Where are the Members?

As I was reading through the 45 page document outlining all of the new rules, I don’t see any member involvement.
I don’t think I saw anything that encouraged member participation in anything. I saw all of the power and authority being given to the board. Please correct me if I am wrong. I only did one review, so I might have missed something.
I am going to try and rewrite some changes of my own, and try to electronically submit them to the board. I may decide to share a copy here on TOSC, depending upon on far I get with my version of the rewriting. If I don’t get the document completed, it makes no sense to share it, as the backlash would be unmerciful.
My focus is to include the members as a team to work with the board, not as pariahs or a commodity to be dealt with.
I will do my best to create a positive impact for the board to consider, using their own recent rewrites as a template. If I fail, I will apologize and move on.
Thank you

 

The KILLER is in the words "Business Affairs of the Corporation."

The Members elected the Board of Directors to administer the affairs of the corporation with no exclusions or exceptions, and these bylaws allow for none, although the Arizona Revised Statutes allows, in many cases, that they will yield their power to the corporations articles of incorporation or bylaws own different rules.

They have so far chosen to screw the Members!

 

Members, who needs stinking members when the board has each other?

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the stroke of the clock when the signatures had to be submitted. Rumors abound about the former board member who grabbed his application which triggered two current but soon to be retired board members to quickly pick up packets to defeat the scoundrel they wanted to keep out.

If that was the case, did they hold/pull those two packets when said former didn’t materialize? No idea, but if so, less than an attractive look. I guess we’ll know more when the two candidates get elected and the board handpicks the two fill-ins for the open positions. I know my odds on favorites to be named for the openings.

Perhaps this will trigger bylaw revisions. I’d suggest allowing boards to run an unlimited number of times. Why stop at 2 terms, why not 3 or 4. Hell there may even be a way to just get rid of elections and let the board pick who they want. That’s the cool thing about the bylaw revisions, removing members from the equation frees the board to fix the community without that pesky involvement from those self-serving clowns, hustlers and BS artists.

 

Tom: As a member of the election committee were any of you present at the close of submitting the candidates applications?

 

Are you kidding? You're kidding right?

They won't even tell us who picked up packets, and only since our new Chair were we even allowed to know how many packets were pulled!

The last we were told was that 10 packets had been taken out but only 7 were current and 3 dropped out!

 

Whole new meaning to being a valued member of a committee.

Kind of sad, but when those of us involved are considered self-serving clowns, hustlers and BS artists, why should we expect anything less?

 

My additions to the new rewrites. I have not gotten to the Members Meeting yet, as it is a very long process to write.

Here is what I have done on the minor issues. Wont paste in color


Incident reports, Line 43

gross or malicious behavior, Too subjective. Could cause egregious reports done in retaliatory measures or otherwise try to cause harm to a specific person

Section 4, subsection B

Line 258

. Gross or malicious behavior Too subjective, needs better defined or removed. Litigation likely to arise from such a broad action


Line 261

Unacceptable behavior Too subjective, needs better defined. Litigation likely to arise

Line 262

Substantially similar incidents requiring documentation. Too broad of intent and meaning, needs defined or removed. Litigation will ensue

Line 635-638

E. If there are not sufficient candidates to fill vacancies, the succeeding Board will appoint them 635 after January 1.

636 A majority vote of the Board five (5) is required for said appointment.

637 An appointment ends on December 31 of the year appointed.

If there is not enough candidates sufficient to fill vacancies, the Board shall advertise for submissions for appointment from the general membership starting November 1st of the year prior to the need for board appointments.

The potential candidates can file a resume or other form of self nomination to be considered for the one year appointment to the board. The board has the opportunity to interview and select new directors prior to the new calendar year. The selected candidates will be notified prior to December 15th of the current year of their appointment, and should be prepared to take office on January 1st.

Line 673

Member comments at Board Meetings will be limited to posted motions. No additional qualifications to member comments. The Board is directed to be a representative to the members. Delineating and additional member interaction in not warranted.

Line 679

1. Board proposed amendments to the Bylaws may be submitted at monthly Board meetings and presented to the members for review.

2. To change the Bylaws, the amendment needs to pass at two (2) Board Meetings without waiving the second reading

3. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the total votes cast will be required at each meeting to pass the amendment.

Line 714

And the time afforded for member comments shall be no less than 5 minutes per presentation. This is the only time a member is afforded time to address the board. This is called an exchange to allow for ideas and comments to be exchanged between the member and the board, therefore, time should be afforded to allow for intent and conveyance of the message without interference.



Line 774

And to preserve the rights and responsibilities to the members. The Corporation is the membership.



Line 1129

All committees will have one RCSC Director as Board Liaison. The committee shall elect a chair and co-chair to direct the affairs of the committee. The RCSC Director shall act in the stead of being the contact for the committee for which communication with the board occurs both ways.

The RCSC Director shall maintain the committee records as to who the membership of the committee consists of and is adhering to committee bylaws and agenda as established by the committee. Should the committee become stagnant or need additional guidance, the assigned RCSC Director will do so. The RCSC Director will retain the ability to remove committee members if behavior or attendance deems appropriate.

Line 1295

Committee Chair and CoVice-Chair RCSC Board Liaison

Line 1331

or that are accused of egregious behavior. Needs further definition. Too subjective and leaves the ability for litigation

Line 1498

The Board President may deny or accept the appeal request and will notify accordingly.

This denies due process as outlined in Federal Court documents. A board cannot deny an appeal strictly based upon the dictates of a Board President. Rule of Fair Hearing definition Rule of Fair Hearing which means that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. The important components of this rule are right to notice, right to present case and evidence, the right to rebut adverse evidence, cross- examination, legal representation, report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party and post decisional hearing.

 

The other portion of the law is that the hearing directors must recuse themselves from the appeals proceedings. Separate section of the statute mentioned above.
Recusal of Member of Hearing Body. A Hearing Body member, Presiding Officer, or Technical Advisor shall recuse himself or herself if participation in the enforcement proceeding would violate the Compliance Enforcement Authority’s Conflict of Interest or Code of Conduct policy. The Registered Entitymay raise an objection to any member of the Hearing Body, a Presiding Officer or Technical Advisor on grounds of a conflict of interest or the existence of other circumstances that could interfere with the that person’s impartial performance of his or her duties. Such objections must be provided in writing and filed reasonably in advance of the start of the hearing and the Presiding Officer shall make a decision on the objection promptly. Upon request of the Registered Entity, the Hearing Body (without participation of the Hearing Body member, Presiding Officer, or Technical Advisor) may review the determination and, if so, shall issue a decision on the objection promptly.

 

God love you Carole, that's a lot of effort for what appears abundantly clear to me, they simply don't care what we think or say. In fact, your old friend Dave told us as much when he called those of us involved in the importance of member engagement; "self-serving clowns, hustlers and BS artists." It took awhile for him to finally admit the logic behind the bylaw changes but when he did, there was no doubt left in my mind.

The changes made in 2009 to the quorum had a chilling effect on membership participation. We battled through all of it and in 2021 we held the first annual membership in 12 years. At that meeting, we were refused the right to vote on legitimately submitted motions regarding the bylaws. Over the next year or two, the board relented and dropped the quorum to 500. Far more manageable and realistic.

Then this year hit and with the quorum met and motions submitted timely, we were once again refused a vote. The letter read by the president and written by the attorney was more double speak and nonsense. My point should be abundantly clear: Those members who turned out expecting to vote were angry and disappointed; both times.

It's not as though the board had no idea what members wanted/expected at their annual meeting. I know you said you hadn't done the heavy lifting yet on the annual membership section, but just being blunt, why would you bother? They don't care and worse yet the message sent should be loud and clear; we aren't going to honor the Articles of Incorporation and allow members a vote without jumping through a dozen ridiculous hoops.

I was shocked when i read what was proposed. I had come to believe the current board cared what members thought or wanted (at least those who had invested their time and energy in attending, submitting motions or gathering proxies). It wasn't until Dave finally told us all why we got what we got: This working group wasn't going to let a bunch of "self-serving clowns, hustlers and BS artists" get in the way of what the board wants to do.

Special shout out to Dave for being the only person on the working group to be honest enough to explain the rationale behind the mess we are looking at.

 

The post that is referenced is one based upon a single person’s feelings about certain topics posted previously. Those feelings of apparent angst and anger are those belonging to that particular person and is an affront to the others that worked on the work group that created this abomination. The group, as a whole, I feel were directed to perform a specific task and did so, keeping it written in legalese and using the ARS to utilize only the portions that described the powers granted to corporations. At no point did anyone look or read the full extent of the statute stating the existence of expanding the scope of each statute at will to meet the needs of the Articles of Incorporation. Every single statute contains the definition and directive to reference the Articles of Incorporation as the primary criteria. The rewrites simply chose the definition and left out the scope of intent. The members are removed from the very essence of the RCSC. The purpose of the corporation which was to do everything possible for the members. No where does it say strip the people out of the equation.
This compilation of words is not a document that rewrites the bylaws of the RCSC. This document is an exercise in how to do research and miss the mark on how to do research to its fullest potential and prove your point. Any research assistant will do the job to the fullest potential, not just stop with the first thing seen.
That’s proven by the creation of a massive cost for voting and the cost to now have to mail ballots to every member. The directive to go to electronic voting is fine, but the laws also state that paper ballots must be mailed to each member. The Fair Voting Act which mandates how hearings are conducted, means the RCSC intends to defy the law by not adhering to written rules of law. The ambiguous use of language and terminology which will clearly lead to litigation against the RCSC and cause monetary penalties is prevalent in numerous cases. And as stated, have not even turned a page yet on the annual meeting. That’s an atrocity that has several opportunities but instead was deconstructed into a banal action to thwart any meaningful action by the members. It’s now a dog and pony show for the RCSC president and his staff.
Dave was one of several who gave a significant amount of time and effort to create the document. I suspect each member of the group feels they gave 110% to the effort. Dave made comments from a personal point of view that I suspect do not represent the group as a whole. I am just extremely saddened that this is the final decision presented to the members and the board for consideration. I am more frustrated and frightened that the board may actually pass this load of crap into action, making this illegal directive the rules to govern by, placing the RCSC at severe risk of financial loss. Guess who will ultimately pay to cover these costs? Who will have to pay for all of these ballot mailings? Shall we start talking about assessments going up exponentially to cover the costs of implementing these new policies? Just curious if the board has considered any of this? Are you folks on the board reading my and Tom’s documents and getting the idea that involving collaboration instead of secrecy might have been a better way to go?
I hope that the board, as a whole, decides to prevent these things from going forward. If they do go forward, I hope there are enough board members who individually have the good conscience not to approve them on the vote.
I can’t make it to the first presentation as I am having cataract surgery done tomorrow. My intention is to be at the second reading and will make these same comments to the board members then.
In the interim, please honor those who gave their time to create what they thought was wanted as directed. We are seeing what was tasked to create, nothing more, unfortunately.

 

Sorry CM, but I have zero understanding on how or why any one member of the working made the choices they made. All I can do is take the results of their efforts and assess the meaning based on what was written. There is nothing that begins to tell me they cared one whit what members have been fighting to achieve since 2021. In fact, they went 100% in the other direction.

As far as Dave’s remarks, they are abundantly clear as well. Anger or frustration aside, suggesting those of us who have been fighting to preserve the values and tenets built into our community and more importantly into our documents are “self-serving clowns, hustlers and BS artists” is inexcusable.

While I have no idea what the other working group members thought, the very idea he uttered such nonsense suggests to me that logic may well be what fueled the mess we find regarding our annual meeting. It truly is an embarrassing, convoluted pile of nonsense.

I’ll be there tomorrow if for no other reason than listen to their explanation as to why members don’t deserve the rights contained in the Articles of Incorporation. That should be a treat.

 

I truly wish I could be there tomorrow. But I already rescheduled once when Joe tore his Achilles tendon and couldn’t walk. He was my ride, so no driver, no surgery. With the second presentation being Wednesday, that will afford enough time to go and be present to say as much as I can for as long as I can. We shall see if I even get a chance to speak, knowing I turned in my manifest for the board review. We shall see what the outcome is.
So my plan is for Wednesday evening. Just hope I can get a close enough parking spot so my legs get there and back. Venous insufficiency causes walking problems from time to time, making it difficult to walk for any distance. Barring any other medical issues, I will be there talking up a storm.

 

I would venture a guess that there were some Members of the Election Committee knew who was submitting applications.

 

Janet, I can say with certainty that your assumption is correct. John

 

Yup, I now know why Dave has said you are the "sole person" who would benefit from snowbirds being on the Board. He must have known that you had picked up a packet to be a candidate and no other snowbirds had done so. He knew information that even an Election Committee member didn't have access to prior to the announcement of who filed for candidacy. Oh, the plot thickens!

 

Janet,
John Fast’s repeated posts have been about snowbirds serving on the board. It has been his mantra for years.
John himself said he was going to pick up a packet to run for the board.
There’s no thickening of anything going on. The innuendo that Dave is behind some clandestine conspiracy to leak information about John and his continuing campaign for snowbirds to run for the board is old news.

 

CM, and false. My personal opinion is if you are a Director you need to be where your constituents are located. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Dave, linking to your opinion, what’s next?
Member Voting Qualification
Reside in Sun City, Arizona and be physically in residence at least ten (10) months of the year.

How could a Member responsibly vote for a director or Annual Membership Meeting matter if not physically in their residence ten (10) months of the year?

Absentee, online, and proxy participation only allowed with verification of that requirement? How would that be done?

Sun City owners, Members in good standing, are capable and entitled to engage in RCSC, voting and serving on the board. Status of their physical location doesn’t negate their participation abilities. (Technology is a great thing!)

 

As a Member of the Election Committee I can assure you we were not notified about who submitted applications.

 

Oops, my mistake. I meant to write, "The Bylaws review committee", not the "Election Committee", likely knew that about a snowbird picking up a Board candidate packet.