Slate is CLEAN: Would you still pick Sun City?

Your slate is completely clean, but you retain all knowledge of Sun City from having lived there. Would you still pick Sun City as your final destination or somewhere else? Where else?

Note: Not talking about going back in time, but rather picking your destination from today moving forward.

 

What a great question Riggo; and sadly, an answer i have thought long and hard over of late. Everything changed for me; the exact moment came when one of the current board of directors was foolish enough to spout off about his version/vision of self-governance. Frankly, it was embarrassing for him to tell us because we elected the board, that was akin to being self-governed. His remarks were a dagger to the heart and against everything Sun City stood for and represented.

The year was 1964 and the residents of this community rejected the idea we become a city with all the trappings and taxes that came with it. For the next 30 years those longing for a mayor and city council fell flat as residents had little interest in changing from a community where those living here had a voice and the right to use it. The documents were clear and concise; none more so than the Articles of Incorporation.

Compounding the foolishness of the remarks from the other night was the board president hiding behind state statutes and claiming they compelled them to write the most ludicrous, nonsensical steps for members to pass amendments to the bylaws. There is nothing in Title 10 or the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act that provided guidance for the group to make members have to submit bylaw changes by Sept 30, nothing that forced them to craft the silliness of a structure designed to do nothing more than make members jump through more hoops than imaginable. And then to top it off with a vote away from the annual membership meeting.

That was all on them, all of their own doing.

The answer to your question R, is difficult and frustrating for me personally on so many levels. We looked at Sun City West when we purchased our first home in 1999. One of the reasons we stayed away from Sun City West was due the turmoil that was boiling over within the community. Sun City West Owners for Open Government (SCWOOG) had led the charge for a more transparent governance process. Rather than battle for years, a deal was struck to function using Title 33 guidelines.

We chose Sun City because there was a built-in sense of community with very little angst. We've loved and lived believing that sense of community existed in spite of the many twists and turns we took. After the bylaw town hall sessions, it's abundantly clear how the board views the membership. I thought Dave's remarks about the "inmates wanting to run the institution" was just a one off foolish remark, but after listening to the board's responses to members concerns, it's clear the bylaws were written to preclude members from having a voice. I don't know how anyone can argue that position?

So, for my money, if i was a 55 year old looking for my place in the Sun, knowing what i know now about SC and SCW, i would opt for Sun City West. They are a little more expensive (for a couple), but they are far better situated to address the problems the two communities will be facing. There is no better example than the single most daunting challenge we both face; the number of golf courses and the diminishing play that comes with next generation of home buyers. SCW has acknowledged and been addressing those issues, SC has elected board members who have no clue what to do other than keep throwing money at the courses in hopes it fixes itself.

It won't, everything will get worse and magnify. In the meantime; i'll sit back and ignore the foolishness, knowing there's nothing i can do to help fix it. And more-so knowing they neither want nor need my (our) help.

 

So perhaps, if you're thinking in colloquial terms, the "institution" could be the RCSC and the "inmates" the Directors?

 

When we were looking to buy, I wanted to look at SCW as well as Sun City. Our realtor said that we really need to stay with Sun City, much better community to live in. So, we looked in Sun City exclusively. We were looking during a time when inventory was low and we wanted a pool, making it more difficult for the search. So, despite being leery of not researched the other community, we bought our house, and up until recently, have had no regrets.
Seeing the degradation of the community in general, and the boards disdain for the members quite apparent, I truly wish we had entertained other communities. It pains me greatly to make that last statement because we could be so much better as a community if we all tried. This would mean members are an inclusive and integral part of the community. Such is not the case.
I look regularly at houses for sale in other areas and perhaps with the reduced interest rates I can dream closer to reality. But moving is stressful and not for everyone in our age group. The hassles are a trade off between being able to move and remain in a community that places no value on its members. And with the increased assessments, is only $56 a year less than Westbrook Village, a much newer neighborhood.
The cost of Ventana Lakes has increased due to Epcor increasing their rates.
So the attraction will remain that Sun City is cheap. With no limits on how many homes can be converted to rentals, I do not see a bright horizon in home ownership increasing either.
Word of mouth is the greatest value or detriment for any product. Once word of mouth spreads how the neighborly community is no more, it becomes the duty of a board of the future to try and right the ship. Hopefully, it’s not so far in the future that someone recognizes what can be done.

 

Hopefully they have hired a GM who will recognize the situation and knows how to make communities work?

Only time will tell. Give her some time to get her feet wet, and then let's see what she can hopefully do to get us back to some sort of feeling of community.

I don't feel the Board really gives a crap about what the Members think. It seems to be all about them!

The real sad part is, committees are really the only place left that allows Member involvement and input. Lord knows they've screwed-up our Annual Membership Meetings to the point where you can't really even call it a meeting. And these new revised bylaws, and their new rules, have even made it harder on committee members.

 

As usual you are full of crap, but then I can’t do anything about that.

 

Just rereading the recall process for board members and it’s quite interesting. It states that if a majority of votes are for his/her removal are cast, then the director is removed. No number limits as to how many members need be present. Just a majority. So let’s get 10 people together, cast 6 votes to remove some folks and we will be aligned with the bylaws. That’s how it reads to me.

 

There you go again! So tell me why I'm full of crap and tell me what I said was wrong!

True of False?, it's now harder for the Members of committees to call special meetings and impossible for them to call an emergency meeting.

If all you're ever going to do is tell everybody they're wrong, but never telling them why, then how about just keeping your comments to yourself.

 

OK Tom, you said that the Board “doesn’t give a crap about what the members think.” Has the Board not listened to the members at exchanges and other meetings and adopted some of their suggestions? Has the by laws group not listened to the members and spent 2.5 hours Thursday adapting some of the suggestions into the by laws which was our last meeting…… until this morning when the first email I received was changes to the by laws.

Apparently, you rather spend you time playing mental gymnastics with Robert’s with committees and the Board. As for your instant question on Special meetings, I really don’t care as they have been far and few between in the past.

 

They're throwing us crumbs and nothing that is really meaningful for the Members. Geez, when you even lose your ability to debates and voting at your own Membership Meeting, why would that make Members feel that they even need to attend the Membership Meeting when all it's turning out to be is a report on the affairs of the corporation? They can hear all that at board meetings or read the reports online!

That's not the point, the point is they decided to make it harder, why?

If you attended last months meeting when only 1 of 4 recommendations from the LRP made it onto the agenda, the committee members were trying to meet to rectify the situation because the board meeting was only a few days away. And if, as you say, those types of meetings are far and few between, then why make it harder?

 

If there have been amendments to the proposed bylaw changes, I have not seen them. I looked at the RCSC site and the only copy I find is the original. Has the changes been made available for all to see?

 

Fuhgettaboutit!

This is a done deal no matter what the Members think or say!

 

Fascinating to see/read the twisted comments from the working group member who shows complete disdain to RCSC members every time he touches a keyboard. Just an obvious suggestion for the board: When you get comments from the membership about how unfair the lot assessment is to single owners, have someone other than the guy who still pays the half rate explain why it’s a good thing. The absurdity of him rubbing those complaining noses in it, should be apparent eh?

Back to the question at hand; Sun City, Sun City West or elsewhere? We looked at 5 Del Webb Sun City communities before we bought in 1999. We liked, dare I say loved the original, because of how we were built and the idea we as members had an opportunity to be involved. Sun City West was close but the turmoil was ugly.

I have continued to follow SCW more closely than most and they have been far more progressive/aggressive in addressing their problems. Plus, they have done so by educating an endless stream of potential candidates who are far better versed on the concept of self-governance. They embraced Title 33 which encouraged member involvement, while Sun City ran from members, acting as if they were terrified of them.

The sad reality is Sun City relies on board members staying for 2 terms, rather than building a feeder system where they nurture new candidates year after year to fill open positions. It’s interesting as one could argue the 6 years should provide better versed board members, but at this point, that hasn’t proven to be the case.

The most obvious challenge will be golf. Is the board prepared to step up, or will the board members who are golfers just keep shuffling along hoping everything works out? We’ve watched for years as board members have made hard decisions by making change's when clubs have died or lost members. Looking forward, will the board be willing to make tough calls with golf? Or, will they listen to golfers clamoring for others to pay to play?

My concern with these bylaws is the way they cut the membership out of the equation and placed all the power in the board’s hands. We’ve seen this movie play out before and it wasn’t pretty. To Tom’s comment, maybe the new GM can save the board from themselves. We can only hope.

 

When will the membership be privy to these new changes? The original question was about Sun City and would you choose to buy here again. With the kind of stanglehold now being placed on the membership as it stands now, not knowing if the changes make the bylaws anymore user friendly, I fear for the members of Sun City. The cohesiveness of the community will be missing as there is nothing to guide a feeling of togetherness and welcome. It's all for the board, pittance for the members. Just the way it feels to me.

 

Your response is so juvenile and the intellectual equivalent of the “your mother wears army boots” retort. You lack the basic wherewithal to develop a cogent response as to why you disagree with his points, so you resort to a second grade attack. It has become a staple in how you conduct yourself here and truly lowers the IQ of this discussion board. Sad really.Perhaps you are not an adult?

 

Dave,
I find it interesting that you are in receipt of updates to the bylaws with changes made, but the members, those who are most affected are not being kept in the loop. So, the first reading, happening this week is the final version? No further input will be allowed or accepted going forward?
The very people these bylaws affect, the members, have no right to further influence or input as to the content of these new rules? The members pay for the RCSC to exist. To turn your back on these same people who the corporation is in existence to serve and support is a travesty. Remember the Articles of Incorporation state to do everything for the benefit of the members not the corporation. Somewhere, the founding principles of this organization just got removed. There are many ways to write guidelines that incorporate legal principles and practices that also align with members being a part of the written policies. These rewrites are not in the spirit of what the RCSC was supposed to support. Too much legalese, not enough humanity taken into consideration. Just my opinion.
Didn’t mean you, personally, turned your back, just a general comment about the situation.

 

CM,
The change involved changing/clarifying two words in relation to trust beneficiaries, “ readily distributable” involving remaindermen. Now if you want me to go into what readily distributable means in trust law and what remaindermen are in probate law and how it fits in into the particular by law regarding PIF and CIF, I am happy to accommodate. Of course posting it here would take probably 3-4 paragraphs with you and probably a couple of other members understanding what all this means. There is no non-legalese way of simplifying this as it is the nature of the beast and this beast will be seldom seen if you understand what all this means.

As for simplifying other legal sections, such as business affairs of the corporation, we could have said it just covers a whole bunch of stuff the Board does everyday and if you want further information, refer to the Articles of Incorporation or ARS Title 10 on non profits. Some things just can’t be reduced to simple sentences without long explanations that would put members to sleep.

As for humanity, what are you talking about? We should have made the by laws more warm and fuzzy while trying to comply with the Statutes or the Articles. The bunch screaming how unfair it is have been saying the same things for years yet I still don’t understand what they want. Do they want the members to have some sort of unlimited powers to do whatever they want whenever they want hoping to utilize the “vote of the members shall prevail” to exact the change whatever the consequences? That is dangerous on so many levels.

That’s what this involved and I saw the email too late to send in my change.

 

And there-in is the problem isn't it Dave. The inherent fear of the membership having a voice is mind numbing. Tom Marone has long called for the RCSC to define/explain the meaning of "affairs of the corporation." Seemed reasonable to explain what that meant. Here was their definition:
"C. “Business Affairs of the Corporation” are defined as the governance, management, and operations of the Corporation conducted by or under the direction of the Board of Directors, which includes but is not limited to: financial management and budgeting; adoption and enforcement of policies, programs, and services; contracts, pricing, bids, and vendor selection; internal corporate matters, operational decisions, regulatory compliance and risk management (including insurance); employment, personnel, and compensation matters; litigation and claims; real property and capital projects; information security and privacy; communications and public relations; strategic planning of the Corporation; and any other matter not expressly reserved to the Members by the Articles of Incorporation or applicable law, that are not in violation of its Corporate Documents or the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act ANCA statutes that are in effect at the time the matter is conducted."

As one long time member (thank you Richie) who has been involved with the community pointed out, this clarification covered everything from soup to nuts. What is left for the members Dave? What crumbs do you feel us mere mortals are able to address without ruining the corporation? Should we have the ability to decide who we want eligible to run for the board, you know like snowbirds? Should we be able to override the idiocy of having to submit our amendments by the end of Sept (5-6 months before the annual membership meeting)? Should we be able to discuss our amendments at the annual membership meeting with a subsequent vote?

The definition wasn't a function of the ANCA, it was the deepest dive the board could do to prevent members from "interfering" with what they wanted done. And then, if that wasn't enough, they compounded it all with hoop jumping that defies logic. Let's be really clear, the mumbled process had nothing to do with following ANCA or Title 10. It was simply a process to push members away. And then they had the audacity to tell us it was an effort to expand members rights.

Of course we know how you feel; the bylaws had to be written in a way to keep the "inmates from running the institution." I thought your remarks were just a one-off until the one director explained to me we had self-governance because we got to vote for the board members." There ya go brother, spoken like a true politician who wants to do what he wants to do, members be damned.

Let me be abundantly clear and concise on this point: The members throughout our long and storied history have never done the damage or made the foolish mistakes that have been made since 2006 when the control was put in the hands of the GM and the board of directors.

NEVER!

PS. Dave: Please stop being the person who tells members complaining about lot assessment versus per person why it's a good thing...all the while you are gloating over paying the single rate. It truly is unbecoming.

 

That about says it all! Just what the heck is reserved for the Members?

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say affairs of the corporation are all things financial, regulatory, employment and personnel?

Most everything itemized in that above long list basically comes back to finances, so why the long list?

 

So, after a 2 1/2 hour meeting, the only change made was to two words? How what suggestions made by the members? Wasn’t there a reference that some were adopted?

The warm and fuzzy language that could have been included could have been inclusive member issues such as committees being autonomous or a member group put together for tracking and reporting on the members feedback about life in Sun City. Short two questions that could be answered quickly and would provide a roadmap for improvement of the direction of the corporation.
My biggest disappointment was the bold face lie that a printed newspaper costs $16000 a month to print when i produced evidence that by using the Independent newspaper as a resource, it can be accomplished for about $40k a year. The Sunviews was printed using the Independent up until the GM decided to kill that media format. The reality is the RCSC doesn’t want an informed membership because then the members could see how far their rights have been taken away.

Why wait until the first of the year to appoint someone to the board when you already know you don’t have enough candidates? My suggestion was to start asking for volunteers to submit their resumes now, do interviews and decide who those people will be so they can be seated at the first of the year. Too logical in thinking?
So many opportunities to include the members in the process of being involved with the RCSC in an inclusive way. The business about not enough space to move cardholder service to visitors center? Make space! Find a location conducive to meeting members needs and be available for visitors to get information as well. Suggestion to expand the visitor center hours so walking traffic isn’t turned away? Can’t do that either?
So many chances to be warm and fuzzy thrown away in favor of grabbing power for the board. I will reiterate again, these rewrites are not in the spirit of the founders of this community. And that’s a very sad note indeed.