VIDEO: RCSC Board Meeting, Thursday. January 29, 2026

John,
Always the gentleman in your responses to others and you accuse me of being a know nothing jerk. Let’s face it you are no litigator, you do tax shelters and other development related things. I may not have letters after my name like you do but I have been in and out court rooms for hearings and litigation for over 40 years and aside from brushing up on local rules of civil procedure, at least I know what I am doing in drafting lawsuits, yet you treat my abilities like I am a troublesome insect.. Obviously you do not and should stay away from it before you hurt yourself.
Have a positive day.
D

 

Dave,

Sorry to hear your response. Do you believe any one who made a motion that was not voted on could file a complaint with Arizona AG under the consumer protection act?

John

 

John,
I don’t believe that this would fall under the Consumer Protection Act as voting on a motion at a corporate meeting would not meet the definitions in the act.
I see this as more as a voting rights argument in corporate law, which I don’t have a lot of experience with but I believe a due process argument could be made under the corporate documents.
For my own edification, the voting on a motion at the annual meeting, would this involve a motion made previously to be voted on at the meeting or is it a motion made during the meeting? If it was made at the meeting the problem I see is it the best interest of the corporation even though the votes of the members would prevail. If the substance is detrimental to the corporation I believe the Board could overturn same in spite of the vote as the Board has fiduciary responsibility to protect the corporation.
The members prevailing on a vote has always bothered me as I saw ripe for abuse because Board/Member relationship in 1964 was a lot different than same relationship today. My worry is that a motion that appears to be innocuous on the surface could actually be a big pain in the you know what.
An example from last year was changing the name of 5he facilities agreement to some warm and fuzzy name. This would entail reprinting all the agreements for current and future use, possibly having everyone who I signed a facilities agreement sign a new document and retrain everyone in Cardholder Services to explain something that by name is really not clear. So think of the cost both reprinting documents and the human time cost on retraining plus introducing the new document to all the real estate agents that sell in Sun City. Our budget is tight enough the way it is and this cost has the potential to being a real burden. Obviously this was not well thought through.
The goal of my underwriter training was told to me my first week on the job, “ We knows what happens if everything goes right, the real question is what can go wrong and what am I going to do about it.” This is how I approach ideas.

 

I do believe it depends on what type of motion you're referring to. If it's just a simple motion relating only to a parliamentary procedure, it could be raised at and during the meeting. However, if it's a motion to amend a bylaw it would be required to go through the current process, which is, it would need to be submitted prior to the meeting so that the attorney can determine if it's acceptable or in conflict with the Articles or bylaws, and typically, any amendment of such require giving previous notice to the membership.

The REAL question I still have is, can this new procedure, and the statute that permits such actions (ARS 10-3708) where the members vote on motions prior to holding a meeting be met! Can every Member eligible to vote really be identified, and sent a ballot in accordance with the statute? I would argue that if every Member who is eligible to vote does not receive proper notification and a ballot, then the Statute was violated and any vote taken was null and void!

But that's just my opinion!

I'd be interested to learn how you would interpret that Statute, Dave!

 

There are many tough questions regarding a member's rights, if any, to compel the Board or Management to follow the bylaws or to act in the BEST interests of the members as a whole. Clearly, a member of RCSC has the right to expect that those in charge will only do what they claim is in the interest of members based on the AOI which provides: "To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the Members of the Corporation," However, the board could give some small number of members (say 30) who are interested in horseback riding $40M to build an indoor air conditioned riding arena in which polo matches and horse shows could be held and, IMHO, this probably would be construed as in the interest of the members because some members asked for it. That is how unclear the board's authority is and that is the slippery slope we are on.

Less than 200 members have again (for about the 10th time) successfully politicked for a special purpose theater to be built at Mountainview to their specifications for them to use to entertain members and nonmembers alike and all members are being told by the board to pay for it. Of course, this special purpose theater could be used for other "stuff" when the Players are not monopolizing its use. Defining and analyzing what this other stuff is would delay the project so let's not go there.

I view our members' recreational "world" from a "global" perspective. What Dell Webb was to the community at its beginning the board is now in its "next chapter". Dell had a well thought out and researched plan to sell the community and its concept, we have none. When I was on the Board my fellow members, IMHO, did not get it. They were driven by personal agenda and popularity. I did not have either. The decisions the Board is charged with making will determine our community's success or failure in the future. Indoor dog parks? Special purpose theaters? Indoor polo fields, etc., etc., Do we have a plan? OF COURSE NOT, BECAUSE A PLAN IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND WOULD DELAY THE PLAYER'S PLAN'S FOR MOUNTAINVIEW.

How foolish could I be?

John

 

FYI,

The answer would be that every qualified member needs to receive a ballot and be able to vote. This ballot, as described, needs to be mailed to each member with the intent of the ballot indeed reaching the qualified RCSC voter. The burden falls on the RCSC to e sure their mailing lists are complete and up to date, as well as mail the ballots in a timely manner as to allow for the USPS to deliver the ballot, the recipient be able to read and understand the ballot content, then place the ballot back into the mail for its return to the RCSC or authorized agent.

Is there going to be a phone number printed on the ballot for members to be able to call if they have questions? What is the anticipated turn around time for answers to be provided to those that have questions? Will these be postage paid envelopes provided for the return of the completed ballot? What is the established process for the denial of the motion due to mailing and/or return issues? By not meeting the established procedure for mailing and completing said procedure, has the RCSC now defaulted on its own ability to conduct a members meeting, making the process moot, therefore, allowing the former process to be reinstated, and have voting occur at the Annual Meeting? It would appear if the mailings did not occur in the proper course of action, the meting can still be conducted in the manner it is usually performed with motion presented at the time of the meeting. This should also mean that the RCSC, having the duty to perform due diligence in performing the required procedures and not be able to complete said tasks as outlined, the attorney cannot stop the meeting for occurring, as the parameters were allegedly followed.

 

Which in my opinion is practically an impossible task or at least a very costly one!

First of all, the statute requires that EVERY Member who is eligible to vote must be notified, meaning you can't just mail a ballot to a household , but you must address one to each Member of that household who qualifies as a Member. Next, the RCSC would need to determine who's names are on the deed! Are both residence Members or only one? Next, the RCSC would need to send two notices to every Member who is a Snowbird not knowing where that Member may be living at the time. Thirdly, it must be determined if the homeowner has registered their home with Maricopa County as a rental property making that homeowner not eligible to be a Member of the RCSC as per Article II, Section 1, B, (1).

I just don't see it happening, meaning these new Bylaws have created an almost impossible situation because I doubt that the RCSC would want to bear the expense every year, not to mention the logistics and timelines that would need to be addressed each and every year as the RCSC gains new Members and loses Members.

“…if the corporation delivers a written ballot to every member entitled to vote on the matter.”

This is not descriptive. It is conditional.

Legally, this reads as:

Action without a meeting is permitted only if ballots are delivered to every voting-eligible member.

So:

• • This is not “best effort”
  • Not “substantially all”
  • Not “members we know about”
  • Not “members who asked”

It is every member entitled to vote.

If that condition fails, the corporation simply never satisfies the statute.