The bastards did it!

An analysis of the June 14 board meeting is at the following link. That is the meeting in which Option 2 was presented and the first vote of approval was made. The analysis points out much of the hypocrisy and the disingenuous comments by some board members.
http://rcsc-folly.byethost24.com/2021/06/17/option-2-meeting-analysis/

 

Interesting read Bill and for perhaps the first time in our history where there's been an organized digital effort to speak out against the RCSC. There's plenty to comment on as you are correct in your assessments about the divide between what the say and what is the reality. First off, in all likelihood none of the directors will be there by the time phase 1 of plan 2 is completed. Phase 2, the second pool, is another lengthy process which gets us out to 2024 or 2025. Director McAdam rightly understands that during that time frame decisions regarding fixing the lake and the 5th phase of the water management plan comes to reality with golf courses water supply being reduced dramatically.

All which leaves future PIF expenditures open for dissection. The South course with the largest non-golf area (roughs) will be in the 4 million dollars range (at today's prices). Several of the courses have some conversion to desert landscaping but in 2025 the options will be to let the roughs die and look like dead grass or put down crushed rock, neither of which will be liked by home owners on the courses. Clearly McAdam saw what that means to phase's 2 and 3 and if and when they would come both to fruition or completion.

With all of that out of the way, the point is simple: Can Sun City afford to run with one pickleball venue (Marinette) for the next 4, 5 or more years? I would argue no and i have no skin in the game, i don't play pickleball and i doubt i ever will. I do follow trends in age restricted communities and with only the 20 courts at Marinette, we will be well under-served on a per capita basis, especially compared to other age restricted communities around us. It just makes no sense. The board would be well advised to find a solution where they build 8 to 10 pickleball courts in phase 1. They could do it by the softball fields in the drainage area or better yet in some of the open space at the south course next to the maintenance buildings. Then it becomes a dead issue for at least the next 5 years.

 

It kinda makes you wonder when did these types of actions begin to manifest and by whom? First they limit which board members can participate in the hiring process of the new GM, then apparently only a select few decided that Mountain View will precede under Option 2, then they gang-up and kick McAdam off the board without her having an opportunity to defend herself.

Unless some sort of ad-hoc committee was formed with only a select few, I would expect EVERY board member would be involved with those types of corporate decisions?

Something’s rotten in Denmark!

 

I don't know about Denmark FYI, but McAdam was always going to be challenged simply because she has a basic understanding how boards are supposed to work. For some unknown reason the RCSC has developed a mentality of the officers having some kind hierarchical standing. They don't. The Articles of Incorporation and the By-laws define their additional duties; after that, it's one person, one vote. That's it, one person, one vote. This past year they've decided that some board members shouldn't be in the room for some things. Funny thing about that was the retreads seemed to make into the room, i guess because they were "experienced."

Any semblance of order is lost when you carve some out and leave some in. There's no logical reason other than those who aren't willing to go along just get booted from the room. Bringing them in after the fact is bullshit. And then they wonder why folks don't trust them. It's the games you play guys. Healthy functioning boards include everyone and welcome diverse opinions. Sadly, over the past 15 years the evolution of how we do business has brought us to this low point in our history.

 

It’s my understanding that some board members actually read this blog, so if you’re out there, take heed!

Assuming former Director McAdam would still have a desire to serve with a bunch of amateurs, and if I were her, this is what I would ask for:

1. Immediate reinstatement to the board.

2. A written apology from the board and signed by each of the seven members who voted to terminate her using a made-up lie.

If they deny her request, I would remind them that the RCSC is regulated by the Arizona State Statutes, Title 10. And because there are no procedures within the RCSC articles of incorporation or bylaws for the termination of a director, the RCSC must follow State Statute .

I'm not going to state the exact statute, let the board do their own damn homework. But I would say director McAdam is still officially a member of the board because the board failed their proper due diligence.

Do I smell a legal action?

 

Irony: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result." Interesting to read when i looked for the meaning of the word irony. Nope, i knew what it meant, i just never connected the dots when it came to the amusing results piece. There truly is nothing to laugh about regarding any of this. Especially as we move further down the road and more stuff comes out. There was no conflict of interest on Karen's part, no more so than when Rich or Dan or the countless other golfers lobbied and voted for massive golf course expenditures. As Karen noted, if that's the case they might as well all pack up there stuff and go home, nobody could serve on the board.

The irony comes i when one looks back over the last 6 months of board meetings and come to find out there is a serious matter regarding "conflict's of interest." So much so that when it came before the board, they simply blew it off with go see so and so. Of course, that got them nowhere and the crap just keeps on going on. As Karen pointed out so eloquently, conflicts most often occur when someone in a position of authority is able to benefit monetarily from their actions using their position to do so. This becomes especially significant with what is going on in Sun City West. Turning a blind eye is never a defense. Never.

 

What hypocrisy!

There is a current Director on the Board who has committed more heinous acts then Mrs. McAdan, yet they continue to serve on the Board. Anyone who was on the 20117-18 Board can attest to that, or you can just ask Dave.

The long term Board members should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Unfortunately, I think the selection of a board member is based more on popularity than it is on qualifications?

You don't have to know what the hell you're doing, all you need to be is a good ole boy...or gal!

 

Just to be clear E, Director McAdam has committed no acts worth getting kicked off the board for. Because she took a position regarding there being pickleball courts south of Grand Ave is frankly a concern i would have raised if i were on the board. By eliminating those 7 courts for an undermined period of time we leave Sun City in an ugly competitive position with other age restricted communities who even now are in a far better position on a per capita basis. We simply haven't kept pace with demand and going backwards is not a position any director should support without knowing what the plan is.

I have long and fruitlessly argued "you cannot make decisions in a vacuum." Every action they take has an immediate consequence. Some long term, some short term. They simply refuse to function using a cohesive strategic plan to accomplish anything. We've too long flown by the seat of our pants. We've had gobs of money and rather than layout a 10, 15 and 20 year plan, they muck around illogically, lacking either structure or discipline. Part of it is the ever changing boards, some of it was they way they killed the long range planning committee years back. The reality was they got in the way of the gm's vision.

Even now the long range planning committee is treated like the proverbial red-headed step-child.

Your point was well intended regarding things that have been done in the past. If memory serves me, David quit over some of those actions. This might be a good spot for him to show up and speak out. There's any number of self-dealing issues that have been abused and misused along the way. The purity test was get messy here and so yet again as you pointed out E, hypocrisy is king eh?

 

Sadly FYI, we have morphed into a popularity contest, or in some cases the biggest best organized clubs just vote in block and they determine who gets elected. Back in the days following DEVCO leaving Sun City, candidates ran on platforms and an agenda other than more transparency and better communication.

 

Damn, meant to mention this earlier: 2100 reads and growing daily...i don't think this one is going away gang. You might want to thing about that free advice FYI gave you.

 

Mercy sakes alive, looks like we got us a QUORUM!

 

SMILE, big freaking smile.

 

Everyone needs to write a letter to the newspaper... hundreds of letters could get some lasting attention.

 

I will write a letter IC, next week and the it will approach this travesty from a historical perspective. I do agree, people should be incensed one of the people they elected should just get the boots for voicing her opinion. That's why they are elected in the first place. In fact, i could argue her position relative to Sun City's future is on more solid footings regarding pickleball than the rest of the boards regarding the Mountainview project, plan 2.

At the very least it they should have had the second reading, passed it it on their majority basis and then brought it back this fall in September for the third reading. Again, Karen was spot on; there are three readings for a reason. When motions have no controversy attached to them, passing them after two readings is fine. In this case, they knew it was controversial and they knew that come September the shit-storm was gonna hit so they plowed ahead. If that doesn't tell you something, then you are beyond hope.

 

I would suspect that the option of waiving the 3 readings was originally intended for limited use and when time was of the essence and not to be used to simply ram-rod thru a decision before anybody has a chance to voice their opinion. That waiving of the third reading appeared to me to be an abuse of power, just like when they ram-rodded the 3 minute speaking rule! We gotta get it done before the public gets to voice their opinions!!!

I think we will see how this method of ram-rodding the termination of director McAdam comes back to bite them in the ass when they figure out that they violated Title 10. Sure, the board has a right to call an executive session, and sure they have the authority to terminate a director, but it's not a simple 2 step process of 1) calling the meeting, 2) terminate the director.

What ever happened to due process and an opportunity to defend one's self? You would think the board would be more professional but unfortunately they can't see any farther than their personal and ganged-up agenda!

 

Not sure i agree with that assessment FYI. Here is what the articles of Incorporation say:
"Article IX
Removal of any elected or appointed Director may be done in either of the following ways:

A. 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."

Obviously they aren't claiming the first section regarding three meetings. The second may well be where your Title 10 piece plays in. They can claim she is unwilling or incapable but no judge in their right mind would agree simply because she doesn't see the Mountainview project the way they do. That would be lunacy to even attempt to argue it but these guys (the board) apparently think they are above reproach. Like i have said, had they even attempted this 15 years ago they would have had a roomful of the owners show up in force and held their hand to the fire. They may have rewritten the documents to carve out the members rights but this case appears to me to be a simple and arrogant abuse of power.

The only other point of contention would be in the by-laws where there is the conflict of interest and like Karen said if a board member doing stuff would disqualify them from voting every golfer that ever served on the board should have abstained every time a vote came up regarding golf. Never happened, never once.

 

First of all I would ask, have you read what it takes to suspend a Cardholder from their privilege's to use the facilities in Article II, Section 8 of the bylaws? Everything from a 14 day notice of a hearing to an option for appeal with several steps in between!

Do you honestly believe it's as simple as a 2 step process to TERMINATE a board member (forever!) than it is to simply SUSPEND a Cardholder (temporarily)? I know you don't! The termination of a board member is not a small thing or should be taken lightly! We're relying on our board of directors to manage a 20 million dollar plus budget so surly the opinion of each of the 9 members holds very important weight in any decision and each opinion needs to be considered. Point being; it should be harder to terminate a member of the board than it is to suspend a Cardholder!

I hope McAdam contacts the state attorney generals office and let them decide if the RCSC's cheezie Article IX overrides the Title 10 due process clause and allows the RCSC to terminate a director in absentia,... and without proper notice?

I think there's a very good chance that the RCSC violated her civil rights and they better have damn good documentation on how she was incapable of performing her duties. Was she ever warned? Was she ever written up? How many times has she failed? What exactly did she fail at doing? You can't just accuse somebody of something without having documented a file of proof. Maybe she could accuse the RCSC of deformation of character as well?

Regardless of what I think about which rules apply, I believe that once the articles start appearing in the Independent, which I'm sure will be many, and when the board returns in September, this is far from over, and I think many people will view the board in a much different light. They're certainly losing my respect!

 

I asked earlier if a board member has to own property in Sun City to be a member of the board. Well, when searching Maricopa Assessors Office website (https://www.mcassessor.maricopa.gov/) all members show up as a property owner except Akins. Interesting.... do we have an board member sitting on the board that is not a property owner?

 

Perhaps the property isn't listed under her name but rather listed under a family trust?