It's one of the 7 deadly sins, so "lust" might not be the right word, but for my purposes, i think it appropriate. For as long as i have lived here and been involved in Sun City governance, i've lusted after legitimate discussion and discourse in our community's governance. Other than fleeting moments of having free-flowing exchanges, most often it's been one-sided or worse yet, non-existent. Back through our formation years, it was the norm. DEVCO nurtured it, knowing the community would be best served by being forged from compromise. Once they left in the 80's it really heated up. The infighting over direction was often fierce. Some wanted more, some wanted less, and out of the struggles came solutions. Agreements merged from hard-fought battles steeped in everyone involved having a voice. The community's documents were built around a process of self-governance including hearty and robust debate. No one was afraid of it. The ultimate winners were the community at large. The solutions were shaped by those who showed up and spoke out. It was never a process of self-determined winners/losers or forgone conclusions. There were members who believed the investment of their time, energy and expertise was well worth the potential outcomes. When i speak historically, i do so in awe. When one knows how we came to be, one tends to better understand just how unique the process was and why we turned out as well as we did. My good friend Ben Roloff who has looked more closely at the underbelly of the beast, literally lights up when we share the stories we have found. So do i. Sun City's past is astonishing. The more we dig the better it gets. We bought in Sun City in 1999, moved here permanently in 2003. I saw up close and personal how it was run. The RCSC was never afraid of the membership, they understood and respected the documents and followed them as they were printed. As they should have. That all changed in 2006. The shift was gradual, but it was present. In 2009, it became dramatic. The move to a quorum of 1250 announced to the membership; we are terrified of you. We simply don't trust you to do the right things for the community. I won't bore you again with how we got to where we are, suffice to say, we did. I was so saddened by direction, i did something i really didn't want to do; ran for the board. For the three years i was there, i was miserable. I've written often, the board was a place where ideas went to die. By the time i got there in 2012, the general manager had firmly in-place the board buying into her ideology. Management had all the answers, the boards role was to embrace them. For those 3 years, any real efforts for debate and discourse were lost on the cutting room floor we called "work sessions." The boards majority, primarily golfers, were an easy sell. Golf was her agenda and it worked for them. The couple of us who saw it differently were just out-voted. It's how boards work. That said, board's also are supposed to be a setting, whether in the minority or the majority, your voice should be heard. At least back in those days, we (Carole and I) could speak out and then they just voted whatever they wanted. My argument always was, let the membership have a voice. It seldom did. It's gotten worse. So, where does the "lust" come in. I yearn for discussion. I crave it. We get virtually none of it. For most of the past 15 years, i have been writing fairly explicit pieces on these pages. I've never been shy about sharing my opinions, my perspectives. My hope has always been folks thinking counter to me would show up and speak out. Tell me why they were right and i was wrong. I'm still waiting. We had one poster who shall go nameless, tell us he was the "new sheriff in town." Cool, i know he has both good writing and speaking skills, so maybe he would help us with a counter argument. Instead his goal was to try and embarrass me with nonsense over the county and my property taxes (a story i told him and many others openly). Then he just went away after the big reveal. The other day, we saw Say What show up and tell us our comments regarding golf were off base and all wrong, she/he was going to do a show and tell that would put us in our place; still waiting. Another former board member, one who actually quit just before the end of his second term (i think), is now posting his comments on the Sun City Advocates page. That's a good thing, kind of. I love that he is compelled to speak out. Love he is willing to share his "knowledge." As a former insider, he has more than most. The problem is, more often than not, he feels compelled to attack those of us who have joined and are a part of the SCA. His latest rants included us being a "band of howling jackals." I try and avoid personal attacks. I've been outspokenly blunt when talking about issues, but calling people names is most often counter-productive. For a man who bills himself as having expertise on many levels, he does little to advance that premise by name calling. That said, i want to develop this thread using some of his words/responses from the Advocate's page. It's pretty clear we will always be hard-pressed to get into an open and honest dialogue or exchange with any board member or someone from the management team. It's simply not in the cards and hasn't been since they all decided to be afraid of the membership. Stay tuned as i will cut and paste his comments and then try and respond. Sadly, it's the closest thing we will get to having legitimate discussion of the issues germane to what is happening within the community. That's tragic, because when you are afraid to talk openly and honestly, everyone loses.
Bill, could you please be more specific about which Advocate page you are talking about? I believe I know, but some folks who read you on here might not be aware. It's not the Sun City Advocate Facebook page. If I'm not mistaken, it's the Sun City Advocate BLOG (https://suncityadvocates.blogspot.com/). I hope your writing here drives more people to our BLOG. (Not sure I inserted a link to the site or just the address.)
That's the page, the one you have linked. The problem beyond just finding it is the reader needs to delve into the comments section and pour through them to get to the bottom of what i am talking about. Hopefully this thread will provide a shortcut and allow us to enjoy our differences of opinion.
I've mentioned several times in my posts on FB that the Comments section is enlightening reading; almost as much as the entire article.
Here’s the direct link to find A Voice in the Wilderness By Christine de Pizarro July 26, 2022 at 6:56 PM “…because you and your band of howling jackals won’t like it. That’s not a prediction, that’s a fact.” https://suncityadvocates.blogspot.com/2022/07/a-voice-in-wilderness.html
Let's just for shits and giggles jump ahead to the quote you posted above; but let me print the entire comment in fairness: "No matter what is contained in the result because your band of howling jackals won't like it. That's not a prediction, that a fact." The grammar aside, what Dave Wieland was referring to was the suggestion Tom Marone and the SCA were waiting and drooling over the rewrite and subsequent release of the bylaws by the ad hoc bylaw committee. What is lost in Dave's comments in their entirety was the Articles of Incorporation that are existence today are the same ones that existed back in the 70's and 80's (and perhaps even in the 90's) when members could and did make motions at general membership meetings when they reached the quorum of 100 and then passed them. The only thing that has changed was the bylaws. The problem is the bylaws cannot be in conflict with the Articles and the Articles give the membership the right to vote on said motions made from the floor. The point here being at least two-fold. The members at the general membership meeting last December were lied to; let me repeat that, LIED TO. The RCSC ruled from the floor we didn't have the right to make and vote on the motions properly before the assembly. They even dragged their attorney in to prop up their argument. Sadly, they lost the video and the footage that showed the attorney giving erroneous answers to the membership. Odd how that worked isn't it? But alas, rather than get angry, we agreed with the idea the ad hoc committee be formed and the motions properly made before the membership be studied by the ad hoc committee and they redraft them in total. Some folks got excited by who was on or not on the committee, i didn't care. I was only interested in one thing; the outcome. Did they pay attention to what we proposed or was this just an effort for our suggestions to go die a quiet death? To be blunt, the current bylaws are an absolute and complete shit show. The 30 plus page document is a nightmare of almost unimaginable proportion. Large numbers of board policies were rolled into them in 2019. It was an exercise in stupidity. There was no reason, other than they could. Having written contract language for a living, my goal was always clear and unambiguous language. I always wanted it to be readable and understandable by the average lay person. The RCSC bylaws were a far cry from that. Dave's most interesting comment may well be one subject to interpretation; or it may well be foretelling the outcome. So you all know, he is one of the 5 members assigned to the ad hoc committee. He has insider knowledge and it would be troubling to me if he is suggesting the outcome is a per-determined document that contains nothing the membership proposed. Or, he was just suggesting, no matter what, we won't be happy. Not sure how he arrived at that? Anyway, this is just the start of trying to have a meaningful discussion about both sides of the issues. We'll see.
When the Ad Hoc Committee was first established I did two things; I sent some members, including the Chair an email. I told them that since Robert's Rules of Order was the RCSC's parliamentary authority, they should first look too Section 56 of the book and familiarize themselves with the "Content and Composition of Bylaws." I also sent them a list of things they needed to address because some of the things they have been doing do not comply with Robert's Rules. I included the citations from the book so they would know where to look to verify my concerns. One of the scariest things I've learned from Mr. Wieland was that he didn't even own a copy of Robert's Rules!??!? How can you amend the bylaws to include their compliance with their parliamentary authority if you don't know what's required? To this day I wonder what Mr. Wieland's qualifications were to be selected. He spouts out his knowledge on finances and state statutes and federal law, but in many cases your organizations own Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws will supersedes even the state statutes...and Robert's Rules will even tell you that! Admittedly, I'm not a parliamentarian or expert on Robert's Rules but with my constant criticism and emails to the board regarding their malfeasance you would have thought that I would have, at least, had an opportunity to be interviewed for a seat on that committee? Didn't happen! What's up with that? Mr. Wieland is just an angry man who will argue that the sky isn't blue! There, I've said it! Tom Marone
Let's keep this discussion going, but before i do, some house cleaning. The aforementioned Dave Wieland and i have been exchanging comments on the Sun City Advocate's website/blog. I hate the tiny boxes we have to post/respond to one another. But then i too hate texting on my phone. It's more a personal thing for me. Anyway, in the start of this thread i asked the question about Dave calling the SCA an angry band of howling jackals and us not being happy with the results. In fairness to Dave, he quickly responded on the SCA blog his comments had nothing to do with where the ad hoc committee was in the process of the rewrite. I take him at face value and accept that response. What he said was apparently premised on the Advocates never being happy with anything the RCSC does as opposed to the outcome. Today, let's focus on this comment he made: "I really don’t care as I have enough faith in management. I guess this is where I am called a “tool” or sympathizer of management because I have faith they will do the right thing and if they don’t then they deserve the criticism." To my knowledge, i've never called him a tool of management or a sympathizer. I have been critical of those who bought into the crap about "loyalty to the corporation," and how that translated to loyalty to the general manager. Oddly, Dave wasn't one of them, and proved it when he abruptly quit as he was nearing the end of his term. If memory serves me it was at a night meeting at Fairway when he shocked the audience and in the middle of the meeting announced his dissatisfaction and quit. Where i do take exception is grounded in logic. Let's not go back over the past 15 years and rehash all of the changes where management and the board stripped members of their rights. I would be happy to "debate" anyone on those changes, but why bother when we have only to look at the June board meeting. Seems to me everyone deserves a chance to prove where they stand. Bill Cook was new and sadly one of his first interactions was the September board meeting in 2021. The board stormed off the stage about two minutes into the meeting. The new GM threatened to have us all arrested for trespassing. Cooler heads prevailed. That was a good thing. Back to my point and one posted in another thread. Both the general manager and the director of golf told the board members before Director Collin's golf motion that "the RCSC made money in 2021 from golf." He said they were profitable which appeared to be the impetus for several board members not to agree to making any changes in outside full play passes. I have been extremely blunt how strongly i feel about this matter. Not that anyone cares. We know from the SCA blog, Dave has told us, he's always know golf wasn't profitable. That they were losing boatloads of money. He knew that because he requested the information from the RCSC financials and it told him exactly that. As an aside, when i requested information from the RCSC prior to last year's annual membership meeting i got less than half of what i requested. But that's another story for another day. My question for Dave or even better yet, any of the current board members reading this; IF the director of golf and the GM lied to you about golf being profitable in 2021, would you still trust them going forward? Trust is earned. In the old days, the board kept their own books, they didn't rely on management giving them the answers to every question. They did their own research. It was a different time and now that the board has become in tune with one source for the answers, they best be right.
Exactly how much money is made on golf in Sun City? From SC members and outside golfers. Thank you. I've been watching the "Golf Situation" very carefully. Please keep Sun City a wonderful place to live. Thank you and consider wearing masks when inside establishments.
I don't really want to get off-track here but I think this is important that pegmih considers the following. We all know that the vaccines didn't prevent getting Covid although it most likely did reduce the severity, but there could also be a very bad consequence from wearing a mask as well. Results from a study referred too as the “Foegen Effect”, strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates. Deep re-inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks as droplets can worsen prognosis and might be linked to long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. A rationale for the increased risk ratio by mandating masks is probably that virions that enter or those coughed out in droplets are retained in the facemask tissue, and after quick evaporation of the droplets, hypercondensed droplets or pure virions (virions not inside a droplet) are re-inhaled from a very short distance during inspiration. The virions spread (because of their smaller size) deeper into the respiratory tract. They bypass the bronchi and are inhaled deep into the alveoli, where they can cause pneumonia instead of bronchitis, which would be typical of a virus infection. Furthermore, these virions bypass the multilayer squamous epithelial wall that they cannot pass into in vitro and most likely cannot pass into in vivo. Therefore, the only probable way for the virions to enter the blood vessels is through the alveoli. Look it up for yourself! Now...back to our regularly scheduled program! Sorry for the interruption!
Golf does not make money! It is supposed to be self sustaining but has been subsidized for years! How much has RCSC golf cost Sun City Members?? From RCSC 990 Tax Filings- Section 3 Golf: Year: Expense: Revenue: 2008 $6,648,397. $5,270,336. 2009 $6,685,952. $4,910,742. 2010 $6,879,743. $4,616,101. 2011 $6,358,743. $4,616,101. 2012 $6,371,127. $4,478,267. 2013 $6,710,874. $4,726,422. 2014 $6,472,755. $4,983,943. 2015 $6,632,002. $4,979,432. 2016 $7,334,931. $5,117,093. 2017 $7,802,129. $5,137,337. 2018 $7,729,191. $5,102,793. 2019 $8,011,411. $5,143,779. How much is too much to subsidize golf?? This from Bill Pearson post 07.27.2022 on It’s Not Even About Golf Anymore thread: Expense 2008 = 1,378,061 2009 = 1,775,210 2010 = 2,263,642 2011 = 1,725,577 2012 = 1,892,860 2013 = 1,984,452 2014 = 1,488,812 2015 = 1,652,570 2016 = 2,217,838 2017 = 2,664,792 2018 = 2,626,398 2019 = 2,867,632 Total = $24,537,844 Expense above revenue TWENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
I believe Dave's words are great examples of why Bill (nor I) can't get what we are looking for, specifically "legitimate discussion and discourse". Misuse of language to make what we say artificially important, like "That's not a prediction, that a fact". Sorry Dave, that actually is a prediction, not a fact. And "I have faith they will do the right thing". Right and wrong are not universally black and white - that is merely the beginning of a serious conversation. Right and wrong are individual interpretations of things based on each and every persons unique value system. So what Bill Cook thinks is 'right' is not necessarily what I, or any other 35,000 Member thinks is 'right'. The real discussion needs to be about what DOES Bill think is right. As the GM of a large corporation his responsibility is our financial security. Selling surplus product at a reduced price is a legitimate (and smart) business decision. It's 'right' to him. Giving preferential treatment to non-residents in using our facilities is 'wrong' to so many of us. Maybe the solution is to not blindly say "right or wrong", but to have relevant parties be open and honest about what they are doing - AND THE REASONS WHY. Stop assuming, stop judging, stop being polar or even single minded. Then solutions are reached. Do I believe the ByLaws Committee is working in secret to intentionally strip Members of more rights? - of course not. Do I believe they will make mistakes that will result in more rights being lost or rights not being re-established? - I absolutely do. That's why I attended meetings and spoke against close door sessions. The seven of you are doing what you think is "right" and what I think is "wrong". We are both correct based on our value systems.
Damn, jeb, you don't post often, but when you do, damn; nail, meet hammer's head. Many of us suffer from the need to be right. I often find myself trying to help folks understand what i write are just my opinions. That's until i start using actual data, the numbers don't lie. How we interpret them is subject to just that, our biases. It's exactly why my position, since the day i moved to Sun City was; as a community we all thrive when we involve and engage the membership. I'm no genius; i am fairly knowledgeable on Sun City's history. I know the infighting and battles that got us to where we were by 2006. It wasn't always pretty, but it was effective. My love affair with and for the community was based on that self-governance was at our core and inclusion was the glue that held it all together. Starting in 2006, i watched as all of that began to be dismantled. Every couple of years, for at least the past ten, i have started threads on TOSC tryiny to help people understand the difference between a for profit business and a not-for profit organization. Obviously i have come up well short. Most of those elected to the RCSC board have come from the for-profit side of the equation. Same with the management team. Your golf analysis is brilliant: "Selling surplus product at a reduced price is a legitimate (and smart) business decision." Absolutely true in a for-profit setting. Dead merchandise is just that. Prime time tee times will never be dead merchandise, members fight over them. Years back i added my signature to the bottom of every post i do. It simply says, "community before corporation, people before politics." It's short and sweet, but says it all. The general manager's decision's to sell tee times to non-residents in a for-profit setting would be deemed brilliant. In Sun City, the minute it stripped the membership of their ability, their right to enjoy the amenities we all paid for was the day the board should have shut it down. If they want to golf on our courses let them pay the full non resident rates; no discounts. Instead they rallied around him. We read from Dave, he'll trust management do the right thing. Really? Clearly they haven't. This isn't subjective any longer. We know many in the golfing community are angry and they simply said tough. Apparently the argument is we need the outsiders money to subsidize golf. What a loaded crock of shit. We've been subsidizing golf to the tune of two million dollars a year and then burying it so no one knew how bad it was. Dave went on to claim as a member of the debate team in high school, he was smart enough to know exactly what i was trying to do on TOSC. Which is exactly another reason you were spot on; "words matter." What people say and more importantly do matters. The RCSC has run from the membership for the past 15 years, they've pretended to listen and care, but every step of the way they pushed them/us away. Yes it's my opinion which is why i usually add the anecdotal proof. Think not? Simply look at the outcry regarding them giving away our golf courses to outsiders. Their reaction was to vote down Director Collins motion which would have begun to address it and now i am told they have implemented the $250 increase on both of the full play non-resident passes. That will do absolutely nothing to stop the abuses by those accessing our amenities from the outside for less money than those of us living here would pay when we step on a golf course. Before i close, i looked, they did in fact raise the rates on the two passes; $2750 (with car) and $2250 (without car). They must have just done it. They left the ability to access the web portal, to join with small groups (30 or more) and be guaranteed their tee times and not even have to enter the lottery and to get a golf car for less money than a member would pay. I guess the only question now is; Dave do you still trust them to do the right thing?
Thanks for feeding my inflated ego, Bill And I believe this 'incremental increase' just reaffirms what we are talking about. Its a good business decision if you're for-profit or need a balanced budget: higher price, lower demand - find a balance. But that's never been Sun City golf - it is ALWAYS subsidized, either thru assessments or PIF. They could literally discontinue public play and we would not go out of business. So again, on the one hand Management is being good financial stewards - but on the other hand, missing the overriding principle that they are OUR facilities. And this is where I get disappointed at some of our current Board Members - they are not suppose to forget that basic principle. Never. Kudos to Director Collins for pushing the issue - and shame on that handful who, for whatever their motive, are not being good representatives or stewards of this community.
“Kudos to Director Collins for pushing the issue - and shame on that handful who, for whatever their motive, are not being good representatives or stewards of this community” Those directors served and obeyed a GM who demanded loyalty to THE corporation. Members/owners, systematically became voiceless “cardholders.”
Still waiting for Say What; he/she threw the hand grenades about blowing up our golf discourse and then ducked into the bunker never to be heard from again? No surprise; really. Anyway, i want to grab a cut from the Sun City Advocates blog from former board member Dave Wieland. There is a 29 back and forth exchange on the comment page which i find healthy. It's civil (for the most part), and presents a viewpoint other than my "biased" opinion (i freely admit i have a bias). Much of the discourse is between Tom Marone and Dave as they duel over Robert's Rules of Order. I'm not expert, other than to know the purpose of RR is to establish procedure that is consistently applied. Most of our (the SCA's) argument is the president kind of does whatever she pleases and then the parliamentarian blesses it (all under her breath in hushed tones to said pres). I did want to take a moment and address a comment Dave made. By the way, he reads these comments but for some reason can't respond here. He used to and so you know, he often does respond on the SCA blog. The exchange regarding the fired board members in 2020 and 2021 began when he mentioned the SCA brings up the firing of those two board members often. Guilty as charged. The reality is, it was Karen being fired that started this whole shit show. I thought when we admitted we do bring it up, it would end, but he fired back with this: "As for the Barbara/Karen axis, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Not being familiar with the Barbara situation, I highly doubt it was over financial statements as I have stated previously. Considering that two maybe three of last year’s Board composition knew anything about financials, same for this year’s Board." A lot of times, i just let stuff role off my back. Sorry Dave, not this time. When Barbara was fired, it didn't create a ripple on Viewpoint Lake. No one knew or cared...i did. When Barbara ran for the board in 2020, i was stunned by her credentials. Her 30 plus years background in property management and oversight on very large projects was impressive. Along with her legal and financial classes, my immediate reaction was she was better suited to be applying for the general managers job. I also had the privilege of knowing and working with her at the Museum as the liaison from the RCSC. Her comments to me before meetings were surprising. Board members are seldom that straight forward with me. In the summer of 2020, while the general manager was on her annual month of July off, she requested from Bill Cook copies of the financials. Along with it, she was given copies of the auditors notes. When the RCSC returned from the summer hiatus, she immediately called a couple of the board members regarding questions she had. Oops, bad mistake, never question the GM. She was promptly fired. How do i know this? I've spent an hour or two on the phone with her. She moved out of Sun City and lives in Florida near family. So we are clear, when she was fired i asked a board member why she was gone and was told she was questioning the RCSC financials. God forbid a board member should raise questions regarding how the RCSC keeps their books. By your own admission Dave, they are strange. I won't get into the whole Karen/conflict of interest allegations other than to ask you one simple question: Was there any conflict when the board awarded the Sportsman Club an indoor archery range that's rarely ever open and now has an officer who was the board president at the time? So much for Dale's whole data driven drivel. How's that "smell test" working now?
For those interested in viewing, tap Sun City Advocates Blog and specifically Voice in the Wilderness thread referenced by Bill.
