Leave of Absence
Yesterday, August 16th, the Advisory Panel for the Sun City Advocate group met to discuss our path forward for the remainder of the year.
For those who are not aware of the Sun City Advocates, this group was founded by Kristi Svendsen and myself in September of 2021 after learning that the 2021 Board of Directors had “fired” Karen McAdam from her position on the Board; we wanted to right the wrong that had been done. Little did I know that my becoming involved in the formation of this group and our concerns, would propel me into a change of lifestyle in Sun City. Up until that point, I had played cards, attended dances and concerts, and took advantage of the “fun” amenities offered to members. I ignored the responsibility that came with the purchasing of a home in Sun City, namely the right to vote for a member of the Board and a self-governed community as well as the responsibility to keep community input as the bedrock going forward; and the responsibility to return Sun City to the most unique age-restricted community in the nation, not only a community that is “The Original Fun City” but also “The City of Volunteers.”
I began attending all Board meetings and scoured the RCSC website for answers, reading minutes from past Board and Committee meetings and also previous copies of Sun Views. I started reading the blog on the internet created for our community called TOSC (Talk of Sun City). The more I learned, the more knowledgeable but upset I got. It was quite apparent that somewhere, somehow, the Sun City built with the vision of Del Webb (and John Meeker) in years gone by, had all but disappeared. The first (and all subsequent) Articles of Incorporation dated 1968 clearly stated “To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the members of the corporation……”
Director McAdam’s re-election to the Board for 2022 was joyfully celebrated and inspired our group to continue. Some tried to label us as “troublemakers,” “whiners,” “haters,” or “complainers” but those words did not represent us. Our new mission statement became 3 simple words: “Communicate Educate Participate” which embodied our goals and actions to engage the community to once again be an integral part of their recreational facilities. We continued to ask questions; to join and attend committee meetings; to encourage open debate, honest communication, transparency of facts. We created a website of blogs, polls and discussions; created a Facebook presence; and blasted out emails all with the goal of engaging as many Members as possible.
I have decided to run for the 2023 RCSC Board of Directors and will be taking a leave of absence from our group. I am anxious to take this step forward and I have no qualms whatsoever in handing off my responsibilities to my fellow Advisory Panel members.
After the re-introduction of the Member Board Exchanges this year, it's been invigorating to watch the community begin to take a part in our governance again. Back in January when Director Lenefsky asked for a 90-day Moratorium on any decision making for the renovation/destruction of Mountain View center, I took it upon myself to canvass several of the streets surrounding the existing center to chat with those who would be most affected by the renovation of the center. I enjoyed hearing their stories of the “closeness” of the neighborhoods here; the sports that they participate in, and their love of the “their” unique pool. I was surprised to learn that I was the first person to walk the streets, going door-to-door, to get their opinions.
I’m looking forward to meeting and talking with many of the members who make up neighborhoods in our community. Whether you’ve only been here 6 months or were the first on your block 25 years ago, I want to hear from you. I want to become the candidate known for standing up for the members and self-governance while assuring them that I will meet my fiduciary responsibility to the corporation. I want to become known as the candidate who will use my voice to discuss the history of Sun City and how it ties into our community today. I want to become known as the candidate who believes in bringing back some of the successful clubs/committees from past years that benefit members. And I want to become known as the candidate that understands that I don’t always have to be right and will admit if I am wrong.
I’ve picked up my Candidate packet and am currently looking for 100 signatures that will qualify me to run. I’ll be at the Member Board Exchange on Monday, September 12th. I’ll look forward to meeting and chatting with you and encourage you to continue to read and comment on the Sun City Advocate blog.
Thank you.
Jean M. Totten
18 comments:
Good luck Jean and best wishes on your uphill climb. I'm always surprised by the folks who try and paint the Sun City Advocates into the corner of haters and angry at the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stepping away will allow you to focus on your campaign. Learn to listen to the members; it's unfortunately been a trait long since lost by those elected.
The guard rails built into our community documents have been stripped away which has resulted in the board simply doing as they please. This one election will be the opportunity to begin to restore the memberships' voice. Why that frightens anyone is beyond me.
I will be at the September meeting and will sign my support for Jean.
How else can we sign to support Jean's candidacy if out of town for the September meeting(s)?
Jean, good to see you are stepping away from SCA to focus on your campaign. It eliminates that nasty conflict of interest.
Since you are apparently running as a woman of the people, I would be pleased to sit and talk to you about Sun City and your campaign. Consider it an exchange of ideas. Since you know who I am and vice versa, we could set up something at the exchange coming up. I do not like to post my phone number or email address publicly as I am worried about cranks and the run of the mill Arizona idiot flooding my email or phone messages. I value my privacy and that of my significant other. I will give you my pertinent info when I see you.
Have fun storming the castle.
I think you will do well. You're a "good egg" in my book and I think you will get the balance between member wishes and corporate obligations pretty quickly. Good luck girl.
Thank you Anonymous (2) and one other (wink, wink)
I have decided to do things a little bit differently. I want to have some face time with members; I want to get to know who is supporting me; I want to answer what questions you might have. I don't want to just shove a piece of paper in your face before a Board meeting and have you sign it.
The bylaws state that a candidate is allowed to get signatures, as a candidate only, on RCSC property. I will make myself available every Wednesday from 1-3 at the Fairway Recreation Center in the lobby over by the couch and TV. I will plan to be there on August 24th August 31st and September 7th.
I hope you'll take a minute to stop by and say "hi."
Jean Totten
Enthusiastic support and CHEERS for you, Jean. I will sign your petition ASAP. Thanks for all you do for Sun City.
NOt UNKNOWN. It's me, Pam.
Jean, thank you for your dedication to the community. You have the support of more people than you know.
I don't see how being a Sun City Advocate and A RCSC board member is a conflict of interest. All RCSC board members should be Sun City Advocates.
Perhaps, it would mean serving two masters.
Looking forward to seeing you on the other side of the microphone.
Bob, it would be serving two masters. The deal is that you want to eliminate the appearance of a conflict. If SCA has a position contrary to the Board, this could and does present a problem and the person would have to recuse themself from voting. An entire Board would theoretically would be unable able to conduct any business. It is worst than having Zoom meetings, which I am vehemently against.
Two points Dave, Zoom meetings are currently not allowed because they are not authorized in the Bylaws. 2. According to RR's even if a conflict of interests exists a member cannot be compelled not to vote. Voting is one of the rights of Membership and can only be denied thru disciplinary procedures. Check your borrowed copy of Robert's Rules (45:4)
Dave's comment raises an interesting question when he says "serving two masters." We know once elected to the RCSC board the push is for loyalty to the RCSC. Of course once you do a deeper dive, you will see the sole purpose of the RCSC is what? Serving the members best interests.
So, where does that put any of this discussion? There certainly shouldn't be an argument that when 9 board members get in a room, everyone should think the same way. That would be illogical on its face. Legitimate disagreements are and should be the norm. Unless of course group think is hard at work and if the board members have been told that loyalty to the general manager is the same as loyalty to the organization.
Clearly its not. The general manager is not infallible. Never has been, never will be. A board of 9, especially listening to the membership, will always be better equipped to make decisions than a gm with his or her own agenda.
Exactly Bill, I was thinking the same thing. When the Bylaws require the Directors to give their "undivided loyalty to the corporation" they better go back and look at the Articles of Incorporation and see what their loyalty really is because the very first thing that's mentioned in advance of their actual responsibilities is the fact that they exist "to do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the interest of the Members"
Furthermore, the Bylaws really are kinda loose on their definition of what a conflict of interest is? First of all, it's not a conflict if the issue is common among all the Directors, and Karen's interest in satisfying the Member's concerns regarding Pickleball certainly is common among all Directors. She was fired for no good reason!
Next, if you read that Bylaw, it can be argued that you cannot necessarily be dismissed for having a conflict of interest but only if you didn't report the possibility of having one?
Just my opinion!
There's a boatload of questions that form on my lips whenever anyone mentions "conflict of interest." It's a loaded term that when broken down is most often used to implicate someone for something they don't like. Karen was an easy target for speaking out about pickleball. Yes she played it, but her argument was reducing Sun City courts from 27 to 20 would be disastrous to the long term health for home sales. Even with 27 courts Sun City was under-developed compared to neighboring age restricted communities.
The best discussion of all was when it came to golf. I loved the argument, "golf wasn't a club, so it wasn't a conflict." Or better yet when a director argued they had quit so past decisions they made were okay.
And not to pick fly shit, but how and who made the decision to add an indoor archery range at the Grand Center? By the way, who is or was the president of that club? As long as we are probing, what kind of "statistical data" was available to commit that space?
Oh, the games people play eh?
and the Clay Club got some new space on Grand too, didn't they? I agree Bill, cliches like "serving two masters" can't be used as a blanket to end a discussion on Conflict of Interest. If SCA goals and objectives never conflict with the corporations goals and objectives then, well, there is no conflict. Maybe Karen's biggest mistake was saying "pickleball" too many times instead of "court sports". Of course the Means Girls Club, (which I guessed consisted of a couple of Y chromosomes also), were going to end her no matter what as evidenced by the rest of the unproven, unsubstantiated public accusations they made against her. Most Conflict of Interest cases require specific discussion and interpretation.
<>
I think we probably know the answer to that question? The same person who pushed for the purchase of the Grand property!
Seems that this Board is not much different your typical school board. When ever a new school needs to be built they make them as monuments unto themselves!
I think Mountain View is falling into that same pattern? They can pat themselves on their back and say "Look what we built."
I don't know who Dave is, I am the person that made the comment regarding conflict of interest and "...serving two masters?" I apologize that my attempt at sarcasm was not obvious. Yes, we serve many and those that we serve voluntarily are not our masters. Conflict of interest is about fairness, loyalty, and a little obedience.
My observation about Jean's willingness to jump into the the lion's while shedding what she may believe to be a conflict. To me, it is no different than running for public office while still maintaining a political affiliation. Sorry Jean, I am not calling you a politician.
Jean's strengths are an inquisitive mind, a strong sense of fairness, integrity, and a stubborn case of common sense. With those traits it is nearly impossible to have a conflict of interest and she serves all people with no masters.
I have observed that many of you here at Sun City Advocates are like Jean.
Thank you all.
I suspect your reference wasn't as "loaded" as was Dave's response. Dave, btw, is a former RCSC board member who quit as a board member when frustrated by how things were run. It was quite dramatic the way he did it and actually on point.
The bigger issue/question for Jean stepping away from the Advocates to run was more an effort to keep the chirpers from nit picking her role and allow her to focus on the issue at hand, getting elected.
My vision, for what its worth is, we (the members) elect a majority of the board who understand and support the role of the membership in participating in the governance of the community. Sun City was built that way, the past 15 years they dismantled it. How good would that be?
Should the election result in three board members who don't think management should have every answer, i envision the Advocates becoming unnecessary. One their voices have been reinstated, the entire dynamic changes. We'll see.
Post a Comment