So, what went wrong with today’s Board meeting…let me count the ways! First, Dale read a whole long segment of Robert’s Rules §43 regarding the Rules Governing Debate, then turned around and violated her own rules. Based on the typical formality of serving as the Chair, and to maintain the appearance of impartiality, if you follow §43 then the Chair should not vote, unless the vote affects the results, or participate in debate. The Chairperson should relinquish the chair to do so. (See RONR 43:29) If, however, the Chair wishes to participate in debate and vote in meetings, then the Board should adopt all or some of the rules specified and use the Procedure in Small Boards (See RONR 49:21). Those procedures will remain in place until they are rescinded. Next: The Chair doesn’t really have the sole power to prevent a non-member from speaking. The Chair should ask, “Is there any objection to letting a non-member speak?” and the entire board responds via vote? If the Chair does not submit the request to the assembly, any member of the board is free to make a motion to grant the request, which again, will be voted on. (Voting requirements differ whether the request is simply to make a comment or to participate in debate, but I find it a bit disconcerting that the Chair would actually mention my name but not allow me to respond!) Next: The motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (February 2023) was out of order because any unfinished business, except that which is in the hands of a committee dies at the end of the session. (See RONR 14:6, 21:7, 49:22) You think the parliamentarian would have advised the Chair of that fact? So now, they’re calling for a Special Session for the second reading/vote on the 2023 budget. Next: At one point they argued about having a 2/3rd’s vote to waive the second reading. One Director said they couldn’t because one member of the board was absent. Truth is, with only 8 members present, and if everybody voted, 6 votes in the affirmative would have passed the motion. Besides, it’s not based on how many members are in attendance, but on how many members eligible to vote actually does. If only 3 members voted and the rest abstained, then 2 members voting in the affirmative would have satisfied the 2/3rd’s requirement! Next: There are more crazy and confusing explanations and statements regarding the budget and how much will be carried over into next year, but I will let others who are better informed than I to explain that portion of meeting.
FYI...I was waiting for someone to make a request for you to speak! It would have been so simple. I really wish I could explain what happened with the budget. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors, dancing around the issues; nothing made sense. When a highly qualified CPA couldn't make sense of what the staff was trying to convey, and the financial reports don't support what they present, and members have no access to the budget documents, there is really no way to make any sense of what they were talking about. How many million do they really have in carry forward, how or when do they spend it, who really determines how it's spent or where it's applied, why aren't capital expenditures shown on the income and expense report if carry forward funds are spent on capital projects? There are way too many things that just don't add up or just don't make sense as they try to explain them. As one board member said after the meeting - it's just magic! Not the right answer, however.
Yesterday's meeting was yet again another in a long line of fiasco's. As Linda mentioned, we heard so many numbers thrown around at how much, or how little, carry forward there would be at the end of this year i felt like i was sitting in the Thursday night bingo game (all be it without the letters attached to the numbers). Now i have to smile: B3.5, I1.7, and G500. So which was it guys? What we know for sure was no one was screaming BINGO at the end of yesterday's session. Hopefully the new board will work with management to create readable and easy to understand financials. Even former board member and on the budget and finance committee Dave Weiland has been campaigning for that to happen for years. The strategy to create confusion rather than clarity has worked far too well. The good news is they held off on any actions regarding reserve studies and establishing board policies until next year and using the budget and finance committee and community volunteers to set it. The bad news is embodied in a question i was asked by a resident as she was walking out: "What the heck just happened with the increase they wanted?" Great question because if you watch the video, bring the popcorn and try and follow along with the bouncing ball. They literally did the Arizona four-step with the original motion, the friendly amendment to the motion, voting down the friendly amendment to spend the increase on clubs, passing the motion on the $29 increase (i think), then trying to wave the second reading but without Ege there they feared it would not pass with what they claimed was the 6 necessary votes, so then everyone except one director voted against waving the second reading. Wow, everyone got that? Clear as freaking mud right? Then they wonder why people walk out shaking their heads. Anyway, between the drama and the dribble, here's the net (as i explained to the member that asked me): On Dec 22 there will be a special session where Director Ege can conceivably be off work and they can pass the $29 increase and the general manager won't have to rework his budget (which he has made absolutely no effort to do). The vote will be 6 to something to pass it, with at least one of the board members away (maybe two). If there was any important news out of yesterday's shit show, it was virtually all of the $29 will go to the employees in the way of wage increases. For those don't know, the state minimum wage is going up $1.05 an hour the first of the year which impacts a third of the RCSC employees. It also has a ripple effect across the wage schedule. As the general manager noted, most RCSC employees aren't working for the joy of the job, but to help pay the bills. Lesson to management: If you are trying to pass a budget, show the board and the membership the details; you know, like how many hours are being worked and how much money it will take to cover the increased labor costs will be. That's way more effective than just saying because we want it (in my humble opinion). Anyway, long story short, by the new year, the RCSC will have the increase in place and we will have a new majority status board of directors. Hopefully, they will be way more in touch with the membership and with each other. Here's a suggestion for the new board: rather than showing up at board meetings and looking like the class clowns with the lamp shades on your heads (or was that the party drunk?), reinstate the board work sessions where you can hash out the details of what you are trying to do. I know that will grate on some as a closed door meeting, so here is the caveat: When there are motions to be discussed at board meetings, allow everyone attending to have their say regarding the motion (whether they sign up or not), and then be willing to listen to the members comments in case you want to rethink whatever was discussed at the work session. That's how it used to work. I know it sounds like i am being critical, but i defy anyone to watch yesterday's meeting and tell me i am wrong. One of my favorite movies over the years was Sleepless in Seattle. I couldn't help walking out of the session yesterday with a burning passion to race home and right a screen play entitled Clueless in Sun City.
Here it is! View with caution, you may get mystified and dizzy! RCSC Board of Directors Meeting – Thursday, December 15, 2022 Tap “Watch on YouTube”in the black box if link doesn’t work. RCSC doesn’t usually allow sharing the link on social media.
All I wanted to explain was the fact that they could have simply suspended the rule that states you can't offer the same motion within the same session. That's simply a Rule of Order and can be suspended unlike some Bylaws that can only be suspended if the Bylaw has its own provision to do so. If they did that, they could have simply offered the motion to accept the 2023 budget again without going thru the crazy and confusing differences and discussions between the motions to Reconsider, or Rescind? I've said it a million times. Their monthly meetings are in fact simply individual separate sessions and not part of a year-long session (RONR 8:4) and they're killing themselves by believing that!
I have been reading this board, but have not posted anything for a long time. I just submitted and open letter to the 2022 RCSC Board, the 2023 Board Elect and this is to the RCSC Membership: An open letter to: The 2022 RCSC Board, the 2023 RCSC Board Members Elect, and the RCSC Membership. SUBJECT: RCSC 2023 Budget The proposed budget incorporates all the issues of inflation that were discussed at the 12/15/2023 board meeting. · It provides for increase wages to staff, due to the 2023 minimum wage increase and inflation. · It provides for anticipated increased costs in utilities. · It provides for anticipated increased cost for materials, goods, and services. Past budgets have resulted in good guidance and resulted in leftover (unspent) dollars (Carry Forward). The current 2023 budget requires an additional $2.7 million. This amount exceeds the projected revenue for 2023. Where does the increased budget amount come from? The current motion calls for: · An assessment increase of $29 per year. This results in approximately $750 thousand additional income for 2023. · This leaves approximately $2 million that will come from the current Carry Forward of over $10.5 million. · The resulting Carry Forward would end up being at least $8.0 million. Why not take the additional $750 thousand from Carry Forward and not increase the annual assessment this year? The resulting Carry Forward would end up being over $7.25 million. This is a simple question. There were several additional reasons given at the board meetings for an increased assessment. Some that do not really apply and some that are fear mongering comments that also do not apply: · We have not had an assessment increase in 6 years. Why do we need an increase now? This would be appropriate if we did not have unrestricted funds to cover what is needed. We have an excessive amount of unrestricted funds. The Carry Forward is currently over $10.5 million. 6 years without an increase, is not a good reason. It just indicates that we are very good at managing our facilities and our money. · Our assessments are far lower than other communities. In most cases as much as 50% and more. Same argument from prior bullet applies. Do we really need an increase today? We are very good at managing our facilities and our money. · “We are at a precipice”. “We cannot have deficit spending”. This is fear mongering. These are not true statements. Our budget has increased as necessary to deal with inflation. We have the money. We do not need to borrow money. Increasing assessments is a standalone issue and is not necessary to have a balanced budget. Stop all the Puffing and look at the real question: Where does the increased budget amount come from? The answer is simple: Use the Carry Forward dollars to balance the budget. Do not increase assessments. Deal with an assessment increase in the future when it may really be needed. Sincerely, Michael Wendel – a concerned RCSC member.
Really a well spelled out rebuttal to why they don't need to raise the lot assessment from $496 to $525. That said, i felt the most compelling argument they finally presented the other day was the wage increases would cost 1.4 million dollars. I would have felt better with documentation (data the president keeps talking about), but at least we know where the money is going. It would be nice to know how much beyond those at minimum wage folks would be getting? We've watched all too often the lion's share of increases going to those at the top (at least around the country). Hopefully that's not the case here. I just want to remind readers all of the promises made this past year as we were approaching the election; here's the short list: 1). Finish Viewpoint lake; hopefully on time and on budget. 2). Build pickleball courts at Lakeview. 3). Build the softball building that should have been done 3 years ago. 4). Another half million dollars to technology (still not enough BTW). 5). 125k in trial exercise equipment that is supposed to be in at Bell this January. 6). Do the work at the Marinette Clay Corner they asked for 3 or 4 years ago. 7). Now there's issues at the Bell Ceramics that need be addressed. 8). Deal with the commitment made to the dog club to get them to go away. Rumor is they want to give them the Fairway lawn bowling green, but that does nothing for them. The artificial surface is hotter than real grass in the summer. They want an indoor arena that is air conditioned. Extensive and that's not even mentioning the Mountain View project and what that pricing will look like for that. Beyond that is the collapse of the Life Long Learning club and the Vintage Vehicle Club needing air conditioning. Let me be very blunt and somewhat course; this is what happens when you don't give two-shits about spending the money you collect and simply worry about hoarding it in the bank. It's short-sighted and foolish. Now we need to play catch up. The new board has enough challenges without the management team whining about not getting the increase they wanted. Give it to the and then make sure management spends the money on all the promises they made to the members.
I agree with both Mike and Bill. My ongoing concern continues - nothing is ever detailed. Just words! Words are empty promises. The new Board AND the Finance Committee must make changes in how information is presented, and MAKE management accountable. Management has a lot to prove. January must start a new chapter. This Board has to establish itself as setting the course for the future of Sun City, not the other way around. Maybe the survey is well timed - we'll see. We all need to help spread the word to make sure there is a good response, or it will be a waste of money and an effort in futility. Thanks, Enigma. I appreciate your confidence. I'm a snowbird and thus I don't qualify for the Board; however, maybe a committee? But, I will continue to be a voice and support SC in any way I can.
This argument may be compelling, but it's already in the budget. It has nothing to do with the assessment increase. It would matter if the GM thought he had to cut this from his budget. That never came up. It's all puffing and fear mongering. It's a temper tantrum that is not necessary. Just do your job. You have the funds. You may even have more funds left over from this year. I kept my letter as clear and concise as possible. It's simple, do you use the money you have or ask the members for more? Using the money you have will not impact the solvency of the RCSC. It will still be on very solid ground,
Nice letter Mike. You're right, wage increases are already in the proposed budget. Also not mentioned is the historical record of them not spending full budget anyway, which means "deficit spending" will most likely be less then proposed. Dale's comment that this debate shouldn't have gone on this late in the year was spot on. Too bad she still thinks its a few Board Members and a few trouble-making General Members that are cause. Good Lord - Carry Forward issue came up at beginning of year and Management said at spring Budget/Finance Meeting they would be generating report and proposal on all reserve funds for everyone to see and debate (never done), and assessment increase was hidden from everyone's except committee Members view instead of being talked about in spring/summer. Yes Dale, debate could have been over by October/November if everyone was TRANSPARENT with the info. Oh wait, the transparency concern/issue was CLOSED AS COMPLETED at the beginning of the year, right?? Bill, I believe only majority vote will be needed at special session to pass the motion. (The 6 votes would have been needed to waive a second reading).
Apparently Sue Wilson believed they would not have been able to receive those 6 votes with Mike Ege being absent. But with only 8 members in attendance 6 would have still satisfied a 2/3rd's vote but the entire membership is not required to cast a vote. The rule that most motions require is based on those "present and voting." So...as I stated above it’s not based on how many members are in attendance, but on how many members eligible to vote and actually do. If only 3 members voted and the rest abstained, then 2 members voting in the affirmative would have satisfied the 2/3rd’s requirement! This is an ambiguous statement, "Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, Special Sessions and Member/Board Exchanges, shall be read and passed a minimum of two times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6)." because you don't know if the (6) is merely a reference to what a 2/3rd majority of 9 would be or if the (6) is mandating that 6 votes are required! The Board itself must determine what the meaning is.
I get it gang, i truly do. You all want to stop the increase because of the pathetically inept process we have all suffered through. The reality is, next year will be pivotal in restoring the trust of the membership. Money isn't the only thing that will bring members back, but the commitments the board made to clubs this year need be met and in my opinion, exceeded. The great news is the new board will be user friendly. The bad news is, the general manager thinks sticking money in the bank is most critical. At some point the shit will hit the fan, as the real question becomes: Does the RCSC exist to save money or to spend it in the best interests of the membership? I know if this increase doesn't pass, the argument will be we can't do it because you didn't pass it. I learned long ago, in organizational structure, outcomes become key. Let's not give them excuses, let's turn the page on the calendar and the fix the myriad of mistakes they've made to get us where we are.
