The Coup d'état

 On voting for the presidency and officers of the Association

Mike Dixon was elected President, by a vote of 5-2 over Bob Frank. Voting for Mike Dixon were Mike Dixon, Barry Friedman, Bob Berman, Elaine Berg and Kay Dwyer. Voting for Bob Frank were Bob Frank and Roz Berman.
Bob Frank was elected Vice President, by a vote of 4-3 over Bob Berman. Voting for Bob Frank were Bob Frank, Roz Berman, Barry Friedman and Mike Dixon. Voting for Bob Berman were Bob Berman, Elaine Berg and Kay Dwyer.
Roz Berman was elected Treasurer by a vote of 7-0, without opposition.
Elaine Berg was reelected Secretary by a vote of 7-0, without opposition.

 

At a recent post-election meeting of the Finance Committee, while listening to Bob Frank and Mike Dixon as they addressed an issue concerning the Committee’s authority and control, I had this overriding sense that something was amiss or not quite right—it was evident that Bob and Mike were programmed, most likely by their employment background, to head in two diametrically opposed directions. Whereas Bob expressed his desire and comfort in delegating decision-making authority to the Finance Committee, Mike, on the other hand, appeared to be quite uncomfortable in doing so.

For example, Mike virtually insisted that whatever the FC wanted to do, as in this instance, to hold a workshop, they could do so only if they sought permission and direction from the Board. I gathered from Mike's concern that control over such matters properly rested not with the Committee but with the Board, or with Mike. I was left with the impression that Mike was far less willing to trust the judgment of others, relying, instead, on his own best judgment to make decisions for others. That would be fine, of course, on matters of substance and, of course, as long as others were willing to go along or were in agreement. And if by chance others were not in agreement, well, that’s their problem. At the time, my observation was essentially a moot issue since it never occurred to me that Mike would assume the presidency of the Association.

I have long thought that of the newly elected dynamic foursome, Mike, although a very high achiever, was by temperament and practice an inveterate loner, more unto himself and preferring to be guided by his own counsel. As one who did not appear to have that much experience working on a management team, Mike, I thought, would have the greatest difficulty in adjusting to working with others in a team environment as a Board member. That, I thought, would have been a very frustrating experience for Mike to endure.

I can still remember Mike’s comment to the audience when he was asked the question at a public forum about his willingness to work toward consensus, implying that he might not be a team player. To the surprise of many, Mike expressed nothing but disdain for the team player or consensus concept, stating that he would prefer, instead, to stand apart and speak his own mind. Upon hearing that, I thought at the time that Mike, while an innovator in many respects, would be less suitable by disposition in efforts that were designed to provide leadership in a team effort.

When one considers Mike’s apparent contempt for working toward consensus building along with what I viewed as his apparent reticence in relinquishing control to others, it was difficult to see how Mike could expect to prevail on any Board under any set of circumstances, except possibly one, unless he was the person who was in control of the decision-making process. In the case of Sun City, that one circumstance could readily occur as President of the Association since as president, Mike could exert perceptual if not actual control over the direction and actions of the Board. And we know that by contract with RMI, the Association president is the only person that can interface with and direct the administration of the Community through RMI.

  But if Mike were going to prevail in his run for the presidency of the Board, he would have to overcome the heirs apparent, veteran Bob Berman and fellow candidate Bob Frank, who had been the overwhelming vote getter in the recently concluded election. Since the incoming ACE-supported candidates had control of 4 of the 7 votes on the Board, it was less likely that Bob Berman would ascend to the presidency, although in the mind of some that was a strategic possibility. For many, Bob Frank was the odds-on favorite and a virtual shoe-in to be the next president, assuming he wanted the job and assuming he had the support of those who were literally swept into office with him. So what happened to change that anticipated scenario?

The only way Dixon could assume control over the Board, and overcome Frank’s apparent advantage was to garner at least 4 vote of the 7 votes needed to win. On the face of it, that task seemed beyond grasp, or was it? Mike needed at least three other votes. How could Mike assure himself of securing three other votes? In order to do that and bypass Frank, Mike would have to garner the support of the old guard, those who invariably supported Mr. West and represented what he had ostensibly ran against in the campaign, Bob Berman, Kay Dwyer and Elaine Berg.

As I understand matters, Mike had approached and brokered a deal with Elaine, Kay and Bob to get their votes in behalf of his candidacy for the president of the Board. If they would support him for the president, he in turn would support Bob Berman for the vice-president's position, as sort of a peace and conciliatory gesture in moving the Board's agenda forward.

As it turned out, a key player in this strategy was Barry Friedman, who "defected" and was somehow persuaded to support Mike over Bob Frank for the presidency. With Barry in tow, Mike needed only two of the three old guard votes going forward. Barry's presumed support for Mike and role in this would become crucial when it came time to vote for the vice-president. With the deal in place, Mike would assume control of the Board through his role as the Association's new president. So, when it came time to vote, what happened? As planned, Mike Dixon got Elaine's, Kay's and Bob’s vote (as well as Barry’s) and Mike became the president of the Association.

But when it came time to vote for the vice-president, the agreed-upon plan appeared to fall apart, depending on "whose plan" you believe was actually in play. As the vote was taken, Bob Berman and Bob Frank each had 3 votes.

For VP                How Board Members Voted                                Bob Berman         Bob Berman, Elaine Berg, and Kay Dwyer
Bob Frank            Bob Frank, Barry Friedman and Roz Berman

There was a tie! Had Barry voted against Frank as he had done in his vote for president, the matter would have been settled, there would be no tie, and Mike would have been relieved from being forced to act on his pledge to support Bob Berman. All Barry had to do to "save" Mike from having to make that decision was to vote for Berman. But he didn't. Mike was now on the proverbial hook to put up and break the tie, presumably to vote in Berman's favor. Now sitting as president, Mike was required to break the tie. He initially deferred in making any decision, instead declaring he had abstained from voting. Mike wanted some time to "explain" his alleged dilemma on voting for one or the other to an impatient audience, who by that time was growing weary and irritated at what was happening with the voting process. How would Mike Dixon cast his vote?

If we assume that Mike’s presidency was secured with a promise to support Bob Berman, he was expected to follow through and vote for Bob Berman. That’s what many in the audience had assumed would take place. That apparent "agreement" to make Berman the VP was still in play, or so many in the audience had thought. But someone intervened to change the outcome. As inconceivable as it sounds, Mike was allegedly persuaded that his anticipated vote for Mr. Berman would not be viewed favorably, at least not favorably by the person who adamantly and successfully turned Mike. Having won the vote for presidency on the badly needed backs of others, Mike was now seemingly more than willing to break the backs of those who had voted for him. An interesting, yet troubling turn of events.

In casting his vote against Bob Berman, Mike either was persuaded to change his mind or he never intended on supporting Berman for the position of vice-president if he had to make that vote. Ultimately Mike broke the tie by voting for Bob Frank, making Frank the vice-president.

While many may have been relieved at the final outcome on the VP's position, the appearance going forward was that Mike had decided to renege on his pledge to support Bob Berman. Assuming that to be the case, Mike was obviously less than forthcoming in his explanation of his actions.

No matter how one views the outcome, one cannot help but be troubled and disappointed by the crass manipulation and unexpected turn of events. Some no doubt will wonder if the future of this Board will be in good hands, with a Board able to work together as a team. Or will the Board's future be fought less over what direction to take on this or that Community matter rather than over who will make that decision?

The potential irony should not be lost on the Community—that the decision making authority of the Board may rest in the hands of the one person who is a keen manipulator, potentially untrustworthy, and the least able to yield in his views. How that will play out when Board decisions are made is yet to be determined. But the signs of potential problems ahead are firmly in place.