I have to smile when i read comments about my "fear mongering." I also am crushed when i read all the repeated personal attacks against me and no one rushes to my defense; it all seems so unfair. Alright, so the second sentence may be a stretch, but the point shouldn't be lost on anyone. Grow a pair and enjoy the back and forth. The bigger problem is the concept of "fear." I've written and spoken hundreds, maybe thousands of times, Sun City was and still is the best choice for my wife and i. We found it after my parents moved here, we couldn't wait to turn 55 to retire and move here. 22 plus years later, we have zero regrets about our choice. I try not to call Sun City the best retirement community, because that truly is subjective. What i do claim is we are one of the most unique. We know from our history we were built on and around a different platform than the communities that followed. For anyone who has taken the time to know, understand and appreciate our history, they know the community was forged from mistakes, missteps and infighting. It wasn't always pretty, but through it all that sense of community was the glue that held it together. The partnership between organizations and those living here formed bonds that overcame nearly every obstacle. Over the years, we've seen how we have evolved. The most dramatic change came when the board/GM changed the quorum and quieted the membership. Along with that, committees were neutered and members stayed away in droves. In theory it should have worked, in reality it was a miserable failure. 20 million dollars in deferred maintenance, our technology 15 years behind the times and golf in a shambles. Even with the GM leaving, little changed as she allowed the board to just do whatever. Think about it in these terms: From 2000-2025 the RCSC has collected somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 million dollars from the PIF. A huge sum of money and looking back, there's been no cohesive strategic plan on how to spend or invest in our future. Who does that? Who operates that way? The easy answer is, we do. Ever since the Fairway project was completed 2009/2010 (when members voices were stilled), we've just thrown money at projects without any real thought whether what we were doing made sense. All water under the bridge or over the damn; take your pick. In 2025, we saw and heard from the board they really cared about what members thought and said. The annual membership meeting said otherwise. The TriARC efforts for Mountain View were solid, but then so was the Strategic Alternatives Committee (SAC). Those of who were skeptical, understood the board had a lot riding on the final 3 months of the year. Scheduled were numerous town halls covering a variety of topics. None more important (in my opinion) than the bylaws. I'm sure others will be looking at the Finance and Budget sessions and how much more they will have to pay in 2026. For the vast majority of members, what the bylaws say is for the more wonky amongst us. Those that do care or pay attention, the biggest concern was what was done regarding the annual membership meeting. From my perspective, what they produced was a travesty. I know others feel the same way. Frankly, i don't think the board cares, even a little bit. If they did, with allegedly 4 board members on the working group, they would never have created the pile of slop they did. They know full well the membership who turned out in record numbers for the annual membership meetings since 2021 felt strongly about the right to vote at said meeting. All of which brings me back to the header: FEAR! Sorry, but the poster who screams that word in rebuttal is sadly mistaken. For those of us who have read the proposed bylaws, if i could use one word to describe what i felt after reading them (twice) was disappointed. I had bought into the belief this board wanted the membership involved in the process of self-governance. These bylaws tell us a wholly different story. The biggest problem is, what they offered is so far removed from what was expected, i see no way to tweak them and make them member friendly. No fear here Dave, just good old disappointment.
Bill, In the past, when you were called out by name and maligned, I reported those occasions to the admin. The net result is that this poster is gone. When I defend anyone against being singled out and called names or have insults listed against them, I will say something. It’s not meaningful to the conversation and adds additional injury to the conversation. My follow up to that is a particular poster made mention they were experiencing additional difficulties at the moment, which was why they were not responding. When I read something like that, I take pause. This is a senior community and at any given time a persons health or the health of their significant other may be in a compromised state with the added pressure of posting on TOSC. I try to honor that type of statement and avoid additional badgering and taunting. I will state again: I might not always agree with what you post, but I will defend your right to post it.
With all due respect Carole I don’t need you defending me, nor do I care if you agree with me. I don’t say that to be unkind or mean spirited, i just find interjecting comments like you did above helps kill threads. The personal and personality issues take away from the discourse we need badly to have. I have no sense the board will care what any of us say or think regarding the bylaws rewrite. I know at least some of them read what is being written. The reality is if they cared they would never have drafted this mess. They know the vast majority of members are clueless when it comes to the bylaws and many don’t understand how Sun City/RCSC even works. Why should they, we’ve made a point to tell them as little as possible. Unless or until that changes, we’ll all just keep trudging along dragging the status quo with us. This board appears to believe they are doing great and the clear message from these bylaws is we should stay out of their way and everything will be fine. We have heard 4 board members were part of the working group. We don’t know what members were on it, other than Dave revealing he was invited back. It truly doesn’t matter other than to Tom’s point: What members stood up and spoke out on behalf of the membership? Did anyone, or were they selected because they would be more board supportive than member friendly? The Exchange is Monday (tomorrow at 9 am) and I doubt they will allow comments regarding the bylaws. I hope I am wrong because the more the board hears the angst, the better the chance of changing them. We'll see eh?
I may be wrong but I believe for sure it was Preston Kise, Rick Gray, and Jim Rough. I think Chris N. was the forth. I doubt if any of them will agree to the things we have been highlighting. I'm sure they all will vote to approve them because voting against them would only be admitting they have failed. Sad part is, they only need one more vote to pass them! You're write Bill. When the email blast came out saying the bylaws were available I first called the corporate to see if I could pick up a hard copy. I was told "no," they were not yet available, but told they would be available at the Exchange. I was later notified that they will not be available at the Exchange but could now come down to the corporate office and pick-up a copy. I'm sure one of the first things we will hear from the President, is that they will not hear any comment on the Bylaws until the Town Halls.
Dave assures us that the four Board members on the bylaws committee had little input to the final product. That means they were written by Dave, Rusty, Carmel, Scott and one other person. Five people who have decided our future.
So what’s your point Janet? That somehow we hate the members or something to that effect? We were incompetent and had no idea what we were doing or Board members continued to influence our decisions? Let us put it this way, the group has disbanded, my work is done and I have no interest in dealing with you, Bill, Tom or anyone regarding the by laws revision. We were stabbed in the back last time and I believe that the previous six months of attacks, might produce the same result. Fine , I can live with that because the next group might be better or worse, I don’t know as it is no longer my problem. Have fun storming the castle.
My point was just what my words said, "Dave assures us that the four Board members on the bylaws committee had little input to the final product. That means they were written by Dave, Rusty, Carmel, Scott and one other person. Five people who have decided our future." (I have since been told it was six, not five.) Had the work been done in open session, I would have had little trouble with it. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say any of you hate the members, that you were incompetent, nor had no idea what you were doing. No one was there to witness if they tried to influence your decisions so none of on the outside know about that. If they didn't do much of the work or influenced your work, why were they there?
If those Directors did what the Directors do at regular committee meetings, then they didn't even cast a vote!?!?
The belief is, at least in committee meetings and according to one of the Directors, they get to make their choice and cast their vote at the Board meeting.
Thanks, Dave, for assuring us about that. Again, if the sessions had been held openly, no one would question that. So that I understand correctly, you have said that the Directors didn't participate much in the written work or discussion of your committee, nor try to influence the committee on certain aspects of the bylaws, nor vote in the committee's decisions. Therefore, I can surmise they were simply there as observers except for Preston who did the actual typing. I wonder why Director Kise and President Foster keep using the term "we" instead of "they" when talking about how the bylaws were written.
I find the proposition “ that all men are created equal” and “with liberty and Justice for all” both subjective and argumentative.
Dave, As usual you demonstrate you are unable to carry on a conversation. You will have me believe that the 4 (four) directors assigned to the secret task force said nothing? I can't wait for your next ridiculous assertion. John
John, I am done with you as I am trying to take the high road but you are not worth talking to, just a whiny quitter.
The attacks on Dave really need to stop. He was a participant in the setting that involved others. He is the only one of several others who participated in this action. The outcome warrants retooling the wording to reflect a more member centric approach rather than just legal compliance. He has been vilified for the work the entire committee took part in. Feel free to pile on me now for not continuing the denigrating of one person when the obligation was to make changes to meet the legal standards of the law. The words are not what was expected, but are legally correct. The process needs to continue to remedy the language issues. The message provided probably won’t change. The message can expound the direction as written and should. Work in progress with multiple options available.
