Marone: Further study of statute tells difference In Sun City board debate
Posted
This is a rebuttal to the letter from David A. Wieland (“Reader’s citations not correct,” Sun City Independent, Aug 18, 2021).
First, before Mr. Weiland “stands by his research” perhaps he should look a little harder. The statute, 10-3809, referred to by Mr. Weiland is incorrect. 10-3809 pertains to directors who were “designated or appointed.” Statute 10-3808 pertains to directors who were “elected by the members,” which is how we actually do it here in Sun City!
10-3808 goes on to state that, “A director elected by members may be removed by the members…” The only authority 10-3808 gives to the directors to remove another director is if the director failed to attend a specified number of meetings.
Secondly, Mr. Weiland makes my point when he refers to Article II, Section 8, and the due process afforded to cardholders prior to the Recreation Centers of Sun City officials’ suspending of their privileges. The fact that a similar due process is nowhere to be found in either the articles of incorporation or the bylaws for the board of directors makes me believe that at the very least the disciplinary procedure laid out in Robert’s Rules of Order, the RCSC’s parliamentary authority, should apply.
As I have stated before, yes, the board has the authority to call a special meeting and, yes, the board has the authority to dismiss a director, but it’s not just a simple 2-step process. Certain procedures must be followed to afford the accused due process. Surely everyone believes director Karen McAdam should have had her day in court.
