Facing the changes
Much has changed since we began. The RCSC Board has an almost entirely new
composition of Directors, and for the first time, is starting to show signs of
wanting to operate as a Board; one that listens to the Membership, one that is
proactive in addressing the missteps of past Boards, and one that is planning
for the future of the RCSC.
Making things happen
Lately, RCSC Membership is more engaged than it has been in a decade and has learned that when we act in numbers, we can make change happen! Given this, it is time for the Sun City Advocates to begin writing our next chapter in the Sun City saga: A chapter that focuses on the opportunity that our new Board and renewed Membership engagement brings to the RCSC.
What is that opportunity? To help and sometimes nudge the RCSC to begin operating as a professional, best-practices organization that we all can be proud of; we all believe in; we all believe in acting in the best interest of our community; and we all want to be a member of.
Examining best practices
In the coming months, we will be starting a discussion of how a Board becomes a “best practices” board, what it means to be a “best practices” Board, and how we, as RCSC Members, can assist in that process.
As you might have already guessed, it will require Communication, Education, and Participation – what we have always strived to maintain and remain the keys to any successful organization!
So tell us where do you see the opportunity?
30 comments:
I've long advocated this! Congrats on making the change! I think it starts with informing all members, as well as those running for the Board, just what a Board of Directors is (NO...it's NOT a City Council). The Board of Directors, by the RCSC Corporate Documents, AND by State Law, is beholden to the corporation, NOT the members. As with any not-for-profit corporation in America, members do not OWN the RCSC. There is no "owner", just like there is no owner of the Boy Scouts, or your church. That needs to be drilled into the minds of every member. Members vote for the Board, just like shareholders vote for Boards of for-profit companies. But the loyalty of the Board isn't with the shareholders, nor is it with the members. I know that's not particularly what most people want to hear, but it is the truth...go ahead, ask an attorney.
Once we get clear what a Board is and isn't we can move on to the more important stuff. And we can start getting into the "best practices" that you cite (and yes...that's certainly needed). But first things first, people need to realize what a Board is, and more importantly what it isn't.
Just a reminder to all that the RCSC HAS NO REASON TO EXIST WITHOUT ITS MEMBERSHIP. WE PAY the PIF. WE pay the usage fees. WE comprise the membership of the Board of Directors. WE employ the staff through the Board of Directors. Yes, the RCSC is a corporation, but that corporation was created to better serve the membership by providing an organizational structure to conduct the many facets of its functioning. Rich, please consult the early history of Sun City for further insight.
Sadie, do not confuse the RCSC's goals and duties with the legal fiduciary duties of its Board. The two are entirely separate by law. Yes...the RCSC exists to serve the members. However, the Board's duties are beholden ONLY to th
e corporation. Its the same with every corporation in America. And just because you pay an assessment And PIF fee does not give you special rights over the Board other than those outlined in the corporate documents. Hope that helps you understand the difference a little better.Oh...and by the way...the Board only has one employee...the General Manager. The Board has nothing to do with the other employees, except approve the budget that contains salaries.
I like to think of it like this: Yes, the RCSC has a fiduciary responsibility to the Corporation, not the Membership, but that does not mean that decisions cannot be made taking the Membership into consideration. Working together for the benefit of the corporation and the membership - that's huge!
Of course Board members should take the members into consideration on any issue. That has always gone without saying. But, the law and the corporate documents state very clearly, as you and I have discussed before, the Board works for the benefit of the corporation. And it's that way in every single corporation in America, bar none (including the RCSC). If I'm wrong, show me where, in our corporate documents and in ARS Title 10, it shows that, and I'm happy to change my tune. My aim here is not to get into arguments over the Board's duties, it's to educate. Period.
Rich-maybe real examples would help people understand. Like even if all Members voted/wanted their assessment cut in half - the Board couldn't because it could not run the corporation. But the hard part is: when you say Board must "work for the benefit of Corporation" - what is meant? Who defines what exactly the Corporation is? And who decides what 'benefits' it? Wouldn't that be the General members? Don't 37,000 people define what they view as recreational activities??
Ok. Let me try it this way. I think most people unfamiliar with boards make the mistake of thinking the Board and the corporation have he same goals. This is not true. The RCSC's goals are to serve the members as is stated in the Articles of Incorporation. The Board's duties are later in the Articles. Those duties are to insure the preservation of the corporation. The two have totally different goals...and its the same for every corporation in America.
Here's an example. When shareholders get a proxy for an annual meeting, there are 3 parts. 1. The list of board members to vote for. 2. A list of board initiated proposals that comes with the recommendation to vote FOR each of them. 3. A list of shareholder proposals that comes with the board recommendation to vote AGAINST the proposals.
Hope that makes some sense. You have to look at the two as separate bodies, not one. Legally they are separate.
And this is where the confusion lies!
You say, " The Board's duties are later in the Articles. Those duties are to insure the preservation of the corporation. The two have totally different goals...and its the same for every corporation in America."
But that later Article states, "The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by a Board of Directors..."
So how can the RCSC's (the corporation) goal be to serve the Members as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, and then have those same Articles of Incorporation state that the Board shall conduct the affairs of the Corporation, and then say their not different?
Seems to me that if the responsibility of a non-profit Board is to serve its Members, and that same Board is also tasked with the responsibility to conduct the affairs of the Corporation, we're talking about one entity, the Board, with two equal responsibilities!
Unfortunately, that's neither in our corporate documents nor in our state law (or any other state I'm aware of.
I guess my only point is; the Articles of Incorporation says in Article III "To do anything and everything lawfully necessary in the the interest of the Members of the Corporation.."
Then in Article VIII it says, "The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by the Board of Directors..."
My point is, there is, in my opinion, an equal responsibility of the Board to the Members as well as the Corporation and the typical excuse we have received in the past about fiduciary responsibility does not necessarily take precedence over the interest of the Members.
We will respectfully agree to disagree.
Sorry Rich - still doesn't help. (Your example used shareholders which you already stated doesn't apply to us). You said Articles define Board's "duties are to insure the preservation of the corporation". All I'm reading is: "The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by a Board of Directors..." That's it. So again, if Corporations affairs,action,responsibilities are the 13 things numerated in Article III, then that's what the Board needs to do. No? #1 is "establish...conduct...enterprise for the benefit of it's Members..." Loyalty to the Corporation is loyalty to its purpose which is loyalty to the interests of it Members. No?
Look. I posted this to help members who obviously don't understand Board duties what is corporate policy and the law. It's not to get into a drawn out discussion. I've given you what IS policy and IS the law. You can believe it or not. Look it up and do your own homework. Better yet pay the bucks and talk to a corporate law attorney. The law is the law. Your opinions don't matter. With that, I'm done trying to inform and educate you. You obviously don't want to accept anything but what you already believe. It's like I said when i served on the board...I can't convince 51% of members that the sky is blue. So with that I'm done trying.
Thanks for trying. I understand you're done. Hopefully my questions spur the community and SCA to more clearly explain terms and concepts. I clearly don't know what to believe which I was asking for more than "the law is the law". One example might be the Board has the responsibility to review and approve a balanced budget. And especially make sure that critical infrastructure (like IT) isn't obsoleted and scheduled maintenance is fully funded. It needs to do that instead of diverting funds to projects that may only serve a small group or interest (like maybe archery for example?) So where it gets sticky is how EXACTLY does the Board determine what is to the BENEFIT of the CORPORATION when questions of multi-million dollar projects are entertained. It is beholden to the Corporation - but the Corporation does not voice an opinion...
We can argue back and forth all we want. The majority of court cases have ruled that the board represents the interest of the corporation and not the shareholders. What this means exactly, I have no idea as I am not a lawyer, nor am I a judge.
When I think of the interest of the Membership, I think in terms of the approximately 30,000 members of the RCSC. That is the interest of the Membership. It is not the golfers, the pickleball players, the woodworkers, or the library members. It is the 30,000 members taken as a whole.
Given this concept of the Membership, I am challenge to find many, if any, situations where the interest of the Corporation and the interest of the Membership are different. They are one and the same. So does it really matter if the Board represents the interest of the Corporation or the interest of the Membership? They are the exact same interest.
The problem arises when we begin to think that the Membership is some fraction of the 30,000. In some cases, we appear to think that the Membership is a single person! It is not.
Does that mean that the Board should not listen, at times to a fraction of the Membership? No. Sun City and the RCSC is so much more than the sum of it's parts. Sun City and the RCSC is great because we have 8 recreation centers, not 1. Sun City and the RCSC is great because we have 8 golf courses, not 1. Sun City and the RCSC is great because we have Pickleball, and Tennis, and Lawn Bowling, and Archery, and Rock Hounding, and Swimming, and Weight Lifting, and Dog Training, and Bowling, and Crafts, and Dance, and... Not because of any one of these things, but because of all of these things. So yes, the Board should listen, at times to a fraction of the Membership, but should it listen exclusively to any fraction of the Membership - No.
Keeping the Corporation vibrant, multi-faceted, financially stable, and every evolving is the interest of the Membership.
I think what's interesting in Earl's remarks is where he says, "The majority of court cases have ruled that the board represents the interest of the corporation and not the shareholders." Hmmm? He says the "majority" of the cases but not in all the cases? He is also referring to shareholders which is a much different animal than the RCSC?
My research has found "The main purpose of a for-profit and nonprofit entities is starkly different, but they also share one important similarity. For-profit corporations serve their shareholders, and board directors are accountable to them, Nonprofit board members serve the members of their organization, their cause and their communities."
And as much as I've heard the excuse, "It's the Law," I have yet to see anybody produce that law! The only thing I can ever find in either the Arizona Revised Statutes or the RCSC Articles of Incorporation are the permissible duties the board has authority to engage in?
As I have stated earlier, my only contention is that the board has an EQUAL obligation to the Members as it does to the corporation. End of story!
You have convinced me Tom, what are you going to do with it. A famous religious leader once said "Words without action have no meaning".
Well...perhaps the next time they say they can't do something because of their "fiduciary responsibility" we have better grounds to challenge that excuse?
Don't just tell us it can't be done, show us why not!
Okay...My final thought with a question that I believe would settle the argument; Who is the board responsible to, the Corporation or the Members?
Extreme case Scenario:
The Members decide that they no longer want to be a part of the RCSC, but would rather simply be a part of Peoria and accept being governed under their City Council and municipal rules? What if the Members were to start a petition, get their 10%+ signatures, call a Special Membership meeting and the Members vote, YES! Dissolve the corporation?
Now, here's the BIG question: Who prevails? If the Members believe it's in their best interest as stated in the RCSC's Articles of Incorporation then I suppose the Members would prevail?
This is probably a question we hope is never asked, but until it is, I guess we'll just keep arguing about who the board owes its final allegiance too?
Even as i try and get away from this stuff (the Advocates) i find myself intrigued as others speculate on "how it works." Especially with reading Rich's comments above. I guess now that he is off the board, he is less pragmatic.
I asked this identical question of him when he was a board member and his answer was pretty good as he told me/us "the relationship was best described as symbiotic." Simply put, it was a shared responsibility between the board, management and the membership. I thought it was a good answer then, even though it wasn't working out quite like that.
We all know over the past several years, as we watched the former, former gm make too many decisions, we got in trouble. As she was leaving we came to understand our technology was abysmal (and that's being kind), we had massive issues with deferred maintenance and golf was struggling with too many rounds being played and the courses suffering from it (to say nothing of the full play non-residents enjoying better rates than members).
The good news was we had carry-over funds, the bad news is the cost of everything exploded and catching up was going to be a challenge. The worse news was the board had passed a 40 million dollar boondoggle that would have crippled us. And, we had embraced the mantra of cheap being a good thing.
Rich to his credit confronted the former gm about his math but the board paid little attention as they plowed forward. Thankfully the power on the board shifted to new board members who understood the foolishness and we are still working through what we can afford and need (not want).
'
Anyway, the relationship between the members, the board and management was built on and around the commitment to work together. Ultimately the board's responsibility is to the corporation but as others have acknowledged the corporation exists to serve the membership. Dare i say; symbiotic?
It was a great arrangement until our documents were stripped of the safeguards and protections built into them. We are slowly moving back to a time where the membership has a larger role and voice, but it is and will be a long slow slog.
Continuing on with my thoughts, does it really matter who "owns" the RCSC? If i told you during our formative years, DEVCO/Meeker worked overtime in trying to convince members they were the owners; would it matter? John Meeker knew one day the company would walk away and the community's success or failure would be left in the hands of the membership.
I would speculate that was why he ultimately thought incorporation would be the ultimate outcome. He, and many others, never fully understood how much those living here loved what they had built. It was a labor of love and the majority didn't want to let it go.
That was then, this is now. Yet, as many have pointed out, the RCSC's documents hold the answers to almost every question. What are we? How should we be run? Who is responsible for the outcomes? Does the membership even have a right to a voice?
The challenge is and has been, as those living here stopped paying attention, those running it took greater liberties. Like i have have said often, if they were were pope-like (infallible), it would have worked out fine. It didn't; not sure why anyone would try and dispute that.
These past few years have been daunting. Fixing messes in non-profit organizations is never easy. It's slow and tiring and taxing. Throw in a 9 member volunteer board with limited training and questionable inter-personal skills and is anyone surprised there is some friction?
Then to make it all the more "fun" by adding in a new management team who may or may not have a clue about how the community functions as a whole and it gets even more dicey. One would think. for old people, we would have come to better understand the need to better work together.
Here is the single most redeeming aspect of where we are and the differences of opinions and ideas that clearly exist: The vast majority of RCSC members love, LOVE the fact they choose to make Sun City their home. They want us to be successful and like our counterparts from the past, they won't let us fail.
It's really that simple.
The problem is, everybody wants everything NOW! They want a Performing Arts Center Now! They want the new web site NOW!, they want Mountain View renovated NOW! they want the Library Lease settled NOW! They want the homeless problem settled NOW! And the list goes on and on!
People need to realize that nothing happens overnight! We have several new members on the Board as well as in management and everybody needs to settle-in. New positions are being created and personnel are being moved around. That all takes time and if you want things to be done right, they all need that time.
We all see our lives winding down and we all want to know what the future will bring. Unfortunately many of us won't be around when many of the issues come to fruition.
Truth is, there are many cycles of Board Directors who will come and go and many administrative employees that will come and go, and in the meantime, life goes on as each issue gets passed from one administration to another. Everybody must realize that as those changes happen everything takes one-step backwards as the new people get back-up to speed.
So let's just chill-out and be thankful for the things we do have. The rest will take care of itself.
Tom, you are right that we need to chill-out and be thankful for what we have! Changes in administration and governance are not unique to RCSC. I appreciate your call for patience.
Bill, I have always wondered why people get caught up in whether the Board answers to the Corporation or the Members. It seems to me we are one and the same! Just a difference in semantics in the corporate documents. Those discussions bore and frustrate me.
I think we are all impatient and want things NOW because of our age and we know we have limited time to enjoy ourselves. (If retired, we also have time to think about what we want.) However that doesn't justify the "Me,Me, Me first" attitudes. Although I don't participate in performing arts, I think a PAC should be our first priority. To me, it is a quality of life thing for a community. Since theater attendance is down nationally, we need to make our investment fit other purposes as well.
Here's my idea:
1. Renovate the current auditorium at Mountain View for a theater with retractable seating and use that space for other activities such as dance groups, musical performances, and now the possibility of an indoor dog training facility.
2. Start long term planning for a special Performing Arts Center at Lakeview. The Foundation could start building partnerships to attain additional outside funding so the burden of the building wouldn't fall entirely on the Membership. Also they could have a capital improvement campaign within our Membership for donations, bequests, or including the Foundation in estates. Maybe someone would start a living estate or we could find a business to be a large sponsor and have some portion of the PAC named for them. Think of a Kroger/Fry's auditorium, a Banner Sun Health lobby and a realtor's name on a visual arts section for example. With additional funding, the PAC could be awesome with a view of the lake through large windows, an outdoor patio area, and perhaps an upscale restaurant as well as a coffee/lunch cafe where Members could gather. Let our enthusiasm and creative juices get started. When I said long term, it may take 12-15 years to get it built. I may not be here to enjoy it, but I would be proud of Sun City for accomplishing it. Once a new PAC is available, the auditorium at MV could still be used for smaller performances, practices, and other activities so that money would still be well spent.
3. Since other clubs would prefer that their needs are met first, they could also approach their building desires the same way - through donations to the Foundation. As we have always said, we don't have the money for everyone's wants and needs. Let's all step up to the plate to get more done! (Thinking if the pickleball club wants indoor facilities, are they willing to go above and beyond asking RCSC to furnish it. Same with the air conditioning for the Vintage Vehicle Club, the Best Friend's Dog Club, the golfing groups, and all the other clubs clamoring for their needs being met.) Most communities don't relay totally on taxes, which our lot assessments are akin to, for improving their amenities. It takes many hands, minds and money to go beyond that. There is no reason Sun City can't do the same.
Great comments gang and it gives me hope to see and hear from members committed to the future, and not on a personal level. Sun City was built on and around a concept of we, not me. It is impossible to build a sense of community if all you care about is what you want; not what we need.
Needs can be justified by data, wants are an emotional attachment to what you think matters. For far too long we allowed for the wants to drive the bus as we moved away from committees that worked tirelessly to identify community needs. It wasn't done by accident, it was done on purpose.
Tom's right, everyone wants it now.It won't happen and sadly when bad decisions like the library explode and the shit hits the fan, priorities shift. I learned the hard way, prioritize the challenges and then set plans in place to solve them. That is exactly what the board is doing.
Yet we see, read and hear how God-awful Sun City is from a small number of folks angry about the community or, who have left the board so they can throw grenades at those who stayed around. Hell, the comment was made we should bring a lawsuit against the board. It's been done before and it created a lot of drama that divided the community for near on 20 years. Great freaking idea eh?
But alas, we are on the right path and we have a long way to go. The board will make mistakes, the management team will make mistakes' all of which happens when you are trying to do things. The important thing is to learn from them, re-adjust and move on.
That's exactly what Webb/DEVCO/Meeker did during those first 18 years and what boards did yearly until 2006 when a decision was made to let the general manager run the show. Theoretically it should have/could have worked. The results tell us otherwise.
Stay the course, stay committed, grow the circle of those who want Sun City, the RCSC board and the management to succeed, and we will. It's that simple.
Rich, glad to see you back from the sunburn surprise.
Rich, while I found your explanations spot on and easily understandable, you must know that a good percentage of our population is obtuse at best and wouldn’t 7nderstand non-profits if Big Bird came down and explained it. They are clamoring for the five year plan and why is it taking so long. You know that this is not like purchasing a five year day planner at Staples and you just fill in the blanks. It covers the deferred maintenance, since we seem to be moving on MV, that project is 2-3 years depending on final drawings and just basic capital expenses. Plus we have to make sure we have the bucks for this.
Then we have the dog club which to me is the like the car club with fur. I spoke with the club president when this first surfaced and learned that while teaching River c how to run in between sticks, the real purpose is for the two legged creatures to hang out and shoot the bull. So what they want is an air conditioned social club house so they can hang out, throw seasonal parties while Ruffy learns to run in circles to catch his/her tail. Just my prediction, if they get this space I guarantee they will come back and ask for more. I feel the same way about a performing arts center, it’s a boondoggle. If we are planning for the next generation, how do we know this is what they want? I’ll answer the question, we think we know, but we don’t know and the biggest problem is we have not realized we don’t know.
I’ll stop now as I believed I have upset enough people already.
One final mystery, evidently the by laws are being rewritten by a Board member and a person who is unknown. The Board member wants me to review some documents, still unnamed, but have not received. I have asked when do I receive these and the member says I am so busy that it sinks in the stack of paper. Time to call the member out on this transparency thing or lack thereof.
You have your ear to the ground on this? I don’t want to find out the other person working on this is some clown who knows nothing of legal construction or the different scenarios of each by law. Basically all talk no experience screwing with our corporate documents.
OK I am really done.
Dave/Christine you are the most condescending person. You just referred to most of Sun City as dim witted, slow pre-school mentality who can't even understand a Sesame Street character. Way to go. You offended every member of the car club, dog club and the Performing Arts Center.
Are you that hateful or are you trying to assert and/or assume dominance by claiming superiority and by showing a complete lack of regard for the people in this community?
Christine, first of all, thanks for the kind words. But I really don't and never did intend to trash anyone living here for not understanding our corporate documents. They are extremely time consuming to read, and even once you get through them, a lot of times they conflict themselves. That said, I would hope everyone would endeavor to immerse themselves into reading what the RCSC is all about before coming to a board meeting and talking about things the board doesn't have anything to do with.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about the bylaws being rewritten by a board member and an unknown person. Board members rewrite bylaws all the time. I don't know personally of any situation (other than maybe the GM?) that isn't a board member that gets involved with it. I seriously wouldn't be in favor of it happening if it is. If the "unknown person" is excited about rewriting the corporate docs, they probably should run for the board and do it legitimately.
Thanks again...but no, I wouldn't talk about those that haven't read the corporate documents in that light. I'd prefer to say that they were ignorant of our rules. That just means they don't know...not a slam on them.
It's an interesting discussion and Rich is correct, most members have not read any of our documents, and most if they did wouldn't come away a whole lot smarter. Over the years, the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws have evolved to become almost unreadable. The goal was to shove board policies into the bylaws, which resulted in a 16 page document becoming 36 pages. They were cumbersome and unwieldy and oddly few of them were written by the board as the general manager crafted them to fit her needs and the board approved them.
The argument about who "owns" the RCSC can be answered in the Articles. Like virtually every non-profit, the answer is no one. Here is the long standing language from them that explains exacting the dissolution of said organization:
Article XII
In the event of the dissolution or winding up of the Corporation, all assets not otherwise disposed of and not subject to any trust, shall be transferred as the Board of Directors may then decide for carrying out the purposes or similar purposes of this Corporation.
Unless members have some familiarity with non-profits, they are unique in relationship to where many of our members come from; for profit businesses. Non-profits, at the point they are created, apply for a special tax status with the IRS. Their letter of application explains the purpose and the role the organization will fill.
The IRS, if they agree, responds with a letter setting forth the terms and the organization then creates the Articles of Incorporation (they can only be changed by a vote of the membership). The Bylaws follow with a continuation of how the organization functions (changed by the board or by a membership vote). Most often, the board policies elaborate on a deeper dive into how the organization works. Are you bored yet with it all? It's every bit as dry as it sounds, but without the documents the organization runs the risk of losing their special tax status.
An interesting footnote in history, was in the early 60's, when the IRS issued a ruling Sun City was in fact similar to a "private country club." It was a crushing decision for DEVCO and the community. The higher tax rates (8% if memory serves me) would have crippled Sun City's growth and expansion.
DEVCO's attorney's fought over it in court and in time sustained their position. One of the reasons was the company was "giving" the amenities to the community and that "member ownership" set them apart from being a "private country club" and becoming a community owned organization.
None of this matters, but it is our history and it set the course for how we evolved once DEVCO left circa 1979. We owned it, we were responsible for it and the success we enjoyed was because those living here were willing to be active participants in the self-governance concept.
The real question moving forward is this: Are we still willing to be held accountable and to be responsible for the outcomes?
Excellent response Bill! You said succinctly what I tried (and obviously failed) to do. All of Sun City should read and heed Bill's post!
The RCSC Corporate Documents, as any nonprofit's, are written in legalese so they can be difficult to comprehend for the lay person. It isn't sufficient to just read through them once. All people affected by them, Directors, Members and Management, should be familiar with them and consult back to them when needed. From what I have witnessed, RCSC Directors are quite familiar with the Board policies and refer to them frequently; less so with the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. For those who are unfamiliar with this structure, keep this hierarchy in mind:
Articles of Incorporation are the top dog, followed by the Bylaws and Board policies come after those two. Practices and procedures may be put into place by Management, but they do not override the other documents.
Dave, I have a hard time understanding why you are opposed to a Performing Arts Center that can be used for multiple purposes. If one is included in the Mountain View remodel, and attendance doesn't prove to warrant a newer, fancier, bigger one someday at Lakeview, then RCSC could abandon any further plans to build one. Data is the key. None of us knows what the newer generation wants, but I have a window into it with my sons and their wives. There is still interest in concerts, dancing performances, musicals art shows as either a participant or an attendee.
At this point in time, I would not favor RCSC building an indoor, air conditioned dog park either. It seems that they have found a workable alternative by using the Mountain View auditorium during the summer. I have a friend who is a dog trainer and her dogs compete in dog shows where they run obstacle courses, etc. I don't think we have much need for that here. Even if there is a handful, it isn't up to RCSC to provide space for that. Let's see what the numbers are for the dog training at MV this summer before proceeding any further.
Regarding the bylaws rewrite, I know Jim Rough has been working on some of them with the assistance of the corporate attorney. Jean Totten was originally supposed to help him, but I don't know how much she participated. A mute point now since she is no longer on the Board. Before passing judgement, let's wait to see what Director Rough comes up with. I think his word is good and he will have you look them over before he presents them for adoption.
I absolutely agree.
His word is good.
Thanks, Director Rough.
Post a Comment