Let's talk: It appears now the RCSC has decided Karen was fired for a "conflict of interest." I guess the bogus write-ups they peppered her with really weren't the cause. That's good because writing a board member up when others did the same thing (and did nothing) are worthless. In fact, they make the board look petty for even pulling such a stupid stunt. Conflicts of interest are real and serious, if in fact that is what is happened. Over the years i have lived here i have watched lots of people lobbying for their pet project. Did i think they were conflicts of interest? Not necessarily. I won't name names, but i will use some examples. * When the pickleball pavilion was built, there was a board member who was the chair of the long range planning committee. He was actively and aggressively pursuing the project (along with the long range planning committee who identified it as their number one agenda item). After it was built and he had left the board, he played pball 4 or 5 days a week there. He was also a very good board member. Were his efforts a conflict of interest or was he pushing for the right thing for Sun City? Easy answer for me, it was the right thing for the community; not for his own personal benefit. It is impossible to make the leap to it being a conflict of interest unless you wanted to kick him off the board. No one did. * While serving on the board, the majority of board members were golfers (according to the current president their votes could not have been a conflict of interest because golf isn't a club). Before i continue, let me tell you, there are volumes written on conflict of interest regarding non profit corporations and nowhere does it say, golf is not subject to the potential for a conflict of interest, but clubs are. Their attorney must have worked overtime on that one (if he/she was responsible for the foolish reply). Anyway, the point here is this: My first year on the board, there was already approval for 3 golf course plans to be written. I think the cost was around 30k per course, which seemed like a good number. The problem was the long range planning committee was told they had no say over the golf PIF budget, which was roughly 75% of the expenditures in the coming years. Those decisions were left solely to the discretion of the board and gm. Turns out, three of the renovations took place, all approved by the board of primarily golfers and all at the behest of the gm. They were the South course, Riverview and the last one was Willowbrook/Willowcreek. Carole and i were on the board for a couple of them and here's the interesting part. We always voted for all things water related; wells, irrigation and water distribution. Where we took exception was adding more tee locations, more pin placements and golf course redesign. The norm for water issues was 3 million per course. The other work was another 3 million. The argument from the gm was as long as we are doing the one, we should do the other. After all, what's another 3 million dollars? The golfers always bought the argument, we were simply outvoted 7 to 2. The sad thing was when they went to redo the Willow courses, the golfers started a petition to not do it yet. They were signing it at the course and were promptly told to get it off RCSC's property. Hell, the PGA expert said it wasn't needed for a 5 to 7 years. It was easy to agree with the need for the water side of the discussion, but were the other improvements for their own personal benefit? A few years later, i asked the president, who is back on the board even though his six years are up, if the desert landscaping they were doing (at the cost of about a million a course) was necessary? His answer was good, because it was something that needed to be done. The problem for me wasn't the expenditure, it was for all of the money spent that wasn't essential, just something they wanted. * Where it gets even better is how far should "conflict of interest" go? If a director was a member of a club, was the club's president and then when they got elected quit the club but worked to insure that club got new space, is it a conflict of interest? I would argue, it could be. The truth would be more shrouded in did this club actually need the space more-so than other than other clubs? There's countless other instances, but i suspect if you have stayed with me, you get the point. Members who get elected to the board are expected to leave their outside interests outside the door of the board room. That said, lots of stuff that gets done is passed by people who firmly believe their actions are for the good of the community, not their own personal benefit. I never once, in my three years questioned the people i was on the board with. I had issues with the gm and why she pushed golf, but in the end, the money we spent on improvements was ultimately for the good of the community. I didn't like the outcome of the votes, but accusing people of a conflict of interest was nonsense. To close this out, let's recap what Karen lobbied for: pickleball courts south of Grand. She asked for a commitment from the board that happen. Was it a personal benefit to her or was she looking out for the community as whole given the game is the fastest growing sport in the country. Especially given we know we already have too few courts per-capita even with the Mountainview courts in play?
It wasn't just lobbing for more pickleball courts, just as every other active community is doing all over the country, it was also the fact that while Mountain View was being renovated there would actually be a lose of the 7 courts that are currently there! And which Board member will deny that they first decided to run for the board because they had their own personal agenda?
FYI, I will firmly deny that I had any kind of an agenda prior to becoming a board member, except to be of public service to the members of the community. I did not belong to any clubs, I don't golf, and am pretty much a computer nerd who does not belong to the computer club. I also truly beleive Bill also had the community's best interest at heart, and we both emphatically beleived there was a possibility to be of service to the members of this great community. Little did we know the cards were stacked against us at every turn, and most items revolved around golf, with the GM's master planning behind almost all items brought before the board for a vote. If she didn't want it, I can assure you, it was never going to happen, no matter what the board said.
Look CMartinez, I'm not looking to pick a fight or intend to offend YOU! I commend you, and thank you for your service, as well as Bills, but the fact is your agenda was to serve the community while most others are simply looking out for their own best interest with some sort of Club affiliation, whether it's golf, the Clay Club, or Stained Glass. IMHO, everybody needs some sort of agenda and that's what motivates them to serve. I don't think anybody ever wants to serve solely so they can say they did so? It's just that some agenda's are more honorable than others. I wish it were Members like you and Bill who would be asked to serve out the vacancies on the board instead of the you know who's!
One way you can tell that the person you are talking, arguing, negotiating with is operating in bad faith is that they keep changing their stance or what you are dealing with. Like after the other issues of Karen's dismissal are addressed, suddenly we have "conflict of interest." And when that gets discredited it will be something else, something new. I hate that and it's why i avoid these situations.
What's the old adage carp? Throw enough shit on the wall and see what sticks. This is one of those situations where the crap has been flying and the more they say, the worse it gets. "Golf isn't a club," so therefor it's not possible to be a conflict of interest for that 30 or 40 million dollars in PIF money being spent and voted on by golfers. Yikes.
