Something just dawned on me................ The Special Session - First Reading of Bylaws will be held, Wednesday, October 29, 2025, from 6:00 to 9:00 pm at the Sundial Auditorium. # SOURCE: RCSC e-blast Monday, October 27, 2025, 4:36 pm. Four (4) out of the nine (9) directors sat on the Bylaw Working Group. Tom Foster, the president and #5, attended every meeting and has stepped up to the plate several times during the Town Halls to provide "his" input. It's pretty apparent that the motion will have a guaranteed 5 YES votes. That leaves 4 directors who were not part of the Working Group. (Collins, Bressett, Borski, Mapes) Why are we thinking that we have a voice here!!!!!???? (Excerpt from existing Bylaws: At least seven (7) days prior to all Board Meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, Special Sessions, Informational Meetings, Planning Sessions, and the Exchanges, an agenda, subject to amendment, will be posted in RCSC Facilities and/or on the RCSC website (www.suncityaz.org). Motions made in Board Meetings, excluding Executive Session, will be read and passed a minimum of two times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6). This rule, however, does not preclude the consideration of privileged motions, or of any subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting. For purposes of clarity, no motions will be made at Informational Meetings or Planning Sessions. As soon as practicable, a brief summary of the preceding Board Meeting will be posted on the RCSC website (www.suncityaz.org). After approved by the Board, minutes of Board Meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, Informational meetings or the Exchanges will be available on the RCSC website (www.suncityaz.org). After approved by the Board, minutes of Board Meetings will be available to Members in good standing at no cost upon request at the Corporate Office, subject to the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes 10-11602, as amended.) (ALSO: G. Special Sessions are business meetings of the Board called by the President or upon the written request of three (3) or more Directors. The purpose of the meeting must be stated in the call and posted on the RCSC website www.suncityaz.org. Except in cases of emergency, at least seventy-two (72) hours’ notice must be given. There is nothing mentioned in this section on Special Sessions about the number of members of the Board needed to pass a motion.) Jean Totten
Show me in the bylaws where it says that under Special Sessions, Dave! And, that's really not the point that I was making. The vote has already been decided.
The vote count is a rule in the "nature of rules", meaning it is a bylaw rule that can be suspended. So what if somebody wants to suspend the 2/3rd' rule and only require a majority vote?
History revisited from my memory. While on the board, the GM feverishly rewrote and reworded the bylaws to make the board the focus of the bylaws, up to and including the raising of the quorum. It made the board a stand alone position free from member involvement. It showed the RCSC to be in a power position in regards to the governance of the corporation. At this same time, the RCSC was fighting litigation from Ann Stewart and she had gotten some small victories. Then came the new legislation that gave the RCSC a special exemption granted by the state, sponsored by Rick Gray and others. The language, even cited by the judge in the case, favored the RCSC. There were small inroads made by the members, clawing small victories when they could. Move forward many years, have board elections, and Rick Gray is elected to the board. Then we have a bylaws rewrite by a group, in secret, and who is one of the directors overseeing the rewrites? I am quite sure this is just a coincidence that every time the RCSC has a need for members to be involved and those same privileges are stripped away, that there’s one persons name that recurs in the mix? There wasn’t a need to remove the appearance of members except to make it easier for the passing of legislation to favor the RCSC. It’s rather uncanny that members were negated all those years ago to make it easier to pass legislation specifically to amend Title 10. And here we are today, the members once again, on the outside, looking in. I appreciate the committee effort, it makes it appear as if members may gain some momentum in the committee arena. I appreciate that once again, when there was ample opportunity to include members and keep the integrity of the annual meeting, it was a power grab by the board to usurp the last bastion of membership equality in the form of membership voting. There’s got to be a better way to get past this. Of course, this is all a moot point, as the first reading is here, no review of who was on the bylaws rewriting committee, and the membership is not the winner, again. This is strictly my recollection of events and are not based wholly on fact.
I would be hard pressed to argue your recall CM, as we both watched in horror as the GM rewrote and the majority of board members happily blessed the consolidation of power and control in the hands of one person. This first reading is similarly situated, with one significant difference. The control is not in the hands of the general manager, but rather in the board of nine, or perhaps in the hands of whatever the majority of those on the board want. Will they be righteous in their decision making? Will their actions not be like those boards who did dumb stuff once the long time GM put her job on coast and let the board do as they may? Don't know and honestly at this point i don't care. They have told us point blank in this writing of the bylaws, they really don't care what the members think. They crafted them so as to carve out the membership, so while they sit on the stage and spew the platitudes of having to follow ANCA, the reality is they hid behind the most strict of interpretations and then created a ridiculous slew of hoops for members to jump through regarding amendments. Think not? I heard the board president or one of those longing for more control to beg us not just to bitch, but to give them reasonable solutions. Freaking laughable. Once they had claimed their stake and scope of "the business affairs of the corporation," why in the world did they need to create the muddled mess of filing amendments starting by the end of Sept? There is nothing in ANCA stating the members have no right to vote at their annual meeting on amendments properly before them. Why not create a simple structure where member amendments be submitted 6 weeks before the annual membership meeting in March, giving them a month for review, with the results posted two weeks before the annual membership meeting. The members, if a quorum was met, could then vote on those non-business affairs of the corporation, as well as give their remarks regarding the amendments they pulled? Reasonable question and the answer is simple: They are terrified of the members showing up in force, speaking out and voting. The nonsense they posted will keep the members from gathering or even being involved. It is what it is and they are getting exactly what they wanted. Complete control.
So all your verbiage was to say the passage revised bylaws is already decided because four Directors had minimal participation by being there and the person guiding the meeting was exerting undue influence? You know this without ever being in the room? That is your point?
This is what happens when decisions are made behind closed doors which is how the bylaws working group conducted their meetings. Now you are able say that Jean, or anyone else, can't make a statement because they weren't there. She wasn't allowed to be there! From just watching the video, it is apparent that Directors Rough, Kise, and Gray were involved in the discussions and decisions of the working group. Pretty easy to have a majority vote when four are Board members. They only need one other person to join them and we know who that would be. It appears that is why certain people were selected for this committee. As I have said many times, much of the chaos in RCSC dealings, since I have been a Member, could have been avoided if the business of the corporation was conducted in open sessions. Not that there wouldn't be outside conversations between Directors, but never meet with a quorum except for the items described in Executive sessions. My advice has fallen on deaf ears so the chaos continues.
Just like the first time because Jean and Tom didn’t follow the rules. Somehow they felt they were above them. The Directors input was minimal, All work was conducted by the members of the group, except Preston was the official typist of the bylaws because of his amazing computer skills and I am not being facetious.
I will take your word for it, Dave, since I wasn't there. In other words you are saying that all of the work was conducted by five people. Do you really think five people, who are lay persons, can determine what is best for the 30,000+ RCSC Members? I can live with that except then you take offense when people have concerns, suggestions, and questions and want input into the rules that govern their participation in RCSC. That is where the problem lies.
Do you really believe that 535 people who are mostly millionaires and lawyers can determine what’s best for 360M+ people? BTW, there were six. We originally had nine but three resigned over personal matters. Sometimes you just have to play the hand you are dealt.
I understand the shortage of participants to assist in the development of this project. In dealing with the cards you are dealt, does this mean doing only the minimum amount bet and hope for a winning hand? Or could there have been moderate bets to see if the game would play out in a different direction? I understand that you and others are all in and done at this point. Exhausted and frustrated by the total lack of support for how the game played out. Unfortunately, the board will not allow another hand to be dealt to see if the cards could play out in a different fashion. In any card game, there’s always the opportunity given to try to win back your losses. The cards could play out differently with a different dealer and players at the table. Then the player could deal with the cards dealt and seek to regain his losses.
Those 535 legislators were elected not appointed or "invited" as you were on the bylaws committee. Just like our Directors, they can be recalled. Is there a way for Members to eliminate someone from a committee?
Not sure how you are phrasing this question, but members of a committee could eliminate a member. I would look at the by laws both old and new.
You are right that I missed it. Please explain again because I still don't understand what you are trying to say.
II recall the old ones said the co-chairs could dismiss a committee member but don't recall that the committee could do it.
SECTION 6: MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED Committee members may be suspended or removed by the unanimous vote of the Board President, Committee Chair and Co-Chair for the following reasons:
Thanks, Tom. I thought it was along those lines. I remember walking a thin line when I was on the bylaws review committee. I felt obligated to speak up on matters of importance; yet I was cognizant that I could be dismissed if they chose to do so. I will look, but I believe this changes in the new bylaws.
