez's publishing company was sued for copying substantial parts of "Love Is Strange". Many have noted the similarity between the two. Apparently a settlement was made and Cortez retained the rights to his version." There you have it.

 

Well, you were on the board until your resignation, so, why didn't you attempt to institute those changes you mention now?

 

Tom McClain: If you see how the SAC was run you will see that I practiced what I am saying - Self directed committees. I also was a very strong proponent of change as you can see from the changes that occurred while I was on the Board. It was my motion that put a pause to option 2. I initiated the motion to require a long range plan. I led the effort for the LRP to develop a mission vision and value statement. I was chair of the budget and finance committee when we instituted the partnership concept of developing the budget. Do you have any legitimate questions? Probably not...

 

John, Thanks for your time and efforts on the Board. I am still confused as to what the SAC Plan entailed. I watched all four of the town halls and know that Plan M was the choice. However there were people on the committee who didn't think that was what they had decided. Very vague to me about how they got to Plan M. I didn't think the presenters were objective, mostly interested in indoor pickleball courts. Is my perception off base?

 

Janet, From my recollection, Plan M involved renovating, expanding and converting the auditorium into a theater. The newly converted theater was +/- 13,000 sf and estimated to cost about $13M. The existing fitness area was going to be converted to a two story fitness area with windows overlooking the pool and completely redone. The resort pool would be fixed and a lap pool (I think) added. Mini Golf was to remain basically the same as was lawn bowling. The two tennis courts were going to be converted to eight additional pickleball courts, I think. Additional pickleball courts could be added by converting the unused picnic area by the Sun City Country Club.

This was not the answer Karen and Kat wanted so the committee was essentially scuttled.

 

Thanks, John, that is what I recalled from the town halls. Since I was 1200 miles away, I was only an observer. Tried to watch the videos of the SAC meetings but it was too difficult to hear people. I did watch a couple where the architect was involved. Sometimes it's best to be on the outside looking in!

 

The SAC was well intentioned but not implemented as well as it could have been. I take full responsibility for that.

 

John, I would NOT accept full responsible for the SAC committee because the process was not handled in the proper manner. There is plenty of blame to go around.

First of all, the motion you made at the March 30th, 2023 Board meeting was:
"Treasurer Fast – I move that all work on the Mt. View project option 2 and building pickleball courts at Lakeview be suspended until a committee of representatives from all interested groups can be appointed to address strategic issues and alternatives. The work of this committee will be presented for member review and comment at the September 2023 Board meeting along with all data gathered by the committee."

Your motion was to simply put things on HOLD until a committee was established! Failure immediately followed when the Board failed to make the motion to actually establish that committee, and to also determine who the Members of that Committee should be, how many should there be, and the manner in which they are selected.

Perhaps if the Committee was properly established at the Board meeting, at least one of the Directors would have objected to filling its Membership almost entirely full of those Members who had a personal agenda, and dare I say a conflict of interest?

I attended several of those meetings and they sometimes got ugly! The ugliest was when the committee almost went rogue as they tried to actually prevent the Directors who were on that committee from casting a vote!!!

It was a group full of "I Want's." I want more Pickleball Courts, I want a water volleyball pool, I want a 600 seat theater, you can't take away my Lawn Bowling Court even though there are 7 courts in 5 different locations with a total membership of less than 350!

To this day I would still like to know how that SAC committee was established. Was it one of those behind the scenes maneuvers where decisions were being made, by only a few Directors, without a meeting?

And so here we are today. Seems like nothing the SAC committee did actually resolved anything, it just made things more confusing. Instead of creating one grand acceptable plan, all it did was create multiple alternatives, some of which suddenly included Lake View! So it wasn't bad enough that nobody could come to a single acceptable compromise, they suddenly found themselves dealing with two Recreation Centers instead of just one!

And the best part?....It's a long way from being over!!!!! Get the popcorn ready!

 

Tom, I think I can answer your questions. I selected the SAC committee based on expressions of interest, experience and skill set Initially, my two cochairs trusted me to do that. The underlying charter of the ill formed committee was to develop data driven alternatives to option 2. Like a master planner, we set out to let the data tell the story of needs and wants. This did not bode well for the Player's clubs' demands for a special purpose theater. Others quickly grew tired of reviewing the data. I still believe the verified data is the best indicator or the communities' needs. However, had I know then what I know now I would have handled the front differently.

 

And that's where I find fault with the Board, dare I say the Chair! A committee is elected or appointed by (or by direction of) an assembly...the entire Board!

It was the entire Boards responsibility to establish that committee and determine the things I mentioned above. Now,... the entire Board could have taken a vote that would have allowed you to establish the committee on your own, but they didn't even do that! Somehow you were thrown to the wolves which has allowed the Board to wash their hands and remove themselves from any culpability of the outcome of the committees report.

You did what you thought was right, however, you were led down the wrong road by the Board and left hung out to dry, and we all see where that has left us in this MV project. Still spinning our wheels!

The project has suffered as well as the Board has suffered because it lost two Directors in the process. Not to mention how the whole process looks to the community who thought the SAC committee would finally resolve the issue and get the ball the rolling!

 

I gladly accept my share of blame for the SAC's failures and successes. As I mentioned, I was one of three cochairs and another cochair was intent on "providing direction" to the committee. I disagree with FYI on a number of nonprocedural points as follows:
The SAC did not cause the directors to resign, the majority actions did.
The SAC demonstrated that option 2 was completely unrealistic and it has been for all intents and purposes abandoned. I can't stress too heavily how bad off we would have been to build that taj mahal. We also saved over $1M by halting the design efforts.

Procedurally, we could have done a much better job, but hindsight is 20/20. On the flip side we voluntarily video recorded all meetings, and this helped the transparency movement to advance. In addition, data that was never before available was made public.

In summary, I think the SAC succeeded in some areas and failed in others. Of course this is just a personal opinion as is yours. Both point out things a future board can do better next time if it so chooses.

 

So if you're telling me that the majority of the committee members wanted the Directors to resign, then what about the Bylaw that states all committees must have a Director as chair and co-chair?

Committee's can't violate the Bylaws.

 

FYI - The majority of the Board of Directors actions caused the directors to resign. There was a fundamental disagreement on the propriety of the approach taken. The SAC was hijacked, and it is what it is...

 

No difference. That doesn't change the fact that Bylaws were still violated due to the fact that no Directors were Chairing or Co-Chairing the Committee?

 

Karen McAdams took over as sole chair...