11 Reasons Why We Need To Recall The Board Members
Tale of two faces – The Board members subject to recall should be removed because they refuse to tolerate any criticism (from the homeowners) of Sandy Seddon, the General Manager (GM) and berate those who dare to speak in less than glowing terms about her performance. The board is thrilled with Sandy Seddon. Their experience with her is that she quickly handled the deferred maintenance issue, quickly transitioned away from the prior management company, responds fully to their requests, and is just an all-around great gal. However, the Sandy Seddon that the Board members see and experience is quite the opposite of what many homeowners experience and which was described to the Board in a petition signed by 836 homeowners and residents. The Board has refused to hold her accountable to address the problems identified in the petition against her or to take any action to improve homeowner relations and customer satisfaction. During the September Board meeting, Bob Burch yelled out, “Enough is enough!” and two pages of his diatribe about why no one should criticize the GM is in the Board Book. They should be removed as directors because they are protecting the Sandy Seddon more than they are protecting the homeowners paying the assessments.
Not fair to owners. The Board takes actions without hearing both sides, does not uniformly enforce the CC&Rs and By-Laws if it is outside issues like the color a house can be painted or how many trees must be planted. They fail to prevent problems and resist solving them, so the homeowners end up paying for the pound of cure. Look at all the bureaucratic hassles the Board has created for the clubs by requiring bizarre business license requirements and vendor insurance. They allow the GM to create bureaucratic hassles for owners and clubs and to set paid staff up as competitors to the clubs for booking dates.
Usurp authority of the owners to initiate lawsuits. Owners voted against SCA filing litigation on Liberty Center construction defects, but the Board ignored that and filed a lawsuit anyway. NRS 16.31088 requires an owner majority vote before SCA can initiate a lawsuit, but they did not ask owners to vote before they acted to evict the Foundation Assisting Seniors or to sue the Foundation for $40,000.
Transition to self-management is flawed. No adequate policy framework is in place to protect SCA, particularly as a first-time employer, and there are no written plans or timetables to complete the transition. Despite my areas of expertise in HR and municipal management, the Board unfairly excluded me from participation in any personnel policy discussions and claimed I was “not authorized” to see records relating to prior decisions of the Board or to examine such questions as:
Why is the GM paid $100,000+ over the appropriate salary for that job?
Why does the compensation for four managers eat up about 10% of the 2017 operating budget?
Why don’t we have performance standards and customer service ratings linked to GM compensation?
Board does not act lawfully. They have tolerated the restaurant being closed for nearly two years in violation of CC&Rs 7.2(b).They have issued several unlawful cease & desist letters against me to stop me from inspecting ANY association records, but there are numerous other examples included in the documents filed with the state enforcement officials.
Lack of method for requiring GM accountability. These board members should be removed because they have abdicated too much authority to the GM with no system for accountability. It is unlawful to hire a GM without a management agreement, but no agreement is currently in place. Without a management agreement, the GM is an at-will employee covered only by the personnel handbook. Poor business judgment to employ her without the specification of the required provision of NRS 116A.620. These directors should be removed, not just because they have failed to hold the GM accountable in areas beyond facilities maintenance, but because they have allowed her to threaten frivolous litigation against SCA and to falsely accuse me as a Director of defamation because I criticized her performance. She has also falsely accused me of violating her privacy rights and creating “employer liability” for asking about her compensation with her former employer.
Abuse by attorney. Why do we even need a Board if the attorney calls all the shots? The HOA attorney (Clarkson) makes quite a profit by getting the Board to believe that the budget does not have to be amended to spend, spend, spend. The Board refused to have board training conducted by the Ombudsman, and Clarkson conducted the training in a closed workshop, deemed it attorney-client privilege, was abusive to me and gave biased instructions, e.g., that the Board MUST get attorney approval before making any major decision, and it is an unauthorized practice of law (for me) to tell them they don’t need to go to an attorney for so much but to use their common sense.
Loss of control over the budget. The Board should be removed because they are allowing the attorney to represent the GM and not the association membership as a whole. For example, this attorney advised the Board (in violation of NRS 116.3106 and By-Laws 3.18 a and 3.20), that the GM can expend SCA funds for purposes other than what they were budgeted for without board approval. Clarkson’s legal fees for the first four months have amounted to $103,000, and much of that was expended for legal actions that never should have been taken. This does not account for how much the Board has spent to have him take over the Removal Election Process and strip the SCA Election Committee of their duties defined in the adopted Election & Voting Manual.
Lack of transparency. The Board allows the GM to refuse to give access to information in an easy, user-friendly way. They take the attitude that they are only required to provide the legal minimum, and you have to jump through hoops to get that if you are not considered an ally or if you are being punished because they think you MIGHT misuse the information.
Owner involvement in governance is diminished. The Board refused to adopt the proposed owner-oversight committees for Legal Services, Personnel, Insurance, or Investments even though these are areas where the expertise of community members is greatly needed and could be cost-effectively employed. They abolished the Fitness Committee, the Property & Grounds Committee, and the Golf Course Liaison Committee. Meanwhile, the Communication Committee is in limbo. There is a plan (only discussed in private so far) to have Pinnacle, Villas, and the service groups report to the GM instead of having a Board liaison. No attempt is being made to promote customer satisfaction or to institute “best practices” to improve residents’ quality of life or build a sense of belonging in the community. These Board members do not respect owners and abdicate to the GM.
Abuse of privilege. NRS 116.31085 (3) and SCA By-Laws 3.15A define the only permissible topics that an HOA Board can discuss in executive session. These directors should be removed because they circumvent this by making decisions in closed “workshops,” by using email for deliberations (despite having been issued a letter of instruction prohibiting it), and, at times, by unlawfully excluding a director from the deliberation and action (myself and Jim Mayfield before me). Rex and Sandy make excessive claims for confidentiality on ALL their SCA business emails even when the discussion is just about leaking pipes.