What is quantifiable?

My old friend Dave is at it again on the Sun City Advocates blog. The other day he questioned whether either a "sense of community," or "transparency" could be "quantifiable." For those unsure of what he was saying, here's the definition; "able to be expressed or measured as a quantity."

To be sure, it's the the same as opening a box of donuts to make sure there are a dozen of them as stated on the label, but from a practical standpoint, understanding what was as compared to what is pretty simplistic. The problem most often comes when you are clueless as to what was.

I would and have argued that is exactly why both the former and the present general manager has so little interest in our (Sun City's) history. Sadly, they've infused that mindset on the board(s) with every turn of the calendar year.

For those of us who see ourselves as "historians," (as my good friend likes to say, self-proclaimed), we watch in horror as they ignore how we were built and why Sun City was so successful. It was an ongoing effort, a labor of love to become the best we could be.

There were stops and starts, ugly battles and turbulent times for sure. The resentments that came with the growth and evolution were never the hallmark of our existence. At the core was a commitment for the community to take ownership, responsibility and accountability that at the end of the day the membership were what mattered.

The management team was responsible for the day to day operations. Yes, they had a voice, but at best a minor one. They were never the ones who made every critical decision. They simply weren't. The former GM hated that and after the first three years with the entire board having been turned over, her approach was one grounded in the board becoming an extension of her management team. Their role diminished to that of a bunch of ever-changing rubber-stampers.

The odd ball board member who wanted to actually have a voice in the direction the community took was simply out voted. As time went by and the gm's position solidified, board member's speaking out were kicked off the island or they quit in frustration. It became almost an incestuous relationship with the board fixating on protecting management no matter what they did. In return, the documents were written to protect the board members.

And that's the first measurement tool; our governing documents were easily quantifiable. They were written with absolute and total care. They provided a delicate balancing act between the board and the membership. There were checks and balances were no one segment of the population had more power or control than the other. The management team was never even a factor.

The documents were always controlled by the legal affairs committee. They were members who had legal backgrounds and any proposed changes to the Articles, the Bylaws and Board Policies went through them. Always. One of the first things the newly hired gm did was remove that committee. Clearly, their oversight would simply be in her way.

With that done, the old guard staff was replaced with a new management team. One by one she added and hired staff, all with an understanding that loyalty to her was at the core of their job. And with each new hire the team grew in numbers. If you took a snapshot of the management team in 2005 and one now in 2022, you wouldn't recognize the two.

Part of the reason is simple, by removing most of the membership's volunteer capacity, the management team took on the added work load. The problem of course is that workload comes with virtually no oversight. And let me very clear when i type this: "oversight is one of the primary functions of the RCSC board."

True, they cannot deal with anyone other than the general manager, he/she is their only employee. That said, when a management member or the GM screws up, they should hold him/her accountable. That is their "job." They don't. It's all part of the incestuous relationship compact.

One of the easiest ways to "measure" outcomes is through data. We know they don't provide much in the way of that to members, we also know they board struggles to get information they request. In an email bouncing around, i was asked questions about who hired our auditor? Good question and i couldn't recall much about it.

I said most likely the previous general manager. I also said in my previous work life we taught trustees to regularly interview/search for options with the professionals they hired. People become comfortable in their positions when they stay too long. The old joke about accountants and hiring the one that answers the question with "what do you want the numbers to say?" is still a valid concern.

I was also asked about the annual audit and whether board members had access to it along with the auditors notes? The last one i know of was Barbara Brehm in 2020, she got both the audit and the auditors notes which triggered a flurry of questions, she was fired shortly thereafter.

Oversight, again one of the primary functions of the board. A good friend and former board member has been requesting the club attendance data. They have it, all be it, as poorly collected as it is. They simply haven't given it to him. He serves on the long range planning committee and on the finance and budget committee and needs/wants it, they claim they are too busy or something along those lines.

Back in the early days, before the use of computers at the RCSC, everything was hard copy and in files and folders easily accessed by those wanting/asking for it. Paper was easily more work but the end result was better accessibility. Which is truly bizarre when you think about it. With computers, everything is stored on servers (are we even using the cloud yet?), so setting up links for members (board or otherwise) should be basic computing skills.

If i told you board members struggle to get data, would you be surprised? Don't be. Back in the day (pre 2006) that was never the case. Board members expected everything to be readily available. They made all of the decisions and the only way to do that was with solid information. Sadly, when you don't care what board members think or want, answering their requests becomes insignificant.

It was a steady drip away from oversight, holding anyone accountable. It was seldom done in huge bites, always just moving away from the tenets of how we used to function, to what is now the norm. It's why so many know so little about the change, they have little or no idea how it worked back in the good old days.

We'll come back to that as we explore measuring what a sense of community was compared to today.

 

I feel your frustrations Bill, and I know you will agree that we can't place all the blame on the former general manager, after all, she had no authority to pass a single bylaw herself, but as you said, she had great influence and the Board was totally complacent.

I would place equal blame on the Directors who served under her tutelage and who failed to push back! This is totally on them as well. Lazy people would always rather have somebody else do their job!

You're one of our historians, so tell me, when was the last time a Bylaw was actually amended or added by a Member?

Anybody who reads the Bylaws understands that the Members can't do a damn thing without first getting the blessing from the Board or Management and I'm sure that no Member ever offered those types of Bylaws!

The noose slowly tightened around the necks of the Members at such a slow pace that they didn't really notice it was happening, (like boiling a frog) and now it's to late to do anything about it because the Bylaws are so restrictive!

That's why it's so important to elect the right people to serve on the Board. If we can elect those who believe they must serve the Members like Jean Totten, John Fast and re-elect Steve Collins, we may have the opportunity to turn this ship around.

And always remember, this Corporation is here to serve its Members, and when we are once again involved with some of the corporations decisions, we will then have quantifiable results that everybody will see as well as feel.

 

I agree Tom, every one of us serving on the board were complicit in how we got to this place in time. The slow drip of a little bit more each month was a constant and the fact so many of us had so little regard for what was happening is the ugly reality. Collectively we could have said hell no, we never even came close to stopping it.

One of the tools often used was to grant board members (typically officers) the luxury of hand picking expensive improvements they wanted. In talking with a long time board member yesterday, serving before 2006, they (the board) used to have a say in what clubs requesting improvements got what they were asking for.

Of course back in the those days, they worked with balanced budgets and there wasn’t this mantra of carry forward. Now days, the board has virtually no say in club requests, the management team decides who gets what. Interesting to note, with a massive carry forward balance from these past years (10 million dollars) and the request of somewhere between 800k and a million more dollars coming in 2023, clubs are barely getting a sniff.

The rumor has it there are only three clubs seeing any improvements, with two of them getting the lions share. More rumors suggest those two clubs have club members who are also board members. Is it simply irony? Lord knows i would never accuse anyone of trying to overstep their bounds. Probably just a coincidence.

I’m both a dreamer and a realist; go figure. I always hope for the best, i seldom find it. The day we let the general manager become our guiding light, we lost the historical attachment Sun City was built around. One could argue, we had no choice, people moving here didn’t really care about self-governance and ownership and responsibility and accountability.

If that’s true, then why did last years annual membership meeting result in 1400 in attendance (proxy’s and butts in chairs)? Why when Karen was fired, did members turn out in droves? Why did she get the highest vote totals in years (1700 plus)? Why are members turning out still, in spite of being crapped on regarding the bylaws rewrite? Why is there more interest in this election than in a long time?

We’ve always known this would be an uphill battle. They have absolute and total control; and they are terrified of losing it. They have sat on the stage and just said things and promised members stuff that will never come to pass. They know that, they don’t care. Once this election is over, if they are still in control, everything will get worse. The new bylaws allows them to fire members for reasons never before allowed. Slow things down; gone. Speak out against projects; gone.

Once those in the minority are removed, who will hold anyone in management accountable? They haven’t for the past 15 years, why would it suddenly change now? It wouldn’t, it won’t. It will only worsen as management just does as it pleases. They have stated loudly and proudly they see us as a business. For those of us who see us as a community first, all will be lost; 60 years of history relegated to the scrap pile.

That is tragically sad!

 

The corporate mindset monster was very vocal at today’s Member/Board Exchange, Monday, November. 7, 2022.

 

Good on the general manager for keeping his report brief, that was a good thing after last month where it took the first 45 minutes of the meeting. It went down hill from there. It is fascinating they defend so loudly the results of the bylaw rewrite. The entirety of our 5 motions made at the annual membership meeting had one core value attached; restore the members voice.

I cannot be more vocal than to say, they missed the mark on every motion. EVERY MOTION. I know i listed them in another thread, but it was embarrassing to hear them tell us how the almost hit a home run on the rewrite. It’s pure and utter nonsense.

I was disappointed how they treated Joe as he tried to have a discussion. I was prepared to go down that same path but i will do so at the board meeting. Now we need to figure out whether November will be the first reading or the second reading. It would be folly to call it the first, but Dale was adamant they were following Robert’s Rules of Order is silly.

I could and will explain one potential reason why they want them in place the end of November rather than the end of December. It is illogical to want to jam it through, so one starts speculating as to why?

 

Lot's to unpack here!

First of all, Dale stated something to the effect that because the revised bylaws were only stated on the Agenda as being a Committee Report, the Members weren't going to be allowed to comment. Truth is, unless the agenda follows Robert's Rules "Orders of the Day" it needs to be approved. I think an argument can be made that the board meeting agendas don't necessarily follow RR's standard "Orders of the Day" but I won't go into that right now. But what that means is...when an agenda isn't "approved", and it wasn't, it is not a binding document. It becomes nothing more than a memorandum or a recommended to-do list to make sure all the intended items are addressed but it holds no authority/validity.

So when Dale stated that as a reason Members couldn't comment I question that decision. I also question how she may be asking the parliamentarian some of her inquiries? Is she telling her everything she needs to know or is she only giving her enough information to have things go her way? I'll hold my judgment on that but Dale has clearly done things in meetings that I'm sure the parliamentarian knew were wrong, but the parliamentarian can only advise! The Chair makes the ruling. Not really sure how in-depth the parliamentarian's knowledge is to our specific bylaws so she might be just kind of advising based on her knowledge of Robert's Rules?

Next:

The reason they want to push for final approval before the end of the year is because any unfinished business (except that which is in the hands of a committee) dies at the end of the year because it ends the terms of office of the directors. (RONR 49:22)

 

Here’s the problem with your assessment Tom; first motion made in November, the second in December still gets it done before 2023. It’s even cleaner with the new and not improved bylaws taking effect January 1. Why in the world are they trying to jam it through in one reading (sorry Dale, no matter how much you wiggle and squirm, not allowing comments does not constitute a first reading). When all else fails, blame Robert’s Rules and the parliamentarian.

Nope, i see a far more insidious reason. You may have noted one board member missing the last two meetings (annual and the member/board exchange). They don’t count against the three in a row, but the word is he has taken a job and that he offered to resign (pure rumor). It would be a pain in the butt to fill the position for two months, but more importantly is, this board has lived and died with counting the vote. They need him to maintain majority status.

That aside, they’ve also been working him to change his vote regarding the yearly increase from $496 to $525. I have no clue why he voted no. Whether it was because he felt it was the right thing to do for the membership or if he was truly confused when he voted. I would hope it was because he, like many others living in Sun City, are feeling the affects of inflation. We’ll see next month if he changes his vote.

I’m no grassy knoll type conspiracy theory kind of guy, but my real concern in them wanting the new bylaws in place by December 1 is this: Should they lose the election and the control they so dearly love, would they dare try and rid themselves of some of the existing board members who are sympathetic to the membership? Could Karen and John be booted just because they haven’t fallen into line?

I’ve made no bones about this: The new bylaws provide no protections as proposed by the members last year. None and in fact give the board even more cause to fire a board member. I’m sorry, but i wrote contract language for a living. Arguing intent in the face of clear and unambiguous language is folly. I would bet a dollar to a donut that language came straight from the attorney who told the membership at last year’ annual membership meeting we didn’t have the right to vote…even though he knew full well we did.

Words matter and as a lawyer and an administrative law judge, the chairman should know that.

 

Yesterday Ben and I had coffee with a gentleman we had met at the museum the day of the Saints reunion. He was in town for his mother's funeral. His mom and dad had been living in the Midwest and come to visit Sun City in the 70's. It was a long story so i will spare you the details other than to say they came because of a relationship he had with Bob Jones, who was John Meeker's son-in-law.

Turns out they bought a duplex in Sun City while visiting through the Play and Stay package. This guys father met John Meeker who took a liking and told him if he ever wanted to leave Indiana, DEVCO had a job for him. Turns out winters back home were nasty and his wife encouraged him to move to Arizona. They did and over the years he held several different positions with the company.

One of them was running a recently opened restaurant, owned by DEVCO. After his first year, 2nd year of operation for the restaurant, John called him into his office. He told his wife he would most likely be fired. She asked why, he said we lost 150k this year. Much to his surprise, John told him a bonus was in his future. He asked why and John said "we lost 300k the year before."

I guess one could ask, how is that quantifiable or how does it even makes sense? It's pretty simple really; when John took charge in 1965, he saw the handwriting on the wall. Sun City was doomed to fail. The "great social experiment," was on the verge of collapse. Putting up houses, building rec centers and golf courses was easy, building a community was hard and initially DEVCO wanted no part of it. They figured the residents could do it themselves.

He was smart enough to understand it wouldn't work without a more than gentle nudge and constant hand holding. Every step of the way, he nurtured that sense of community. He made the residents take ownership and to hold those they elected accountable. It was a massive exercise in responsibility and to John's credit, he was willing to spend money that was never in the budget. Del Webb gave him free reign, when he died, Bob Johnson used to get crazed by John's spending.

The long story short, John's efforts resulted in 164,000 million dollars in pre-tax profit, a community that became the envy of every builder in the country and spawned the birth of an entire new industry known as age restricted living. Quantifiable? You tell me?