The Players: PAC Updates

Insight into The Players’ continuing campaign strategy and their understanding of the Mountain View Performing Arts Center project progress. The January update has been replaced by the February update on their website.
➡️ PAC UPDATE on their website:
https://www.suncityplayers.org/pac-updates

 

I would say that this club feels very fortunate to have done their due diligence in placing extremely high pressure on the board to ensure they get what they want. Even taking it to the point of thanking which members they feel are instrumental in helping gain the upper hand.
My concern is what additional work do these people intend to provide in order to accomplish what they want? Bullying the board has worked so far, showing up in numbers in order to scare the board into submission? What’s next? No hard data, no real evidence of what is being claimed is indeed the real information, nope, show up in force and scare them. Works for golf, why shouldn’t it work for a small voluntary theatrical group?
Except this action may cost a minimum $28M or more. This cost will be borne by every member in this community for the rest of their lifetime. All because they can put pressure in the right direction. No kudos for creating the data that proves we deserve a better venue. No slaps on the back for creating a documented case for needing such a boondoggle. Nope, just congratulatory praise for having bullied the board into submission. But wait, it needs to be kept up in order to accomplish the desired outcome.
I made mention to another RCSC member who was looking at legal versus conjecture in pursuing action against the board for not doing their fiduciary duties.
This leaflet could also provide fodder for actions against the board. There’s the congratulatory nature of the article. The remarks about how these actions have been successful in getting the vote in the group’s favor with the removal of the second reading could easily be a case of collusion between the parties mentioned in the leaflet and certain voting board members. The author of the leaflet is most certainly proud of the waiver of the second reading.
In my opinion, if there ever was a case of dishonoring the intent of fiduciary duty and responsibility by being a fair and impartial board, acting in the manner of a prudent person, without demanding data to back up their claims of the descending mob, and then seeing the same group stating these same tactics will continue, without data and documentation to back up the case, is in my opinion actions that demand investigation.
The approval of this PAC without looking at other locations already equipped. By willfully ignoring the other options because a particular group wants a specific location. Succumbing to the whims of a small group of volunteers because they show up in force? By not having hard data provided by the RCSC as to true utilization and participation and relying upon facetious information makes a vote to approve such an exorbitant amount of money to the Mountainview project criminal. Just my opinion, but I am not a lawyer. Perhaps this needs the attention of a barrister? Just my opinion of course.

 

Carole, with the exception of BP everyone agrees this is a horrible process producing a terrible result for the community. John

 

Who is EVERYONE?
I totally agree with BP on the MV project.
The vast majority of people I have spoken with over the past 6 months are grateful that this project is finally moving ahead.
According to your blog, you didn't really start paying close attention to what went on in Sun City until 2021.
You missed a whole lot.
I voted for you and agreed with you on many things, but I lost respect for you when you filed the lawsuit against the RCSC.
That's another area where Bill and I have always agreed.
And now you're possibly going this route again or starting similar trouble?
Please don't.
Wasn't the end of Marlene/SAC and the beginning of Triarc on your watch? Wouldn't this have been part of your due diligence as a candidate or a board member?
As for the Bell asphalt project, they had to do it over because some thoughtless jackass moved the cones prematurely and people started driving over it before it was cured.
It's clear from some of the disparaging comments you have posted that you have a personal beef with several board members. Why not just sit down privately and settle your grievances? Why keep posting rude comments?
You once stated your opinion that SCW was the better community, that you preferred Sun City West and wanted to move there. What's keeping you here?
We considered moving in 2024 and part of 2025 because of all the nonsense over the past few years. Now finally things are getting better and you have to start trouble again.
Cut it out with all the negativity.

 

Emily,
With all due respect I believe all my criticisms have been factually based. Triarc was not on my watch and my involvement with the board was based on good faith belief the members were not being told the truth regarding Mountainview. It turns out I was correct. I believe your accusations are completely unfounded and uninformed. But I respect your right to express your opinions. My concerns for the good of our community are as follows:
The Board approving a special purpose theater without an operational plan for how to fill it or a strategic plan for how it fits into our recreational offerings
The use of deceptive practices to justify building it. For goodness sakes why don't they just say we are building a theater for the Players and do not care if it is justified.
As you should note, I sued RCSC because they refused to follow the bylaw change that the Board I was on made. It guaranteed the members the right to vote.
Best regards,
John

 

Emily,
There are those of us who question what moving ahead really entails. The MV center should be a shining star of a center for the residents who live around the area and will utilize the updated and revamped facilities.
Many of us have concerns about the additions proposed to be placed at MV. It will take the local community center and make it more cosmopolitan than it needs to be.
There is no reason to create a new entertainment venue when one already exists. And what about those folks who really want to have a rec center to use as it should have been intended, not a theater space. And who gets to pay for the new center once it’s done, we all do. So each of us has the right to speak up and out about what is built in that space.


n

 

Emily,

I am in total agreement with John. His posts are based on facts and data which support his views and opinions. Yours, on the other hand,……are condescending, subjective, and hurtful. It is perfectly fine for you to express your own opinion; but your reply to John’s post was the epitome of negativity.

When you questioned John about “who is everyone?”…….He should have been a little more specific and written:

~Everyone with any common sense!
~Everyone who understands and believes in Sun City‘s Mission, Vision, and Values.
~Everyone who is smart enough to realize when they are being lied to by the “squeaky wheels;” who give exaggerated numbers of people who attend their performances.
~ Everyone who understands all the negative effects that will be afflicted upon a huge majority of members that use Mountain View, if this theater is built.
~ Everyone who understands the importance of making decisions based on the best interests of the entire community, and not just one small group

I have been paying attention to this whole Mountain View fiasco since 2017. Quite a few people have researched and collected data on all the details relating to this project. During this discovery phase, the amount of information collected by various people support the fact that building a theater at Mountain View is definitely NOT in the best interest of the entire community. The fact that the RCSC board members are voting to push this through shows a significant lack of due diligence on their part, and a failure to “act in good faith.”

It is my hope that you and others who want to “hurry up and get this project started,“ would be willing to sit down and listen to the facts, instead of listening to the liars. One quality of an intelligent person is they are able to “listen to understand……not just listen to reply.”

 

I have been concerned all along that a PAC in that neighborhood was not the very best place. I am still concerned that there may not be enough parking when theater shows are on and other members are coming to work out. Overall, I am glad that MV is going to be reconstructed. I really hope it gives the entire south end of SC the boost it truly deserves. I hope real estate and property starts looking better. Many neglected, unkept properties down there. I truly hope things will turn around and the neighborhood comes back.

 

Eileen,
Putting a new $28M theatre down there will ill afford anyone living there currently a better way of living. If they are having difficulty now, think about the increased assessments to keep and maintain such a facility. If these folks are having a hard time now, the costs are going to keep escalating, has to just to cover the air conditioning costs of this proposed white elephant.

 

Here’s my idea for what really needs to be central to MV. A hub for a coffee shop, a quick grab and go made to order food joint and a truly delicious place to eat and enjoy the local atmosphere. The atmosphere would include some local shops, one of which would feature products and wares produced by local residents. Sitting areas that are shaded, wine bar and a small open area for entertainment can be provided for those enjoying the local fare. Easy open access from one area to another, and be open during evening hours so more people can enjoy the evening after work.
The trend is clear that there are more investment properties in the area and that trend is continuing to increase. The only way to stem this tide is to build what is being predicted for future generations. Giant theaters are a waste of space and are not anything future generation look for. We either adapt or die, and with the number of investment properties increasing, the community needs to pay attention to what we need for the future, a theater is definitely not on the short list.

 

Carol,
Thank you for being an imagineer! At our ages we know what Disney meant by that! Look into the future and imagine what is possible. I encourage you to model your ideas so other members can understand how it all fits together. Just imagine if many more did the same! There would be a plethora of choices for members to mix and match from.
John

 

John, the first thing that would need to happen is put the kabosh on this theater debacle. Unfortunately the only way I see that happening is with legal action against the the board, or more to the point, the president of the board, as that title has descriptive language as to duties and responsibilities. Once this theater is withdrawn, alternative uses for the inner space can be explored. It’s known that phase 1 and the south end of SC could use some help. Increasing interest in the area by way of dining and intimate meeting and gathering areas is what is predicted for this future. If the area makes welcome those interested in attending, then one can grow interest in the area. Sitting in a theater is not a draw to the up and coming retirees. Just ask broadway and the surrounding areas. Big box office theater is dying. Why do you think no other active adult community has built more? Because there is no interest. But, Sun City wants to build a $29Mboondoggle.

 

Carol,

I know not of a good faith basis to sue the board for making this bad decision under title 10 or member's facility agreement.

John

 

Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 10, directors of corporations must act in good faith, with the care of an ordinarily prudent person in similar circumstances, and in the best interests of the corporation. These duties require informed decision-making, loyalty, and avoiding conflicts of interest, often protected by the Business Judgment Rule*.

Dare I say the decision to build a brand new building without properly evaluating an already existing building that satisfies 90% of the requirements is a failure of proper due diligence and standard of care. Any prudent person with common sense, and in good faith, would want to understand why an existing structure wouldn't or couldn't satisfy the needs.

10-3830. General standards for directors

A. A director's duties, including duties as a member of a committee, shall be discharged:

1. In good faith.

2. With the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances.

3. In a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.

B. In discharging duties, a director is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by any of the following:

1. One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes are reliable and competent in the matters presented.

2. Legal counsel, public accountants or other person as to matters the director reasonably believes are within the person's professional or expert competence.

3. A committee of or appointed by the board of directors of which the director is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.

4. In the case of corporations organized for religious purposes, religious authorities and ministers, priests, rabbis or other persons whose position or duties in the religious organization the director believes justify reliance and confidence and whom the director believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented.

C. A director is not acting in good faith if the director has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection B unwarranted.

D. A director is not liable for any action taken as a director or any failure to take any action if the director's duties were performed in compliance with this section. In any proceeding commenced under this section or any other provision of this chapter, a director has all of the defenses and presumptions ordinarily available to a director. A director is presumed in all cases to have acted, failed to act or otherwise discharged such director's duties in accordance with subsection A. The burden is on the party challenging a director's action, failure to act or other discharge of duties to establish by clear and convincing evidence facts rebutting the presumption.

E. A director shall not be deemed to be a trustee with respect to the corporation or with respect to any property held or administered by the corporation, including property that may be subject to restrictions imposed by the donor or transferor of that property.

Business Judgment Rule:
The Business Judgment Rule (BJR) is a legal presumption protecting corporate directors from liability for honest mistakes, assuming they acted in good faith, with due care (like a prudent person), and in the company's best interest, not for personal gain. It shields directors from courts second-guessing decisions, even if they turn out poorly, unless there's evidence of fraud, self-dealing, lack of independence, or gross negligence. The rule encourages bold, informed decisions by preventing undue fear of lawsuits for honest errors.

So...have they been prudent and acted in good faith when they failed their due diligence? Hmmm? You decide!

 

I will ask for definition of “lack of independence”? Has there not been a collective effort by several parties to define the outcomes to their own benefit? Was due diligence a factor in deciding the proper outcome for spending $29m?

Asking for clarification.

 

Please do what you think is right which is usually nothing.

 

So, John,

What do you suppose anyone would think about your last comment? Do feel by putting together a 3D mock up of what you envision is the only answer? Did you perform any of the possible follow through you suggested may be in order?
This is a place to share ideas and search for answers. Putting each other down is not in the wheelhouse of progress or a professional way to proceed.
I have also reviewed ways to possibly make this an actionable item through the AG office. Just because I didn’t reveal the details doesn’t mean things aren’t being reviewed.
I just don’t feel the comment was necessary.

 

Hi Carole,
I agree with you that giant theaters spend a lot of time sitting there. I have lived here for 52 years and remember that Sun City West did the big theater thing and then after 10 years the theater became obsolete than became a huge white elephant. Of course that theater was way too big. It could be a smaller theater will work out, and the idea now should be let Sun Dial be the multi use building to serve all the many clubs that meet. I think we need to move on. Let's cheer for MV neighborhood that we see a much needed revitalization of this area! The thing we need to focus on mostly is maintain, maintain, maintain!

 

Eileen,
I wholeheartedly support renovating MV to be a much nicer and accommodating rec center for the local area it serves. The community that uses that center have a lot to look forward to as far as remodeled pool, expanded fitness and shower facilities and a better quality of being able to check in to the center. This is some of the items I heard asked for from these folks.
There’s only one group that is placing all of us in the crosshairs of increased assessments, and that’s the theater group. This isn’t about maintaining, this is about bravado and ego, when a group of around 150 people lead the way to a $29M theater, this is just not fiscally responsible or prudent for this center or community.
There’s only cost to air condition this place , with APS rate structure, that will be a driver for increased costs. The additional staff to maintain this facility will increase costs. The additional specialized technician needed will increase costs. I am trying to let folks know that this white elephant being built will cost every homeowner dearly just to pay for it.

 

My understanding is that $9,000,000 is the amount set aside for the theater. You should quit saying $29M.