RCSC Board Policies - Proposed Revisions and Town Hall Meeting Reminder The Board of Directors has been diligently reviewing and drafting proposed revisions to the Board Policies to ensure alignment with ANCA, Arizona State Statutes, and the newly proposed bylaws. Drafts of proposed revisions are now available for your review and feedback: ➡️ 73 page board policies revision document: https://cms.suncityaz.org/media/bpqnowzw/rcsc-board-policies-proposed-revisions-full-document.pdf This document contains Board Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 31, 34, 35. Additions are highlighted in yellow, and deletions are shown with strikethrough text. We invite all members to participate in the upcoming Town Hall Meeting: Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 Time: 10:00 am Location: Sundial Auditorium Live Stream Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/pjUri58GLhg ➡️ Please note that Board Policies 4, 12, 16, 17, and 32 are still under review and will be published once finalized. An email notification will be sent when all proposed Board Policies have been posted. Thank you for your attention and engagement in this important process. # Source: RCSC e-mail blast: https://mailchi.mp/999c8a094685/exchange-video-link-7789670?e=f18f779945
The remaining Board Policies (12, 16, 17) Proposed Revisions are now available for Members' review: ➡️ BP12 (Proposed Revisions) CHARTERED CLUBS, 31 page document https://cms.suncityaz.org/media/qtqhid4a/bp-12-chartered-clubs-v-11-7-25.pdf ➡️ BP16 (Proposed Revisions) Annual Budget, Capital Projects List, 5 Year Plan, PIF Expenditures, PIF 10-Year Forecast, & Financial Reporting, 11 page document https://cms.suncityaz.org/media/xzlh54vy/bp16-budget-financial-reporting-v-11_10_25.pdf ➡️ BP17 (Proposed Revisions) Golf 10 page document https://cms.suncityaz.org/media/b1nhlxgs/bp17-golf-v-11_10_25.pdf Source: RCSC eblast 11/11/2025 https://mailchi.mp/46250ca6863a/exchange-video-link-7789698?e=[UNIQID]
My communication with the board: Preston & Board members, Thank you for the opportunity to share observations on the changes to the Board policies. I am attempting to address Preston’s criticism of not providing timely input so I only did a high-level review of BP16. My reaction is unfavorable. I believe the drafter(s) is/are trying to cover too many subjects in one policy and the complexity of comingling the subjects is confusing. As I understand the original intent of BP 16 it was to set forth decision criteria that could be applied consistently for all expenditures. I am viewing the intent of the Proposed BP 16 as trying to define with “military precision” the roles of each stakeholder in each process even though the processes overlap. It gets very confusing to me. Personally, I would stick to the original intent of BP 16: to set forth the decision criteria and process by which expenditures are recommended to the board. I like the rest of the membership, are done spending time trying to convince folks to use common sense. Moving is much less expensive. And the next board will change all this anyway. Best regards, John Fast
I see that they are still working on BP-16, but my question is, is BP-16 only for Members of the Board or LRP committee, or can any Member reach out to vendors and contractors to establish the necessary criteria? We all remember what happened when a "Member" went down to Phoenix to ask questions to the architects about MV. She was suspended! BTW, I was looking for the summaries from the old SAC Committee on the new website. Couldn't find them!?!?!?
I don't think Members should be able to reach out to vendors and contractors for criteria. It costs those vendors money for the time they spend answering the questions. Those costs could potentially be passed on to RCSC. In fact, I don't think individual Directors should be able to do that. Having said that, getting suspended seems to be pretty extreme if the Member only did that once. How about a warning to not do that again?
If members were aware of the allowance of being able to be in direct contact with vendors, our costs would skyrocket. Those hours spent dealing with individual questions and concerns would drive up their costs, meaning those costs would be passed on to the RCSC, followed by increased assessments to the members. Personally, I dont want to pay for someone wanting to circumvent the process of using established communication processes. As a side note, the revisions continue, despite the outcry by the members. I understand the board nor the corporation owes no loyalty to the members as decribed in Title 10. The flip side is, dont expect any loyalty in return. Many people have given many hours of their time and energy to support this corporation through volunteerism and other intrisic ways. Now that there appears to be an effort to remove the language that offers support and efforts to the members, it can quite easily have the members remove their support from the corporation. How is it going to work when the volunteer hours fall off? Where can you find the same level of support given by the clubs and others when the people you dearly need are removed? Just asking a simple question.
