If you could ask the RCSC Board of Directors to focus on 3 things, what would they be?

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by Stephen Malkowski, Jan 16, 2023.

  1. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    Come on folks, a little intellectual honesty and common sense will tell you that that survey is worthless. If the RCSC really wants to know what things will attract future retirees to Sun City you can't just ask the current retirees living here now. All they're going to tell you are the things that THEY want! You need to ask the next and future generations of retirees what they will be looking for in a retirement community which means the survey shouldn't be limited to only current Sun City residence but has to be directed out to the general public across a very broad spectrum of geographic areas to get a true prospective.

    Too bad they spent so much money on a useless survey! They could have used that money to buy better Staff shirts!?!?
     
    Enigma likes this.
  2. eyesopen

    eyesopen Active Member

    Next steps do include surveying potential future residents.

    Per Bill Cook, GM at the RCSC June, 2022 board meeting:

    • “We will survey the community then once we have received the results, we will have focus groups and working groups.. One group will discuss the results and the other will discuss action plans based on the results of the survey. All of the working and focus groups will be made of RCSC management and membership.
    • We will also do benchmarking and look at other communities similar to ours. We will do Trend Analysis as well by looking at other 55+ communities across the country to look at other trends.
    • There will also be a survey for future residents as well which will be broadcast wherever we decide.
    • ASU will help with Long Range Planning which is also included.”
     
  3. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    That's what the $55,000 dollars should have been spent on in the first place!
     
  4. suncityjack

    suncityjack Active Member

    For me it was close to 1 1/2 hours! Of course I wrote in every section where they allowed writing....WAY TOO LONG for a survey. I'd be very surprised at what the final tally will be since I can't imagine most residents taking the time to wade through that much poorly worded and arranged material. Which survey have you ever taken where ranking scales vary within the same survey? How can answers mean anything when they ask about a broad topic like quality of exercise equipment and don't specify which rec center? We have 7 and the quality and quantity varies greatly! Places where I wanted to add comments they were not allowed. Places where comments weren't as necessary, had areas provided. Also some really stupid stuff like asking about community dinners and events we never have and asking us how often we attend.
    Would've been really nice if RCSC would've let those of us residents with survey writing experience and experience living in Sun City could have brainstormed with the ASU folks....
    An overall depressing experience that will not be able to provide accurate insights and cost way too much.
     
  5. suncityjack

    suncityjack Active Member

    RE: Future residents survey
    Why are we so concerned about appealing to those yet to live here? People miraculously keep finding us and houses sell as soon as they are put up for sale, so why isn't the focus on making those of us here already more satisfied? We're not in competition with other active adult communities: we are unique. RCSC's job is not to market the community to those not living here already--leave that to the realtors. And they should stop crowing about how cheap we are in comparison to other places--look what that is bringing us: not residents into perpetuating the "City of Volunteers" template, but bargain hunting investors who often rent to people not interested in investing their time and talents into keeping our costs lower by volunteering for PRIDES and Posse, etc.
     
  6. suncityjack

    suncityjack Active Member

    I like yours so I'll ditto it. Never thought safety would've been as much of a concern as it has become in the last few years, so glad you listed that as I wasn't thinking of it alongside RCSC issues, but of course it is. So, since you've made the ditto-able list, I'll just stick all yours under a bigger umbrella and call it
    "Restoration of a sense of community" since it's broad enough to cover everything else and everything else would start falling into place under it if we'd all truly buy into the community we bought into.
     
  7. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    So very well stated scj. If there was one thing, and only one thing i could ask the RCSC to fix, it would be restoring that sense of community bred into Sun City for 50 plus years. While some argue it unattainable or undefinable, i would disagree. 50 years of history tells us a different story. Community problems were solved by community members who were asked to be involved. They willingly gave of their time and expertise.

    The argument goes; people have changed, they don't want to come here and volunteer, they come here to have fun. It was for that exact reason the change from the "City of Volunteers" to the "Original Fun City" slogan evolved. It is exactly why we quit asking residents to become involved; thinking informing them was the same as making them part of the process of self-governance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Yesterday at the board meeting we heard the GM's report on all the technology work orders they filled last year. While clearly he was impressed with his statistics, i looked at where we are from an IT standpoint and saw an absolute shit show that could have been avoided had we only asked the membership along the way to be part of the solutions to insure we weren't 15 years behind the technology needs of our community.

    With nearly 40,000 residents (members and privilege card holders), do you think there just might have been some really, really qualified community experts who would have offered to serve on a technology committee? As scj pointed out, do you think had the RCSC actively created an ad hoc survey preparation committee, we could have found folks who had done that exact job in their work life and they would have agreed to a 6 month to 1 year commitment, done a far better job and saved us the incredibly costly expense of using ASU to produce the poorly constructed thing sitting in our email box?

    We know boomers are different when it comes to volunteering. They typically aren't looking to sign up for the next 20 years sitting at the Visitor's Center greeting potential buyers every Tuesday from noon to 4 pm. They want job specific shorter time commitments, especially if they are still working. None of this is new data, it's been around for years, we just elected to go the other way. We ran from what works to the arms of telling new buyers, stay away, we'll take care of it.

    That would assume the folks running the RCSC were infallible. No one is, nor should we rely on them to provide us every answer. It was folly at best and now as we look across the community we find ourselves trying to retrench and rebuild. It was why i was so excited by the outcome of the RCSC election. January has been disappointing from that perspective. Their first action was to bring back a retread (no offense intended Denny) and yesterday we saw them pass motions without second readings. Unacceptable from my vantage point. Both were what the old guard did year after year.

    Anyone familiar with growing a successful organization knows you absolutely need to grow the circle; knows you need bring new-comers along, not keep relying on the same folks to carry the load. The open board position was the perfect spot to add someone who had a year to grow into the job or prove they couldn't handle it. Instead we filled it with a person who won't run next year.

    My good friend, Ben Roloff, taught me a valuable lesson; earn to ask people to be involved. I was one of those guys who thought i could do it alone. It was easier to just do it, rather than ask. He better understood the values of involving large groups and helping them take ownership of both the process and the organizations they were strengthening. In that regard, people haven't changed. The RCSC were the ones who elected to evolve to a place where they would provide us every answer. How has that worked out for us?

    Sorry to have hijacked the posters question about the issues that need be addressed by answering the survey. Unfortunately as scj pointed out, the questionnaire we received wasn't created to get these kinds of answers. They were generic and less than compelling in wanting to find answers. Not to be critical, but i can tell you right now the general manager will tout the numbers returned and compile a list of feel good stuff to make everything they do seem spot on.

    That was the entirety of hiring an outside agency to do it.
     
    eyesopen likes this.
  8. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    Yeah, what's up with that? Waiving the second reading should be limited only to items that require immediate implementation!

    And how about bringing back the Member "comment" section at the end of the meetings while maintaining that the comments must be related to a posted motion? Many times the motions have been amended more than once prior to there final passage which could have added or deleted certain provisions that, if you had known about earlier, would have had a comment about!

    I get it, it's their meeting, but if they're really interested in our comments then we should be allowed to comment on the actual motion that was passed, not the one that was simply proposed!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2023 at 5:30 PM
  9. Janet Curry

    Janet Curry Member

    I agree with you, FYI Well Known Member, that waiving of the second reading should be reserved for items that need to be implemented immediately. I had emailed that thought to some of the Board members, but they must have their reasons for waiving the second reading. My guess is that there is nothing in the current bylaws that indicate the Directors meet for Informational Sessions after the Exchange. Anytime the Board meets with a quorum and discusses RCSC business, Members should be aware of those meetings. Rule 10 allows for those closed door meetings. Hopefully "waiving the second reading" will not become a habit.

    Regarding the CoChair versus Vice Chair discussion, that was pointed out to our Ad Hoc committee by our parliamentarian. She stated that Robert's Rules of Order use the terms Chair and Vice Chair, not CoChairs. Additionally I think it better reflects the way the committees are currently operating. There were several of us who knew that the change was to comply with Robert's Rules, but we are not allowed to comment at that point of the meeting. I am surprised that our committee's CoChairs, Director Lenefsky and Director Fimmel, didn't remember the parliamentarian pointing this out to us. If that had been known up front, perhaps Ms. Akins would not have accused the Board of using that to be divisive. It has nothing to do with definitions or intent other than simply complying with Robert's Rules which is stated in the bylaws (unless otherwise stated).

    Related to that, during one of our Ad Hoc meetings, I asked our parliamentarian if Members can speak to an amendment and she indicated that we could. I am going to look up in my RONR book to see when it is appropriate for Members to speak to a motion. I have always been under the impression that it would be after the motion had been made and seconded. Or, to take the easy way out, I might just ask Tom Marone, I am quite sure he will know. Chime in, Tom!

    For me, I have spoken in favor of allowing Members to gather signatures on RCSC property. However, I want people to know that I have no intention of filing for any petition at this time and I will be very cautious about signing one unless I consider it the last resort to a problem that can't be settled otherwise. Also, I do not know of anyone who is poised to start any petitions but I am glad that motion passed so the process is available if needed. Some other details may need to be worked out. The new Board can't address all of the issues at once.

    I think the new Board and officers are doing a fine job. This was there first meeting in their new roles! It appears that some people are still sensitive to the election results. Hopefully the nine Directors can proceed with civility and get the business done effectively. I trust they can and wish them well.
     
    Enigma and eyesopen like this.
  10. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    Hey Janet, Tom Marone here:

    The following is my understanding regarding the permissibility of allowing a Member/Guest to speak to an amendment or motion in accordance with Robert's Rules.

    First of all, only Members have the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate and to vote (RONR 1:4). If you're not a member of the board then you have no right to even be there unless otherwise specified in the bylaws. The RCSC bylaws clearly allows Member/Guests to attend board meetings and comment but it says nothing about allowing Member/Guests to participate in debate.

    So...if you were to read RONR 33:11, and 33:12 you will clearly find that a motion only belongs to the maker of that motion up to the time at which the motion is once again stated by the chair. So, a motion made and seconded still doesn't yet belong to the assembly/board so that is, in my opinion, when the Member/Guests can comment.

    Once the chair states the motion it belongs strictly to the members of the board and if a Member/Guest were to speak to that motion during that time they would be in essence participating in debate, which they are not allowed to do because they are not members of that assembly.

    I know, it seems a little crazy but that's only because the bylaws allow Member/Guests to attend board meetings and comment.

    I wasn't there when the parliamentarian made her comment about allowing Members to speak to an amendment/motion so I don't know if she was only referring to the permissibility stated in the bylaws or did she actually believe a non-board member could participate in debate?
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2023 at 12:40 AM
    Enigma, Janet Curry and eyesopen like this.
  11. Janet Curry

    Janet Curry Member

    Thanks, Tom, for your expertise! I don't think the parliamentarian differentiated whether the RCSC Member could participate in debate or not, but I doubt if that is what she meant. My question was regarding if an amendment significantly changed the motion, could we speak to it again? In other words, if I spoke in favor of a motion, then a Director made a motion for an amendment which was seconded, we would be able to speak again. At least that was my take on it. I don't think we should be part of the debate, but several of us could have clarified the CoChair/Vice Chair issue for them and saved them time. I bet you were wanting to inform them about that according to RONR.
     
  12. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    That's the exact reason for my previous comment that we should be allowed to comment on the motions that were on the agenda at the end of the meetings too.

    I would have mentioned that RONR advises that the term "co-chair" not be used and Director Collins motion should have been voted on, but because most of the board members are ignorant (I mean that respectively) of RONR they don't know what RONR says about the term co-chair.

    If they knew RONR there wouldn't have been a real need to even debate the issue. You either comply with RONR or you don't!
     
    eyesopen likes this.
  13. eyesopen

    eyesopen Active Member

    Wondering why a former director spoke so passionately opposing this motion, co- correction to vice-. SMH…
     
  14. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    That's because she's not familiar with RONR!
     
  15. FYI

    FYI Well-Known Member

    On that note; I know RONR is a large book and not necessarily very easy to understand, but is it asking too much that a Director should understand, at least on a little more than just a basic knowledge, the rules that they are supposed to govern us and the corporation under?

    You certainly don't want judges and law enforcement agencies to pass judgement on people without knowing the actual law. Shouldn't the same apply to those 9 Directors who are in control of a multi-million dollar corporation?

    Just say'n!
     
  16. eyesopen

    eyesopen Active Member

    What, if any, training is provided to our RCSC directors?
    RCSC should host workshops covering a variety of governing topics regularly for the entire board, not just for newly elected directors.
     
  17. Linda McIntyre

    Linda McIntyre Well-Known Member


    You are absolutely right! My understanding - little to no real Board training. Which is a serious problem in my opinion. It's very unfair to them - and ultimately the community. RCSC is complicated, and they can't be expected to know or understand all the nuances, background, best practices, nonprofit finance/budgeting, personnel structure, policy/procedure. Is there a handbook for directors with past Board and standing committee minutes, past audit reports. It's a lot of work just managing the Board!
     
    eyesopen likes this.

Share This Page