* Did you know, during those first couple of Sun City's beginning years, the three organizations had term limits of 1 year as a board member? * Did you know even with the small community population, all three organizations held those yearly elections and had 20 or more candidates for those 1 year terms? * Did you know, by 1968, the Home Owners Association was free-standing and the rec centers merged to become a single entity (by a vote of the membership), the founding documents called for three year revolving term limits? *Did you know it wasn't until November of 2003, the Articles of Incorporation were changed (the last change made), the documents allowed for a second three year term of office as an RCSC board member? I've often debated (with myself) whether that change was a good thing or a bad thing? I know how and why it happened, so initially i felt it made sense. Having board members become better versed in their roles as board members should net out to be a sum positive. Some 21 years later, in my opinion, it might have been one of the worst choices an RCSC board has made; yes the membership had to vote on it, so its not all on the board. While board members became better versed (theoretically), they also became self-reliant on their skills to solve/make all of our decisions (or worse, allow the GM to make them). They argued, they alone knew/understood the facts. If only that were the case, the outcomes would have been far better. The past ten years, we have witnessed a number of board members, who after serving their three year term, elected to get elected again. God love them for giving six years of their life/retirement, but how did it work out for them/us as a community? They sat by passively as the general manager ignored our miserable technology and frankly covered for her as it happened. They kept our lot assessments low, while ignoring the needed maintenance and upkeep schedule. They watched as she surrounded herself with loyal staff members rather than demanding job performance be results oriented. Don't even get me started on golf. I could go on, the list is way longer and frankly, it serves no purpose other than as a tutorial. Once we got through the pandemic, conditions worsened. Say what we will about the retiring GM, she had a vision and she stuck to it. The problem was board members missed their biggest obligation: Oversight, accountability was nowhere to be found. One would think, serving 6 years would have resulted in better outcomes. They meant well, but as we look back over the past 10 years, we have to ask, what did that net us? We'll be hiring our third general manager and we've watched a parade of RCSC employees coming and going and board ideas and efforts that have resulted in more often than not a shit show. Think not? How's the Mountain View remodel coming? One would think, with that consistency coming with longer terms, life would be good, or certainly better than it has been. We've all argued why? Some more rational than others, and when i write these things, one might think i am questioning or insulting those who have served. Thank you for your service. I'm not, i am simply looking at the outcomes. When i see the list of stuff facing the current board, i struggle with any logical conclusion we (the board and the community) made the right decisions. I know, Monday morning quarter-backing is easy, but i've been arguing these same points for years; at least since i ran for the board in 2011. Which brings me full circle to the purpose of this thread: I saw where one poster suggested i run for the board, lead the charge. Thanks, but no thanks. Been there done that. I was 63 when i ran, was full of piss and vinegar and had a grasp of the community's history and an even better grasp of how Sun City worked. I was convinced i could make a difference. I made none. I won't bore you with the details of how and why, there were plenty; some of them i have laid directly at my own feet. Some were institutional and had begun in 2006 when we hired a general manager and let her have control. Some were because boards weren't looking for more work, but less and the GM understood that fully and completely. The bigger/biggest disconnect came regarding the membership. We decided they weren't all that important. The mantra to move here and have fun resonated in organizations across the community. Which is exactly why we are in the trouble we are in. Without the members, we allowed the general manager to have all the answers. As she came to the end of her overly-long stay, she shoved those responsibilities at the board. Unfortunately they became the owners of a similar mindset: The board must have all the answers, and by electing them to multiple terms, they would do/be even better. Through the cascade of GM's and slew of employees, we are on yet another iteration of grand new expectations. Maybe they'll do better, though after attending the June board meeting, i'm not holding my breath. And, after following closely the Long Range Planning Committee members quit (after 4 or 5 board members descended on one of their meetings), i've lost some of the faith i had placed in this newest batch of those elected to represent the membership. Sorry, but actions always speak louder than words. They always have, they always will. My single most frustrating outcome as a board member is the one i still chide this board and all that came after i left in 2014: Trust the membership. Listen to the membership. Engage and nurture the membership. Treat them and their ideas as if they matter. I'm not the answer nor should be anyone's solution to the challenges we face as a community. I wasn't in 2011 and i won't be in 2026. The answers have always been smack dab in front of each of us: It's the community stupid. The choice to allow six year terms worked to destroy the need to encourage and engage new members to become involved and listen to what they had to say. Now days, board members just run for a second term. I knew most of those serving on the LRPC, they were our future and the next generation board member. How did chasing them away because you didn't like their ideas work out for you/us? It's been happening since 2006 and at this point, it appears as if the board feels they should be the ones to have all the answers. Nobody is that good, nobody. As always, just one man's opinion.
I keep on saying it; we need to see what the revised bylaws look like! I fear they will only become longer and more wordy but no real relief to the Members. The answer isn't the board! Lord knows they're the problem. The more often the board changes, so do the PIF projects. That's why Mountain View is still a never ending cycle of hiring different architects. I believe the answer is exactly what you eluded to, and that's the need for the community to get more involved, but for that to happen, the board needs to make some concessions! The board needs to start trusting the Members. First stop...committee meetings. I put the blame on the committee Members as much as I do the Chair and Co-Chair. It's the Member's fault because they allow the Chair and Co-Chair, and any other Director who decided to attend, to drive the initiative. Just because the Chair doesn't like the idea, too bad! The committee gets to vote to decide whether something happens or not, not the Chair alone. The members fail to force a vote! As far as the Chair and Co-Chair, and guest Directors goes, they need to just shut-up! They like to take part in the debate process and try to sway the members, but when the time comes to vote they don't! If you're not going to vote, then I don't really care what you think! And let's not forget...there's no need to occupy the time of two directors to serve on a committee. One director is all that's required, and they should serve only as Chair or Co-Chair and allow a Member to hold the other position. And just as a side note: Can't say I've seen a definitive limit on how long a director or how many time a director can serve without seeing some sort of eligibility to run and serve again after being out of office for a specified number of years! But I guess at our age, time is running against us anyway?
It’s like the old ad said : “The system is the Solution”. In lessons/or until the system is repaired, the answer will remain the same. A group of nine unqualified do-gooders making decisions about millions of dollars based on making sure they don’t make their friends mad. Is that how you want your community run?
Well, these are some strong statements in regards to the current state of affairs. Larry, the group of nine do-gooders, fellow members who step, up are the basis for self governance. Is the suggestion its time to do away with our current methods and employ a city manager type position, along with other positions such as a paid govening body? Just asking, as this would be a first that I know of for Sun City. FYI, I take umbrage with the statements made that it was the committee members themselves who are at fault. Please allow me my explanation as to why. Not all committee members are aware they are in a position to challenge the leadership of the committee. Next, whether the member chose to confront the offending directors at the moment the meeting went sideways could have caused a great deal of stress of the individual member, or the total group of committee members who felt pressured by the offending directors. Lastly, to have taken a stand at the meeting could have caused a huge confrontation that was not desired by anyone. So the individual committee members resigned in protest, their dignity intact. To have taken a confrontational position would mean these same people, in my opinion, would probably still eneded up removed from the committee, only with a pall cast over their tenure and their decision to take a stand. Again, strictly my opinion. I beleive the LRPC members beleived and trusted in the process and the process let them down. I cannot hold committee members responsible when the entire governing process, as described in the by-laws as to attendance by directors to a committee meeting is clearly spelled out. Again, in my opinion, the committee members were blindsided with little recourse. If they confronted the directors in attendance, it would have been a very awkward and stressful situation. The only other choice I can see is if the committee members left in protest, again, removing them from the committee. So, I don't feel it fair to place the members of the committee at fault. As to the other comment in regards to former board members running for office again, no matter how long they have been removed from the governing process, is a valid one. What standard would that look like? Should there be a test to qualify to run for the board to begin with? There are current guidelines as to the total number of years and total number of full terms a director may serve. Do you feel there should be additional language added to further qualify someone's ability to run for office? I wonder if the current placement of new directors needs to be reviewed. Perhaps, when a new member elects to run for office, it is automatically for a one year term. If a comprehensive training program were brought into play, the newly elected director would get a cursory training session, prior to taking office, to go over the duties they are required to meet as a new director on the board. Don't brow beat them, but give a precursor overview of what it means to be a board member. Maybe even assign some light homeword, such as reading about the Arizona Revised Statutes and how they pertain to Title 10 and Title 33 corporations. This way when they return to take the oath and undergo formal training, they stand a chance of understanding their role in Sun City. The training can offer the information as to the scope of fiduciary duty and what that really means in context to their new role. How the board members do their work and emphasize they are one of nine, not another lockstep vote in the current process. This way the turnaround time to feeling more confident in their choice as well as how to be a good steward for the members is offered a shorter time frame then learning by the seat of your pants. Should this director decide to run again, then its for a three year term. The two year term limit remains in place, but the total tenure is now 4 years instead of 6. Again, just an opinion, and am not suggesting that the entire process be revised. Heaven knows we can't get the current system fixed, let alone suggest changes for more change. I thank you all for your time and patience in allowing me to write these ideas and thoughts down. They are truly not intended to inflame, but rather, to seek additional ideas as to the thoughts offered here. It has been mentioned before the concern over a multimillion dollar corporation being run by volunteers. What alternatives are available? As for the LRPC, this was a horrible ending to a very talenented group of people being placed in this type of situation. Are we telling committee members their rights to be able to challenge those who defy the rules as written? In my opinion, another training opportunity.
After spending some time on another platform people are angry with Sun City. It is the belief nothing is working in here, and it's not just a few. Some were thinking of moving here but have changed their minds. How many more years will it stay like this before a professional consulting company is called to help (which has been talked about many times before), or at the very least talk with other Sun Cities to find out what works or doesn't work for them. I have said for a long time posting here is futile. It's just words and no actions are attached. Disclaimer: I mentioned no one, am not accusing anyone of anything, not on any drugs. This is just my opinion. Nothing else.
It's only my opinion, but if a confrontation occured, I would suspect it falls on the shoulders of the Chair? The way I see it, if the Members vote on a motion I believe they all understand the process, at least well enough to know that it either passes or it doesn't. The confrontation I would see is if a motion passes that the Chair refuses to pass on to the board for a vote, which was the cause of the loss of members on the LRP committee. I've attended too many meetings where the Members allow to be stonewalled by the Chair.
Thanks for the comments. Before i begin, we should note the power of social media when used as a tool to reach people/members. I wrote and posted this thread 22 hours ago, we are now approaching 600 reads. The biggest reason is the link i posted on the Facebook group i used to be an administrator off. Imagine if we created a social media network with a goal of reaching both members and potential buyers? Given some of the comments, i reached out to my Realtor friend with the question of how many homes were sold in June? 129 sales, and i suspect the RCSC will have some additional revenue with deed transfers during the month. While the number is far from record shattering, it's not bad given the mortgage rates are still high and the weather is what it is. He also told me July sales are doing well. Sun City has been an attraction for retirees since the day it opened in 1960. It's never wavered and it never will. What is most often lost in the translation for new home buyers is what we were compared to what we are. For most, they have no idea of why the community succeeded like it did. No idea what it took for the members to be treated like owners. No idea of the millions of hours that were invested by those living here to become what we became. No idea on the sense of community that evolved and then devolved; or why? It only matters to me because we can be better. It also matters to most of those posting and or reading, they know we can be more by doing more. The problem is when the board hears "doing more," they think we are talking about them. I'm not and i suspect most of you aren't either. Nope, we mean the board letting go and shaping a community of members who help take ownership of the process of self-governance. It's a long first step and sadly one we have run from rather than embracing. Either we do, or we don't. Sun City will survive nicely, one way or the other.
The problem with "views" on most social media sites is that they also count multiple views by one person as a single view. Even you tube which is a pretty sophisticated site does that. Unfortunately, it's very deceiving.
