Wendel: RCSC board robs Sun City residents of candidate
Posted
The Oct, 11 Recreation Centers of Sun City board meeting seemed to run smoothly and transact its business. When it came to member comments, part of the exchange became ugly.
The RCSC sent June 6 emails requesting candidates for the 2022 board stating, “Qualifications to run for the Board of Directors include the following: Must be at least 55 years of age; be a Member in good standing; must not be related by marriage or birth to any other Board of Director, Board candidate, or Management; you must reside in Sun City, Arizona and be available at least ten (10) months of the year; you must be able to meet the requirement to hold an Arizona liquor license; you must be eligible and available to serve a three (3) year term; and you must attend a Board Candidate Orientation.”
The board scheduled a single board candidate orientation meeting, that they said was mandatory. One candidate had a conflict with this meeting date. The board disqualified her application because she missed this one meeting. All other qualifications were met. No attempt was made to provide a qualified candidate with orientation information.
There was talk of emails, double standards and libel. Board members Rich Hoffer and Darla Akins were rude to this candidate at time. She seemed to be fighting for her life as a candidate.
Hoffer eventually quoted bylaw Article VII, Section IV, Item 7, stating that candidates must attend a board candidate orientation (singular). Board members said no exceptions could be made. It would set a bad precedent. Article VII, Section 4, Item 7 states: “Must attend Board Candidate Orientation(s).” This is taken from the RCSC website. Note the (s).
Several comments were made after this that included stating that one single scheduled meeting is not what this bylaw states. One commenter asked why the board didn’t contact all the candidates after all the applications were received to try to schedule a meeting date and time that would be good for all candidates and the person providing the training. The board had no answer. The board could have shown some flexibility for an unusual circumstance. Again, they embarrass themselves as they attempt to justify the disqualification in public. The board wonders why members are starting to distrust them.
They disqualified a candidate for the 2022 board, thereby robbing the membership of the opportunity of another choice.
