The bastards did it!

Yes, petitions are another member right the RCSC has NEUTERED. It's much more than just the RCSC denying where you can gather signatures -- they also require you get the RCSC's permission and approval of the petition -- seemingly the RCSC could deny any petition they might not like? I can't help thinking of Brave New World and 1984.

 

I can't help myself but must reiterate, why does the RCSC require such an intricate, multi-step procedure to suspend a Cardholder from his/her privilege's, but no such procedure is afforded to a member of the board?

I would still argue that since the RCSC articles of incorporation and bylaws are silent on a similar procedure for members of the board, the RCSC must still afford the board member their due process and that process is found in Title 10!!!

 

I don't disagree with you one bit FYI, there should be at the very least be standards and a process for removing a director that are in fact, greater than suspending a member. That said, here's where we disagree; i don't think they have the right to fire her other than for missing three consecutive meetings (which she didn't) or for proving her unwilling or incapable to fulfilling her duties (which may well be what you are saying). The fact she disagrees with them is not an act of unwilling or incapable, she just sees the issues different from them

Let me just tell you a quick story which amplifies how the RCSC has done their job in previous years and why i hope Karen challenges them. In the mid 2000's, the board passed a motion changing from single fee assessments to a straight lot assessment. Basically what it did was make single people pay the same rate as a couple. To get it passed without any outcry from the residents, the board "grandfathered" all Sun City residents so it would only affect new home buyers.

Several years later, the gm was looking at revenue and determined the grandfathered residents weren't dying fast enough. She went to the board and said she wanted them to pass a motion whereby grandfathered meant in the house they were living in, but they lost it if they moved. In my previous work life, i understood grandfathered meant for life. Rather than trusting my own instincts i went to the board members who passed it and asked them their intent. They had the same conclusion i did and showed up and told the gm and the board what their intent was. The board paid no attention to them and swallowed the gm's claim "the attorney said we could bullshit."

Moral to the story is simple; these guys do whatever they want. As IC pointed out, the crap about not signing a recall petition on RCSC property is merely the cusp of the problem. The articles of incorporation grant members a slew of rights, up to and including recalling a board member. Sadly, when the bylaws got rewritten, the language added made it virtually impossible for the membership to recall a board member. Obviously this is only one of several instances of the gm rewriting by-laws and taking great liberties with the original intent of the articles of incorporation.

Karen was smart enough to actually read the AI's and use them in her duties as a director. Too bad the others on the board didn't take the time to understand what they said and then follow them.

 

Oh! I agree 100%. First of all, we know she didn't miss three consecutive meetings, so all that leaves is her unwillingness to perform her duties! Has she ever been written-up? How many times? Just what exactly was it that she refused or was incapable of doing?

You can't just terminate somebody because they disagree with you, unlike being a paid employee, where most employee handbooks would state you could be terminated for any reason, or no reason at all!

RCSC is regulated by Title 10 and Title 10 provides a procedure if no other procedure is stated in the RCSC AI or BL? It's more than just calling a meeting and terminating, and I believe the pure fact that Title 10 provides for a certain due process, that those requirements must be afforded! So I break it down like this, yes, you can be terminated, which is what the AI states, but there's a process and procedure that must be followed to do so! Hence, Title 10!

 

OMG ! Just spent an hour on the phone with Barbara Brehm who was indeed fired by the RCSC board of directors last year. She made a fatal mistake the day she went to the finance manager (at the time) and asked for the auditors report (which he should have). He gave it to her along with the auditor's notes. All of which triggered questions that were legitimate and deserved to be answered. So we are clear, doing that is exactly what board members should be doing, unless of course someone is a control freak who doesn't want anyone involved in what they perceive as their business. Duh! That is the board's freaking business and that is why we elect them. Instead, she was fired for it. Go figure.

She left without raising a ruckus, kudos to her. Now that she heard they have done it again, she is willing to help Karen. Stay tuned as this unfolds and the actions by these board member's comes under a microscope.

 

Hmmmm? So it kinda makes you wonder which Directors are actually doing their job and which ones are "unwilling or incapable of performing his or her share of the duties and responsibilities of a Director." Seems to me the wrong people are being terminated?

I certainly hope Karen contacts Barbara and they both contact the attorney general's office. This shit has got to be stopped!

 

HOFFER is the ringleader.

 

I try very hard not to be critical of any one person serving on the board. Having sat there, i know it is a thankless job you do, takes a number of your hours and shortens the amount of hours you get to do the fun stuff. Sadly, some times board members put themselves in harms way, they make stupid or bad decision and they end up facing the ire of the community...at least the few who pay attention.

I've written it a hundred times; one of the best parts of Sun City is we are a community of volunteers; one of the worst things about Sun City is we are a community of volunteers. The old adage always come through...you get what you pay for. For better or worse, we end up getting whomever puts their name in the hat and then most often whoever has the best network of clubs/friends. I think FYI called it a "popularity contest" and in many ways he was right.

I have a little different take on who i vote for. The first thing i do is look at a candidates background; what they did for a living. I look for candidates who have an understanding of organizational structure, interpreting documents or come with an expertise the RCSC has been short on (for example, a solid commitment to technology). Nope don't expect them to go do it, but it helps to have someone on the board who knows what they are talking about when the challenges come up.

Let's be honest here, not many candidates in the past 15 years met those qualifications. Too often their biggest asset/skill-set was they were golfers...not that can't have other qualifications. Unfortunately the other attributes almost are of no matter. Even when people come to the board with qualities that would be beneficial to the community they quickly are sucked into the vortex of "group think." I've written it before and no interest in going there again, i will just tell you candidates i spent copious amounts of time before they were elected simply became one of them. It's happened time and time again. Human nature almost always creates that going along to get along mindset.

With all of that out of the way, two of the most qualified candidates i have seen run for the board were both summarily fired by their peers. Neither were willing or interested to turning a blind eye to the issues as they were presented. Both were willing to speak up and raise the issues that concerned them with their fellow board members. Both had qualifications well beyond the other board members and whether it intimidated them or they just were resentful they were speaking out, perhaps we'll never know.

Anyone with a background of organizational structure and especially with how boards should work would quickly come to understand when they get elected, that is speaking up and out ispart of their duties. In Barbara's case she saw things that triggered questions, legitimate questions that the board in it's entirety should have at least looked at. In Karen's case, she saw a glaring weakness in the Mountainview project Plan 2 and felt compelled to speak out. Neither qualifies for anything other than a board member doing what they were put there to do. Firing them was a knee-jerk reaction by board members intimidated by their knowledge and position.

Lots of additional thoughts, but i will save them for later posts.

 

Is that just a personal opinion SW or have you actually experienced those tactics in person?

Either way, I think most people who have had any interaction with Hoffer would probably agree with you.

 

Be curious to hear SW's answer.I guess to know him is to love him.

A couple of things: Now having talked to board members since fired, i hear a common theme that is troubling. New board members for at least the last two years have been shut out of meetings. In some cases they were told it was "an officers meeting" or in others just told they weren't needed to be in the room. That is freaking outrageous. Worse yet, those "experienced" retreads sat in while those WE elected were shut out. Let me think about that. Any board member or officer who embraced that mentality should be flat out ashamed of their behavior. ASHAMED!

The second piece is just practical; anyone who stays in a position too long becomes complacent, sloppy and tends to take short cuts. While talking to Barbara the other day she highlighted some of the things she found and i was shocked. Perhaps there was ultimately nothing wrong, but the fact she took the time to do her job and found things that raised questions should have been applauded. Not the case at the RCSC where the board feels it is their job to protect the gm no matter what.

With the current gm leaving the real question become what will the new GM do? We'll see.

 

Nice article in today's Independent BPearson, and it was nice to read several others as well who all agreed that the RCSC board is out of touch and out of control.

So far I have not seen or heard one comment from anybody who felt that director McAdam's termination was warranted.

I didn't see the article I wrote so I guess there are still many more "opinion" pieces that are yet to be published.

I'm tempted to send that Kristi Svendsen an email with the consideration to join her recall petition, but based on what I've read, I don't think she understands what type of hoops she needs to jump thru and how hard the RCSC has made the process!

Rather than playing by their rules, and the games we must play to first ask permission, then get their approval to even begin a petition process, I would prefer a good old fashioned public insurrection! I rather see the troops storm the September board meeting and demand answers. They don't seem to be following the rules so why should we?

 

Thanks FYI. I too read Kristi's letter and while it sounds good, it doesn't have a chance in hell. I posted above the hoops necessary to jump through and it is impossible. So much so when you read the Articles of Incorporation where they give us those rights one could easily interpret they are effectively taking them away in the by-laws. Curious because the by-laws need be in concert to the AI's. The September meeting should draw one very large crowd.

 

Rumor has it that some of the board members follow this site from time to time. Over the years a couple have chosen to join and comment but it is frowned on by other board members and management. I get it, the less you say, the smarter you sound...my bad, being a touch snippy here. Anyway, as a form of Public Service, let me post this PSA (Public Service Announcement for those of you challenged by acronyms). Pretty simple as i am simply taking a couple of segments from our Articles of Incorporation to help those of you haven't read them (the majority i suspect) better understand. These portions will give you a good idea what the initial framers intended:

Article 8:
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.

Article 10:
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.

B. The Members may remove any elected or appointed Director in the following manner, and any vacancy so created may be filled in the following manner:

Most of what you would read in the Articles of Incorporation or the By-Laws is pretty dry. That said, the highlighted portions above make it abundantly clear how the framers interpreted the rights of the members. Of course, now that we have been reduced to "card-holders" perhaps that doesn't apply. By the way, i see no reference to "card-holders" in the A of I. If i missed it, please feel free to point it out to me. Always interested in learning.

 

PERFRCT TIMING!
I just learned, from a very reliable source, that there will be a General Membership meeting in October. That's because there wasn't a General Membership meeting in January due to Covid, and the bylaw's stipulate that "An annual meeting of the Members shall be held each year"(Article IV, §1)

I think this is perfect timing? Just think; the September Board meeting will probably see the most attendance it has seen in years and it ain't gonna be pretty! I suspect many members will be asking for the Board to either reinstate Director McAdam or resign, but I also suspect the Board will be very defensive of their decision and will most likely attempt to cut short any criticism, which will only piss-off the public even more.

We might just see a quorum show up at this year's meeting? I certainly hope so and I for one want answers!

 

You're right on Bill!

"B. The Members may remove any elected or appointed Director in the following manner, and any vacancy so created may be filled in the following manner:"

And that's because, in the eyes of the Corporation and stated in their Articles of Incorporation, We the Members have the final word, and that makes the RCSC Board of Directors a subordinate body to the Membership!

The Articles also state: "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."

If we can ever get a quorum to show up at an Annual Meeting.....We win,...they lose!

Only in the eyes of the Bylaws are we treated like second class "Cardholder" citizens!!!

 

Wow, stunner. They could have had an annual meeting on ZOOM like other age restricted communities did. No idea why they didn't but i suspect they are wishing they had. Or, perhaps they will pull a rabbit out of their hat (i really had somewhere else in mind but i am trying to be nice here) and placate the pickleball players. This p-ball club is large and vocal so it wouldn't surprise if their solution is to screw another club/clubs take their space and claim they done good. I know that sounds devious, but that is how they think, the path of least resistance. I've long made the argument you don't win these kinds of fights by pitting club members against club members. Honestly though, i don't think they care...not even a little bit.

Thanks for highlighting it in red FYI. I guess along the way the GM and previous boards ignored that part about "the action of the Members shall prevail."

 

Well, that will also bring out the tennis players. The p-ball club isn't the only ones losing their current venue. I think those who play tennis (although nowhere near as many as P-ball players) are afraid that the tennis courts will be totally eliminated under the new design so they too have a horse in that race? And then there's the lawn bowlers! I'm sure nobody is happy about the potential of losing their venue at that location. Yup! I think the September Board meeting will be a major indication of things to come! A real Bell-Ringer, as they say!

As far as the Annual Membership Meeting goes, I'm surprised I haven't seen any sort of notice for it, but I know it was programed thru the audio/visual guys to be posted on the electronic bulletin boards. I'm sure the Board never expected the magnitude of the push-back they're now receiving on the McAdam dismissal. Perhaps you're right and they're now rethinking the Annual Meeting but it's probably to late to organize it thru ZOOM?

 

Awe Bill, that hurt the Pickleball Clubs feelings. The Pickleball Club is not out to screw any other club, that wouldn't benefit anyone. We are fair and just want to be heard. Karen wasn't able to present all of the research she did at the last board meeting. The numbers prove it all over the United States & world for that matter, that pickleball is the fastest growing sport and she was just trying to inform the membership. But of course was abruptly cut off and then booted off the board. We play fair with all club and will continue to do so, it won't get nasty between any clubs, it may get nasty with the current board though. Nine members who don't participate in pickleball deciding what close to 700 members need? I don't think so. Maybe as someone mentioned before...we turn one of their precious golf courses (that the board all seem to continue to lavish with membership $$) into a huge dog park, lawn bowling, tennis courts & pickleball courts. This morning there is a post on the SC Pickleball Facebook that references this site as well. https://www.facebook.com/suncitypickleballclub

 

Awesome on spreading the word poison_ivy. My comments weren't directed at pballer's; when i said "their solution," i was referring to the board. If you have followed this site or my comments at the board meeting you know i have always argued for a second venue for pickleball. We simply cannot function with just the Marinette site. As Karen pointed out, even with the 7 courts at Mountainview, we are undeserved on a per-capita basis. I don't play pickleball but i follow age restricted communities and i know smaller communities around us may have less courts but when you compare their size, they have more per household.

Sadly, this evolution away from member involvement and more control by the board and the gm has been going on for a very long time. I've started hundreds of threads on this site regarding how Sun City is changing and who has been responsible. The perfect example is in how the Mountainview plan 2 was introduced, In years past there would have been discussions with all parties involved and commitments made. Now they just plow through because they can. It's such a sad commentary on what is wrong with Sun City. They've fired two board members in the last two years...how sick is that?

 

This was one of the major concerns I heard from a board member. Seems that only a select few members of the board made the decision (outside of a board meeting) that they would vote on passing option 2.

I wonder if they were the same select few who got to interview the potential candidates for General Manager?

So...…why is the president allowed to pick and choose which directors will be involved in a decision and which ones won't? Bottom line....she isn't! It's a "Members' Rights" issue. Every member of the board has the same rights so it's not appropriate for the president alone to make that decision. The board, all its members, are required to vote on a motion to "commit" or "refer" the issue to a committee, that can be less than the entire board, who will then make a recommendation back to the board. Committees do not have the power to act, but only to report back to the board, which retains the powers granted to it in the bylaws. An up or down vote of the entire board on the recommendations of the committee will determine whether all the members or only select few will participate in the issue of question! It ain't just up to the president!