Chairman: Dale Lehrer, Co-Chair: Sue Wilson, Secretary: Marcia Johnson
Members Present: Tom Marone, Denny
Nichols, Sheila Rooney, Don Schordie, Stella Van Ness, Jerry Walczak Not
Present: Jean Buck, Ida Eisert
Staff: Bill Cook, GM; Kevin McCurdy,
Director of Finance
Guests: Karen McAdam, Jean Totten
Call to Order
Introductions
Approval of February Minutes
Discussion on Composition of the Committee
Conference Phone Call with Vote Now
Return to Discussion on Composition of
the Committee
Discussion on sequence of steps for
next months -Informational Session for Candidates
Primary Responsibility of this
committee - Potential Candidates
Adjournment
· Dale
started off the meeting advising the members that she and Sue (chair and co-chair)
had decided to do something different this year regarding the composition of
this committee.
o
They
thought that having a committee of all past Board members would provide the necessary
experience for this group.
o
Since
the last meeting held in February, they have secured all past Board directors at
the table with the exception of one member.
· Dale
also wanted to change the format in which the Information sessions, one of the
first events held for the benefit of the candidates, should also be
changed.
o
In
the past, the chair of this group was the primary speaker; Dale wants everyone
on the panel to get involved with questions/answers/statement.
o
Discussion
ensued regarding how the Information Session could be more advantageous for the
candidate.
o
Several
suggestions were to make it less formal; act like it is going to be fun; ask
the candidate why they are there; make sure the candidate knows that its an
obligation to the community; change the layout of the tables and chairs. The date of June 6th was chosen
for the session with two choices of times for the candidates to choose from.
· A
break in the meeting while a conference call was held. See the results at the end of my
observations.
· After
the phone call, a motion was made and seconded to turn the election committee
into all past Board directors.
Discussion ensued.
o
Three
members were opposed. They felt that outside input was needed; more thinking
outside of the box occurred with community members on the committee, not just past
Directors of the Board; and it was good to have a mix on the committee.
o
Two
members stated that it made sense to have people on the committee who were very
familiar with elections/responsibilities of the Board, etc. It was also stated
that having all past directors gave more substance to the role; someone that
the candidates could look at knowing that they were talking to someone who knew
the ins and outs of a Board since they had sat on one.
o The vote was taken and the motion was not passed.
· It
was discussed that the primary duty of this committee is to identify
individuals who would be good candidates for the Board.
o
One
suggestion was for all the Election Committee members to be involved by
speaking at the various clubs and committees in the next few months. A sign-up sheet was passed around so they
could choose the club/committee they wanted.
o
It
was also brought up that in the past, Posters were hung in the various club
rooms and on bulletin boards advertising the election and the need for candidates.
I did not note what time the meeting
was adjourned.
Jean Totten, Member #148753
Advisory Panel Member
Conference Call Summary
· Vote Now is a company that offers a secure
electronic and traditional voting service for an organization such as ours.
· Sun
City West and Sun City Grand have contracted with them to handle their
elections.
· They
offer a complete line of hybrid voting options, combining web-based, telephone
and paper ballots, that will increase voter participation, reduce expenses, and
improve accuracy.
· In
this day of contentious voting, having the ability to have a neutral company
handling your voting is ideal.
· The
Election Committee had an opportunity to ask questions. The call was ended.
· Discussion
ensued regarding the possibility of using this company.
- It was mentioned that RCSC has never been challenged about a vote; why change now?
- The GM mentioned that he did like the fact that his staff would no longer be involved at any level.
- We use an independent CPA to tally the paper ballots and an outside firm (I didn’t catch the name) to tally the electronic votes.
- Cost was brought up and the director of Finance mentioned that if we only used their electronic system of voting, it would be cheaper to go with this company.
- However, because we still use paper ballots, the price would rise substantially and it would be a wash.
- Since many of our users prefer paper ballots, it was decided to leave the system in place that is presently being used.
13 comments:
A couple of thoughts: I find it odd that this year we need to have former board members make-up the committee. Seems to fly in the face of logic if the goal is to get outside the same old same old. More importantly, i would hope anyone interested in running not serve as a committee member. I know i told Jean Totten who may run, she should not try and become a part of a committee that is determining the rules and dictating terms of the election. Hopefully others will feel that way as well. Dropping off the committee after you've shaped the election seems wrong.
Seems like putting old Board members only on committee, who then go out and recruit (groom?) candidates is pretty much the definition of cronyism. When you are surrounded by people who think like you do, you can get away with an awful lot abuses of power. If Dale is serious about moving forward, collaboration, compromise, etc, then maybe this is the wrong direction. Committee should provide both historical perspective and new ideas - you need a mix of people for that.
Couldn't agree more Anon. This will be the ultimate test for the direction of the RCSC. Are we moving forward, or are we simply trying to tread water and stay trapped in the mistakes of the past 15 years? The good news is i have met any number of members who have shown an interest and an intellect capable of restoring the values and tenets Sun City were built on. Will they step up? Or, will the RCSC try and stack the deck with more of the same?
And they wonder why some Members view the board as a bunch of elitists? It was in fact a former board member who made the recommendation/suggestion/motion!
I get it, all former Board members are all a bunch of elitist crony’s. That’s not cronyism that is a hasty generalization, sort of all members of Sun City Advocates are a clueless mob. I know that is not a true statement as I have talked to a few and found them intelligent.
Does this make Bill Pearson an elitist and not to be trusted as he is a former Board member. Just asking. Nothing personal Bill, just an example.
No offense taken Dave. It's a fair question and why whenever i have used the term "retread" i've done so lovingly. If i were to run again, i would be a "retread." Just means been there, done that and now i am trying to do it again. I am far more concerned by the idea potential candidates being on the election committee, shaping the rules and then dropping off to run in the campaign. If you want to or are planning on running, you don't belong in the room, former board member or not.
You were there over the years as the former GM turned committees into something far less than they were originally intended to be. That was offensive to me and frankly, still is. Committee work is where potential candidates become grounded in what the RCSC does. It's not required, but you know over the years as members started to gear up for a run at the board often joined committees the year before to add to their resume.
While i was the chair of the Now departed communication committee we looked closely at the "torch" program Sun City West has. It's a 7 or 8 week session where residents get a basic crash course on how and why their community works. As impressive as it was and still is, there was virtually no interest from management or even from many of our board members to replicate it. You know the difficulties of being elected to the RCSC board and then stepping in cold.
I would argue, Sun City West, having decided to embrace Title 33 understood the better versed potential candidates are, the better off it is for the community.
It's always challenging for me when i start recalling my time on the board. Nope, not because i was in the minority and was out voted, but because so many of the comments supporting their arguments were so dumb. How do you argue against the stupid: "We should get rid of the long range planning committee because their work is done." Or how about this gem of arrogance: "We don't need a long range planning committee because we have on, it's called the board."
Sadly, it didn't end with my fellow board members, the gm was just as culpable. When she rewrote the bylaws regarding committees, i heard the more of the same. At one point, committees were often made up and included husband and wife. To combat that, she wrote language stating committee members could not be related; her concern was "if there were two of them they could sway the committee unduly." However, the golf committee, because they were elected as greens committees from a specific course, it was just fine to have husband and wife on it. We lost several folks when that happened.
Even more maddening was when she wanted the long range planning committee gone, i went in her office and told her exactly how i felt about the idea (and voted against it btw). Her response was those getting on the committee had their own agenda and that was bad for Sun City. Somehow their bias was worse than her bias. Lord help me, i would rather have a dozen folks helping shape our future, rather than a single general manager who simply had to influence a majority of the board members.
And to be even more clear, when i hear the argument from the president RCSC members who also belong to the Sun City Advocates shouldn't be put on boards, my skin crawls. What part of communicate, educate and participate should be a disqualifying event?
I am with you Bill on the committees although certain committees require “special knowledge” such as Insurance, Budget &Finance, Technology, etc. Long Range Planning would not necessarily require knowledge as to long range planning although a certain grasp of the construction would be a plus.
The down side, and I am just thinking here, would be if SCA or any other similar advocate group would essentially “pack” a committee thereby “freezing” out other members. Speaking from experience that would probably not happen with the Insurance committee unless a pack of rabid underwriters and/or agent/brokers were to surface.
Dave, i don't think you can use the term "rabid" or "underwriters' in the same sentence. As far as packing any committee, you know the chair can appoint who they choose. I just struggle the reason to put someone on is because they belong to the SCA.
Very interesting comments Dave. No one made generalization about all former or current Board members being anything except you. Certainly some are both elitists and crony's - which you skipped over. And then your comments: "The down side ... would be if ... group would essentially “pack” a committee thereby “freezing” out other members" is EXACTLY the fear of what current Board 'leaders' are now doing with Election (and other) Committee(s). So it appears you agree??
Dave makes a good point that you want knowledgeable people on a committee. I think and argument can be made that the RCSC bylaws might need to be amended so that only the co-chair of the committee is required to be a member of the board?
We have Members of our community who have spent their entire careers in particular positions and would certainly know more about a topic than your typical board member.
RSCS Standing Committee chairs change practically every year with each new selection of board members. Why not recruit Members of the community who have actually worked in such a discipline to chair the committee and simply appoint a board member as co-chair to make sure the committee stays on task, complies with the RCSC Bylaws and is the link between the committee and the board?
It just seems to me that too many things have to go thru the RCSC and Board. When do the Members get to determine anything on their own without having to jump thru the hoops of the petition process and acquiring signatures of 10% of the community?
Don't hold your breath on that one Tom. Allowing a chair to come from the membership would be terrifying. They've spent the past 15 years pushing members away. To Hoffer's credit, he got them to start the long range planning committee back up. Tragically, when ideas came from the group the gm just shuttled them off to Buffalo. Her agenda was all that mattered.
We'll see if the new gm is listening to what the board is telling him. I've been effusive in my praise regarding the board holding firm on installing new fitness equipment as a trial in a rec center. They deserved it, unless of course we get to the end of the year and there's still nothing in place. We heard all the arguments why he couldn't/didn't want to do it, will they now become the logic/reason come year's end and nothing is in place? We'll see eh.
Yeah, I get it. It would be asking too much for the RCSC to consider that some one from within the community might be smarter than a board member who would know practically nothing about the topic and was just a newly installed member of the board?
God forbid that a Member of the community might become the chair of a committee. That's not the kind of message the board/RCSC wants to get out there!
ve vill ask ze questions, Ve VIll tell you what to do!
Post a Comment