Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by FYI, Jun 27, 2021.
They kicked Karen McAdams off the board on Friday!
Gee...wonder why it wasn't reported in the weekly RCSC news blast sent out for the coming week? I guess I'm not surprised yet surprised if she was voted out. Was this a special meeting that should have been recorded? It apparently didn't take place at an executive meeting on Thursday or it would have been mentioned it was going to be held after the BOD meeting.
Although she seems to grasp how Boards should function, there is a certain amount of tact that seemed to be lacking. Somehow you need to find support within the group so you aren't the Lone Ranger on issues. It has provided for some interesting if not awkward discussions at the meetings and I'm sure we haven't heard the last unless a censure is also invoked.
Now, just what re-tread will be appointed to fill the spot?
Do we ever learn? Do we know why Mike Kennedy left the board? Do we know what happened to Barbara Brehm?
I voted for Karen because she was an original and independent thinker, but I guess you can't serve on the board unless you go-along to get-along? You don't have like what she says but she has the right to say it and I want to hear opposing thoughts!
So....do we REALLY vote for who we want on the board every year or does the board circumvent our wishes and just eliminates anybody who doesn't fit their narrative?
I for one am pissed-off!
Cannot say I'm not surprised she was voted out. I am surprised it happened so quickly.
From the last meeting and prior meetings I could see the other board members were getting frustrated. with her.
I guess they felt threatened in some way. I'd be very surprised if she wasn't ganged up on in secret meetings amongst the other directors (a no no).
If she has done something that is against board policies on multi occasions her dismissal might be appropriate.
Perhaps the fact that she asked a fellow board member to submit a motion was what made the other directors finally decide
she had to go.
It's a shame as she seemed like the only one on the board who had any sense of how the board should function and work for the members.
The current president has no clue as to how the board meetings should be conducted. Meetings are not run with any normalcy.
I will also be surprised if she is not banned from all future board meetings even as a card holder. (Ala ARS).
The moral of her dismissal is that if you are not a yes person, you will be terminated.
She was ganged-up on! Actually she was blindsided and railroaded! It works, or is suppose to work like this; because the RCSC bylaws don't provide their own procedure for disciplinary actions it falls back to their parliamentary procedure, which is Roberts' Rules of Order. According to RR's the secretary should have sent a letter to Karen stating the time, date and place of the meeting, (which is a trial), and a method of providing confirmation of delivery (see RONR 12th Ed. 63:28).
They did what they do best and that's, gang-up, conspire behind the scenes then ambush their adversaries!
Karen has a good case to challenge those proceedings but I suspect she no longer wants anything to do with that board again, and I don't blame her!
I hope anybody who's thinking about running for the board reads this. If they think they can really make a difference if they're on the board they better think again. You better go-along to get-along or else you'll find yourself on the chopping block!
Did I tell you I am pissed?
And then the board wonder why people don't trust them. Duh...look in the freaking mirror. As far as Barbara Brehm, i asked a board member who i used to trust and he told me she was making all kinds of crazy accusations. Her background, like Karen's, was off the charts above and beyond the rest of them. It is intimidating when a board members knows how things should work and isn't willing to sit on the sidelines and keep their mouth shut. Sadly, Barbara left Sun City completely after she was removed and is living in Florida.
Karen had every right to fight for pickleball players and to find a solution to closing Mountainview. Taking a differing opinion isn't a "conflict of interest." The simple truth is she made them look like the B team the way this has been handled. I said i before, i will say it again; when Fairway was going down, the board and the management staff met with every club long before they closed it and found solutions to their concerns. And then, they made a point to live up to the commitments they made to those clubs. That's the right way to handle difficult decisions that impact members lives. Out front and straight up. This process has been anything but that.
Actually FYI i do believe there are procedures in their by-laws on how to get rid of a board member. I suspect they followed them, but them how would we know? Do they care? Hell, do they care about anything? Shameful behavior is just that, shameful. She's not the first to be dumped and if our past 15 years tells us anything, she won't be the last. Sadly, the change in the quorum for a quarterly membership meeting from 100 to 1250 has insured we never have one (September of 2009) being the last and the inability to collect signatures for a recall of a board member on RCSC grounds (even though you can sign petitions of getting elected on them) has insulated the board from facing any pressure from the community at large. The GM changed all of that over the years, kind of like gerrymandering safe districts.
The real question is...Who Loses?
Well, if you could direct me to them I'll be happy to read them but as far as I can tell, the Articles of Incorporation only provide for dismissal if a board member misses 3 consecutive meetings and the bylaws only pertain to conflicts of interest. I see nothing that talks about proper disciplinary procedure for board members only cardholders.
At any rate, I still attest to the fact that she needed to be informed of the meeting with a method of confirming that she received the notification. There needs to be a whole array of things according to Robert's Rules that should be done prior than simply calling a meeting and kicking somebody off the board. There needs to be an investigation committee, a report of that investigation, the formal notification to the member, the trial, and the review of the trial committees findings! She should have at least an opportunity to defend herself!
Do the RCSC bylaws address any of those procedures or concerns or does it just simply say, you can hold a secret meeting without the accused even being there and vote them out of office with a 2/3rds votes of the majority?
I misspoke FYI, the by-laws only cover "conflicts of interest." Hopefully they still aren't trying to label her comments under that bullshit. I had read both the Articles of Incorporation and the bylaws and the A of I say this: " By a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board of Directors after a member of the Board is absent from three (3) or more consecutive regular meetings of the Board or who, in the opinion of such two-thirds (2/3) of the Board members, is unwilling or incapable of performing his or her share of the duties and responsibilities of a Director."
If i had to guess, they have enough of the board members to argue she is unwilling or incapable. Again, more BS. They simply cannot stand having a person on the board who understands the process while they stand there peeing on themselves. I got a call from a friend the other day who watched and was shocked at how she was treated. It was painful and the stupidity of it is they have the votes to just do as they please, and let her arguments die by ignoring them. Of course that makes them look even more pathetic. After watching this hatchet job i am fairly well convinced Barbara too was given the bum's rush. She was the liaison to the museum and just before they shit canned her she told me she wasn't going to sit meekly by and let them run over her.
Just so we are clear, language above in the Articles of Incorporation typically would be invoked against a board member who was ill or suffered something like dementia but refused to resign. Certainly not against someone who simply disagreed with them.
Go look at the Article II Section 8 of the Bylaws and read all the procedures that must be followed to suspend a cardholder. All I'm saying is, that it's my belief, there should be a list of similar procedures to terminate a board member listed in Article 5, Board of Directors, and because there is none, they need to use the disciplinary procedures listed in their parliamentary authority (i.e. Robert's Rules).
Surely the board shouldn't be able to simply ramrod some phony, made-up, kangaroo court proceedings without giving the accused their due process?
No they shouldn't FYI. Rumor has it they did take the time along the way to write her up for alleged abuses. You know, build the case for dismissal. No idea what is in her file, but she is in an interesting position. If the other rumors are true that a board member/officer hurled a bunch of f-bombs at her, filing a claim of a hostile work environment wouldn't be out of line. Especially if they did nothing to said board member. There's lots that has gone on over the years, most of the crap i ignored as they rewarded those who wanted stuff done for them and as officers got special treatment. And, i will tell you if she filed a claim she wouldn't be the first to go to that length. The board/management has always been able to shelter actions under the "executive session" section of our documents. What they fail to understand is, stuff does get out as some are frustrated by the games.
While we all love Sun City, where we have gone since our inception is light years away from how our community was built and why it was successful. Hopefully the new GM will bring us back to a place of sanity.
Perhaps the departure of some of the retread board members will also provide for and produce a new mindset, but of course we just lost an independent thinker!
The scary thing about that FYI is it appears as they can bring retreads back as often as they force board members to leave. Early on in the process the term limits were really strict. 1 and 2 year terms as the documents as written suggested getting more people involved, not less.
Roger-that! So now we know it doesn't really matter who you vote for because if they don't like the person they will simply vote them out of office!!! And like you said previously, this doesn't appear to be the first time they've done it!
Maybe an additional requirement to serve on the board is that you have to be an a$$-kisser? So much for being a democracy, we live under a dictatorship board of directors.
And just how many times has Hoffer and Schroeder served on the board either as a legitimate member or a bring-back retread?
I guess old Ron Jesse is warming-up in the wings?
As you know I was not a big fan of McAdam. I was totally wrong about her. This person has more smarts than everyone combined! Hofer needs to go and never be allowed to serve on any board position ever again. Schroeder is a nice person and will take the time to listen to you if you have an issue. Unlike the blowhard who gets in your face and yells at you. The man has ZERO class. We are in trouble now because nobody has addressed the problems over the last 5-8 years knowing that water reduction was a top priority, a leaky lake, turf reduction a top priority. Personally we need to close all the executive courses except Quail Run. The executive courses could be used for walking paths. Pickleball courts. Dog parks. The boards over the last 10 years should be held responsible for all of these problems and need to be shamed publicly. Every meeting needs to be recorded and come fall when the snow birds get back a news blast needs to be sent to all and we need 1000+ members to show up at a board meeting. Every person in management especially golf needs to be terminated. This has been swept under the rug long enough.
In October of last year i wrote this about Karen McAdam: With that out of the way, one of candidates comes with qualifications above and beyond any of the others. No disrespect to any of those either running or who have served in years past, but she is leagues ahead of anyone i have ever watched apply. She appears that damned good.
More importantly she did two things that flat out stunned me at the board meeting. As the meeting was near over and after listening to some of the responses to members questions she approached the microphone. She had phone in hand and read from the RCSC's Articles of Incorporation. As many of you know, i have long lamented how the RCSC treats members. We are not just "card-holders," we are the damned owners of the organization.
The second thing she did as she read board members the exact purpose of the RCSC as defined in Article 1, she asked the single most important question that of course no one answered: What is the "default position of the RCSC?" Simply stunning.
I have long argued the RCSC and the board (who by the way are sworn in to allegiance to the corporation), are failing in adhering to the community documents. While most of your eyes glaze over when i start talking about community documents, they are the base for all things RCSC. So we are clear, the Articles of Incorporation have the highest order. Everything after them should follow their lead.
Effectively she was asking; do board members know their role? Are they there to serve the corporation or to serve the membership. Obviously the answers members were given were far from what she expected. Anyone who has attended or watched these meetings will have noted when push comes to shove the "default position" is always the corporation first; always."
My comments were exactly why i never expected Karen to last. These words were said before she was even elected. She got it. Non-profits, in accordance with their Articles of Incorporation, spell out the exact reason for the RCSC's existence. Simply put; to serve the membership. Sitting in the crowd, she saw their "default position." She understood simply by listening the corporation had become the end-all-be-all. Board members over the years have evolved from representatives of the membership to being subservient to the corporation.
It was never the way it was intended to function. When the gm started messing with the community documents, the equation was thrown off kilter. The boards along the way should have been there to stop the careless rewrite, but as it happened she lessened their workload and the power shifted from the board to the management team. Way easier to get things done if the pesky card-holders aren't in the way. Karen understood what was going on and the only solution was to get rid of her. Shameful. The corporation should exist to serve the community; sadly we now find the community exists to serve the corporation.
My sources tell me that Gene Westemeier has already been sworn-in as a replacement.
Can't say I know anything about this person. Can anybody clue me in? Good choice or just another kiss-a$$?
Wouldn't surprise me FYI, Gene's name has been bantered about several times in the past as a retread. Good guy, but then most of the folks who run are well meaning people. They tell us they pick people based on their "experience." Utter nonsense, as the quality most desired has been knowing exactly how they will vote. End of story. The community elects candidates who they see as being there to work for them and in reality management has always preferred board members willing to do their bidding. It never takes long for board members to quickly fall in line and if they don't they often times are suddenly gone.
Gene was there before i was on the board and we have always been friendly towards one another other than the time i called him a liar at a meeting and he wanted to take it outside. Even then it wasn't personal, the GM wanted to do away with the grandfathering the way it had been passed and she convinced the board they should make the change she wanted. I brought several of the board members who explained that when they changed to a eliminate single card holder payments and they did it by "grandfathering" existing owners, that meant as long as they lived in Sun City, not in the same house. The GM wanted that gone and even with the board telling them they were wrong, they passed it anyway. To this day i am not convinced the board understood how bad they screwed the members.
The main thing is he will vote with the rest of them, won't raise anyone's feathers and life will be good once again in the boardroom.
This action is absolutely disgusting, just because a board member has a different opinion than the rest doesn't warrant her dismissal. Thought they were in recess until September, yet they hold another meeting? Karen's knowledge is above & beyond several board members sitting up there on stage. How unprofessional the "president" was during last Thursday's meeting. If looks could kill..... and Hoffer can't put his cell phone down during the meetings so how can he vote when he's reading his cell phone constantly? He doesn't know what's going on, except when he gets to play with the 3 minute timer. All residents of Sun City should be worried when we as a community vote someone on the board to represent us, the members, and because she has her own opinion, the rest of the board votes her out. That's BS. Put Karen back on the board, NOW.
It's my understanding she was terminated because she was "unwilling or incapable of performing his or her share of the duties and responsibilities of a Director." as stated in the Articles of Incorporation. They had to use that excuse because there are no provisions in the conflict of interest bylaw that allows for or call for termination. The only requirement in that bylaw is that you must disclose any possible conflicts!
We all know Karen was hardly incapable of performing her duties! In the mean time, the board is incapable of following their own bylaws!
Spot on FYI. The whole lot of them have proven they are incapable of performing their duties by firing her. They were simply intimidated by the fact she knew what she was doing and they were muddling along like the 7 stooges (you figure out who understood the game being played).
By the way, welcome poison ivy. Sad to say, there will be no reinstatement. In fact, watch as they pretend nothing happened at all by claiming they cannot discuss personnel matters due to any actions taken during executive sessions are privileged and private. When people read my comments regarding their rewriting of our documents, i know most often their eyes glaze over. If you aren't familiar with the Articles of Incorporation or the By-Laws, i get it.; it's just not sexy or even interesting unless you are a policy wonk.
I have been harping for years how the destroyed the very ability for the community to have a voice. If this had happened before this gm was hired, it would have simply been a matter of a hundred or more members showing up at one of the quarterly meetings so they had a quorum. At that point they could have introduced a motion from the floor, assuming they had a majority of those present, to pass it. Then it would have gone back for the board to study it, with a report at the next membership meeting. The reality is with those safeguards in place, they never would have done this. Now of course there is virtually no way to hold them accountable.
If you know Karen, you should suggest she join our online community here. While it is small in posters, it gets read pretty regularly.
Separate names with a comma.