By Sue Fitzsimons
Governing Board President
The community has spoken. Lou Mancuso has been removed as a Sun City West Director with a vote of 77.9 percent.
This has been a very difficult time for our community and our Governing Board, and I want to thank our residents for their patience and involvement in the process as this recall was decided. No matter where you stood on the recall question, I am hopeful we can leave this unfortunate chapter behind us and move forward.
The Governing Board has much work to do as we are just beginning a new Fiscal Year and meetings are starting up again. We must work as a team in a professional manner and with respect to fellow Directors and staff as this community expects. This Board is committed to being civil to one another, working within the Bylaws and laws established, and using the appropriate avenues for new ideas.
The Board speaks as one, not as individuals with isolated issues. We ask the community to give us the support we will need to heal our community and to work as a cohesive Board.
At a special Zoom meeting at 9 a.m. Friday, the Board will consider the appointment of two former Board members, Jim Sloan and Tim Hurley, as replacements for the vacated positions of Mr. Mancuso and Bob Carneiro, who resigned for personal reasons in June with a year remaining on his term. (This meeting will be held virtually, but you can watch it on YouTube.)
Our bylaws require a Director to vacate the Board for one year before returning as a Director. Both Mr. Sloan and Mr. Hurley have offered to take a one-year appointment to bring our Board up to a full contingent of 9. Both are respected in the community, understand Board customs and policies, and have demonstrated their ability to make rational decisions during their past years on the Board.
If we do not have consensus through a majority vote of the Board, then the Board will conduct interviews. That process would take until November to fill the positions.
According to Bylaw 4.17, both positions filled via appointment will extend only until June 30, 2022. At the time of the March elections, we will elect four directors, with the lowest vote-getter filling the remainder of Mr. Mancuso’s term beginning July 1 and the rest filling full three-year terms. Interested owner-members should consider running for election on the regular election schedule, which begins in November. Marshall Adams is our Election Chair and you may contact him through our Executive Assistant Karen Roepken (623-544-6115) if you have questions.
Sue, having briefly working with you on the Sports Pavillion committee, I was glad to see your name as the GB President. I want to thank you for taking the high road during this tough time and I look forward to seeing GB meetings conducted in a proper, honest and non-threatening manner going forward.
Thank you for being who you are and working to put this all in the past
This governing board has established a dangerous precedent for the community going forward. For board members and members of the staff to instigate a recall procedure against a director who had been dually elected by members of the community – and not provide a public forum for community members to fully understand and evaluate the charges against a board member – shows a severe lack of character and integrity. Board members are supposed to be elected to act as fiduciaries for the benefit of all of our citizens. To let personal vendettas interfere with the governance of our community is almost unforgivable.
With this precedent set, who would want to run for the board for fear of being recalled for not toeing the “party line?”
While there are many items that need to be addressed in the coming year, if the board does not take immediate steps to establish reasonable criteria for the recall of a board member, they are very negligent in their duties. This fiasco of a recall will leave a permanent blemish on the community.
Mr. Poff, neither the Board nor the staff instigated or helped in this recall effort. We put out the notice of the election as required by state law. Employees who are also owner members can be involved in political issues outside of work; to prohibit them from being involved in their community – so long as they are off the clock – would violate the law.
Given the acrimonious nature of the board perhaps it would be better to hold a new election rather then hand picking two previous members. That should prove to the members that the board is working toward a new beginning.
Michael, the process for filling vacancies is outlined in our Bylaws. Those Bylaws can be changed, of course, but for now they must be followed. The appointments will carry through until June 30. We encourage our members to get involved in committees and attend meetings. And those who want to be more involved are welcome to run for the Board. Petitions will be available in November and the election will be held in March.
So, why is Policy L-9 not being followed? Every GB Director swore an oath (notorized) to follow the Policies. This selection tomorrow does not follow the policy!
Bernie, there is a conflict between Policy L9 and Bylaw 4.17. When a conflict exists, the Bylaws will prevail over the Policies.
Bylaw 4.17 states:
Unless otherwise provided by Arizona law, any vacancy on the Governing Board may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining Governing Board Directors, though less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining Governing Director. The sole Director left would then select another Director; then these two together would select the third; and the three would then select the fourth; and proceed in this manner until there are once again nine (9) Directors. (Policy L9)
4.17.1 Any Governing Board Director so chosen shall hold office through the next June 30th.
Thank you for the response! However, I do not understand what the conflict is. In fact, it seems pretty clear that they work hand in hand. Yes, an affirmative vote by a majority of the Governing Board is exactly what is called for in this By-Law. The By-Law does reference Policy L-9.
Policy L-9 does not preclude the Board from taking a majority vote as provided in By-Law 4.17, it simply lays out HOW the process is to be conducted. It in no way restricts or hinders the Governing Board from making the selection and does not confer any right on anyone else. The Governing Board wrote the policy!
I find it odd that every response says we will follow what we are doing and if we cannot get the result we want THEN we will follow the Policy we set up to fill vacancies.
What is so onerous to the Association about following Policy L-9? Quite possibly the Board may have the same result but, at least it would be done in accordance with the Associations Policies!
I particularly like “using appropriate avenues for new ideas” as a unifying statement. The avenue is a dead end street and the Board clique of special interest is driving the trolley. Good luck with new ideas that are not General Manager solicited and promoted.
You want healing? Stop supporting a cancel culture dogma when it comes to resident supported ideas to be fully investigated, no matter or not the GM and his attorney think to be viable for SCW residents.
Mr. Wilson, as you know, ideas that come to the Board require majority approval to move forward. The Directors are Owner Members. The Board itself is elected by the Members. Recalls are initiated by the Members.
So you are choosing either bad or worse to fill the vacancy you created?
Mr. Pace, let’s remember that Board members are unpaid volunteers, and ensure we are speaking with civility. Anyone appointed will serve only until June 30, 2022, after which we hope to have a large turnout of candidates for the next election.
Thank you for this update. Viewing the last several months ‘from afar’ (thank you for the videos of the Board Meetings to watch and reflect on) I am confident that the Board can now serve the SCW owner/members with continued enthusiasm for our wonderful community. Thank you for your patience and integrity.
No we will not leave this behind. This is only the beginning of your exposure.
You coerced the community based on your lies, and this is why the community will not heal, as you say.
You have lost our trust. Good luck getting it back.
Mr. Chaffee, as a reminder, the Board did not initiate this recall. Owner Members did.
It is wonderful that Jim and Tim are willing to step up to help our community move forward and serve on the board again. Hopefully they will be appointed.
It is also nice to see the web site statement that SCW is a “not for profit” golf community. It must continue that way.
It is one of the best in the US “as is”. It sells itself without being fanciful and most of the residents are wonderful neighbors and friends.
A lot of hard work has been put into this community and continues. A huge thanks to all our employees and volunteers that get involved.
While I didn’t appreciate Lou’s approach to communication, I do think the board lost someone with good ideas and motivation. I think the recall was off base, other than the inappropriate behavior and the recall wording had fake news in it. Too bad. With Lou gone, don’t ignore his ideas. Take a serious
look at what he was suggesting as a solution for the clubs. No we don’t want the public invited into our clubs, but the tax status has nothing to do with that. The club membership is a bylaws issue.
I agree I think the situation was not handled properly Lue had some good ideas.
It would be nice to see the bio’s of these two candidates before the Board takes up the issue?