The Sun City Advocates page is up and running. It is a slow process of growth (we knew that) and the bigger problem is answering emails on it are a challenge. There are comments allowed but the formatting for answering questions isn't all that good. Perhaps it will get better. So, i have taken the liberty of answering them here on TOSC, where links back to the answers can be directed. Two quick things; i haven't posted the name of the person asking (though i could and would if people consent to it), and these answers are my opinions, as we (SCA) have agreed, as a group we do not always have nor want absolute consensus amongst us. I will post the question in red with my answers to follow: 1). A bit confused on what we can talk to the board about, I take it has to do with only agenda items. People still ask about Mountain View but we seem not to know very much. How did the ad hoc committee recommendation get pushed aside? And why? There is no question, it is confusing about the changes coming at board meetings. Apparently we will only be allowed to discuss motions being voted on at the meeting. There's no doubt this was done to stifle member comments and shorten the meeting. Suffice to say, it is a departure from past board meetings were member comments have always been welcomed. Even back in the day when there were two board/member exchanges and one board meeting per month, open comments were always allowed and welcomed. The second part of your question is a bit more challenging, given i wasn't on the MV ad hoc committee. I do recall at a recent meeting a member of the ad hoc committee spoke and said what they had recommended was about half of what was actually on the new plan. If you remember back to last year in May the original plan was not as elaborate, but when June came, the new and improved Plan B with a reposition of the theater took on a whole new look, vibe and cost. Worse yet they rammed it through with only two readings. If memory serves me, i think they said the architect came up with the plan due to parking/traffic flow. 2). Hate to sound like a kook, but why do these people cling to their board seats like it’s a paid job? I worked for two companies where people in power were taking kick backs. How do we know this isn’t happening now ? Maybe money maybe perks? How would we know. There's always an element of mistrust when transparency is thrown out the window. It's why i have long argued, nothing should be hidden, buried or done behind closed doors. Ultimately when things go awry, we often see/think the worst. I will say up front (and i used to argue this with another group in Sun City who battled for near on 20 years to get Sun City to function under Tittle 33) i cannot imagine a board member ever profiting from their decisions. It literally could put them in jail. The second part of your question regarding a board member clinging to their seat is a little more difficult. In the beginning (1960's), there were 1 year term limits to board positions. Then it became 2 years and then a 3 year limit. That changed somewhere around 2005 when the board voted to allow a second 3 year term. It was at the point where the RCSC was rebuilding the Fairway Rec Center and the project was literally a 5 year plan. 1 or 2 of the board members wanted to stay around to see it through most of the completion. There had been commitments made to all of the clubs there and he wanted to insure those commitments were lived up to (they were by the way, as no club lost their dedicated space). While i addressed "kick-backs" above, the issue that got Karen fired last year (conflict of interest) is one worth exploring. The majority of board members from 2006-2020 have been golfers. During those years, decisions were made to the tune of millions of dollars, both from PIF and from the yearly general ledger accounts. PIF was created to rebuild our aging amenities and i won't argue those expenditures (though the gm intentionally played games with whether they were under amenities or golf). Apparently she didn't want golf to look that bad? Where i take exception is money allocated under the yearly budgets. The RCSC took ownership of 7 of the courses in 1975 (with an 18 month trial period). The commitment in the agreement (we have a copy at the Museum), and stated repeatedly in the newspapers by the RCSC president was for golf to be self-sustaining. Even back then, the community was terrified golf would become a money-pit. They were right and that was why golf was supposed to be revenue neutral. When the new gm was hired in 2006, she quickly found out if she raised the cost of a round of golf, members played less golf. We can debate whether golf should be subsidized, but all i am saying is, if we were going to subsidize it, there should have been a vote by the membership. Sadly, most of the board members who were golfers had no idea how much was being shoveled into golf; they still don't. Was that a "conflict of interest?" Did keeping the yearly cost of the golf pass they bought constitute them financially benefiting from their lack of action or knowledge? Seems to me, a reasonable question. The point here is this, being on the board affords members who get elected, a significant amount of power; especially these days when all of the safeguards/rights of the members have been stripped from the by-laws. If i wanted to, i could go back enumerate several former officers of clubs who became board members and ultimately their former clubs benefited with newly found club space. There's no point, in some cases it was justified, in others, who is to say? Sorry for the long answers but for our future's sake, asking questions and getting answers is terribly important. I long argued the RCSC should have an interactive web site to allow this kind of free exchange of questions and concerns; they never felt compelled to be that open. And now with the changes to at least the board meeting that will once again be the case.
