Sorry for the touch of vulgar, but given my style or lack there of, i've often found myself in this position. The actual line is "went over like a fart in church" and yesterday was one of those days. We had our final meeting of the the CC&R review committee yesterday before we make our recommendations for the board at the Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA). It has been a really well run committee, as SCHOA president, Jim Hunter as solicited input from the community non-stop. In fact, virtually all of our recommendations have come from the community at-large. This thread has virtually nothing to do with that. Nope, this was about how well received i was was when i shared my opinion about SCHOA endorsing the T33 legislation. The committee included two former RCSC board members, two SCHOA presidents, one current, one past and the director of SCHOA. It was pretty simple for me, i almost quit the committee over SCHOA's actions. Thankfully i have learned over the years you gain little by being on the outside looking in. That said, people pretty much let me rant a bit rather than debate the merits for or against. At the end of the meeting, i did have a brief discussion and the thing that becomes clear is how well people have been indoctrinated about how bad T33 is. It's hard for folks to articulate why, it's just a widely held belief when the government, in this case the state, gets involved, it is not a good thing. That is fascinating to me because i invariably ask if that is true, why has Sun City West been able to adapt and flourish under it? Usually that draws a blank look and people usually say, well, that's different. No, hell no it's not. We are mirror images of one another. Rather than debate it, i will ask the question of readers here i asked one of the participants yesterday. We know the 386 (give or take recent changes) condo associations are covered under T33. Many of them are struggling to find officers. In part, because T33 clearly mandates behavior that is accountable, transparent and everything has to be done in accordance with the statutes. Which drives me to this simple question: Would Sun City condo associations be better off if they could follow Title 10 and just do as they please? They could set their own rules and change them as they see fit. It would obviously make it easier, but would it make it better or worse for those owning them? I know, there will be only a handful of responses, but the ability to reach and educate is a long slow process. This discussion may be one of the most boring topics you can find, but it is also one of them that even those with some knowledge find challenging to understand. Hence the header; hell, everyone likes a good fart in church.
As a part of the CEU's (continuing education units) for Title 33, let me break it down why this matters. Conversely i would invite those who feel we are better off under T10 to share their reasons for clinging to it. The only way any of this makes sense is when people can get their arms and head around why it is important. The easiest way is to transpose the differences on two hot button items and how they were handled, one under T10, the other underT33. Both raised eyebrows, but little else; other than from some of us sitting in the peanut gallery. We have talked often about the massive expenditures from the PIF fund and capital expenditures for golf, i say 40 million, others argue less. In either case, it is a hell a lot of money. The other was when the board (and Carole and i were on it), deleted the long range planning committee. These decisions were made and impacted the community in ways that will affect us for years to come. Yes, both were voted on in front of the membership. Both were agenda items shared at the Member/Exchange. All of the meetings presented opportunities for people to bitch and moan. The reality is the actual decisions and discussions were made away from the community and the press in closed door work sessions. Had we been under T33, there could have been dozens of people in the room to hear the arguments and why we should shovel money at golf and to abandon taking community input as to how that money was spent. The game changes dramatically when they have to make these kinds of community changing rules in front of people. When they have to say things and answer questions in front of the maddening crowd. Those of us in the minority aren't just left to lick our wounds as the majority does what it wants. If you have gone to either board meetings or member/exchanges, you know they politely take your input, may answer simple questions and then trudge off to the work session and do their thing. Like it or not, it is how it works under Title 10. That is one of the reasons they want to maintain the status quo. The question is, don't we deserve better than that?
Yes, we deserve better than this. The fact that the Board and Managment would go down a legislative path that forever changes the essential character (community before corporation, people before politics) of Sun City without a fair vetting of its membership is the exact reason (among a plethora of other reasons) we need Title 33. Was there a vote before Jan Ek sent out her emails? Was there deliberation? What was said in that deliberation? How much was spent on this effort? Who authored the bill? Who authored the emails? Was there any attempt to talk with membership? Who on the Board was in favor? Opposed? We will never know these questions and a host of others so long as Sun City operates without transparency and accountability. This is shameful.
Riggo, you are asking these questions in jest right? Do you really think the board was even consulted before these emails went out? They got them the same time the intended recipients got them. I also believe the board members, old and new, have been given the "scary" speech about the closing down of Sun City as they know it and must approve this action. I wonder if anyone was offered any koolaid to drink while reading these letters depicting such dire consequences? Just wondering aloud.
This is rather frightening if the emails went out without Board review and approval. Another reason Title 33 is needed. Management works under the direction of the BOD and not visa versa.
To retract and clear up a prior message, I made an assumption about when the board received these emails.. I am not a board member, I am not in contact with any board members, therefore, my statement is pure conjecture. My assumption would be the scary, horrible things were discussed back and forth in emails with the board members. Those emails probably contained language in them with the intent to stir fear within the board members. The next step would then be to garner approval from the majority of the members to issue these letters publicly, with the board members approval, which I am sure was reached. Once a majority agreed to sent the email blast, it was sent by Jan. Forget the "koolaid" statement, I was having a moment of sarcasm there. I do not know when the next reading will be, as I don't see it in the resource I am using to monitor the bill's reading and votes. "ASSOCIATION DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS CREATED OR INCORPORATED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT." The word "sole" is missing from the RCSC Corporate documents, and would take a 10% vote in order to change the wording. This also goes straight against what the Judge has already issued as an opinion, so I also fear for judicial reprisal not only from the judge, but an escalation of the suit. All I can see is dollar costs just racking up like crazy, to the detriment of the members.
As expected, no one from the pro-T10 group bothered to respond to my question whether the Condo Associations would be better served if they too were title 10. It's always easier to play defense by just leaving the consensus opinion about the evils of 33 to fester without having to explain why. While there is some cost, it is minimal in the grand scheme of things; the real benefit is to be able to do as you please without repercussions. Under the T33, the real cost can become expensive if you fail to follow the law and it becomes easier to sue for damages. I mentioned i asked a friend who lives in a condo whether he felt Sun City condo's would be better served under T10 than T33? His answer was no, but, comparing the RCSC having to operate under it was wholly different than a condo group having to; akin to comparing apples to oranges. But is it really? T33 forces condo's to become disciplined in their actions and answerable to their owners. They have to act in ways that forces them to follow the law. Imagine if condo's associations just did as they pleased; the chaos that followed would be nightmarish. I guess you could argue, the RCSC is obligated to follow their own "rules." The simple reality as has been pointed out by IC is, that is why they rewrote them so many times. Changing the rules makes life simpler and less subject to membership actions. Had T33 been in place over the years, would we be where are today? Would we have dumped 40 million dollars into a sport struggling to pay their way? Would the Long Range Planning committee been kicked to the curb? Would we have had at least a legitimate push to buy the Lakes Club? That last one stills drives me bonkers because buying the Lakes Club had the potential to be a 20 million dollar game changer. Had we pushed back one golf course remodel for 5 years we could have bought and remodeled it for 6 to 8 million dollars. We wouldn't be looking at dumping 10 million dollars into Mountainview (because the Theater would have been at the Lakes Club), not bought the property on Grand Ave (that by the time it is done will be another 8 to 10 million dollars), not have a 5 million dollar price tag for an administrative building on the books, and not be looking at some astronomical renovation remodel at Lakeview that may or may not remove the historic rec center. When everything is done in the light of day rather than behind closed doors, perspectives change, opinions become more open and discussions take on a far broader appeal. I get it; the GM wants to do things her way, the board loves the control/power that comes with unfettered decision making. Under 33 that all changes. It's why i often lament my time on the board, i could have/should have done better.
Bill, I was there, and you could not have been more demanding, insistent, or steadfast than you were. You, yelled, pleaded, and tried to compromise, all for naught. Why? The cards were stacked against you. There are 9 votes on the board, 5 of which were always tied up by golf and the GM's wishes. Even the president wouldn't make a move or say a word without a nod of approval from Jan. There screaming matches, finger pointing, and name calling all in the effort to try and sway an immovable force. Then came the Lakes Club. We were told it would be handled, we were told it would take a special call to a special person at Banner in order to get into negotiations, and to please let the GM handle it. So, based upon trust, we let the GM handle it. We were told of several calls to the office, only to speak with a secretary, a proposed lunch that was cancelled last minute, and then finally, the deal with GCU was done and couldn't be changed. This went on over a period of months. Had the GM been truly interested in the proposition it would have gone through. The realty of it is, she had her eye on golf, and that is where the monies were going to be spent. Trying to get open meetings, such as the one for the dog park that is in existence now took a real effort, as no one on the board wanted to see the dog park succeed. So, when we had the meetings with the attendees, the board president did all he could to be obtrusive and unavailable. It was you and I taking over the meeting which finally found some answers. Having open meetings with the bands over the charges, ugly, but needed to be done. We did it, we listened, made a few minor changes to meet some concessions, and then the deal was done. At least these people got to have a say, even if it was all almost negative, they had their day before the microphone before the board. The stacked board made it impossible to accomplish anything of the ideas and suggestions we brought forward. The orchestration of events which led to the loss of the LRPC, the golf, all golf, and nothing but golf was Jan Ek with the contingent who gave her the powers to do as she pleased. The work sessions which went on forever were grueling because no one would move on their position, except for one, he would leave the meetings making sure not to miss his tee time. How do you function in such a vacuum? You don't. There was such a level of frustration and anger, that yes, I broke down in tears, more than once. The exhaustion of trying to be the voice for the members only to have it cut off by golf, well, is was exacerbating. Be proud you kept your voice when everyone tried to silence it.. Be grateful you kept your morals high when others went low. But most of all, be the person who still believes there are still chances for change and positive outcomes, because I truly believe there is a new horizon coming and it will be then your voice will finally be heard. You will be a real champion for the members, a position which is sorely needed. I am glad I get to have claimed a small piece of time with you and your work, it was amazing. PS I still believe if we lease the 13000 ft available now, we are in first place to get the rest of the space when the time comes. It will be at that point the building could be leased or negotiated for a sale. Having our foot in the door is the first step to getting to the sale.
