So What Does the Election Outcome Mean?

 [A follow up to our Mini Review.]

      The addition of four new board members has already brought about a marked realignment or shift in the power structure. As to what long-term direction that power shift will take us is difficult to say. For starters, though, I am concerned about what I see happening as our newbie board members venture into untested waters.

     As reflected by the initial and albeit temporary decision to elect Dave Weil as the Board’s president, life on the board will never be the same without Favil West being able to dictate the course of the board’s actions. Dave Weil’s election, as ill-advised as I believe it was, could be looked upon more as a symbolic gesture, a sort of warning shot across the boardroom bow. “Favil, we’re here now, and you need to hear what we have to contribute to this or that matter.”  While Mr. West might be tempted to modestly protest that he is merely only one among equals, our experience tells us differently. But our newbie board members did not have to act so deliberately and decisively to steal the Association's presidency from Mr. West. That "gesture" was unnecessary and just plain mean spirited.

While the Board’s newcomers have demonstrated their ability to alter the course of events by this early exercise of their power, I question whether that planned power grab to deny Mr. West the Presidency he keenly deserves will accrue to the benefit the community as we move forward. I do not believe our residents would be ill served if our newbie board members would reconsider by stepping aside for a while and allow Favil to carry on in a leadership capacity. The important issues here should not be easily dismissed, even though many would find Favil's leadership style in need of some improvement: they include his long-established board experience, continuity of effective leadership, and demonstrated capacity to lead. The issue for Sun City should not be whether our newbie board members have the power to deny someone this or that Association office. Clearly, they do. How and under what conditions they exercise that power is more important than by achieving what I see as a disruptive and strategic so called "win."

While wheeling such power in this manner may be appreciated by some, most will find such efforts divisive and reflective of an ill-advised start on day one as we transition to a resident-controlled board. Becoming an effective board member does not happen overnight and will require a definite learning period. As a result, the officeholder of the presidency should be reserved for those who already have the needed knowledge, the experience and background, and the capacity to lead. There will be other, more beneficial opportunities for our newbie board members to test their wings and demonstrate their influence than on this matter of board leadership.  

One of the central themes coming from our newbie board members is change. They have already taken one critical, I suggest, misstep in that direction. The other step some have so roundly embraced is one of empowering the committees with greater decision-making authority. For example, we often hear complaints like, “Let’s get the Board off the backs of the Committees,” or “Let’s stop the Board from micromanaging the work of the Committees.” While such cries sound like laudable objectives, I anticipate that such efforts will be fraught with difficulties.

When you’re in the committee trenches and crying foul, that’s one thing. When those same folks take over control, they frequently have a new, different and more responsible perspective. All of a sudden our newbie board members with the assumption of the Association's fiscal responsibilities will find that relinquishing control becomes not merely difficult but a keen issue to be addressed very cautiously.

As our newbie board members become more involved in our business, they will begin to learn that not all committees are created equal, that not all committee reports can be relied upon for accuracy or completeness, or that not all committee recommendations for Board action have been well documented. There should be little wonder that the Board finds itself frustrated in such instances.

Before the Board leaps to granting additional authority to the committees, the Board should first look to addressing these more pressing issues of how best to secure from our Committees the needed documentation that is both accurate and complete. Otherwise, the Board will be faced as they have been on too many occasions with issues that are not fully developed and must be returned for further review. I suspect that the Board’s past efforts to micromanage committee actions presumably reflects their desire to not take any action on substantive matters that are simply not adequately justified—at least in the eyes of those with the power and responsibility to spend our money.   

The Board’s shot-gun decision to authorize the expenditure of $16,000** on room scheduling software would appear to be a glaring example of the type of ad hoc, spur of the moment response that the Board should avoid at all cost. There should be no rush to save $500 on a $16,000** contract if similar software is available from other vendors for one-third that amount, with training, and full support, etc. It would be very disappointing to learn that our new board is acting in a manner that is no more accountable to our residents than some claim was the practice of the old board.

Ron Johnson

5/27/2005

___________________

** While I thought I heard 15-16 thousand mentioned at the Board meeting, I am advised the figure is closer to $13,000.