After far too many years of watching us "evolve," it would be easy to say, enough is enough. Is it time to turn my back, close my eyes and just enjoy what's left of my golden years? Yes would be the easy answer, and the answer i suspect some would appreciate. For those who would prefer i just go away, sorry, not happening. Not built that way and frankly, those who refuse to acknowledge or understand our history, are just wrong-headed in their thinking. One only has to look at the hard turn we took in 2006 and then ask yourself: How did pushing members away work out for us? It didn't, and i defy anyone reading this show me/prove i am wrong. In the world of reality, everything is ultimately defined or judged by the outcomes. We can dream or rationalize away how by electing to keep everything cheap, we were better off. Were we? Are the multitude of challenges a good thing? We can laughingly call them character builders, but if we are to be honest, they are just shit-show outcomes we need to try and fix. Where do you want to start: Technology? Golf? Members paying little or no attention? Difficulty finding management that works? Inadequate training for board members? Committees that feel disenfranchised? The ongoing Mountain View saga? With all of that, i'll be the first to admit, the board is doing better. That said, is there anyone reading this who thinks the gang of nine can fix all of these problems...by themselves? I don't, the sheer volume is staggering and if the board elects to rely on management and their skills alone, they are doomed to failure (IMHO). Rather than fading away, i am going to keep harping/preaching and writing the solutions have to include involving the membership. Without them, any efforts will continue to ebb and flow as board members come and go. Some will be better, some will be worse, some will be the same; in the end, they will be overwhelmed by what we are asking/expecting them to do. Our history is pretty clear when it comes to telling us what worked...and what didn't. As always, just one man's opinion.
I think the first real indication of what direction we will be going in will be once the latest and greatest revision of the bylaws are made public. Will the number of pages be reduced or expanded, and will it give the Members more freedoms or more restrictions? Personally, I don't necessarily like the fact that 4 Directors are involved as Chair and Co-Chair in that committee/working group, and who knows how many other Directors show-up and attend those committee meetings. I've attended too many committee meetings where the Chair and Co-Chair steers the direction of the committee rather than allowing the committee members steer the direction! So,... the first thing I will be looking for in the bylaws will be the requirement that only one Director need be involved. Preferably, that Director can serve as either the Chair or the Co-Chair with a Member filling the remaining position. We should know in September!
IMHO Bill is absolutely correct. Members can make any idea a success or failure. They must be involved and committed to making it work. In addition to FYI's litmus test in regard to the bylaws, I would suggest that the conceptual layout of Mountainview will also be a big test. If the elements of MV are basically the same as what Director Kise presented at the MountainView Town hall with no explanation of why the data supports this as the best option, IMHO one could conclude that the member involvement process was a ruse to "validate" what the board was going to do anyway. If on the other hand the layout is significantly different and the architects can explain why the data supports the recreational investment in the layout then, IMHO, the process (i.e. the members) really impacted the result. We shall see.
I feel small group gatherings, inviting members to come and share their thoughts about the community or just hang out and listen, could be helpful, and have them at various rec centers at various times. Perhaps consider a theme, or not, but allow them to feel listened to and appreciated for their time. The feedback should be shared with the board members so they know what is needed and what the members are asking for. Just a small suggestion for a way to reach out to the members where they live.
As I read the list compiled of issues that need to be addressed, these are all topics we have talked about and addressed here on TOSC. We have discussed possible solutions to the ongoing issues and offered numerous solutions. Most of the options offered are able to be incorporated into reality if the board chose one of the options. I am going to say something not of popular opinion, but I think could be a real possibility for thought. The Mountainview project is not going to be a test of membership involvement when the plans are revealed. The location of the center has it in the far reaches of the community and the center itself is small. It’s always been a community center designed for the members who live closest and can use the amenities of that location. The fact that this has dragged on for so many years is a shame for the local residents who use the center. The populace of Sun City, for the most part, don’t even know where this center is located. What the members do care about is what is all of this remodeling and revamping going to cost me in my yearly assessment. The plans and concept presentation are for the benefit of those who use the center. The implementation of a theatre and special seating for hosting events is rather pie in the sky because Maricopa County is not going to relax the parking restrictions. The topics of technology, or lack there of, is one that affects the entire membership, especially when it’s woefully inadequate or not meeting the standards of the present day society. Finding appropriate management for the RCSC seems to be somewhat of a challenge, but am hopeful the board will seek appropriate resources and strategies for the next administration. ADWR is a huge part of what this community needs to address and find solutions that will be useful and cost effective. Finding ways to get the best candidates to run for board positions is going to be a challenge, as the standard model of retirement is not what it once was. Many can’t or will not be able to retire fully and be available to take on a full time role of a board member. While MV is an ongoing challenge, it needs to be brought to a productive conclusion so other issues can be considered. This has drawn out for far too long due to special interests trying to create something untenable. I don’t feel, IMHO, that MV has any great opportunity to build a consensus among the membership. At this rate, will it ever be done? I realize some hold MV deeply in their hearts, but it’s time to make the best decision and move forward. Otherwise, imho, the debate will continue forever. I understand what I wrote is strictly my opinion, and don’t hold any one accountable for what I say.
