For any outsider reading this site or those who follow but aren't all that involved in how we are run, i thought it might be beneficial to break down what happened this week. It's east to get lost in the in the "excitement" of the RCSC's win or those suffering the angst over the "loss." As i have written numerous times, Sun City will be just fine either way. I am surprised it passed, but the changes made when the bill was reintroduced under the striker provision made it appear to be for more than just two communities impacted. For those new to us or interested in buying here, we (Sun City) is a community built on the concept of self-governance. We run ourselves. There is no mayor, no city council, no real structured political process like where you came from. We are just different. The Del E Webb Development Corporation (DEVCO) played an integral role by holding our hand during the 18 years it took to sell out the 27,000 rooftops. They worked with those elected by the community to develop documents that have served us for nearly 60 years. The most important were the Articles of Incorporation. They are the framework the other documents flow from. The corporate by-laws are next and the board policies are after that. All have been amended over the years, with the Articles being the least changed. Until the mid 2000's we lived with broad powers given to the community as a part of those documents. Historically there have been fascinating times where those living here found themselves in significant disagreements with elected officials in various organizations. They always had a mechanism to deal with it. Petitions played a huge role in challenging authority. Some day we will visit just how significant a role it played. For now, suffice to say, we no longer have that same ability to get signatures. Our documents were changed to insure that wouldn't happen. Unfortunately that wasn't the only change that was made. The most staggering was when the quorum was changed from 100 members to 3500 and then dropped to 1250. Since that change, we have never had a membership meeting. We've never reached a quorum. It was just one of several changes that created a concentration of power at the top. This legislation was triggered by a lawsuit brought by a small group of residents. I won't belabor why, but one of the outcomes was a court order the RCSC should fall under Title 33 which is the Planned Communities Act. We've (the RCSC ) has always argued we are not a Home Owners Association (HOA) and the state statute we follow is Title 10, which covers corporations. Title 33 was passed after we were formed and is much more restrictive in how organizations are run. There are built in protections for home owners. When the judge issued the ruling, the RCSC decided they should hold open meetings rather than closed door work sessions, rather than follow his order. That was a good thing. Those engaged in the suit see it another way. Their attorney will only be paid if he "wins" the suit and gets the judge to award damages. For most of them, they don't care about the impact or cost to the RCSC (which is all of us). It's why many of us have stayed away from the litigation. In essence, we were suing ourselves. How crazy is that? That said, those of us who have watched the RCSC the past 12 years move away from a more democratic system of governance have been frustrated. The concentration of powers in the GM and the board's hands has been a shift from how we were built and why we were successful. Sadly, like this legislation, it's all been touted as what they needed to do to save us. Really? The vast majority of people living here love the community. The vast majority don't get involved. They trust those running it to do the right thing. I could argue whether they have, but that would just be one man's opinion. In the end, i am neither high-fiving the "win" nor slashing my wrists over the "loss." We, for at least the time being, are having meetings out in the open and that has been an improvement. The board has been more inclined to question decisions made by management and that's a far cry from what has gone on over the last 10 years. The lawsuit is still in front of the judge and will resume later in the year. My guess is the legislation the RCSC pushed through will have him seeing red. If you watched the discussion at the state, you saw Senator Gray accuse him of being wrong. I guess only local politicians are infallible. My biggest discomfort over the last couple of months has been the supporters of the bill being willing and able to lie at the drop of a hat. Maybe it's the new normal to just say whatever you want, but that hasn't been how we operated and it is disappointing to see it become our go to technique to get buy-in. For those of you who stayed with this diatribe, sorry for the length. We are a very special community with a remarkable history. Sadly, the further we stray from our roots, the more we lose our uniqueness. In the end, we'll all be fine one way or another.
I am curious, do you really feel the reaffirmation of the Title 10, and all is good they way it was, it going to shut down the open meetings? I feel the GM will view this as her golden moment and undo any and all positive changes and put the work sessions back into play, back behind closed doors where she has the ultimate control of the board. I truly hope the judge reaffirms his decision for the Planned Communities Act, which would now be a precedent over the most recent "legislation" sold to the community. This is such a huge loss for the community, as well as other planned communities, it makes me very sad to think there is such a huge payoff for so many lies.
Fair question Carole: "Will they shut down the open meetings and go back to closed door work sessions?" I have rolled that around in my mind and i cannot envision any board member foolish enough to think that kind of action would float. Do i think the Gm would love to go back to the "good old days?" Absolutely. Oddly enough, i have heard from at least a couple of board members who like the new format. You know the passive aggressive technique would be challenging. Trying to get board members to think it was their idea would be a stretch no matter how it would be sugar coated and laced with niceties. Nope, i think open meetings are the new normal. The shortcoming is board members can cluster away from the maddening crowd and decide which way the mop flops. Under T33, there would be hell to pay if they did that.
