Could we look like bigger schmucks than this?

Who should we write to oppose the passage of this bill?

 

Jan Eck just put out a call for members to contact legislators to support passing HB 2374. This smacks of overreach of her authority in my book and worse, some of what she said is not entirely true in my opinion. Shame on her (and the board if they are supportive of this action). It is unconscionable that she/they would entice legislators to pass a bill because why -- they feel they cannot win their case on its own merits. There are over 9000 HOAs in Arizona. The majority, if not all, are adhering to Title 33. The judge seems to have declared that the RCSC is effectively an HOA for the services they provide. Its time for the RCSC to get off its high horse!

 

The judge specifically pointed out section 18 of Title 33, the planned community provision. Jan is implying that any owner will have the right to vote and live in Sun City as long as they have their names on the title. This is not even a provision of the Planned Communities Act. I have spent several hours reading the Title as well as section 18, and nothing of what is being threatened is true.

This bill is a way to keep Sun City under the control of the general manager and the management team. What do we do to counter these false allegations? Someone other than myself needs to write a commentary in the paper as to what the truth is behind the judges ruling and the truth of section 18.

The fear mongering by the GM on the community is gross negligence and should not be glossed over as anything less than untrue, biased falsehoods.

I am currently not in a position to write an editorial as to the truth, as working in a state agency has its limits. Who and what I can challenge has limits. I will say I don't think this Payne person is the real originator. I truly believe this is a Rick Gray and his PAC trying to undo a judge's order. Should that be the case, this litigation could go on forever, as the legal decision came first.

Going for a precedent setting bill is overkill to just applying section 18 and having open meetings and involving the residents and members of the community. What a travesty being foisted on the residents of this great city of ours.

 

Cynthia and anyone else interested in opposing this bill can email the same individuals mentioned in the email sent by info@rcscmail.com with the subject of Your Attention Required RE: HB 2374 apparently authored by Jan Elk.

 

I'm so confused and my eyes glossed over trying to sort out facts surrounding HB2374 and its effect on Sun City & Sun City West. It would be great if we had a Sun City West(hereafter SCW) authority that could respond on this topic. The SCW Bylaws & Articles of Incorporation are all on their website but it is so confusing.

From what I read, RCSCW is a Title 10 Corporation but has chosen to follow many of the Title 33 rules. It seems I may have been incorrect about it being optional for deeded owners to buy a rec card or not. The Bylaws don't exactly point out who doesn't have to buy a card but it states that all owners are members and all members must purchase a card. So, does this mean that if there are 4 owners on a deed that all 4 are required to purchase a member card annually?

It also appears that underage owners(under 55 years old) can purchase property, use facilities, vote but may not live as a resident owner unless someone 55 also resides on property. RCSCW protects the Senior Age Overlay by enforcing this strictly.

Where RCSCW differs most from Sun City is in how CC&Rs are enforced. PORA in SCW only takes in complaints about CC&R violations and does a courtesy follow-up. If the property owner doesn't comply the case is handed over to RCSCW to resolve and further legal action. PORA incurs no costs past the initial complaint actions. In Sun City our SCHOA handles all CC&R complaints, follow-up and necessary legal action to resolve the issue.

So......finally to the point. What is Sun City West's position on HB2374? They not only provide recreational facilities but also take legal action when it comes to enforcement of CC&Rs on private residences. Are they in a class of their own with this style of self governing?

HB2374 came about in a not so good way, but I'd vote passage at this point. I'd much rather see a strong BOD voluntarily pass reforms to make our meetings open and communication improved.

Now I need either more coffee or a nap!!

 

This thread is the exact reason we should fall under Title 33. Simply put we are all speculating rather than dealing with the facts of the arguments...yes there are two sides to every issue. Believe it or not, we are having a better back and forth here than we ever did in the board room/work sessions. While sitting behind closed doors, the explanation from management was basic; Title 33 bad, Title 10 good. It resulted in the buy-in from board members who summarily backed the GM who wanted no part of Title 33.

Before i continue, let me tell you a story many of you are unaware of: From the early 60's through the mid 80's a battle raged inside the community. It was at times butt ugly. There's documented cases of folks who left Sun City because of it. Incorporation was contested by the community while many organizations were quietly trying to push it through. Even John Meeker felt incorporation was the "right" thing for Sun City. The challenge was the more the powers that be pushed it, the harder the community fought against it. At times they were subtle, at times the organizations shoved, it never passed because in the end residents liked a community without a mayor, city council and the taxes went with it.

The difference from then to now, there were endless meetings to air the good, the bad and the ugly of the fight. People knew what each side was about and why. Yup, lots of speculation and false claims, but they were always addressed openly and honestly. In the end, the community did what they felt was in their best interest. Meeker trusted them to do what was right from their perspective. He didn't agree, but he knew it was their community, not his. Leadership from bottom up, not top down.

Today, we see just the opposite. We see management dictating what they feel is in the best interest for the community; and the board simply buys in and doesn't question or challenge. I'll be honest, i don't know some of the answers to the questions posed above. I do know that Sun City West hasn't collapsed once they elected to fall under it. Yes they had change, but as you read in Katy O'Grady's comments in the article, irrespective of the legislation Payne is proposing, they aren't even considering moving backwards should it pass.

My point in the first paragraph was this: If Sun City was functioning under Title 33, we would all know the answers to these question. We wouldn't be held hostage to rumors or half truths. The RCSC would be compelled to be more open and responsible to presenting both sides, not just the one they wanted to be reached. There is clearly a cost to home owners if we fall under Title 33, the question is how much and why? There's so much more to this discussion but for now, more than enough to chew on.

 

Unfortunately, waiting for a strong BOD to pass reforms is kind of like waiting for your third set of teeth to grow in, most unlikely. Why? Because any idea that is not approved of or is wholly unfathomable by the GM will never see the light of day. Previous experience has seen intentional delays, willful misrepresentation and outright blocking of ideas to ensure the will of the GM and management team were first and foremost. The LRPC is a great example of how a simple idea of supposedly collecting opinions turned into a dismantling of the LRPC. There are other instances of issues I will not discuss here, but the BOD directors will never be able to institute the changes needed to become a Planned Community as there will always be some reason the vote can't happen, the documents need amended, it will take some more time to study the situation, etc.

The voting issue and use of facilities is taken care of under RCSCW HUD overlay rules. You never see a bunch of teenagers running around SCW facilities screaming they are owner. The GM has such a strong control over the BOD processes and voting, until such time a new GM is in place, there will be little change. She does not want change, has always fought any type of change, and has modified the Corporate Documents to make them amenable to her position.

 

As I said in an earlier post, there are over 9000 HOAs in AZ functioning under T33 -- hundreds of them are age restricted. If T33 were a real threat to age overlays they would all be crying about it -- they are not. Simply put, T33 mandates that the RCSC would have to function in a non-secret way so that members could react BEFORE change occurs, rather than after (we all know how hard it is to put the Genie back in the bottle).

We are SC frogs, essentially. That "strong BOD" you desire has been quietly passing "reforms" which have effectively precluded Sun City residents from ever having a reasonable chance of challenging/changing anything the BOD does. They have changed the rules/policies to make it very difficult for anyone wishing to change their agenda. EG...

1. They have amended the Corporate documents (without member approval) to delete/modify elements which my memory recalls once required member approval.
   
2. They have raised the Quorum to an effectively unachievable number.
   
3. They have made it very difficult for members to have an opposition voice (eg, can't post signs, can't distribute flyers, can't seek petition signatures on RCSC property, etc.)
   
4. They have ousted Directors who refused to follow their agenda
   
5. They meet/vote in secret while pretending to take member exchange input seriously.
   
6. They amend fees at their discretion without member recourse
   
7. They pay no attention to the majority of the membership, yet they happily use their assessment money.

The RCSC board once touted at a member meeting that they are an independent corporation who can do whatever they want, that the members own nothing, etc. While this may legally be true, it is not the spirit the RCSC should operate under. Some members think they should have input for major expenditures (like the original AOI intended) -- eg, these members think $50MM is an unconscionably large investment in Golf (I look at it as roughly $1500 for each and every resident that doesn't golf).

Some members think there should parks, green space, a venue for showing movies in comfortable seating, have staged theater productions, concerts, etc. Still others would like an automotive facility where they could change their oil, do brakes, etc. Instead they see the BOD pouring money into a declining sport that's facing water restrictions which have no apparent solution. Sorry Aggie, I don't trust the BOD to always do the "right" thing for the membership as a whole. They have been overrun by the big club lobbyists.

 

So IC, what happens to Sun City Home Owners Association and how does the enforcement of private property CC&Rs get handled under this move to Title 33 action? Seems like if the RCSC is deemed a Planned Community it would also control enforcement of CC&Rs for all the homes, condos & HOAs in Sun City much like Sun City West. Any ideas on how that would be accepted by our community?

The large investment in golf was uncalled for but it not only benefited the golfers but also all the property owners that line the courses. The property owners would be a much bigger force to deal with if it came to major changes which would affect their views and property value.

I agree about the big club lobbyists.....Just look at how the Car Club got the funds and location at Lakeview ahead of many other clubs in line.

 

Love you dearly aggie but i’m not sure I agree that by falling under T33 the RCSC would have anything to do with SCHOA and the enforcement of the deed restrictions. SCW was set up that way in their documents, we weren’t. It’s exactly as I stated above, way too much speculation and nowhere near enough facts.

Unfortunately facts have become almost meaningless as the truth these says is whatever someone says it is. There may well be reasons not to want to be under T33 but if it’s simply because you can do what you want as a GM or a board, that’s for all the wrong reasons. How much of a cost is a fair question and one the RCSC has never been willing to address.

Perhaps with the 5 woman majority on the board, they will be less likely to just rubber stamp rhe GM’s recommendations. This could be the point where we see the board return to the days where the community takes a more proactive role in our governance.

 

I like Jan Ek. She is extremely smart, top of her field of business and has the outstanding credentials to back it up, and knows what she is doing. She is an expert General Property Manager, and works tirelessly to accomplish her goals. She has sharp wit and shares her life stories easily.

The GM has mentioned during previous conversations she could be paid significantly more if she worked at a different community of the same size. She has been sought after for her expertise by other developments. Jan has worked for the RCSC for a very long time, and she made a comment one time that stuck with me. Boards come and go, but she is the one who keeps the organization running, despite the new faces coming in or the others leaving. To me, this statement further solidifies her belief she has ownership over the board and the corporation, despite the rules of self governance and the members of the board. Jan is a strong personality yet she knows the nuances of persuasion and silence. She achieves her desired goals using both of these skills quite tactfully. It is through these skills the board has become followers rather than leaders. The next position statement is given, and the board willingly follows, issuing policy change and taking ownership as if it were their own idea. Seen it happen when the LRPC was disbanded.

Jan is a kind, compassionate person. I am working right now with a coworker/friend that is dealing with some unknown cancer, as none of the three oncologists seem to be able to give him an answer, but keep shooting him full of poison in an effort to find out what it is. Jan has walked 10 miles in those cancer moccasins, and I know she has practical, useful answers. I feel she is the kind of person who would gladly offer the information and knowledge if I asked nicely. She would gladly share the secrets to having chemo and hanging onto your mind. How to get coordination of care from doctors that are only treating the cancer, not the patient, and how to demand answers when the only answer one gets is "I can't tell you yet".

Knowing this about her, I don't understand the opposition to the Planned Communities Act. Surely she can see many of the benefits to the community? I added and deleted sections because I was not happy with the message I was conveying. I hope Jan can see the benefits for the RCSC to adopt a community based structure, as it is the best way to bring the RCSC to the next step for its future.

It is imperative we become a community based upon open structure and shared goals. This means no more meetings behind closed doors and decisions being made without community input. As Independent Cynic states, there is a need to change the everyday workings of the corporation, perhaps a change in leadership is a start.

 

I stopped getting the emails from the RCSC when we moved. Gotta get them started again. It is disappointing to hear there is a push for support on the legislation but since they went out of their way to get Payne to sponsor it, should be no surprise. It is a bill to help the RCSC maintain the status quo. I don't know from a legal perspective, way above my pay grade, but from a historical one, the RCSC has asked legislators for help in the past. Early on the RCSC was taxed as a country club and legislators helped change that (back in the 60's).

The problem with turning to our elected officials is the quid pro quo that goes with it. One only has to look back to this past summer when we saw shameless endorsements appearing on politicians websites. Yes, the titles were removed, but not without a fair amount of angst while it was unfolding. The real question of this suit is whether it benefits the organization or the community. Unfortunately, they are not always mutually agreeable.

It still comes down to the real cost of implementing T33. Sun City clearly has lower lot assessments than SCW, but is it because of being under T10 or is it because of the decision to charge on a per lot assessment rather than on a per person? We know from Sun City West's 5 year plan that 40% of their population are single home owners. It would seem to follow that Sun City is close in percentages and that number is questionable given there are still single home owners who are grandfathered. We have no idea how many and i suspect most if not all of the board could not answer those questions.

All of which brings me to the crux of the problem: How in the hell do you make decisions without all of the information needed? I've said this before and it will always be the case; board members don't always have to be right in their decisions, they are obligated to make those decisions based on doing their due diligence. For example, the legislation put forward by Payne should have been a board action knowing in total the impact on the community if T33 were suddenly foisted on us. If all they were told was it was bad for us, bang, dead wrong and libel for a breach of their fiduciary duties.

Please note, i said if. We don't know and in that the RCSC has no obligation to share that information with us, maybe we will never know. What we do know is, if we were operating under T33, we would have access to all of the information.

 

I don't see why T33 would affect the role of the SCHOA at all (other than it would need to adhere to T33 as well, perhaps). Nothing I've read precludes a planned community from having different organizations sharing the "hoa" responsibilities.

Personally, I find it less than desirable when the BOD disproportionately diverts their energy (and my assessment dollars) to bolster the value of residences that border the golf courses. The owners adjoining the golf courses would be wise to support T33. (I once considered buying property that adjoined the Salt River Pima Reservation -- my realtor reminded me they could do anything they wanted on their (adjoining) property. The RCSC owns the golf course -- the property owners don't own the RCSC. Nuff said.)

The issues typically raised against T33 (extra cost, 55 overlay, etc.) are substantively red herring dog whistles and in most cases untrue. I think the majority of the membership believes the RCSC belongs to them -- and that belief is untrue, it's an independent corporation who legally owns everything we members have paid for. There are some benefit in that -- insurance, liability, etc. But there's also the potential for abuse. In theory the membership is the oversight, yet the BOD has taken steps to minimize membership involvement and transparency. Secrecy and untruths are not confidence builders in my world -- they're the stuff that oligarchies and aristocracies are made of. T33 provides the transparency the membership needs to provide effective oversight.

 

I wish I could simply put “ditto” next to a all of IndependentCynic’s comments in this thread as he keeps capturing my sentiments in ways beyond by capabilities. Having said this, some points bear repeating:

The irony of Jan Eck/Management reaching out to membership to to support a bill that will effectively cut out membership from having an open say in Sun City governance is not lost on me. I guess open government is only at the convenience of Management.

The irony of Management/RCSC/legislative sponsor working to pass a law so they don’t have to follow the law is not lost on me.

The irony of Management reaching out to membership to support a bill when they haven’t taken the time to find out how membership feels about the bill and Title 33 is not lost on me.

Jan Eck, while I’m sure embodies the characteristics Carole espouses, is way out of line and has far overstepped her bounds. Using Management resources, provided by membership, to further political causes is a gross abuse of power and responsibility. This abuse is exacerbated by no attempt by the RCSC and Management to actually listen or attempt to find out what the people who pay the bills actually want.

But why should I be surprised? Anything that furthers the Oligarchy to the detriment of the people is what the Board and Management is all about.

 

Here is the icing on the cake. SCHOA just put out a statement they support the bill. This is beyond ludicrous.

 

Damn , my internet has been out all day and it has been killing me. A TOSC member forwarded me the RCSC 's two emails (anyone know why one has Jan's name on it and one doesn't?) and i have been steaming since i got it. The second paragraph leads one to believe that without passage of this bill, Sun City will lose its age overlay. That is simply crap. The reality is the only way someone can live here underage is if they have someone in the house with them over the age of 55. As far as the rest of it, i will take the time to read SCW's documents and see how the hell they managed to survive and flourish despite functioning under T33.

 

Board and Management: Sun City = Corporation before Community, politics before people.

 

Like I don't read enough documents and look at computer screens all day, I came home and did some more light reading. UGH! Title 33, section 16, the Planned Communities Act, refers repeatedly to the "Community Documents". All of how and why all of these PCA's work is based upon how the community documents were drawn up and put together. One John Meeker signed the docs for SCW, and one Attorney Heinton filed them.

The "community Doc's" filed for SCW specifically lay out the age overlay, 1.1.1 One (1) person residing in each Sun City West Residential Unit must be at least fifty-five (55) years of age. 1.1.2 No person under nineteen (19) years of age shall be permitted to reside in any Residential Unit. These same community docs go on to refer to how the "owner-member can own and vote even if they are under the age of 55. It does not give them access to the facilities or use of any of the amenities. It was put to me a 10 year old could inherit the property and have voting rights. As long as he is an owner, that is correct, but they can't live in the community or use the facilities until age 55. I would not be worried about 10 year old voters, they are probably better informed than some more senior voters.

Next: You can purchase property in SCW if you are an underage owner and as an owner yes, you can vote. See note above about underage restrictions.

Quorum at SCW is 1000, but they have transferable proxies to allow other members to cast votes on their behalf. They also allow absentee ballots, which means the membership knows of the votes and its context prior to the annual meeting. Really?

Now I would like to say there is this huge departure of content between SWC and Sun City, but folks, the bylaws, restated articles of incorporation and the like read almost identical to RCSC. After all it was drafter by Meeker and Heinton, how far off the tracks would they go?

It's as simple as adding about four paragraphs to our current documents to spell out the age overlay and owner/voter stuff, and we would be good. We should also make our Community Documents read like theirs about the voting at the annual meeting as well. If you are going to have an unattainable quorum, at least make it usable by others.

The sounding off of how the age overlay will be lost is a bunch of hooey. Just issue the requisite amendments, at a public meeting, and approve them. This isn't rocket science, folks.

So, now that my eyes are crossed I think I will leave corporate documents alone for a while.
I don't know how to do links, so here is the URL I was using :https://boarddocs.com/az/rcscw/Board.nsf/files/AVJ2SD7D347D/$file/BYLAWS MASTER - 01-30-18.pdf

There is no reason what so ever to be creating such mayhem over this, they changes to the docs are easy, the section 16 is the Planned Community Action which affords open meetings, and the rest, as they say, just doesn't pertain.

Hope this helps, y'all

 

The hits just keep coming!! I starting reading more and then I remembered, HEY, the age restriction is with SCHOA. How could an amendment made to RCSC documents affect the age overlay? Please tell me the hysteria whipped up by the RCSC is just as frightening to you as it is to me?

SCHOA Document:
Housing for Older Persons; Age Restriction  The Property is intended to constitute housing intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older per unit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, U.S.C. § 3600, et seq., and the Arizona Fair Housing Act, A.R.S. § 44-1491, et seq., (collectively, the “Fair Housing Acts”). DECLARATION of COVENANTS, CONDITIONS and RESTRICTIONS  Except as provided below, at least one occupant of each residential unit must be 55 years of age or older, and no person under nineteen (19) years of age shall occupy or reside in a residential unit for more than ninety (90 days in any twelve (12) month period. a) The Association may grant variances from the above restrictions, unless the granting of a variance would result in less than eighty percent (80%) of the residential units being occupied by one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older or would otherwise jeopardize the Property’s status as housing for older persons under the Fair Housing Acts. Any request for a variance submitted to the Association pursuant to the subsection shall set forth the names and ages of all proposed residents of the residential unit the reason for the request and such other information as the Association may reasonably require. b) The Board shall adopt, publish and enforce such policies and procedures and rules and regulations as are deemed necessary by the Board in order to demonstrate an intent to provide housing for occupancy by at least one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older per unit and to maintain the status of the Property as housing for older persons under the Fair Housing Acts. Such policies and procedures shall provide for verification of the age of the residents by reliable surveys and affidavits, and each resident, if requested to do so by the Association, shall furnish the Association with the names and ages of all occupants of the residential unit and such affidavits and other documents as the Association may request to verify the ages of such occupants.

Note it is a United States Code 3600, and Arizona Revised Statute 44-1491. The age overlay has nothing to do with the Planned Community Act as it pertains to the Sun City

 

Thanks for posting the links to the SCW documents C. They are pretty clear about the rights of an owner. The one question/difference i see is regarding what happens when someone from Peoria buys a home in SCW, gets their rec card and then wants to use the facilities. I see no language similar to what have in SC about the 75 mile radius being a bar to use. Of course it begs the question; is it fair to tell those buying properties, paying the PIF, transfer fees and annual rec fees they have no right to use the facilities. especially when in all likelihood they are renting them out and the renter potentially is paying the annual fees as well. I will make a phone call later today to see what i can learn.

I suspect that was the RCSC's intent when they said falling under T33 could change the "character of Sun City." Which has been my argument all along with the RCSC's position; it is impossible for a board to take any position until you lay out all of the arguments for and against it. Unfortunately it has simply been T10 good, T33 bad. If only life were that simple eh?

Finally, that was my point all along; the age overlay and T33 have nothing to do with one another. SCHOA oversees the age restrictions. Who owns the house means nothing, it is who is living in the house that matters. It's why SCHOA yearly removes countless numbers under age renters. Those are the folks who could upset the obligations of the 80/20 percentage of those over 55, not whose name is on the deed.