History Matters...Still...

Yesterday, I attended the first candidate informational meeting. As usual, of late, i left dumb founded. Having served on the RCSC board for three years (2012-2014), having run a non-profit organization and having been on Sun City boards for the past 20 years, i didn't expect to learn much. Sadly, i did.

The one item that triggered my sadness/frustration was a response i got from the current board president. We had an interesting exchange (more on that later), but at one point i asked Dale if she thought our history was important. She said no, she was more focused on looking forward.

It has been the short-sighted view by so many of the board for so many years. In many cases, they appeared to be running from the history, rather than learning from it. Based on Dale's answer, i have a better understanding why they feel that way. History apparently is just tiring old crap. That was then, this is now.

But, is that really the case? Yesterday i posted a photo on Sun City Chat Arizona of a model home from the 1976 Heritage Collection. It had an amazing solar array on the rooftop. That's right, a Sun City home with solar panels, enough to generate all of their electricity needs including heating and air conditioning.

But wait, there's more: The first community of its kind; the first lawn bowling green in Arizona; three golf courses and three recreation centers in the first eight years; an astounding accumulation of housing options; a state of the art hospital within the walls; the fourth rec center was considered beyond compare, a round resort style setting; the largest Sun Dial in the country; the largest indoor pool in the USA; seven more golf courses and four more rec centers built in a ten year period; and let's not forget the venue that amazed everyone, the Sun Bowl. I could go on for hours, but you get the point. They were trend setters, not followers or copycats.

As i type this, i simply find myself smiling. That's not the history i am talking about. That stuff is just the tickler. It's the icing on the cake. The meat and potatoes of Sun City's glorious past is how and why it was so successful. We know by 1964, the community was dead in the water. 384 homes sold and Webb was ready to pull the plug.

Enter John Meeker and for anyone interested, he was the guy who saved this very expensive project; the great social experiment as it was called. I could write a book on the things he did. Perhaps the first change was to abandon the principle embraced in the community's first four years, non-involvement. He understood for this to succeed, the company (DEVCO) needed to be invested in shaping the community and their future.

His footprint is all over those changes; from fixing anything that went wrong in a persons home, to patching the nastiness of the first two rec centers being separated, to helping grow the clubs and giving legal support to the organizations in writing their documents. It was a non-stop exercise in building and growing every aspect of Sun City life.

It went further, much further. Every month they planned community events, every month they spent enormous amounts of money to bring people together. Every month, year after year, they worked to build that sense of community and create a sense of ownership within the membership. It was a process. John Meeker understood better than anyone when Sun City was built out and the company left, it needed to stand on it's own.

When they left in 1979, the proof of their efforts were clearly present. In fact, when they left there was an immediate struggle between the forces who wanted to keep Sun City an inexpensive place to live, others saw it differently. The internal struggles grew ugly, but ultimately choices were made and Sun City had survived the immediate departure.

For so many years, the community accepted those responsibilities. They were involved, committed and dedicated to Sun City maintaining their principles, tenets and values. The community documents were built to allow and encourage debate, discussion and even disagreement. It was the best of all worlds and Sun City was better for it.

History played it's role and in 1999 when the RCSC board of directors passed the Preservation and Improvement Fee (PIF), Sun City's future was secured and insured. It was the single most important action ever taken over the years. Those 9 board members were fearless.

20 years after that, they've spent more than 100 million dollars. In the next ten years, with what they have in hand currently, it will be well beyond another 100 million dollars. Let's be blunt, spending money is easy. Spending money well is another issue.

And that's where i will break this thread. When i come back, we'll take a look at what happened and why. I will be blunt in my personal assessments. It may shock some of you.

 

You are right Bill. In my experience as the CEO of two non profits, a c6 and a c3, a board member of a c3, and an advisory member to two others, an organization can not be successful if it does not know, and clearly understand, its history - both its successes and failures. Yes, they were different times. But some things don't change. Responsible leadership, fiscal responsibility, understanding a changing landscape, and communication for starters. I watched both sessions. There were some very enlightening moments, and a couple of hair raisers that probably need more exploration. I look forward to your next post.

 

Hey Linda, hope all is well. Before i go there, tomorrow, a couple of observations from yesterday that triggered questions in my mind regarding propriety?
1). Why was one potential candidate allowed to be at both sessions? When they solicited members to attend it certainly appeared as an either or?
2). We saw at the second meeting a former board member who was recently put on the election committee (April), helped decide the direction of the election committee's actions and now sat up front with former and current board members. To her credit, she is as involved in the community as much as anyone. Kudos. That said, the rumor is she is intending to be a candidate in this falls election. The bylaws clearly state that she cannot be a candidate if she is on the election committee. She could quit when she picks up a packet, but if that is the case, it does NOTHING to enhance the credibility of the RCSC. Was this was just a shell game for more exposure?

Hopefully i am dead wrong on the above comments/qustions. The beauty of it is, time will prove me right or wrong eh?

 

All is well..thanks. I concur on both points! In fact, I mentioned one of the points to another prospective candidate. Also, something else troubles me. There are potentially hundreds (or thousands) of highly qualified candidates among our residents, with years of valuable experience in all kinds of careers, yet so few are interested in board positions. Or even committees? It seems like committees may just be churning. I liked John Fasts suggestion about the Past Presidents being an advisory group; Chambers of Commerce often use their past leadership in that capacity, and it proves invaluable in carrying on historical perspectives.

If your second point comes true...well, then we know.

I have a couple of other thoughts, but I'll hold until your next post. Your Museum articles have been great.

 

As was I. I heard several responses from current and former board member's that simply were not and are not true.

 

It is an interesting comment and one i avoided. Think about it, the same person who accused us all of fake news. Yikes. Back in a bit to finish my thoughts.

Shoot, let me add a thought here: Why in God's name does the RCSC still have the treasurer sign checks? Are you freaking kidding me. And please, don't tell me it's used as a safety measure. Even back when i was on the board i would walk past the desk as the treasurer mindlessly scratched his name on countless numbers of checks. That was 10 years back and thought, are we that out of touch?

 

I thought the same thing (check signing). Just because we're labeled as 55+ doesn't mean we're totally out of touch with the rest of society, does it?

 

Let's get back to the point, history still matters. If you watched the candidate meetings from the other day, the lack of interest by the membership had to be disturbing.I'm hardly a bible kind of guy, but the one verse that comes to mind is "ye reap what ye sow." This is what you get when for 15 years you pound on people and tell them when they move here to just enjoy life. Anyone that try's to tell me that wasn't the implied message can pound salt (sorry, but tired of being polite).

If you watched the session i was at, you saw the exchange between Dale and I. I had absolutely no intention of going there. When she opened the door about being elected to represent the membership, i almost choked. For the past 6 or 7 seven years we have been told explicitly the board is elected to be loyal to the corporation. Whenever the discussion has come up about the membership, the loyalty to the corporation is always thrown in our face. So much so, the bylaws were rewritten with the loyalty stated prominently and quoted on here by former a board member.

To be clear, there is included in every board members fiduciary obligation a commitment to make decisions in the best interest of the corporation. That doesn't preclude board members from seeing problems from different perspectives; and then argue on behalf of their position. I raised Karen's pickleball battle as an example. The board argued she had a conflict of interest because she played pickleball; her argument was clearly the membership would suffer when the RCSC went down to 20 courts. It was a twisted logic to meet their end result, to shut her up. It didn't work so instead they fired her.

At that session i misspoke, perhaps a Freudian slip. I said the purpose of the RCSC is to represent the community. Clearly it's not, their job is to represent the membership. When i was elected to the board i always argued about big picture Sun City, the community if you will. It didn't fly then and is even more far removed now. That's when Dale stumbled over the question of membership or corporation. She reached back into the Hoffer response of the relationship being symbiotic. It's a great word, if only it worked that way.

It doesn't and hasn't in a very long time. It did for 45 years and then a decision was made to change that equal partner mutually beneficial relationship. When members had a voice, when committees mattered and when the RCSC actually took the time to find out what members wanted, it was literally the prefect system. There were checks and balances and incentives to involve and engage the membership.

The downside was, it was time consuming. Worse yet, the decisions the community made were sometimes different than what the general manager wanted. Watering down, diluting the process to make it singular (majority of the board and the GM), insured outcomes elected by that small privileged group. Then when the push back came, it was wrapped in loyalty to the corporation. The problem is, when you start down that path, there's no turning back.

Then it gets worse; one term board members feel the need to serve a second term. Then it gets still worse; board member who quit or are fired are replaced by people who have served and buy into the loyalty oath. It insures the continuation of destruction on the "perfect system of self-governance." We've now come to that point in time when folks started standing up and speaking out they become vilified for doing so. They are castigated as haters.

That is exactly why history matters. Over those first 45 years there were ugly battles over direction. There's always been dissent. There's nothing wrong with it, unless those with all the power simply refuse to share it. If they have no interest in what the membership says, then their path to more of the same, will be the road traveled. They hide behind the mask of the silent majority. Here's the deal, the silent majority knows virtually nothing about what is going on. But then why should they? From the day they bought they were told, "don't worry be happy, we'll take care of everything for you."

Which is why our technology is so screwed up. Which is why outsiders are playing on our golf courses and bowling alleys in record numbers and at ridiculous prices the membership is subsidizing. Which is why we can't fix the issues regarding community safety. Which is why we have no candidates interested in running Which is why people keep quitting committees when their ideas are shuffled off to Buffalo.

When i come back, tomorrow i will wrap this up, both from a historical perspective and from a going forward one. I think the two are inseparable. Obviously the board president sees it differently.

 

Official RCSC Installation of Directors Oath as provided by Marcia Johnson. See “loyalty to the corporation?” Neither do I. “Members”and “community?” Why, yes I do!

“INSTALLATION OF NEW DIRECTORS

Members of the Board of Directors, Ladies and Gentlemen and Directors-Elect.

On behalf of the RCSC Board of Directors, I congratulate you on your election.

By electing you, , RCSC members have placed their trust in your leadership, expertise and judgment - and gratefully acknowledge your willingness to accept the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. for the next three years. As volunteers with no monetary compensation, you will be devoting much of your time to the benefit of your fellow members.

The policies the Board adopts, and the authority you delegate to the Senior Management of the Corporation, must not only reflect keeping all RCSCproperties in superb condition, but also concern for the welfare and safety of the employees, and for the quality of life of RCSC members.

During your Board tenure, you will be required to serve numerous, varying, and conflicting interests. Know from the start that you will never satisfy all those interests, despite your best efforts. Do your best and be content, knowing confidently, that you are helping us all to continue to be proud of Sun City.


Directors Elect, : Do you pledge to uphold the Articles of Incorporation, the Corporation’s Bylaws and the Board Policies to the best of your ability, and to work for the benefit of our community as a whole?

Candidates should answer “I do”

On behalf of all of us, I wish you success in this undertaking.”

 

It is interesting the way the whole "loyalty" became a thing in the bylaws. Let me be clear, a board of director has an obligation for loyalty to the corporation based on the assumption of their fiduciary liabilities. What that means is when they make decisions, they have to be for the organization (which is in fact the membership) and not for self-serving purposes. Writing it into the bylaws was a late-comer that was intended to make sure board members stayed inline with the general managers wishes. It worked didn't it.

 

There are a handful of us living in Sun City who are frequently called "historians." Over the years, others have earned that tag as well. I have avoided calling myself that most often, however yesterday i referred to myself exactly that way. I was chatting with Billie Harris, a former Sun City Saints player who is in the Arizona Softball Hall of Fame. I was trying to explain who i was and why i was calling her. Historian seems non-threatening and opens doors; so much so she agreed to come to the Sun City Saints reunion the Del Webb Sun Cities Museum is hosting on November 4 of this year. Billie proudly told me she is 89. She was also the first African American woman to play fast pitch softball in AZ. Pretty cool.

But i digress. As a "historian," i have read volumes on how Sun City was built, shaped and reshaped. It is an amazing story that should be required reading by anyone moving here. I know, that is a preposterous suggestion, but to boil it down to smaller bite sized pieces, i said outright when i ran for the board of the RCSC, Jubilee (Sun City's 25th Anniversary book) should be required reading for every board candidate and upper level management person. That went over like a fart in church as well.

You don't have to earn the label "historian" to know that from the day Sun City opened, DEVCO started "grooming" (said in a positive manner) buyers to love the community and take ownership. The first four years, they tried to shove it down their throats by not acting in concert with them. They did however hold new comer coffees every month, print monthly papers that included the names of new buyers that included where they came from and where they worked, pot luck dinners were a constant and events where they tried to encourage community camaraderie. It was a start, but it simply wasn't enough.

When sales plummeted in 1964, Del Webb told Breen, Ashton and Jacobson to fix it or the "great social experiment" would die south of Grand Ave. They refused and were gone. Enter John Meeker. His genius was contained in his understanding for the community to become successful and to survive after DEVCO left, those living here needed to take ownership. He knew they needed a helping hand. He knew that by giving them the push, they would ultimately become responsible for their own destiny. How powerful and compelling is that?

To accomplish those ends, he nurtured clubs. He held hands of the various organizations and walked them through really divisive times; offering legal help every step of the way. He held annual monthly events that were staggering in scope and cost but resulted in incredible turnout. He interviewed and polled the membership every step of the way, more importantly, he listed to what they told him. He spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor, and the more he spent, the more profits the corporation made. 1965-1978 was record breaking by any home builders standards across the country.

During our heyday, organizations sprang up across the community. It was an infrastructure built to help keep Sun City affordable to seniors of average means. It wasn't built for the wealthy, it was built for those looking to enjoy a new active way of life when they retired and had an added component; volunteerism was at the very core existence of our being. We were enveloped in opportunities to give back and become a part of something very special and unique. Those living here ate it up.

When Meeker/DEVCO left (1978/1979), the pieces were all in place. Community documents in order, the RCSC owned everything DEVCO had built for them except the Sun Bowl and the Lakes Club. Within years, that too (the Sun Bowl) was turned over (by a vote of the membership for an additional $2 per year). Sadly, the Lakes Club never was part of the deal. In retrospect, it should have been.

Those first years, the early 80's were nasty (that's being kind). Through all of the turmoil and strife, Sun City plowed through and came out the backside better for the challenges. By 1999, as noted above, the board of directors passed the most significant motion in our storied history. The PIF was in place. Oddly enough, as far back as 1984, a resident in a letter to the editor, made his case for a point of sale on an existing home to have a "buy-in fee." I've read his letter, it was brilliant. Unfortunately, it was scoffed at. If only.

With PIF in place, Sun City's future was secured. Amenities were aging and without PIF, the only way to maintain or replace them was by going before the membership to vote for an assessment (anything more than 750k). Asking members to approve, on top of their yearly fees, increases that were as large as they needed was dead in the water. That's why the PIF was so important. Boards could collect revenue from every house being sold and spend it without asking the membership to approve paying for it.

Community involvement was critical to those first 45 years. Committees were an essential ingredient to proving ideas and proposals for boards to work from. Communications were a constant as the RCSC held more meetings than one could argue were needed. The goal was to keep the membership involved and engaged. Ownership included being involved and the efforts were all directed at promoting that concept. Till 2000, virtually the entire membership was part of the "greatest generation." They took their responsibilities seriously and they grew up holding people accountable for their actions.

So what the hell happened? Stay tuned as i lure you into the rest of the story and my ultimate conundrum.

 

In my work life, we represented workers from all age groups, 16 years old to 70. Part of the training i participated in was understanding the differences, expectations and needs of the membership. It wasn't a perfect science, by any means, but it consistently helped me understand i needed to be aware of those differences.

When we moved to Sun City, we were the beginning of the generation called baby boomers. It was massive population base covering the years born from 1946-1964. The one stat i remember the most was 10,000 boomers hitting retirement age every day. Staggering. More important than the numbers, were the differences between the boomer generation and the greatest generation. The greatest generation were joiners, the boomers weren't. The boomers were less likely to be involved or committed for long periods of time, the greatest generation tended to make and keep long term commitments. There are volumes written on the subject.

The reality is, fitting people in boxes based on assumptions regarding a style of predictable behavior is not a perfect science either. Frankly, i believe it was those faulty assumptions that led us away from the way Sun City was built and why it was so successful. Assuming boomers wouldn't want to volunteer became a self-fulfilling prophesy. By driving them away, they insured life as we knew it the first 45 years would have to change. The handful of us watching it and arguing against it were simply labeled haters and trouble makers.

The move away from our roots wasn't a sudden rush but a constant drumbeat, a slow drip if you will. Ultimately we ended up where we are today. A community divided by those of us wanting to cling to our past and those who seemingly don't care as long as they get what they want. Those of us who value our past are fighting a losing battle. There is so much money in play, the RCSC can just buy its way out of every club uprising. Worse yet, club members are hard-pressed to speak out. They fear they will be next. The bigger problem is organizationally, all around us there are less volunteers. If you don't nurture that mindset, it has no chance.

Let me be clear, the RCSC is not the evil empire, not even close. They have become comfortable doing what they want, when they want and how they want, anyone standing up or speaking is labeled the enemy. Chastising us, castigating us and minimizing us is the blue print. How about listening to us? This community was forged from dissent, disagreement and a willingness to work towards a common goal, a better Sun City way of life.

Clearly, that's not where we are. While articles are written about working together, others blithely deride us for speaking out. That we should dare question their actions and decisions has been viewed as unthinkable. After last years debacle in September when they walked off the stage and then the following annual membership meeting in Dec where we reached the quorum and dared present motions to be voted on, it feels like it has become us versus them.

It's easy to say we should all get along, doing so is far more difficult. When the Articles of Incorporation say one thing and they hide behind their bylaws and their attorney and tell us we are wrong, "clearly Houston, we have a problem." If you understand nothing else that has transpired over the past 15 years, understand this; they don't trust the membership to do the right thing. Is there any surprise the outcome is, we often times don't trust them?

Here's the conundrum for me: I have never argued i am right about what i say, write or think. Never. What i have said and written hundreds of times is: It should be a community decision. Whether golf is subsidized should be a community decision. Whether we let non-members use our amenities should be a community decision. Whether our moniker is "City of Volunteers" or "Original Fun City" should be a community decision. The list is almost endless, but if you don't trust those living here enough to ask them, then you just do as you please.

My best guess is i will go to my grave never knowing whether the members of this community know or care what is going on. As a society we are in the same place. When i first saw Sun City, i saw the perfectly constructed setting where there was indeed a "symbiotic" relationship between the membership and the RCSC. They worked in concert, trusting each other to do the right thing. Let me be very, very clear, it wasn't the members that changed the dynamic...that only leaves one party responsible. Of course when you take responsibility and accountability out of equation, life becomes much less complicated.

Ultimately, just one man's opinion.

PS. Starting this year, we will now start getting the Gen Xer's reaching retirement age. Though given the way of the world, they may never be able to afford to retire.

 

And when they do finally get elected to the board, motivated of course by their own personal agenda, and find out that there's power to be gained, it sometimes goes right to their heads! The pure fact that they were elected gives the weak-minded individual the false belief that they must be smarter and better than everybody else!.

I can guarantee you that there is at least one member of the board who has elevated them self, and who has taken much advantage of that power to get their own way.

It hasn't been hard to see that happening, but of course, it's not unique to the current board!

You know what they say, "You get the government you deserve." If we can't convince better people to serve on the board the Members will continue to be driven farther apart from the Board and RCSC policies!

Just one man's opinion!

 

I had to smile when i read your comments FYI. It brought back the memories from 2012 when the RCSC disbanded the long range planning committee. The general manager argued the committee was problematic because those on the committee came with their own agenda. Honestly, i've never had an issue with committee or board members having an agenda, as long as they are up front about it and understand the process of governance should be an inclusive effort.

I was always more troubled by a general manager who had an agenda and then accumulated enough power to do what he or she wanted. That has been one of the eternal struggles within the not for profit organizational structures. Volunteer boards interacting with the paid staff/management. Again, there are volumes written on it. One of the long departed board of directors, who was there when the RCSC changed the relationship (2006) and hired the new gm and relinquished some of the boards authority, told me it was an issue, a concern.

Historically, boards were hands on, do it all, let the gm run the day to day operation with little input to direction. Getting board members to work 30-40 hours a week was daunting and hiring someone to take on more responsibilities was their answer. It made sense. The challenge was maintaining equally shared responsibilities. Most often the dynamic is played out when one side or the other becomes more dominant, has more control.

If you look back over those 15 plus years you will see the shift. With each passing year, the gm assumed more control. Changing the bylaws was easy. Board members accepted the argument the gm knew what was best for the community. In return for the lessor hours by board members, more of the work load and responsibilities were shifted to the management. It truly became a Faustian bargain. Not at all unusual in these kinds of relationships/arrangements.

I've freely admitted i made mistakes when i was elected. It was on purpose. I saw what was happening and made a conscious decision to try and change the culture of the organization. I failed by the way. By the time i was elected the gm was 6 years in and had set the expectations and defined her goals. The board of predominantly golfers loved that golf was the end-all-be-all. They also loved a lessened work load.

As the years marched on it got worse. Let me say this regarding one of your comments FYI; i think anyone who runs for the board deserves credit for stepping up. I don't care about their qualifications from their past work life. What i care about is what they do as a board member and how they do it. Under the past gm, some board members accomplished some good things. They were invariably not items on the gm's agenda but she was smart enough not to fight them. Hoffer (and the board) got the long range planning committee back and also got the meetings recorded for replay. Both items the gm didn't want.

The reality is just this; the old gm is gone, the new one is here and this is the one chance we have to do a reset on the culture of the organization. Board's should never become control freaks, general managers should never be given so much power they dictate outcomes and direction. That was exactly why Sun City was the perfect arrangement. There was the third leg to the stool. The membership had a co-equal share of the power/responsibility. Once that went away, life as we knew it in Sun City went away. The paradigm shift was on and with each passing year we moved further away from how we were built.

 

I wasn't implying that having an agenda was a bad thing. If that's what it takes to encourage oneself to serve then have at it, and thanks you.

I think it goes a little farther than that. I agree that qualifications don't really matter. I think during our careers we have all worked with the smartest of the smart with certificates and diplomas that cover their entire office walls but they lacked simple common sense! It's not necessarily the item on their agenda but the motivation to do so. Is it the best thing for the community or is it more of a personal "for me" type of thing?

I don't think anybody can deny that the desire of the current President who pushed for data collection while serving on the Long Range Planning Committee hasn't finally fulfilled that desire by finally becoming a member of the board. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm only questioning whether perhaps that was more of a "for me" desire to serve than one for the entire community?

The board dismissed Karen McAdam for representing the community in regards to the loss of pickleball courts while they renovate Mountain View. They said it was a conflict of interest. Why, because see plays pickleball?

I think you have extensively covered that double-standard when it comes to board members and golf! Here again, the board makes-up their own definition of what a conflict of interest is! Truth is, EVERY member of the board has the same common interest which is stated in the Articles of Incorporation as "To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the Members of the Corporation, including, without limitation,..." If none of the board members were allowed to participate in any of the Clubs or activities provided by the RCSC while they served, then I would agree, but each and every board member has the same common interest as did Karen! They ALL belong to Clubs or use the facilities!

 

After attending and watching part of the member/board exchange, one thing jumps out at me: The other board members had virtually no voice in what was happening, what was being said. It was clearly the board president show. I don't know if this was by accident or on purpose. There were microphones at everyone's table but they appeared to be more for show than go.

I've written this often; board of directors on Sun City organizations often act as if the officers are more important than the board members who aren't officers. Whatever the number of board members, they all have one vote. Officers have specific duties as defined in their documents. To my knowledge there are none that states only the president shall speak at meetings with the membership. Some will say official positions regarding the organization can only be made to the media by the president, but never will they tell board members they shouldn't speak at public meetings with the membership.

As i type this, i find myself smiling. While serving on the board, the gm suggested board members shouldn't answer questions from the floor at board meetings. Maybe that's one of the reasons i wasn't very well liked by some, i was always willing to engage members asking questions. Back then though we held two member/board exchanges a month and we all could talk freely; it was expected and encouraged. Times change i guess.

While the changes to the member/board exchanges have several positive aspects to them, there are ample downsides. One obviously is when the board president answers every question, it looks like the other board members have no opinions, i know that's not the case. The other glaring fault of the white board solution solving piece of the puzzle, while looking like a plus, who is the sole arbiter of when a problem is "resolved?" It appears to be someone at the front of the stage; is the board in total? Is it the person posting on the board? Is it the officers?

As many of us suggested, reducing the number of meetings where the membership could speak out was more the goal than actually accomplishing anything. Two open board meetings with comments and questions has been reduced to one. The second one, the board meeting is lucky to last an hour. More troubling is watching the charade on the stage regarding how and who can make motions. Motions are the only comments a member attending can make.

Last month we saw the board president approve and pass a motion regarding bathrooms at Lakeview bowling lanes that came from bowling committee. In her same breath, two other motions were denied. I won't waste your time with the failed logic, suffice to say, the two motions came from members of the minority of the board. Now it appears as if the RCSC is looking to promote the idea only motions can come from committees.

To Allan's credit last month, he asked the right question: "Are you saying board members shouldn't be able to submit motions?" Sadly, we didn't get an answer, perhaps we will find out more at the final board meeting before the summer break. Let me be blunt here; if motions can only come through committees, what about motions that have nothing to do with committees? I would also point out, take a look at committee assignments for board members, fascinating.

When control becomes the defining factor in any organization's DNA, trouble can't be far away.

Just one man's opinion.

 

Gone are the high hopes for 2022.
Watching this individual’s devious metamorphosis has been painful.

 

And I wonder when the approval of the amended bylaws shows-up on the agenda, will we get more than 3 minutes to present any opposition?

I believe that meeting needs to be a special session strictly to address the proposed bylaws, and the 3 minute time limit needs to be suspended. I suspect that will be a very long meeting once we find out what's in, or not in it!

 

I don't remember Director Lenefsky say that they would come to the membership for our approval; did he?

 

I believe it was stated that the Members will have an opportunity to comment.

If I remember correctly, someone even commented at the M/B X that the amended bylaws shouldn't be reviewed by legal counsel until the Members had an opportunity to comment, and I agree.

It wouldn't make sense to me to have the bylaws approved by legal counsel and then allow the Members to comment. Perhaps some of the Member comments may be very appropriate causing the bylaw to be reviewed again?