I guess it's just me that cares about Robert's Rules of Order, and I think that opinion will be validated by the lack of comments/replies this thread will receive!
When I read the article in the Independent today (7.18) regarding "Pickleball at Lakeview" it just drove me crazy...again!
Germane
Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
relevant to a subject under consideration
Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
relevant to a subject under consideration
I'm referring to the motion by Director Nowakowski that was ruled not germane. He wanted to amend the motion that would have approved $50,000 dollars for detailed architectural drawings to convert the tennis courts at Lakeview to 16 pickleball courts.
Director Nowakowski wanted to amend that motion to make sure the new Lakeview courts would adhere to the USA Pickleball Association standards and that amendment was ruled to be out of order by the Chair because it wasn't germane?!?!?!?!
Are you kidding me? To amend a motion that's all about building Pickleball courts with an amendment that would require the courts to conform to Pickleball Association standards is most certainly germane!
The ruling was not only flat out wrong, it causes me to question what kind of advice is the Chair is receiving from the parliamentarian? Anybody with a copy of the 12th edition of Robert's Rules can read for themselves the meaning of being "germane". (See RONR 12:6)
I welcome any discussions. And for any board member reading this that disagrees, please tell me why I'm wrong! I'm always open to being corrected!
An Opinion Piece by Tom Marone
61 comments:
Well stated Tom, this isn't about Pickleball and the courts at Lakeview. This is about abuse of power. For some reason, the board has embraced the idea the majority has more authority than the minority members. Ultimately every board member is entitled to their own opinion and ultimately their own vote regarding said opinion. Unfortunately we've become trapped in the old television program "Queen for a Day." The tragedy is the re-runs get really stale and old when having to watch them over and over.
OK Tom, you are wrong. First you are not a certified parliamentarian by your own admission. You are just a guy walking around with a book you just look up stuff. It is just like me, I am not an attorney even though I have a legal dictionary and a few law school case books given to me by a old friend. I have read them but they are from 1969-1972. I know things, I know where to look, I understand but there is much more than that. I would need formal training. Constitutional law has changed a lot since 1969 as has criminal law and estates and trusts.
Next is the continuing saga of pickle ball and Lakeview. Aside from Karen McAdam arguing with the president of the pickle ball club, and basically alienating them with her usual torrent of word salad. John should have known better considering his background, that detailed drawing by an architect would represent the correct size of the courts. Look at this way, it’s their job. Not a bad job pissing President of the club of the fastest growing sport and arguing for something he would know to be true in the first place.
Well played.
I made the point in my comments so as to avoid this going down that road Dave, but you went there anyway. Tom's comments weren't about Pickleball at Lakeview, they were about the process we are all trapped in. You were there, you've been there through most of these meetings. Do you see a pattern?
The president approves motions from the majority and denies motions from the minority. The whole point of a parliamentarian is to insure a meeting is conducted fairly, unbiased. It doesn't take Robert's Rules of Order expert to understand that is how it is supposed to work. At the last meeting when John made his motion, Dale ruled it out of order. Steve properly called for a point of order which should have brought it to a vote of the board members present. That's how it is supposed to work. Dale leaned into the parliamentarian and then just proclaimed it a dead issue.
That was the point of his article. I go back far enough to remember when a real parliamentarian sat on the end of the dais with a mic and made his/her ruling for everyone to hear. It wasn't based on what the president wanted, it was based on the procedures in accordance with what Robert's Rules mandated.
And to be even more clear for you, insulting Tom because he keeps a copy with him for reference is again short-sighted. You don't know this, but his resources go far beyond a dog-eared book. Rather than insulting him, try asking him just how deep a reach he has? You will be surprised as i was when i heard the answer.
As long as you brought it up, here's a couple of issues regarding pickleball. We need more courts. That said, Karen's issue for the club was will these be suitable? Legal for tournament play? Fair questions, but there's more. I asked the president following the meeting; have they talked to the home owners on the lake? She asked me, why should they? Really?
Finally, here's the bigger issue for me. We know there is a total remodel for Lakeview on the long range plan (PIF budget). Will everything just be built around these 16 courts? Or will it be half-assed yet again by plowing them under like they will be doing at Mountain View? By the way, do you know if those Mountain View courts were built from PIF? Because if they were, they need be there for 15 years.
Bill, I am not sure that a point of order would bring it to a vote. I thought that it just allows to speak. My only experience with this was watching the Army-McCarthy hearings from 1953 when I was five. I did watch them again for a history course in college. Since I do not have a copy of Roberts I would defer to the parliamentarian.
As for the Mountain View pickle ball courtts, I think that was about nine years ago or so just before the big project up north. I do remember the design was done by a member who was a licensed civil engineer. At the work session afterwards I remember it was immediately approved. Not sure what money was used, PIF or the famously elusive cash carry forward.
I do have a question that has be nagging me for awhile, are the pickle ball courts at MV being closed due construction (good idea) or are they being demolished and what would be replacing them?
D
Once again Dave your bloviating argument misses the entire point!
The point being, the motion made by Director Nowakowski was a legitimate amendment to the main motion and very much germane. The amendment was referring to the exact same drawings that the board was about to approve $50,000 dollars for. All Director Nowakowski wanted was amend the motion to insure that the drawings and design of the courts were in accordance with the USA Pickleball Association's standards.
So...tell me why I'm wrong and that motion is not germane? You can't. And that's because all you ever want to do is to is argue and try to prove people wrong!
On a second point...if you were to have heard Director McAdam's word-salad, as you call it, which was also shut-down by the chair, you would have learn that you will never get 16 courts in that space that would conform to the USA Pickleball Association standards! They'll be lucky if they get 10!
I must say, it really scares me that you are a member of the Ad Hoc Bylaws Committee yet you don't understand the basic principals behind Robert's Rules!
I anxiously await your response!
Have a great day!
Tom, you missed the point. John was a motion or whatever for detailed prints that were going to be produced in the first place. He worked for the Il Dept.of Transportation in a project manager mode at times if I am not mistaken. This means that he would be following this from the very beginning. That’s my point, unnecessary motion. I am not out to prove everyone wrong, I just found the content of his motion superfluous. So chill out MAGA boy or you will have an early heart attack.
As for Karen a/k/a the Chicago Northshore Princess, having listen to her at meetings I have attended she seems to like to hear herself talk and after a while I lose track what she is talking about, word salad. I believe that her commanded of English allows to bloviate on subjects she knows nothing about, i.e., “What is an AIA 315?” Any cursory knowledge of construction would know this is a performance bond.
On a more somber note, my condolences go out to the City of Highland Park for that ghastly shooting on July 4th. My last job before I moved to the Valley was in Highland Park.
As for my shocking admission I don’t own a copy of RR, never had the need for one. Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence both State and Federal along with CFR Chapter 40 and the Administrative Review Act were must haves. Being on the chain to review Illinois Decisions and Federal Decisions were a must. Just because I didn’t own a copy doesn’t mean a few were available.
Have a positive day and stay cool.
Well Dave, if Karen's ramblings are word salad, I guess yours are word fruit salad. It doesn't matter if you, Lehrer, the majority, or God himself agrees or disagrees with John's proposed amendment. THE POINT IS he's allowed to bring forth the amendment for discussion, debate, and vote unless it violates procedure. THE POINT IS it DIDN"T violate procedure, which you would know if you did some research on RR instead of just telling Tom he is wrong. The very fact that you don't even understand his amendment and then claim it "superfluous" and support its improper quashing is exactly the problem.
Dave, to answer your question regarding the Mountain View pickleball courts, when they re positioned the building in the 2nd plan, everything on the far corner had to be plowed under. In the original plan, they would have been closed during the construction (in all likelihood) but not removed.
There is a phase 3 to the project that is 8 to 10 years out that claims they will build a two-story pickleball building (some 50 feet tall) and will also include a lawn bowling green and ADA mini-golf course. That was a late comer to the discussion and most felt it was thrown out there to placate the pickleball players. It didn't work, hence the Lakeview tennis court conversion being promoted.
Seems like Anonymous understands the principles of Robert's Rules better than you!
Besides everything that Anonymous referred to, there was nothing in the main motion that stated any specific requirements for those courts that I could see and that's what Director Nowakowski was concerned with. What guaranteed that those courts would be in accordance with the USA Pickleball Associations requirements for tournament play?
Do yourself a favor as I did, check out the measurements of those existing 4 tennis courts, which you can do on Google Maps, (use the Measure Distance feature) to find out what the square footage is, then see how many tournament quality Pickleball courts will fit into that square footage. I don't believe there's a snowballs chance in Hell that you can fit 16 courts in that area with proper ingress and egress let alone any place for spectators or too wait your turn to play?
Bottom line: The motion was pretty darn vague on specifics and Director Nowakowski had every right in the world to amend the motion.
And as far as your knowledge regarding state and federal regulations, note that the RCSC has also adopted Robert's Rules as it parliamentary authority and in many cases state statutes bow to an organizations Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Just go look at any state statute and in many cases the first thing they say is, "Unless otherwise specified in the articles of incorporation or bylaws..." That means the organization's articles and bylaws hold precedence over that statute and only if the issue isn't addressed in those documents do you turn back and look at the Statutes for a remedy!!
God help us if you remove Robert's Rules of Order from the Bylaws.
One final thought regarding John's motion; once he made the amendment to it the chair should have acknowledged it, allowed for discussion and then let the board vote it up or down. Just because she has the scepter doesn't mean she gets to waive it and make them disappear.
This isn't even one of those Robert's Rules of Order issues, this is simply how boards are supposed to work. Motion made, amendments added and votes by board members present for or against it.
This is exactly how the "New" Board functions!
If you don't like a Directors position on an issue, instead of just voting against it, you remove them off the Board. Ask Barbara Brehm or Karen McAdam.
If there's a motion you don't particularly like, rather than taking 2 minutes to take a vote, you simply deem it not germane and call it out of order!
If you suspect you're going to catch some flak from the Members, you simply immediately declare the meeting adjourned and walk off the stage!
They might as well remove Robert's Rules from the Bylaws because it would exactly fit into the Boards narrative...anytime you see or hear any bit of opposition, you just shut everything down! Without a parliamentary authority all bets are off. We're living in the wild-wild west my friends and making up the rules as we go! Proper procedure be damned!
Well Tom, the SCA seems to enjoy waving the McAdam/Brehm bloody shirt every opportunity you get.
Nice idea about eliminating RR, I like the Wild West, it brings back memories of undergrad school.
Hey Dave, I enjoy reminding everyone of the dictatorial governance of the chair, I believe it's called sua sponte.
Nice of you to change the subject. Still waiting for you to explain why I'm wrong about my comments that I stated above?
Was the motion germane or not? If not why?
I'm sure many on the board would love to do away with RR's. It would certainly shut me up!
80% of the organizations that specify a parliamentary authority specify Robert's Rules of Order. I would surmise that if the RCSC wants to retain any sense of professionalism or credibility, in light of of the plenary powers they were granted by the Articles of Incorporation, they will continue to use Robert's Rules. If not, that would require them to learn a whole new set of rules, but of course, if they're not going to comply with the current rules, why should we suspect that any new or different set of rules will be followed as well?
Have a great day!
I was tempted to ignore your comment Dave regarding the SCA raising the issue of the board firing two board members. I simply can't. You quit because of some irregularities you saw as a board member. The two women (BTW) that were fired both raised questions/issues important to the community that didn't sit well with other members.
You talk often about "your expertise." I respect it. Much of mine was in trustee education including fiduciary responsibility and ethics. Did you know, quitting doesn't negate or save you from a breach, nor does simply voting against something.
The fact these two board members spoke up and out about issues they questioned should never have gotten them fired. The crap being thrown around about loyalty to the corporation was nothing more than cover to shut them up and get them to go away, You elected to quit and walk away, they were thrown off by their fellow board members.
So yes, we do bring it up. Often and loudly.
And I'm still waiting for a response from Dave!
Was the motion germane or not? If not, why?
It's typical that you never get a direct answer from people who just like to disagree with everything you say. All they ever want to do is change the subject because they can't defend their position with anything but rhetoric!!
Well Tom, I certainly apologize that my personal schedule does not allow me to respond in your imaginary time limit.
Be that as it may, I will respond to Bill first. You are correct that both of us are liable for acts performed while on the Board. This is why the Board had Directors and Officers coverage and language in the by-laws indeminifying the Board member, her/her spouse and immediate family against all costs and claims as a result of serving on the Board. This was germane to Ann Stewart’s dopey lawsuit if you read in the caption on the first page of the listed defendants. Civil Procedure 101.
Tom, whether John’s motion was germane (there’s that word again) I believe it falls in the category of stupid. While listening to the mental/ verbal gymnastics and hoop jumping it appeared to me to be another instance of finding a way to waste time over nonsense. You, as a draftsman should know when asked to do drawing of a project, would you not make sure the building codes, fire codes were followed? The real issued seemed to be fans in the stands, hot dog stands water fountains and things that take away court space. Deep down I believe whatever the solution is to this Gordian Knot, not everyone will be happy and will continue for years until pickle bal goes the way of golf.
As for the Barbara/Karen axis, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Not being familiar with the Barbara situation, I highly doubt it was over financial statements as I have stated previously. Considering that two maybe three of last year’s Board composition knew anything about financials, same for this year’s Board.
As for Karen, I sort of followed last year, but since it was done in executive session as was Barbara’s, the facts of the case are really not known. Consequently when Karen advertised she was going to tell her side of the story in the Independent last July I was intrigued. When I read the opinion piece my first reaction was “What’s this nonsense!? I hardly believe the whole incident revolved due process. Since she was back on the Board again this year, I asked her at one of the first meeting in January what are the facts of the case? I have not received a response other that a note she gave me after a committee meeting asking me to call her. This leads to the question, what would she tell me in private that she would not say in public? Just asking.
Dave, I'm sorry that your life is so complicated that it takes days to find the time to respond...with a non-response!
It's not a difficult question; was the motion germane or wasn't it? Yup, there's that word again!
It doesn't matter what you may have thought those drawings included, apparently Director Nowakowski had concerns and was looking to establish a guarantee that those courts would be designed within USA Pickleball Association Tournament standards, because the original main motion made no reference to any requirement or standard, which begs the question, just what were the requirements the RCSC placed on those court designs? Are they simply looking to fit as many courts as possible in that limited space or must the courts be of tournament quality?
If you can't admit that Director Nowakowski's amendment was germane and in-order, then you're just being intellectually dishonest! I think you know better? It's hard to admit when you're wr-wr-wrong!
As far as the dismissal of Director's Brehm and McAdam goes, there's more to the story than you know, and you're right, you don't know anything about Barbara Brehm's dismissal, so you are, once again, just speculating on something you know little about!
I believe Director McAdam is smart enough not to reveal what happened in that Executive Session, a session BTW that was not a properly called meeting, but that's a discussion for another day. :-)
Have a great day! Pray for more rain!
Tom, let’s be honest with each other, you really don’t give a dam about my life and what I am dealing with, just like I really don’t care about your droning on about RR and drooling wait for the revised by-laws.No matter what is contained in the result because you and your band of howling jackals won’t like it. That’s not a prediction, that’s a fact.
As for admitting being wrong, I can think of at least two ocassions when I admitted I was incorrect in my research and I cannot think of one instance when you did the same. It must be difficult being right all the time.
As for John’s motion, amendment whatever it was was germane, I really don’t care as I have enough faith in management. I guess this is where I am called a “tool” or sympathizer of management because I have faith they will do the right thing and if they don’t then they desevere the criticism.
As for the Board actions from last year, I am not speculating about her separation because on many occasions on TOSC and this site have stated that your belief she was a victim of questioning the financials. So much for speculation on my part.
As for Karen not revealing confidential information, what was the purpose of “her side of the story” in the Independent which was absolute drivel? So what is the purpose of this Kabuki theater of whipping up the villagers on something she does not disclose? Somehow I smell a Big Lie and persecution here.
As for you being shocked by the deficits in golf, I have known about for years. How did I know, I had been receiving the CPA statements since about 2009. How did I secure this information? Did I have some Deep Throat in the corporate office? No , each year I filled out a form requesting it and a few days later I picked it up at the corporate office. Did you ever do this? My guess is no and you never thought of asking. Look on the bright side, you can do this also because you are a member, get you didn’t know that. Now the only item to be resolved is do you know what you are looking at and what defects in the statement are and should be changed? My guess is no. How many times have I offered my knowledge but not one of you people has ever asked.
That should about cover everything.
Seems Sun City received pabout one and a half inches of rain. We need more!
Thanks for your response Dave.
So much to unpack and so many incorrected assumptions!
First of all , you say you don't care about Robert's Rules yet your very first response to my comments was "Ok Tom, you are wrong." If you didn't care, then why even respond?
I'm not drooling waiting for the release of the draft revised bylaws. Let's just say there will probably be room for improvement! I had sent some members of the committee a list of suggestions and recommendations including citations from Robert's Rules to support those recommendations. Whether or not they are addressed is what my concern is. I wish you would spend the twenty-bucks and buy yourself a copy of RR's. I'll be happy to guide you to the pertinent rules.
Glad that you finally admitted John's amendment was germane.
If you were to follow the many things I have written, including emails to the board, you would see that I too admit when I'm wrong and will often make and send out my own correction prior to waiting to being called out. It's the only way to retain any credibility in the things you say.
My only interest in golf is the fact that non-residents have the opportunity to pay less than do the Members. Golf is Bill's hill to die on, not mine, and it's not about the deficit, it's about the cost of rounds by outsiders which would apply to any amenity that we pay to support whether it's golf, bowling or anything else.
And yes, I certainly do know about requesting documents from the corporate office and have done so in the past!
Have a great day.
Tom
P.S. Can you tell me how close the Ad Hoc Committee is with their final report or is that a secret too?
OK Tom, we seem to be reverting to being cordial again.
I will answer your P.S. first, no.
As for your suggestions regarding the by-laws and your suggestions, either I didn’t make the cut or you sent it to the wrong email address on a computer I no longer use (chromebooks are a piece of……) which might have been the case. Foudtje Bedankt.
As for the germane kerfuffle, it is an example of what we called in the bond business majoring in minors. It is like wanting to change Board Member exchange to Member Board exchange. Wasn’t the goal to have the session which was successful in the first place? Why not just call it the Dead Puppy and Kitten exchange. The purpose was to have the exchange no matter what the name, although you might have a crowd wondering what this is. The same was the argument over Fun City versus City of Volunteers, what’s the point? People are going to purchase here based on what it says on a brick wall or metal sign? I don’t think so. My point is that at times SCA fails to see the big picture. An example would be CPA statements as opposed to waiting around for 990’s to be posted. I suspect (without actually seeing one) are essentially toilet paper with printing on it. The CPA statements, such as they are, provide more information that you are looking for. Sometimes SCA isn’t asking the right questions. Enough on that.
So your interest is the pricing of golf and not the $25M golf has lost over X amount of years. I would like to know the answer to two questions I have asked, is golf on straight sheets year round or split sheets during prime season. The second is people complain about not being able to golf at a preferred tee time, is this because you only golf at one or two courses in your hood or unwilling to golf any where in Sun City? I have posed this question before the Board and a few times here and so far the results are crickets.
I still don’t want a copy of RR as I have no need for it. I believe I can follow the logic of an argument or lack thereof.
Finally, I would like to give a big shout out to Bill for posting a comment on my last post here. Two things though , I stated on this site that my account on TOSCA seems to have cancelled during that medical unpleasantness I experienced a few ago and that this was the only place I could comment. As for my term of howling jackals, seems he might have a problem with the term metaphorical. Speaking of metaphorical, could Bill give me sixty words on why he said “f***y** to the Board President at the end of a work session when he was on the Board?
Good meeting. Have a great summer. If you have Netflix, check out The Man From Toronto. Only Woody Harrelson and Kevin Hart can make contract killers funny.
Bill and Tom, this is getting weird. You post on TOSC and the only way I can respond is through here. Damn it’s like a Sonny and Cher record.
I apparently never mentioned the Articles of Incorporation in my posts, which must make it the moral equivalent of detailed drawings being germane. Since Tom seems to have a short attention span I will fill you in. Tom asked me after the last Board meeting if some by-law or RR citation has been reconciled. I responded by saying I have read the Articles so many times I can’t remember and even if I knew the answer and I wouldn’t say anyway. It was the same gathering that I told you Bill you were wasting time with 990’s and secure a copy of the CPA statement instead. Consequently you ignored my advice and I posted on this site what you were looking for.
I cannot tell you when you when you will see the fruits of our labors because I don’t know. As for SCA and the as a whole not liking the result of our work, that is my opinion and mine alone and has nothing to do with the opinion of any other committee member or the committee as a whole. I stated that just from what I read on this site and TOSC.
As for Tom’s hysteria over my lack of ownship of RR, nice to post a comment again after I responded to this a day or so ago, but for the people in the cheap seats, just because I don’t own a copy of RR doesn’t mean I had one available to me, I did refer to RR when necessary. Remember Tom, assumptions are the mother of all …k ups. I’m scared you don’t own a Black’s Law Dictionary otherwise you what an enabling statute purpose and you would have a treasure trove of Latin words, phrases and sentences. Res ipsa loquitur.
This has nothing to do with the above, Bill, I know you enjoy history and Tom you might find this a commentary in relation to
the present time, as the more things change the more they remain the same.I was reading the collected writings of Sallust, an ancient Roman historian (86-35 B.C.) commenting on the civil wars in Rome in the mid 100’s B.C.
“It is this spirit which has commonly ruined great nations, when one party desires to triumph over another by any and every means and to avenge itself on the vanquished with excessive cruelty.” Accepting defeat is not longer an option it seems.
BTW, the sky is not blue at the moment, it’s overcast. I am not angry, just amused.
Can't understand how you can comply with Robert's Rules if you have no idea what's required to satisfy those requirements?
If you would like to see what I sent to some members of the committee, go way back on this blog to Friday, April 1, 2022. The title of the article is "Bylaw Input I shared with the Ad Hoc Committee." There are two links, "First Article" and "ATTACHMENT A" that will allow you see what I sent.
Not sure how you will or can comprehend my comments since you don't have a copy of the book to refer to since I have included the citations?
Some day you can give me your email address and we can continue to lock-horns and air our differences on a more private basis.
I'll check out Netflix!
Oh! one more thing; I don't play golf, never have, never will, and that's why my only concern is the cost of outside play! I have no idea what a straight sheet or split sheet even is!
Dave; I went to TOSC for a couple of reasons and i will continue to use your words to elaborate the differences we have. The next will be relative to "trusting management" but that's for another channel at another time.
I want to address here, this comment: "could Bill give me sixty words on why he said “f***y** to the Board President at the end of a work session when he was on the Board?" For one, 60 words would be impossible. More interestingly, what were we discussing? You say it was at a work session; which one? Who was the board president? Was it heated?
My point should be pretty simple to grasp, i have no recollection of said incident. You obviously have a better memory than i. That is not to say it didn't happen, i've told several people to "fuck off" in my lifetime, but mostly when i was dealing with more important issues than the RCSC.
You claim this happened at a work session; was i written up for it? Was i reprimanded? Seriously, if it was that ugly, there should have been something or someone come down on me. After all, the board vice president did exactly that to Karen last year and he was reprimanded. Maybe they (the board) thought more highly of me than him (said with a smile).
The work sessions used to get heated. I remember tears flowing all to often, no, not from me. The point i was making (and i assume you are smart enough to get it), coming on here and calling people names doesn't aid your cause. Doesn't help make your points. In fact, i usually respond in a snarky manner.
I tried that whole turning the other cheek thing and like work, it's way over-rated.
Bill, you get the first respnse here. You are using TOSC not for elaborating differences but using my words against me. Having been on the debate team in high school and doing administrative hearings and court appearances on behalf of my employer, I know how the game is played.
As for phase two of your projected post, trusting management. Over the years I just get the vibe that you are taking sort of the “Deep State” view of everything or State Secrets. While I have fairly good relationship with new management even though I have found some of their explanations utter bullshit, in the instance of the pickle ball courts, I will cut them some slack but if it turns out crap, I’ll be one of the first to join the Greek chorus.
As to the tempestuous Board work session, it was in either in 2013 or 2014 as Carole was on the Board and sat next to me. I believe it was at the end of the session and I also believe it involved golf because of all the putthead on the Board. Jim Brasher was President. I had my run ins also as he lectured me on Board r duties and responsibilities as I wanted to take a few days and had a chance to see Eric Clapton at the New Orleans Jazz Fest with a former colleague who lived in the Big Easy. I kept my cool and said nothing. A few weeks later I had a doc appointment across the street from Lakeview at 8:30 and emailed everybody I might be a touch late. It was a Monday when we had a session that started at the ungodly hour of 8:00. He does the lecture thing again and this time I fired back. I told him I refused to be lectured by a person who takes the month of November off so he and wifey can sail around the and stay shitfaced all the time. Do ever do it again. As far as I know it no repercussions to either of us. Chalk it up to the heat of the moment. You are right about the cheek thing, never worked for me either.
Clapton was outstanding BTW.
Tom, don’t send me your email previously mentioned, taking some time from this because Diane said I looked like hell and sickly from the stress. Since I have been basically doing real research since the early 60’s in some way shape or form, I think I find relevant RR using an iPad and a loaned RR. I believe the reason I was chosen for the committee was because of my sparkling personality and my knowledge of legal construction.
I will give you my current email next time I see you. Don’t like doing it on computer because it was hacked one time and the hackers tried to steal $5,000 from me . Consequently changed accounts, etc. and no presence for anything of value. Hope you unsterstand.
Thanks for the quick response Dave. Good old JB was never one of my favorites either; the whole chain of command thing was a bit much. After all, he was the genius who announced to the community, we didn't need a long range planning committee, we had one, it was called the board.
As far as the actual incident itself, zero recollection on my part. It could well have happened, but i would just point out, you've stated several times since your health issues, memory is problematic. As an example, no one to me knowledge has ever been booted from TOSC. I know you had logged on under at least one screen name (maybe two). Perhaps you just forgot your login name or password?
I was never on the "debate team" in school. That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand differing points of view result in a debate. When i posted your comment on TOSC regarding the bylaws, it was either you had insider information or not. Your response was, not. Good you clarified because the board does follow these posts and i suspect the chair of the committee would be unhappy if you were talking out of school.
I do want to elaborate on TOSC (feel free to rejoin) and talk about management and trust. I know there has been some issues with signing in on TOSC, so i'll throw you a couple of softballs here: Apparently you are reading TOSC and you probably saw my comments in the thread regarding voting down Director Collins motion in June. Let me drill in on that:
Questions:
1). When both the director of golf and the general manager told the board that "golf was profitable in 2021," i choked on my coffee. I suspected it was "misinformation." The board voted based on that statement. If it wasn't true, and they knew it wasn't true; would you ever trust them again?
2). If you saw the presentation regarding the sorry state of our technology earlier this spring, the general manager stated, and i quote, "it is no one's fault." Would you at least admit, better to have said nothing than to make a statement that on its face is idiotic?
3). Finally, you have stated numerous times your understanding of finances. I have no reason to dispute them. I have stated several times, i am no numbers guy. I can extract them by digging but i find no joy in it. With that out of the way, you have said outright the 990's are rubbish or garbage or are incorrect (sorry, i have no interest in digging out the exact quote). Are you telling me/us the form 990's sent to the federal government by virtually all non-profit organizations BTW, aren't correct? If you are, explain why they would lie to the feds?
I literally hate typing in these little tiny boxes. I much prefer seeing what i write on my 31 inch screen. Thanks for the discussion, it helps me frame my arguments and dependent on your answers, may even move the needle.
Bill, this will be short because unfortunately I wrote a response yesterday answering your questions and I was electronically told that I had exceeded the 4,000 character limit. Try pairing it down to conform and thought had it but the post was deleted instead. Bummer.
I will try to respond this weekend as I have a pretty full schedule next week involving medical, contractors (roomaddition) and getting rid of a lot of accumulated crap over the past twenty eight years. Any golfers interested in a few hundred golf balls from back yard or clubs and/or bags, contact me through this site.
One final note, Tom I didn’t want to leave you out so here goes, why does not owning a copy of RR make me a doofus even though I said on more than one occasion I had access to a copy plus other forms of research. I just don’t get it, but I will make a deal with you. I will purchase a copy of RR if you promise to purchase a college level books issued the past two years covering U S history, macroeconomics, US diplomacy history, Constitutional law and Civil Procedure. The reason being you post but seem clueless about the basics.
Enjoy the rain and the lower temps. Deus vult.
Let me ask you one very simple question Dave: We now know the RCSC management team fixed non-member full play passes with a $250 increase in price...do you still trust them to do the right thing?
I believe your actual quote was, " I don’t own a copy of RR, never had the need for one."
Had you stated that you had access to a copy would have made a world of difference, however, your emphatic statement of "never needing one" is mind boggling, considering the committee you are now a part of! I think your only recent comment to having access to one is a late attempt to COA. And BTW, you will not find a copy of the current edition of Robert's Rules on the Internet.
And there you go again changing the subject! I have no intentions to, or desire in changing macroeconomics, US diplomacy history, Constitutional law or Civic Procedure because I don't work in or have any influence within that environment. However, if I were to be involved with amending Constitutional law, I would most certainly have those volumes of books available to me.
You have been tasked with amending a set of Bylaws that are mandated too comply with Robert's Rules of Order, but it appears you are not really familiar with what those requirements even are? You should have familiarized yourself with Chapter XVIII, Section 56 prior to amending anything!
The low temps are nice but the humidity is a bit sticky!
Listen to your s.o., Dave. You are well-liked and respected, and you would be greatly missed. Take care of yourself and your health first.
Fondly, FOTW
A, thanks for the thought. Of course my S.O. knows that I am the Ike and Tina Turner of work ethic, I never do anything nice and easy it I have been following her advice lately so no worries.
Tom, I think you should.go back and read some of my earlier posts where I said while not having a copy of RR, I did have copies available. I realize some people like to go and see what my latest inflammatory remarks are. I admit I do this whit others and miss some important points.
Well if you have no desire changing your view of macroeconomics, your current view of the world economies is wrong. We are seeing the deficiencies of our supply systems, transportation, the expanding gap between rich and poor nation, the strength of the dollar world wide ( check out dollar v. Euro or the pound sterling) rapacious oil companies (check out RBOB and WTI on CNBC under commodities). This post pandemic time is much different than post Spanish flu in 1919 as there was a boom in the stock went on until 1929. The main reason was buying stack on 10% margin. Needless to say margin calls wiped incredible wealth. There is more to that than just this. A talk for another time but the key was the Treaty of Versailles and the Balfour Note.
Back to you Bill. I forgot to put in my thoughts on faith in management was only for the drawings on the Lakeview pickle ball courts as this is complicated like a neuclear reactor. If the plans suck I will join you early in the Greek chorus.
Have to stop now as I have to make dinner, chicken piccata with asparagus, boiled potatoes and a Salad ( Diane makes the salad and taters.
Stay dry and check out the new season of Grandchester on PBS Roku.
Dave...you have no idea what my views are on macroeconomics!
Let's not get into politics because things were a lot better during the last administration whether you liked orange-man or not. Gasoline, unemployment and inflation were pretty darn low as was illegal immigration.
I ain't even going there with you!
Have a great day!
And you don't have boiled potatoes with chicken piccata...it's angle hair pasta!
I like to take people at face value when they say something. So let's start with agreeing you were only talking about trusting management regarding the pickleball design at Lakeview. John's motion and Karen's argument was if they were going to spend 50k, make sure they do it right. The space on the tennis courts has to be expanded to get 16 courts that would be suitable for tournament play. Hopefully everyone understands that. We'll see.
I do want to pursue managements decision to increase full play passes for non-residents; the increase by $250. I know you have written you live on a golf course and often can shoot a cannon down the fairway and not hit anyone. No one would argue there are times when courses are under utilized. That's true with every amenity in Sun City by the way. Always has been.
What i am talking about is prime time tee times. That time of year when tee times are fought over. This has nothing to do with straight sheets or cross overs or 5 people to a golf car or any of the other side grievances we often hear about. I don't want to muddy the waters with any of that.
This is a straight-forward question i am asking you as a former board member and as an RCSC member: Do you think it is just fine that non-residents have access to our golf courses at less cost than a member does? Here's a bonus question: Do you believe non-residents should have equal or better access to tee times than the RCSC membership?
These are really simple, at least in my mind. Apparently not so much in several of the other board members who will get their chance to respond in Sept. Eagerly awaiting your response.
Hi guys, this has to be short as I have the pigeon dudes coming over shortly. The pigeons are basically flying shit machines and due to a medical condition I have to stay away from bird poop and cat poop. There is some sort of bacteria in the poop that is harmful to me if inhaled.
Tom I know angel hair goes with piccata but Diane and I had pasta al limone with asparagus the night before. We have a rotation on carbs and try not to have the same two nights in a row. I didn’t feel like making a small amount of marinara sauce for this dish. You cook or just a food critic.
OK Bill your turn. Two interesting but loaded questions but permit me to respond in this manner. I remember in the days of yore when I did golf, your member was written on the starter sheet. The question is do the annual passes carry a number so RCSC can track how many rounds the individual actually plays.
I have been thinking the number being thrown around of 100 rounds each might be a touch optimistic. Does anyone out there know the true number because it could affect the argument. As for the info on the budget, which is not a financial statement in my world, The budget is a guesstimate and has no basis in reality, I.e., the number of house sales every time management wants to raise the PIF. The real reason was because SCW had just raised theirs. What kind of friggin logic is that? Butch and Sundance said it but will have a serious case of amnesia now if you ask them. What you should be asking yourself is when are the assessments being raised and by how much? They haven’t been raised in six years and when Judgment Day comes, it could be ugly. I asked at the last budget meeting in May and the conservative reactionary bloc jumped all over me. These yahoos will be the first to support a large increase because we need it, just like we don’t need to increase because we didn’t need it. You heard it here first. I also believe we need more budget meetings. Waiting until May to review last year end and first quarter is ridiculous.
Type to you in the future.
Dave. The RCSC can tell you where every round comes from. Not sure why that matters. In the immortal words of Stone Cold Austin, here's "the bottom line:" Should non-residents ever be allowed access to tee times ahead of RCSC members, especially when they are paying less than the members are paying????????????
Pigeon poop aside Dave, this isn't rocket science. The membership has been subsidizing golf to the tune of 2 million dollars a year. On top of it, the PIF we have all paid, has dumped 50 million dollars into the courses and out buildings. Our money, our amenities, not some schmuck living in Surprise, Peoria, Glendale or at Paradise Park.
Why is it so difficult for anyone to give us a straight answer when it comes to something this simple...and it is all that simple.
Well Bill, having been in the middle of upper management, the dudes in charge here fall into both categories of don’t confuse me with facts and in a discussion they know they are losing they turn into jive ass turkeys. I have the same problems with management and financial statements. I argue they are crap, they know they are crap but will not concede they are crap. I am constantly pushing to change them from Where’s Waldo to something everyone understands or will with a quick course in statements. GOT, winter is coming.
Now to your issues. I am with you that these are are our courses for our people and anyone else is a tourist and should wait their turn. I will say on my visits before moving here, I golfed with my neighbor and the lottery systems then caused some hard feelings then. Even ladies day when some courses were lightly booked caused problems because if you were not a lady tough shit until 12 PM. Obviously lost revenue due to narrow thinking. As to subsidized golf to a couple of million a year, I still have feelings that what you see is not exactly true because of no real itemization. Depreciation and operating and administrative expenses give me a bad feeling in my gut. Don’t get me started on work in process, Sun City Properties LLC and the Sun City Foundation.
As for the rehab of the courses, with North the original course followed by South, as I said before soil compaction and crushed plastic sprinkler systems called for this considering they were about 50 years old. The remaining course will be needing this in the coming future. I believe the last one rehabbed was Riverview. Not sure what the plan is currently for Lakes. As for the outbuildings, the one at South burned down several years ago and obviously had to be rebuilt. I ran into Steve Collins in Safeway the other day and learned the new outbuilding at Lakes I believe has the atmosphere of a concrete pillbox. Don’t know who came up with that idea but never really heard a murmur from the golfers up there or the residents facing this thing.
Should the outsiders be paying more, obviously the answer would be yes. But I still say the “100 rounds played per outside annual pass” should have empirical evidence to back this claim, but that’s me.
Good discussion.
John Oliver was terrific last night on the main story.
Thanks, Dave, that wasn't so hard was it? Your point regarding the financials is well stated. The financial data been shitty for years, they still are. Throw in the technology boondoggle and the full play outside resident passes and it is clear any suggestion on how well Sun City has been run for the past 15 years is blowing smoke. BTW, i've been told the average round by outsiders buying the pass is closer to 125 rounds but i haven't seen the information. Board members have it.
It's much like the flipper who buys the vintage home, throws on some paint and cheap carpeting and calls it a remodel. On the surface it looks good, do a deep dive and you come to understand just how expensive it is to do it right. In this case, everyone judges the community by our inexpensive rec fees/lot assessments.
No question, for couples it is. For a single home owner buying after 2003, or a long time owner whose spouse has died and she/he downsized, it's not so much. Sun City is a great place to live, it could be so much better. Hundreds of millions of dollars from PIF allow us the luxury of being so much better. Shortsightedness has kept us from achieving it.
Bill, you want to see a great example of accounting dazzle sazzle, look a the current statement from June.
The P&L statement shows a profit of $3M+ but depreciation is not included but is on the balance sheet. Look for the 92M figure on the balance sheet and that is thru 6/30 which is cumulative for the year. The balance sheet has PIF and cash in bank where the true figure for cash carry forward is hidden.
The depreciation figure only appears on the business unit P&L at the end of the year when it is finally divvied up. Consequently we have no idea how golf or any other unit is doing until next year, in May when it is almost useless. The 2021 statement will not surface until late October when it is almost useless. The reason for this as per the sugar bowl twins is that the audit is cheaper in August. So they have $13M in the bank and they are somehow worried about spending $10,000 vs. $5,000 for a piece of crap. The statement really should be on a percentage of completion basis considering the large projects they are considering.
Another hokey thing I notice on the work in process sheet should normally have the CONTRACT amount is listed along with any change orders along the way. Instead, management lists the BUDGETED amount which wrong as it really doesn’t tell me what the low bidder’s price was and any changes, if appropriate. It also hides true costs to complete, This is nonsense and why don’t they publish bid results. This is insanity.
See how our fortunes are tied together, golf through accounting. It always comes down to numbers.
Good post.
Oddly enough Dave i did look at the June statement several weeks back and made the same comments somewhere and asked why there had been such significant jumps. I got no answers, but then i didn't expect any. Most of us are pretty clueless regarding the financials. I can see anomalies, but seeing them and understanding why are two different things.
Where i really struggle is how all of this has been allowed to go on? I know the budget and finance committee see these figures regularly. The general manager defends the stock piling of cash as a good thing, but is it? Collecting an excess of a million dollars and not spending it on improvements is crazy.
I know clubs have been submitting requests for years and are ignored. I know other clubs had items cut from their plans (Grand Center), because a member of management decided he didn't like what they wanted. We all know, technology has been ignored for 10 plus years.
It's one thing if they don't have the money. That, given their financial condition, most assuredly wasn't the case. Why did the Budget and Finance Committee not speak up? plus
Bill, personally I was out of commission for over two years and the pandemic didn’t help either. Consequently, the month to month numbers were not sent to me and Jan was still GM. I have now gotten back into the grove with my pithy financial comments and either Norm Dickson, who is in Keith Richards territory and/or Greg Eisert have shot me down or just plain dismissed me. The only meeting held was in May where I brought up bogus house numbers to justified a PIF increase and the growing need for assessments to be reviewed. The real reason to increase the PIF as stated by Bill, SCW increased theirs so we should do the same. As for assessments, the party line was our budget can handle it plus cash carry forward geld. BTW, Karen mostly sat stone faced through this which tells me a lot about her financial chops. The next meeting is in September. I have the date I just packed up my day planner. I will try to advise you this weekend. It will cover 6 month financial and and budget.
You are correct that tech has been ignored because the Board didn’t have the talent, except Carole, and neither did corporate except for Chris who was given a super soaker to kill the mastodon..
It really is a big shit sandwich but I believe using my sparkling personality and convincing some Board members, maybe there is a way to right the ship.
Good conversation.
It has been an interesting discussion Dave, you are staring to sound more like on of us than one of them. I was asked a question that perhaps you can answer better than i. A member asked me how much training the chair and co-chair (sorry Tom, but that's what they are called for now) got before taking over the financial committee?
Well Bill, you may be shocked with this answer but!, no.
As you are aware, newly elected Board members and current Board member submit requests for committees they would like to serve on. The best Budget and Finance chairs and co-chairs was when myself and Mike Kennedy switched back and forth as chairs. We both had financial backgrounds and both served as Board treasurer where we’re both reviewed the paperwork for each check we signed. Time consuming but saw how the money was being spent. We also both served on the Investment Commission as we both had extensive experience with all types of investments. Unfortunately, in my early years on the Board only officers could serve on Investments and Bid commissions and none of these boobs knew nothing about either.
Not to pick on Karen but she came off as a deer in the headlights as chair of Budget and Finance. We really need people with appropriate skills for the various committees and commissions to step up and run as it will eliminate a lot of angst in the community to explain what is going on in language they understand.
I really don’t consider myself one of you, rather we have a strange symbiotic relationship.
Good discussion.
Curious if either Karen or Darla had requested to be chairs of that committee or if they were just assigned. And no Dave, i had no reason to believe either of them, or any other board members has received much in the way of training. In fact, i find the whole indoctrination session once being elected to be far below standards. Preaching loyalty is hardly training.
Serving on the RCSC board is an important job. Over the years, as they have pushed members away, we have found less candidates running which is frankly a losing proposition for the community. I would love to see a dozen candidates with multiple skills and clear cut choices based on the platforms they embrace.
The former gm was focused on creating a controlled environment where she provided all the answers and the board merrily went along with them. I see a glimmer of hope breaking that cycle now that she has moved on. We'll see.
My guess is that they requested this committee as it is one of the more “popular” committees. I would believe that they requested believing it would give them more insight as to the “money trail.” It apparently was more overwhelming than they thought. Nothing against them but if you don’t “speak the language” it takes a while to catch up.
I'm not so sure Karen requested that committee but I may be wrong. The bigger question is why was Darla selected to co-chair? There's not much love between the two especially after Darla publicly called Karen a liar?
Tom, the assignments are made in early January, usual during or after the first organizational meeting the first week of January. I think this was way before that verbal dust up.
Dey’s Illud Vult! See you at the Horns of Hatten.
Jean Totten here to get the dates straight....
The "verbal dust-up" as you called it Dave, was at the Annual Membership meeting in December of last year.
The assignments would have been after that.
Personally, I'm appalled that the Board has training. If I'm handling a budget of over #20M, I would want training. And the Board should also have a retreat - either after the Annual Meeting or before the new year starts. The Board that I managed for over 7 years had a retreat for their strategic planning for the year.
Jean
Jean, if the dust up was during the December meeting, I stand corrected.
As for prior training before becoming the chair or co-chair, I find this unrealistic in the sense that you are chosen for the Insurance committee but know nothing about insurance except you pay your premiums and the company says you are covered. A two hour training session or a few days for a total of eight hours isn’t going to cut it. I was in insurance for thirty years, taking annual continuing education for 30 hours each year and I still do not know everything. Coverages change or are added in response to evolving situations.
After the last Board meeting you asked me a financial question (sorry I can’t remember what it concerned) but does that make you competent to discuss the statements with the membership or management? No. Do you know what net quick assets are and their importance, acceptable debt to net worth ratio and why, current assets to current liabilities or assets to liabilities ratio and its importance, EBITA and it’s importance or not to a P&L, which areas of the budget are of importance and which are not, the importance of aging of receivables and what it means to the balance sheet and the corporate as a whole? This is just the bare minimum of the surface and you don’t learn it taking notes of Board meetings. It I involves real life day to day exposure to real life situations that a trading session cannot cover. Can you tell me without googling the difference between a compilation, accrual, completed contract and percentage of completion statements and which truly reflects the financial status of a corporation. This is the deep end of the pool stuff and if you or anyone else wants to be a Board member you better learn some of this.
I apologize if this seems like a rant but I served with and seen too many Board members who are clueless as to what they are talking about. Have fun googling the above.
Dave. If any of the stuff you listed above was critical to being a good board member, we would have zero board members worth electing. You clearly know lots of things others don't, so what? There are volumes written on how good boards function and one of the ways is in their ability to hire "experts" in their fields to help them make good decisions. I suspect you know that.
Everyone that runs has an expertise in something. Is it always applicable? Clearly not. If a person spent 30 years as an electrician, does his/her knowledge regarding wiring a house translate somehow to wiring a new rec center? Clearly not. That certainly doesn't make them unworthy to run.
It's why, when you made disparaging remarks about Barbara Brehm, i became frustrated. You merely assumed she didn't know what she was saying or doing. In reality her background, her skill sets were every bit as sound as yours, if not more so.
Board members don't have to be experts, they need to be objective and open-minded. They need be willing to learn and try to understand what the problems are with the multitude of issues they face. To use Dale's words, that ship sailed long ago.
We've simply have existed as a majority of board members who believe everything the gm tells them. Sorry, but that's not how a board is supposed to work. It's why for the past 15 plus years we have run so far aground of how Sun City was built and why we became so successful.
The general manager was never intended to be God, or have the pope's infallibility. When the mantra became loyalty, the objectivity of the board went out the window. It's time to restore it.
Truth of the matter is, it doesn't really matter who chair's and co-chairs the committee meetings because the chair is only the servant of the assembly, not its master. The chair is there to simply preside over the meeting and make sure things are done in a proper and orderly manner.
The parameters and bounds of the committee itself are established by the Bylaw that created the committee, and what happens within the committee is dictated by the members of the entire committee, and the chair only makes sure the committee stays within those bounds.
The real strength of the committee comes from the members who hopefully have had careers and expertise in the field the committee represents.
The key here for the members of the committee is not to allow the chair to steamroller them with a personal agenda! If they do, then there's no sense to even have members?
Well Tom you are correct about the chair guiding the committee and not inserting personal agendas. There are committees where it’s tough to insert personal agenda. My extensive service on the insurance committee has shown that it is almost impossible to insert a personal agenda. The only instance off the top of my head would be replacing our current broker with your best bud from college who owns a five person brokerage. Aside from a conflict of interest, they would probably not have the markets or the expertise to handle RCSC’s coverages.
I will admit that I was instrumental in securing our current broker during my first year on the Board. While you could make a lame argument that I had a conflict of interest, that wasn’t so. We needed a broker and quickly because our extensive needs called for retaining a broker quickly. I contacted brokers I worked with in Chicago but these were mostly world wide businesses, I.e., Marsh, AON, Gallagher, etc. and I worked with the GM all the way I’m the process which included interviews with the committee members and Jan present. We decided on a mid level broker with a national presence, Lockton and they have been outstanding in every sense and have been our broker since 2013. All committee members have decades of experience in the insurance industry.
I can see the tribes forming on Long Range, Golf, Elections, etc.
Hey Anonymous, they tried to kick me off the Election committee because I'm now the only one who is not or was not a member of the board!
After Rich Hoffer left the board and Dale Lehrer became chair and Sue Wilson co-chair, they packed the committee with all former members of the board!
Seems a little fishy to me? So much for diversity in thought!
It does get terribly confusing reading comments from posters who are using different names when they post. With that out of the way, RCSC committees have been neutered. On the rare occasion when anyone listens to committee recommendation, it usually dies when it gets to the board level. If somehow it manages to slip past with a board recommendation, then management gets to play hide the weenie with it.
The entire point of the board is to hold management accountable. However, if you are too damned busy being loyal, that is often lost in transition.
While serving on the RCSC board (2012-2014), i had suggested the RCSC build an interactive website where they would allow question from members and they would get answers to them. I know, it was an unusual suggestion, but one that made perfect sense to me. What was there to be afraid of?
My argument was based on a philosophy i had adopted over the years; if you can't explain, articulate or rationalize what you are doing, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it. When i told the general manager that, she was unable to respond. No surprise there.
It's a tough argument to rebut. Far easier to ignore and ignore they did. My point here is quite simple; we are now over 50 exchanges, primarily with one former board member who isn't afraid to share his opinions or thoughts. I give him credit for being willing to step up.
There isn't always right or wrong answers. We all know grey, or is it gray (both are actually correct), is mo often the case. The problem is when you don't have or are willing to have open and honest discourse, you end up exactly where we are today, Them doing whatever they want.
Bill, a rhetorical question for you and golf. Is it within the preview for the Board to set fees for golf or would it be the purpose of Brian and the golf community? I ask this not only because the alleged losses from depreciation is basically an intangible paper loss as opposed to administrative and operational expense which can be quantified but also the letter a gentleman wrote in the Independent last Monday. He stated in substance that if golf is losing money, it should be operated as a business. Having studied businesses over the years I see only two ways to things around, to raise prices with no overall change in the product, I.e., the golf courses are maintained and play continues as before (not talking about tee times, just the physical plant). The other is to cut expenses, but which expense(s) and why? Now I sort of expect some business school bozo citing a bunch of cases, ratios and business bafflegab, but still comes down to one of the items I stated or maybe a combo of them.
BTW, golf is run as a business. Letter not well thought out.
The letter was wrong on many accounts, mostly regarding the actual losses. There was one year where they lost three million dollars (that we know of). The golf courses were originally sold to the RCSC under the premise they would be run on a cost neutral basis. We not only have the purchase agreement at the museum but several newspaper articles where board president Myron Waggoner told the community that golf would not be subsidized.
Over the years, everyone knew that. As time rolled on, the general manager wanted that concept as far away from the membership as she could get it. She quickly came to understand when she raised prices the number of rounds dropped. Simple cause and effect.
The problem was she was unwilling to be up front or honest about it. Everything regarding golf was done away from the maddening eye. More importantly, the financials were buried (as you have stated) and no one knew or understood how bad it was.
My long standing lament has never been about golf per se, it was how it was handled and how secretive it was. When you have no perimeters to stay within or meet, you simply do whatever you want. Golf has had none.
I've never argued we get rid of courses. What i have argued is they need to let the golf advisory committee and the community at large know how bad (or good) it is. If golf needs to be subsidized (which it does) then so be it. The real question is, how much?
The bigger issue now is non-resident full play passes. They have more than 150 of them out there and it is problematic for Sun City golfers to access our courses. Throw in they are selling rounds for what amounts to $20 per and it is wholly illogical.
This problem was raised by RCSC member at the April Member/Board exchange and several board members determined they didn't need to do anything but follow the gm's lead with a minuscule price increase. Director Collin's motion made in June would have begun to address the problem but several board members voted it down.
The argument was it is, has been the right of the general manager to set these rates. Historically we know that's pure crap. When the RCSC first took the courses the RCSC board created a golf board made up of the same bunch. Tow years later they consolidated the board into one organization but they still were the group overseeing golf.
We can talk about how much we (the members) subsidize golf, but there should never be a discussion about how much we subsidize golf for those living in Surprise, Glendale or Peoria. NEVER.
When the sale agreement took place back in 1975 and the ownership of the recreation centers and golf courses were sold to the Recreation Centers of Sun City by the Trustee, (Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Company) for $10 bucks, it was clearly stated:
"...It is the intent of the Trustee that the golf courses will be managed in such a way as to match the income derived with the expenses incurred in the operation of the golf courses, thereby making the entire operation attain a break-even point..."
It doesn't get much clearer than that, and it's specifically referring to the golf courses and not any of the remaining facilities included in the sale!
Included in that document Tom was that half of the costs coming from Viewpoint lake should be billed back to golf. Most aren't aware part of the reason for the lakes was to help provide water for the Lakes East/West golf courses. To my knowledge, they've never billed those costs back.
The general manager over the past 15 plus years worked hard to bury costs spent on golf. My best guess is 50 million from PIF and another 25 million from yearly assessments. I would make the argument golf is an important amenity in Sun City and we need to keep the courses in great shape.
But let me be very clear: IN GREAT SHAPE FOR THE MEMBERS. The RCSC board has lost sight of their purpose; the membership. Letting the management team dictate the terms for those living outside of the walls was a gross abuse of power and the board should have stopped it the minute they found out. They didn't and in fact endorsed it.
As Dave Wieland has stated several times, our bookkeeping is difficult (i would argue impossible) to sort through. Golf numbers are buried and worse yet hidden from view. They didn't want members to know how bad it was and they certainly didn't want the membership sticking their nose into the decision making process.
It gets even worse though, because they have kept all of this data from the golf advisory committee as well. Everything should filter through them. Sadly they didn't trust those members either.
Bill, Tom, etal.,
This is going to be more of responses to posts that were in TOSC as I am unable to post there.
The first will be concerning Tom, etal. on the LGBT club and community. This seems to have started with Tom finding an article somewhere concerning an incident at a Y somewhere in WA. This caused a few people to post rather intellectually challenged responses. Nowhere were the facts of the case presented and Tom wanted to know the motivation for the decision without knowing the facts. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
I was surprised but not totally with the tone of responses, from Gary Cotten stating somehow we needed a policy when chartering “the transgender club” as if we will probably need a policy for the Poms and Tip Top Dance. There was Tom giving us a basic class on genetics and somehow God works into this. I believe God has nothing to do with this but then I am an atheist. We somehow have Pegmih bringing up “sex offenders” as dog whistle for the LGBT community. Finally we have Larry filling the room with his brilliance talking about “transgender crap.”
What does all this tell me? These people know absolutely nothing about the LGBT community and there is a good chance they have never known a transgender individual or anybody from the LGBT community. They are just a “whipping boy” for the disgusting language going around.
BTW Gary, if RCSC had not approved the LGBT club we would have been on the nasty end of a lawsuit and RCSC would have lost. It is called viewpoint discrimination. You should be familiar with this term as conservatives whine about all the time.
As for ARS and her quixotic lawsuit, first she financed it with other peoples money. The most she ever contributed over the years was about $400, the balanced was hustled from homeowners. The attorneys for the plaintiffs took this case on a contingency basis and lost big time. The most RCSC paid was the deductible on the D&O coverage which was $100,000. The balance of $500,000-$600,000 was paid by the insurer. The case could have ended earlier if they truly understood class action strategy. Attack the class first which was the ultimate resolution four years later.
As for entitlement, I admit I walk the perimeter of the 15th hole on South during golfing hours even though the course is deserted of golfers. I have walked it when there were golfers but remember I walk the perimeter. I watched out for golfers and on occasion a spotter for their errand shots. No one has ever complained about my walking. I don’t feel entitled, I believe I am utilizing a benefit to no one’s detriment. I am also a former golfer.
Stay cool.
I did not know this blog area existed until I read the email put out by the SCA, so I thank you for the location of this arena as well as the opportunity to read the lenghty posts in relationship to variious topics presented within this one thread.
First, I would like to say I do not remember an event as described above involving Bill Pearson. Yes, he did lose his temper more than once, he deserved to considering the way he, as well as others, were treated. Did he ever tell someone where to go and what to do once there, yep, he did. But the description of the occurrence is not one that I remember ever happening while I was present at a board meeting. Brasher was usually fully inebriated at any given time at any of the board meetings, as was evidenced by the aroma of alchohol he emitted at any given time.
Yep, there were plenty of tears shed at any given meeting, mostly by yours truly. It was beyond depressing to want to do more for the memebers as well as keep the "board" and management from doing any additional damage to this community. To say that I was placed in a position of complete and total dress down by fellow board members as well as by members of the management team, with the full support of the GM, is an unprecedented understatement. Yet there I was coming back the next meeting, hoping to move forward and seek a better ending to a bad situation that had been created and perpetrated by the GM.
Those of us on the board who served during that time know what kind of power influence was being exerted upon the non compliant board members. To say it was a difficult time is beyond an understatement, but there was so little anyone outside of the power confluence could do to stop what was going on much less have a say in the direction the board of directors. at the behest of the GM, was doing to the community and its membership.
There is rampant financial tail pinnings associated with the RCSC and its handling of so many issues it is impossible to point to any one place and say this is where it starts or ends. Yes, golf is a big one to wave a banner over, as I feel the true costs is not ever going to be found out without an extremely coprehensive audit, and even then, the true costs were never recorded in a fashion that would lend themselves to be discovered and reported with any true factual data. Any discovery to do with seeking the truth about the costs of any major endeavor undertaken by the RCSC probably do not exist in a mannerism available to be ever truly known. I use the cost of the Solar project as my prime example, add golf to the mix, and then the variable costs of numerous endeavors such as the demolition of the entertainment committee, the removal of the member resources associated with bus trips and other member benefits to never return with the current "team" in place. To be continued.
Who is going to pay for the lake to be repaired? Who is going to pay for the extremely poor choices made by the boards of the past as we move forward? How many times can you claim raising the PIF is the answer to what can become an immense money pit the corporatiob has created by not doing due diligence with the the solar? or the IT infrastructure? or the monies spent on what I call frivoulous expenditures (New building at Grand Ave) or the proposed expenditures on a rec center which I feel needs to be revisited, at length, by the board and voted on by the membership?
I have been absent from comments from TOSC due to personal reasons. I have a strong desire to add my comments from time to time, but the luxury of spending time on a keyboard eludes me most of the time.
Yes, I went on too long about way too many sujects this time as well. I still have strong feelings about the way the board, during my tenure, was allowed to be run and led by the GM. It was to the detriment of Sun City and most certianly its members. The need to return the voice of the membership to the members of this community goes without saying a word. And there we have it in a nutshell, will this community evr garner its voice and vote back to be able to have the true self governance that was intended and fought for by previous gnerations?
I thank you all for your time and patience with me during my diatribe. I have extremely high hopes for the members of SCA as well as the future of Sun City. May all of those hopes of a greater outcome become a reality and the membership of the RCSC have the type of representation and presence they are deserving of. Here is hoping to a true return of a self governing community,one in which we all have a say and a vote for today and the future.
Hey Carole. Interesting times for sure when we were on the board.I mention it from time to time, when my three year tern ended, i wrote a column on TOSC entitled "I Failed." My opening line was "Free at Last, Free at Last, Thank God Almighty, Free at Last." My first comment on it was an apology to Dr. Martin Luther King for stealing from his greatest speech.
Perhaps nothing was more frustrating than those 3 years. I had never wanted to run for the board, but as i watched the general manager change the community dynamic, i felt i had an obligation to try and stop the direction we were headed in. I didn't; hence the header; "I Failed."
Carole was already there and i quickly noted she was the resident punching bag. Fortunately, or unfortunately, i'm not built that way. I was trained in the art of compromise, but getting there often called for hard-hitting (dare i say ugly) tactics. Like Carole i don't remember telling anyone to "fuck-off," but i seldom ever turned the other cheek. There was often verbal fisticuffs.
By the then, the board was solidly traipsing behind whatever the gm wanted. Carrying her bags was their best quality. She was, to steal a line from Sister Act and Whoopi, "a formidable woman." She was very good at getting board members to do whatever she wanted. And what she wanted was to invest in all things golf.
Other ideas or suggestions simply died the slow death, or sometimes never had a chance to be born. If the general manager didn't want it, the majority let it die. The membership never, ever got a chance to have a say. Tragic.
With each passing year, it deteriorated more. There was the occasional good things done. The general manager has always understood quid pro quo and was a masterful at it. Typically whoever was board president got what they wanted for unending loyalty. Recorded sessions are a plus as was the rebirth of the long range planning committee. Limited yearly rec fees are always loved by members (unless of course you are a single person paying double).
The concept of the member/board exchange is a positive; the cost to get it was too high. Worse yet, pretending they are listening and then calling something solved simply because they said it was, is and always will be a sham.
There's much work to be done. With a new general manager and an election coming, this is the one chance we have had in a very long time to fix our flaws. If you get a chance, stop by TOSC later today to see how i think and why it's time to make a break from the backsliding of the past 15 years.
Post a Comment