Homework for the board meeting...

Nope, not for your guys. This assignment is for the board and management. In my effort to be a fair-minded kind of guy, i am forewarning both the board and management of some of my questions come this Thursday. I feel it only right to give them ample time and opportunity to prepare.

And let's be even more kind by just stating, both management and board members are no dummies. Nope, intelligent folks who have done their best to lead us to the promised land. While some of that is tongue in cheek, there are lots of good things they have accomplished.

Actually this will be a two-part question. Here is the first and probably the most difficult: In article 9 of the By-Laws, i want you to read to me the language that says: "There must be a violation of the Articles of Incorporation or of the By-Laws, to file a petition for a recall." I know, that will be challenging given what it does say, because the language is clear and unambiguous. (Here's a tip, call Hienton for advice).

Secondly (this one will be way easier), why in the world will the outgoing board members be making the decision on how the new board members will be holding the meetings? All of the candidates, at least of the ones from the candidate forums we heard from, appear to have opinions about what they want going forward and how they interact with the membership. Why would you treat them with such disdain by voting this now? Oops, really two questions.

I'll just say this: while i was on the board i questioned the general manager about open work sessions and she told me they would squash participation by board members who would be concerned about what they said in front of people. Really? I told her it wouldn't change what i said one bit. She told me not everyone is like me.

Hard to believe.

 

Totally agree with your number 2 question. The wording of the motion on Meetings is confusing and leaves too much room for eliminating transparency. Where will these meetings be held? Why wouldn't they be recorded? Why could the Board answer questions under this new format when they can't now when asked? Does this leave room for closed door work sessions? Will there still be 3 readings? Maybe they're just throwing this out there to insure there will be members showing up for the meeting tomorrow because I'm sure there are many who are opposed to this being passed by this Board.

 

If the board/management have any sense at all aggie, they will pull this motion and let the new board deal with it come January. I think there is a valid reason to rearrange the structure but is should be done when those who will have to live with it (board and management) are in place. I've tried to be objective regarding the new GM. He deserves the opportunity to see if he will bring a different leadership style or if he will simply follow along with the old. None of us know, he can show us with his actions.

 

Good news, bad news. The board dropped the motion regarding changing the meetings till a later date and they can provide more clarity. That's a good thing.

The bad news; when i asked the board or management to tell me where the language could be found regarding the denial of the recall requested for a board member, stunned silence. Not a peep. The new parliamentarian turned to the board president and whispered "don't say anything." Lip reading is fun. Anyway, someone coached her to say that because that is not the role of the parliamentarian.

If you think i am blowing smoke, watch the video, it is down right embarrassing.

 

The new parliamentarian turned to the board president and whispered "don't say anything." Lip reading is fun. Anyway, someone coached her to say that because that is not the roleamentarian.

Perhaps the new parliamentarian is related to the RCSC lawyer? We know who's side he represents!

 

Did anyone recognize the parliamentarian as being the former Maricopa County Republican Party Chairman who resigned from that position in November 2020? I guess we should have asked if this is a volunteer position or if she is being paid. Will we have a permanent presence or is it whoever is available for our meetings?

 

Is that the proper place for a parliamentarian to sit? Right next to the pres? Is it right for her to whisper? Or...should she have her own microphone so we can all hear what she's saying? I'd like to know if she's being paid as well.

 

I will have to listen carefully to the meeting once it shows up on YouTube as it seems something was mentioned that I've never heard before. It was during the discussion about raising the PIF to $4000 after the GM's presentation. Did I hear correctly that if a current homeowner/member purchased their home before there was a PIF required(which was nearly 20 years ago) buys a new home in Sun City(perhaps to downsize because of age, death of spouse or decrease in income), there is a requirement to pay the current PIF amount? What?? I hope to have this clarified.

Also, was it appropriate to add the increase in the PIF to $4000 to the proposed motion without letting members know this would be a part of the motion and therefore not an item they could comment on? Don't get me wrong, the increase in the PIF may be necessary but this didn't seem to be the proper way to bring it forward. If Director Gene Westemeirer waited to make his motion to raise the PIF to $4000 after the GM's Long Range Plan presentation, he may have been successful in getting it through.

 

Part 2: Good that Wilson puled her own half-baked motion. Still lacking the leadership to ask for help, tho.

Based on what I've read, yes, it is proper for her to sit right next to whomever is chairing the meeting and simply advise thru whispers or even notes.

 

I think yes - new home new PIF. And it did seem sneaky to add the PIF increase into to budget approval.
Can someone clarify for me: is a "budget approval" the go-ahead for them to start spending actual money (like for Mountain View) or is this just approval of a "plan" to move forward??

 

It has always been that if you make a new purchase of a residence in Sun City and sell your current primary Sun City residence within the specified time(6 months?) there is no PIF paid for the new home. Has this changed?

I think the budget approval becomes a motion that has to be voted on for the 3 times although it may be waived to allow collecting the new PIF amount in 2022.

 

I can only comment based on what i have seen in the past PI; the Parliamentarian's i have seen have sat at the end of the table. I suspect in this case whoever recommended her wanted to insure she was next to the president to help keep her in her lane. When you watch the video you will clearly see her quickly squash the president from responding to my question. I knew there would be deafening silence, i just didn't expect the parliamentarian to be the one to issue the edict.

I've always wondered about buyers before 1999 who sold and purchased a different house aggie. Frankly, i never asked the question because i knew the RCSC would be drooling to get the PIF from someone who escaped it. I might have missed it because the GM's presentation was lengthy and as i said in the video, sorely needed, but i do not believe there was any motion to increase the PIF yesterday. I think it was purely informational so the board could see what happens if and when they do vote an increase.

As i write this, i sat thinking about my folks property sales. They bought a 1200 sq, foot home in Phase 3, in the mid 90's. Dad died and we downsized mom into El Dorado around 2008. I don't remember if she paid the PIF at that point. Three years later she wanted out of El Dorado and we bought a quad by Bell Rec Center. Seems to me we paid the PIF but it was refunded. The thing i know for sure is the change the gm made in 2009 on the grandfathering forced mom from paying the single rate to the lot assessment when she moved into the quad. That should never had been the case given the document i gave to the GM/board in my request for information.

 

Correct...and you can read that suggestion in Robert's Rules (RONR 12th Ed. 47:53)

 

https://www.newsweek.com/maricopa-county-republican-chair-resigns-voting-machines-1546568

Is this really the type of person we want as a parliamentarian? Should we be allowed to vote for a parliamentarian from a list of candidates where we can do background checks on each and every one of them regardless of party affiliation?

 

I think her job is just to keep meetings running according to procedure and rules. If she can do that I don't care what political party, gender, or species she is. But if she starts trying to providing legal advice or pushes an "us vs them" mentality during the meetings, we may have a problem...

 

I don't really care about her politics SW. In fact the fact she wasn't supporting "the big lie" gives her more credibility in my eyes than whether there was a D or an R behind her name.

Thanks for the clarification FYI. I remember back to the old days the parliamentarian sat the end of the board table.

 

What's everyone's take on the new flashcard system for the 3 minute time limit?? Ugh. I pity anyone that has to carry out this duty. The card should be held by the person in the center of the Board of Directors as the speakers generally aren't looking far left. Maybe the next step will be to have a trapdoor at the 3 minute mark?

 

I can see some of them wanting just that.
This is just another example of incompetency on this Boards part: they simply made a motion to change it to 3 minutes - they've seen it's not working - just make it 4 or 5 and see if it works better. This is not really rocket science!

 

We bought in 2019. The previous owner told me that because her listing (the house we purchased) did not sell in a year, she had to pay a PIF on the new home in SC that she had bought and moved into.

 

And if you were at the meeting you would witnessed there were several questions asked by the Members that were never answered by the board. Something needs to be done about the 3 minute time limit especially when you consider the fact that they allow you to come back and complete your comments/questions!

3 minutes is obviously too short and there are no documented RCSC Special Rules of Order to be found within there rules that mandates those 3 minutes. When director Atkins made that motion it should have only applied to that one particular meeting. It is required that it be documented as a Special Rule of Order to have it applied to all future meetings, but of course the board knows nothing about Robert's Rules and simply makes-up their own rules as they go!?!? (RONR 12th Ed. 2:14-2:22)