Poll Results - A Members Matter Poll - Question 5

 We are almost done sharing the results of the recent poll. The last question before a blog post on your overall comments to the poll.  This question gets to the heart of the matter - does the board want to hear from the members?

Please feel free to weigh in again and let us know your additional thoughts in the Comment Section below.

Question 5: When passing motions, the RCSC board should act how?

  

Have 2 readings before passing and listen to comments from members during the process	Do what they think is right in spite of what members may think	It doesn't matter what I think, because they won't listen anyway
96%	2%	2%

 

Ideas of your own:

• "The saying you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.  -- You are never going to make everyone happy.  So let’s use the facilities numbers to decide where to spend our money.  Do we need mini golf at 4 sites?  Lawn bowling - do we need all of them?  Let’s remove the gym at Oakmont it’s pitiful."
• There have to be weighted responses and direction. If the board were logical (and the previous board was not) they would thoroughly plan things, take input from members, and implement the things that make sense from a member satisfaction AND a financial perspective. The missing key here is that there are no plans. Let's just put up a gazillion-dollar building and decide for the members what they are going to get in the building. There should be vetted planning. Have never seen anything run so unprofessionally.
• Sometimes only one reading should be necessary, especially for small Insignificant items that we’ve been talking about for months.   Just get it passed and go forward.  This long discussion on a co-chair or vice chair and then that’s just very cumbersome.  The long laborious discussion about which courts or with which athletic arena we can carry beverages in, was elementary at best, please allow us to be stewards of our own daily life.

Additional comments on motions:

We elected the board so, like any elected official they should listen to members, take that into consideration and then vote on what they think is right.

Limiting member input is censorship. Open up every meeting for member input.

Waiving a second reading should only be for matters that are time-sensitive.

A LOT MORE items should be put to a vote of the membership in my opinion. And there should be online opinion portals where people can log in and express their thoughts (with names attached). The board should be reminded AT EVERY MEETING this is our money, not theirs.

I actually gave up going to meetings as I thought it really didn’t matter anymore. With the new Board members, I will start participating.  The fact that it’s almost impossible to get a quorum makes us feel like it just doesn’t matter.  Robert's rules while a guideline are somewhat cumbersome and possibly not necessary. 

While there are some limited instances where the second reading can be waived (for instance, being convinced that Membership has nothing further to say and there being nothing controversial about the motion), as a general matter we should stick with our 2 readings.

"Any motion that requires an expenditure between $10,000 and $50,000 should be required to have two readings. Any expenditure between $100,00 and 1 million should have 2 readings and an informal meeting between the 2 board meetings. Members should be allowed to ask questions during the informational meetings.

Any projects over 1 million dollars should have a town hall meeting, with a vote of the entire community "

Build more pickleball courts.

While I'm personally not a fan of Casper Milquetoast the RCSC GM I'm also not a fan of the inexperienced and unqualified Board members.  We may need to consider a new direction and hire a qualified GM with non-profit experience and shrink the board to get three qualified individuals that would be able to steer the future long-term direction but not small decisions and spending under a predetermined amount.  Also, Board terms need to be 2 years with reelection possible for another two years.  As they say, too many Cooks spoil the broth, and we currently have a Board filled with Julia Child wannabes.

I think there should be compelling reasons to waive the second reading. It is not a valid reason that it is convenient for the Board of staff.  Sometimes waiving the second reading will be necessary. Just don't let it become a habit. Sometimes Members can't attend the first reading but may be available for the second.

Aren’t there written rules and regulations that the board must abide by before taking any action?

Can we have more oversight on these age restriction problems?  This should not even be a problem.  Everyone who buys here knows the rules.  I didn't move here to be bothered by someone else's kids.

I don't feel as strongly about the 2 readings as I do about listening to comments from the members during the process.  There are WAY TOO MANY rules on when and what members are allowed to say!  It's crazy!  Maybe it's just me, but I think members should be able to comment pretty much freely (for example, you should be able to speak on something that just comes up in a meeting that isn't on the agenda, or without having to sign up in advance).  I think 2 readings are important, but on occasion when 'everybody' (members included) are on the same page maybe the 2nd reading can be waived.  Not as a general practice though.

Two readings with member comments should be carved in stone, except where a dead horse is being needlessly beaten. The motions at the last (26 Jan 2023) board meeting fall into that category. The addition of the word "the" shouldn't even be a motion, it is remedial English. Co-vs Vice for Chairman? Again, this is a seemingly needless distraction. Co-chairs share responsibility. A vice chair replaces a chair in the event they are unable to execute their duties. What do the Articles of Incorporation call for? They should always act according to our bylaws.

"Before passing any motion, the board should request after the first reading via email or newspaper whether the membership agrees or disagrees with the motion and publish the results of the survey.

Only waive the second reading on actions that need immediate implementation.

Bring back Member comments at the end of the meetings if only limited to motions that were on the agenda. Many motions change by the time they are actually voted on and Members should have the right to comment on what was passed, not originally proposed."

This question seems a little snarky however I believe rules should be followed for all no exceptions