Slate is CLEAN: Would you still pick Sun City?

There’s a special meeting coming up in two days about the new bylaws and no posted updates as to what the new bylaws read. Only an agenda showing how all of this will be implemented.
Changes have been made to the original presentation and the members are not being apprised of what they are?
Read any description of what a successful nonprofit organization has and some of the first items are communication and transparency. Over and over, time and again, the keys needed for success are the same.
Does having a group, meeting in secret, display transparency?
Does not being available to all of the members at any time invoke open communication?
Has the RCSC seen an opportunity to improve member relations and thrown those efforts out the window?
These are not questions thrown at you Dave, rather questions for the RCSC board to mull over and reply to. Oh, that would mean communicating with the members, wouldn’t it?

 

I hate to say it but...is it even worth voting? When you consider only 2 people are running, and 2 more will be selected by the board, who needs my vote?

 

Who cares Carole? Apparently the Members have very little influence on what's in the bylaws, not to mention we don't even get an opportunity to vote on them!

 

CM, no the meeting was only on member comments, the two words was by email for the purpose of making it clearer. Changes had to be submitted on Saturday and I didn’t look at email unti Sunday evening so I didn’t submit anything.

 

Guess that member involvement only happens when it suits you no matter what. Certainly you are a profile in courage and leadership.

 

Changes had to be submitted by Saturday?

 

One can only smile at the stupidity of Dave’s remark posted above. Tom is not in a leadership position, though he tried by putting his name in the hat to be a part of the working group. They declined, as it appears they were looking for those who saw the membership as being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The message from these bylaws is loud and clear: The board is terrified of the membership: TERRIFIED.

 

Thank you, BIll. I have been absent from TOSC for some time. This platform served as my primary social media outlet, and with the 2020 election, I found the discourse to be excessively contentious, so I bowed out. I still read TOSC occasionally, and I noticed that you indirectly mentioned the stance I was taking during the bylaw town hall meeting. I want to elaborate on my position before I drift back off into the sunset again.

During the first bylaws Town Hall meeting, I posed a straightforward question, or at least I believed it to be. A question that I have been addressing to every board member for the past nine years: Why would any board member want any bylaw, article of incorporation, or legal document that mandates one member pay double the amount of another member? Particularly in a city that is owned, governed, and operated by its members. Sun City, so I have understood from Ben and Bill, was built for the members to share community, ownership, and responsibility. The first of its kind in America. One where every member has a share in ownership and pride.

I have observed numerous instances on TOSC where individuals discuss equal rights and equal privileges, referencing the same Article of Incorporation 8:3. However, I have yet to encounter anyone who quotes the concluding portion of the sentence that explicitly states every member is also subject to equal responsibilities. That responsibility is the assessment fee. Every member is subject(ed) to pay the assessment fee. Without the payment of the assessment fee, no member has access to their rights or privileges.

One writer on TOSC quoted the final line of 8:3, which grants the board the authority to determine the method of charging the assessment fee. While I agree with his assertion that the board possesses the right to charge as they deem fit, it is imperative, according to Article 8 section 3, that they do so equally for all members. To clarify, I am not referring to individuals who purchased prior to 2003, specifically. Although this is also disparaging, it is a settled matter and pertains to a limited segment of Sun City. No future member can purchase before 2003. What I was mainly referring to is the per-property charge. One does not have to have a math degree to see that if two people in one property are paying $650 and one person in another property is paying $650, it is not equal per member.

In response to my inquiry, I received an explanation regarding a lawsuit. I acknowledge that a lawsuit was filed, and the RCSC emerged victorious. However, the lawsuit does not compel the board to charge per property. Instead, it merely permits the board to charge per property. I also acknowledge this is a complex issue that has persisted for over two decades. Additionally, there are facilities agreements in place. However, our current facilities agreement is worded identically to the one revised in 2009, which was revised in 2023, and mandates that each and every owner is obligated to pay the assessments and fees regardless of their residence of the property or utilization of RCSC facilities. To illustrate my point and not to pick on the married couple, I have two sisters who reside adjacent to me and inherited their property from their parents. Yes, they are married, just not to each other, and they both get to split the cost of the assessment fee amongst two different families.

The board’s decision is undoubtedly influenced by its own interests, and it is fair to say that this is not an isolated instance. It is a pattern observed in every board for the past two decades. I understand the desire of married couples to safeguard their assets, which is a natural instinct for self-preservation. However, I fail to comprehend the rationale behind the question I posed. Why would anyone, especially a board member, want any bylaw, article of incorporation, legal judgment decision, lawyer, political party, facilities agreement, or any paperwork worded in such a way as to charge one member more than another member for the things that every member has to pay for on a yearly basis?

Dave addressed some of my concerns by stating that our population is not nearly a 50-50 split between married and single individuals. While he may be correct, the 2020 census data indicates that Sun City had 47% single residents, including widowed, divorced, legally separated, and never married individuals, while 52% were married, with one percent falling into the “other” category. However, the percentage itself is not as significant as the underlying principle. Ripping off any percentage of your membership on a yearly basis is fundamentally wrong and violates the “equality of responsibility” outlined in Article 8:3.

Another topic he discussed, which I have heard repeatedly from several board members throughout the years, whenever they raise the rate, is the plight of the struggling individual in the neighborhood. He mentioned the 94-year-old widow who purchased prior to 2003 that later became a widow and bears the entire assessment fee. But, what about a couple who purchased in 2004 and beyond and subsequently also became a widow, losing half of their income? The board often argues that if such an individual comes forward, opens their checkbook, displays their finances, loses their dignity and pride, they can assist them with the payment of their assessment fee. But how about if we just don’t charge the widow lady twice as much as the couple next door on a per-member basis? Or better yet, how about we follow the Articles of Incorporation and have every member pay equally?

Keeping with my due diligence, I spoke with several single-deeded homeowners and reminded them that there was a bylaws town hall meeting where they could speak their minds on several topics including this one. Without fail, everyone made a statement to the effect, “What’s the point? They’re going to do what they want to do, and they will not listen to us.”

I end by saying the same as I did in an email I sent to the board: I hope one day I will find five board members with integrity and a moral compass who will amend the bylaw to align with the equality outlined in our Articles of Incorporation. I must admit, the flame for that hope gets diminished with every passing year. If the Board of Directors’ goals are to extinguish membership participation, they are succeeding.

 

Yes John, because once incorporated they had to be added in order that we may send to have them arranged to be on the website on Monday. This was so the RCSC could have the blast go out sometime on Monday. I not sure what time the blast went out, but it did. Nice to know a lot of people worked hard over the weekend to make the by laws available for the Special Session with special kudos to Marcia Johnson for all she does as the Executive Coordinator to made sure the blast happened. If you attend the Special Session make time to thank her for all she does, much of it behind the scenes.

 

Yes John,

As it involved two words in relation to trust funds. Now I could list the two words and type a l9ng paragraph on what they mean, but most people wouldn’t understand as the situation would rarely happen but wanted to cover the bases.

The deadline had to be Saturday in order a consensus on a clearer explanation had to replace old language, then shipped off to Marcia Johnson to make sure that the appropriate persons received the new bylaws so they could be in the email blast on Monday, which apparently happened.

The group has worked under a tight time frame since the beginning and I’m sorry it didn’t meet your expectations, but that was the way it was.

 

Dave,

Professionally speaking I do not think this is or was a good process. A colleague of mine verified what I had suspected that the original intent of the 9-page bylaws was to have motions to amend the bylaws only be presented at member meetings so that members could timely object or propose amendments on their own. This provides an essential check and balance to prevent "runaway" boards from spending money on their pet projects. In my mind this requirement never was changed, it simply got lost in the shuffle. So now this Board wants to explicitly change the requirement that bylaw amendments be presented only at members meetings via a special session of the Board when the "revisions" (i.e. rewrite) should be presented at the annual membership meeting.

I encourage you and the rest of the committee to reconsider this special session in light of the above. Presenting the bylaws at a membership meeting would give whatever is passed much more credibility.

 

Turnkey26 took the time to state his argument and it's one that has been discussed/debated numerous times over the years. I've stated my preference that i wish they had never made the change they did in 2003 from single assessment to per property/lot assessment. The reality is they did and putting the toothpaste back in the tube is an impossible task.

Let's clear the air, it's not fair to single owners (other than they purchased their home under those terms and conditions). I've heard the argument no other senior community charges per rooftop and that is simply not true. Sun City Grand charges a per property lot assessment as does the largest senior community in the country, The Villages of Florida. Our sister community, Sun City West still charges per person; which makes it more attractive as a single.

Whenever this question comes up, i always ask; what is the solution? If the only factor is (and it's not) revenue, then replacing the money lost by cutting the soon to be $680 rate in half ($340) for singles is the easiest to do the math on. None of us have any idea on the real number of single households there are (i suspect the RCSC could tell us), but for simplicity let's assume somewhere between 25%-30% of the rooftops are affected.

Easy math with 33,000 members, let's call it 10,000 rooftops which equates to $3,800,000 dollars lost. Replacing that across the board results in more than a $115 increase per person ($330 per couple). The couple rate (first year) would become a little more than $1000 and the per person to $455. To be clear, this gets worse each year dependent on the number of single home owners. As the number grows the replacement revenue grows as well because in essence we would be replacing the lost rooftop revenue for each single owner. It's one of the reasons Sun City West expenses have far exceeded our rates.

That's just the math part. The bigger question is what would couples do who suddenly saw their $680 become $1010? It's why i mentioned above the "terms and conditions" every home buyer since 2003 purchased their home under. They agreed to a per lot assessment. And, the couples buying here purchased under a per lot assessment. I feel comfortable in stating a lawsuit against the board would be a given.

I'm no attorney, but i would hate to put the community's fate in the hands of a suit where we would get our ass kicked. Changing those terms and conditions would be folly (IMHO) which is exactly why the "grandfathered" those who owned a home here pre-2003.

The reality is what they did in 2003 wasn't fair, but based on everything i have read/seen, it was legal. I know that's not the answer you want to hear turnkey26, but it's the cards that were dealt.

 

So Bill, do single homeowners paying the full $650 still get 2 Membership Cards?

 

You know they don't, but what's the point?

 

The point is, I believe the documents say that each rooftop homeowner gets 2?

 

Where does it say that?

 

Yeah, I guess I'm wrong on that! But that might be a way to pacify those single deed owners who pay the whole freight and have a significant other living with them? The significant other may actually be a spouse who isn't on the deed?

At least that's the way I understand it!

 

Yes, Bill, ALL OWNERS signed the Facilities Agreement.

The inequity lies in the optional MEMBERSHIP benefit that RCSC Corporate Bylaws are in conflict with Articles of Incorporation.

Lot assessment - Legal
Membership - Unequal rights & responsibilities

• RCSC Facilities Agreement
Only refers to OWNERS,
NO reference to an optional benefit upon paying assessment of MEMBERSHIP to access RCSC centers, amenities, clubs, events, voting rights, etc.
https://cms.suncityaz.org/media/stmpkhzk/fa-blank-12-19-23.pdf

While paying a LOT assessment is legal, not enforcing equal responsibility and providing equal benefits to owners is not. Every owner choosing to participate in RCSC is obligated to pay.

• RCSC Articles of Incorporation
Article VIII
5. The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities. Such Bylaws shall also provide the method for determining assessments to be paid by the Members.
Article VIII
3. The Directors shall have the power to adopt Bylaws not in conflict with the Articles of Incorporation.
4. The Bylaws may be amended, modified, revised, or revoked by the Directors or by the Members. In the event of conflict concerning the Bylaws as amended, modified, revised, or revoked by the Directors, the action of the Members shall prevail.
https://suncityaz.org/generic/articles-of-incorporation

• Corporate Bylaws
ARTICLE II – MEMBERSHIP, CARDHOLDERS AND GUESTS
SECTION 1: MEMBERS, MEMBERSHIP, MEMBER CARD/CARDHOLDER
C. If there are more than two Property Owners who meet the Member qualifications, such Owners must decide which two concurrent Owners will be classified as Members. Additional Owners who qualify may purchase a Privilege Card or Day Pass.
https://suncityaz.org/generic/corporate-bylaws

Only one assessment is paid on the LOT (a responsibility), but TWO Membership benefits
(a right) issued at no additional charge.

EVERY owner is to have EQUAL RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITY, per RCSC Articles of Incorporation. (period)

THINK OF THE LOST REVENUE OVER THE YEARS ALLOWING SOME “MEMBERS” TO PLAY FOR FREE….

 

Sun City West
Owner Member Dues - annual per person on Deed $ 598.00 (almost $100 less than a single RCSC, double for dual deeded here)

SCW FEES: https://suncitywest.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Membership-Fee-Schedule.pdf

 

Which conversely makes Sun City more attractive to couples. I’m not arguing for or against either method. Both are legitimate ways to fund a senior community. I wasn’t living in Sun City when the decision was made but I suspect the legal affairs committee (attorneys and judges) reviewed the proposed changes and the RCSC reviewed whether it violated the Articles of Incorporation.The committee were sticklers for adhering to the documents.

I know every time I try and respond to this issue you take my remarks personally, but my goal is to simply help you and others try and understand the impossible task of fixing this without the RCSC being sued into oblivion. It’s why o took the time to lay out just the financial impact of just cutting single owners in half. The residual impact of recovering the lost revenue is huge and every year it compounds.

Your Sun City West comment was spot on because at one point (1999) our two community’s fees were within a few dollars of each other. One of the reasons their’s increased so much more than ours was because a single owner paid less than if there was a per rooftop assessment.

I just don’t see a logical way out of the 2003 decision. If you have one I am all ears.