We understand the Board has decided not to accept one iota of responsibility for a decision concerning the outcome of the recent lease negotiations, but instead will base their decision on, I better get this right, “the will of the people.” Whether that means "residents" or "units" (as in the recent election) is unclear.

Most who have been around for any length of time should have a pretty good idea of how that works. A vote in favor of the new agreement will be a vote to celebrate the conclusion of hard fought and successful negotiations. Moreover, it will be a referendum on the Board. A vote against the new agreement will be a vote to send the community into a period of uncertainty, with no resolution on disputed issues, and with the prospect of potential litigation, etc. Who in their right mind could vote "No" under such circumstances?

Now, tell me, honestly, given those two options, how do you think this vote will go? In the end, as the Board well understands, most everyone responding with a ballot on this issue will care less at this late stage about the terms agreed upon. The only potential issue that might be sufficient to stir some concern might be if there is another cave in to what some may view as unreasonable demands, demands that would not make the Association whole on all amounts due.

In the end, though, those that are fed up and those that are upset will be barely sufficient in numbers to make any showing at all in the overall outcome, or so the theory goes. And, as if by magic, but to the surprise of no one, "the will of the people" will have prevailed over the will of the so called naysayers. At least the Board will be off the hook for taking any responsibility and the appearance of having "gone to the people" will have been satisfied. That's how the Board prefers to handle such matters. As someone had said not that long ago, "Remember, I promised you that you would decide!"

If we assume a return of around 1,000 valid ballots on this issue, admittedly a rather conservative figure, which was about the minimum number of ballots in our recent election to secure a seat on the hotly contested Board, that will yield a return of about 16% of the units in Sun City. Say 80% of those vote in favor and 20% vote against the agreement, preferring, instead, one of the listed alternatives. That gets the number of favorable votes down to about 13% of the units in the community, or as some would say, right on down to the “will of the people.” 

  Of course, with a really great, favorable agreement coming to us on the horizon, achieving more than 50% of those casting a vote should be a snap. On the other hand, if for unknown reasons the agreement is not well received, achieving that 50% mark could be a little more difficult than the Board had anticipated.

  I expect the Board will be crafting the language of the ballot measure on the lease in such a manner so as to produce a favorable outcome. After all, any forthcoming revised lease agreement will represent the work of three of our current Board members. It would make no sense to have a vote on the matter if one did not control the message.

Ron Johnson, 21 July 2006

1. There was a total of 2351 ballots cast in the recent election, or 39% of those eligible units casting a vote. Elaine Berg won a seat on the Board with 1015 votes.