Is SCA Board retaining lawful control of the budget?

Just saying that the Board acted “on the advice of counsel” doesn’t cut it

If the Board learned and followed these simple legal requirements, the GM and the attorney would be prevented from taking control of our budget and spending our money for something other than our benefit:

NRS 116.31151 (1)(a) requires the Board to prepare and distribute to owners a “budget for the daily operations of the association” which per CC&Rs 8.1(d) is deemed ratified “Unless 90% of all Owners reject the budget…”
The budget is distributed as required and is always ratified. No surprise. Hard to imagine 90% of all owners being mobilized to object to any budget the Board puts forward, but at least everybody knows what expenditures the Board has approved.

NRS 116A.620 (1)(i) requires any management agreement to define spending limits for the GM.
Here’s the start of the slippery slope toward abdication. SCA Board and GM did not execute a management agreement nor have spending limits for the GM been defined. Pretty easy to rob Peter to pay Paul and then blame Peter for the missing money.

Per SCA bylaws 3.20, the SCA Board is prohibited from delegating policy control over the budget or, for that matter, deciding the amount of assessments, or deciding who can open bank accounts or sign checks or enforce the governing documents.
Here’s where SCA is really careening down that slippery slope. SCA is unprotected by not the Board not defining GM spending limits or service-level expectations in the legally-mandated terms of a management agreement.
Of course, without an agreement, the GM is not legally protected either. She is just an “at-will” employee, meaning she can be fired for any reason or no reason, just not a discriminatory reason. Her terms & conditions of employment are defined in the SCA Personnel Handbook and nowhere else.
But, don’t feel sorry for her. Not only does the Board coddle her, the SCA attorney has magically , albeit unethically, created “rights” for the GM that do not exist in black letter law and which are in direct conflict to the interests of the membership.

SCA bylaws 4.6 requires two Board members must sign all checks for any amount, and bylaws 3.25 requires that directors act on an informed basis while carrying out this duty, i.e., sign a check only if it is for something that has been approved in the budget.
Two Board members do sign all checks, but they may as well let the GM use a rubber stamp.

SCA Board Policy Manual 4.10 limits authority to request legal opinions to the Board as a whole or, in narrowly defined circumstances, to the President for the purpose of “…assessing the legal risks on actions under consideration…”. This provision specifically limits the GM’s authority to “…contact legal counsel regarding NRS 116 or other compliance issues…” not to act only “on the advice of counsel”. The SCA-Clarkson Law Group legal services agreement ONLY allows the attorney to provide legal opinions in response to specific Board requests. The attorney has NO decision-making authority over SCA policies.
Previous Boards had enough common sense to govern SCA without having to spend four times the budget to get the attorney to bless every action before it’s taken.
But then, Clarkson is a bully who has, using tactics bordering on elder abuse, and in clear violation of his professional standards of conduct, convinced the Board that it is a violation of their fiduciary duty to act without consulting him even in areas outside his firm’s practice specialty.
As a result, the President and the GM blithely use the attorney far in excess of what is legally permissible for self-serving purposes and in defiance of all common sense.

In conclusion…

The GM’s takeover of the SCA budget is happening on a grand scale because the attorney has blessed it (thereby being unjustly enriched), and the Board (who thereby gets to stay in power) self-righteously allows such foolishness as:

Spending an unbudgeted $85,000 for a CPA to do the Election Committee’s normal job to mess up the recall election was allowed by the GM solely “upon the advice of counsel”, but absent the inconvenience of legal Board action.
Six months spending for legal services was approved in the budget to cap at $45,000, but four times that amount, $185,000, was spent by the GM without any formal Board action to approve it and without conforming to the laws governing civil actions (NRS 116.31088), or sanctions for violations of governing documents (NRS 116.31085, CC&Rs 7.4) or limits on authority of the Board (NRS 116.3103, NRS 116.31036, NRS 116.31084) or owners rights (NRS 116.1104, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31175), or good faith (NRS 116.1113, NRS 116.1112), and prohibition against harassment and retaliation (NRS 116.31183, NRS 116.31184).

I’m as amazed as you are at their gall.

Who benefits from spending SCA homeowners’ money?

Assessments levied against the unit owners’ property can only be used for the sole and exclusive benefit of the membership of the Association, e.g., maintenance of the common areas, actions to protect the property values of all our homes, preserving amenities and high quality lifestyle.

It is not ever acceptable for the Board, the GM or the attorney to put their personal, financial or political interests ahead of the interests of owners AKA “the common good“.

Therefore, allowing SCA management or agents to spend owners’ money for highly controversial and unbudgeted purposes that provide no benefit to SCA membership should not be tolerated.

Board decisions must always be evaluated against the standard of “Who benefits by it?”
If the answer is anybody or anything other than “the common good“, don’t do it.

Here are some examples where no benefit accrued to “the common good“, but they did it anyway.

The SCA membership lost when the Board vindictively evicted the Foundation Assisting Seniors after the GM failed to mediate a mutually-acceptable solution to CSG’s problems, blamed the Foundation President, and made up a silly story to justify forcing members to pay more after damaging a valued community resource.
Paying $85,000 for a CPA to conduct the recall election in a manner designed to keep the current Board majority from being recalled for cause provided no benefit to the association. It was more than a waste of owners’ money to keep those Board members in power. It allowed the attorney and the GM to keep their over-compensated jobs, too.
Paying untold thousands of dollars to make repeated threats of frivolous litigation of defamation against a Board member and unlawful orders for her to cease & desist making inquiries regarding GM compensation clearly wasted owners’ money. It’s easy to see how using the attorney this way was protecting the GM and her fat paycheck. But, it’s impossible to see how such extreme action was protecting the association.
There is no benefit to the association for the Board to unlawfully remove an elected Board member on the false charge that she is making a profit from her Board position. It is simply a power trip and a nasty way of showing 2,000 voters that their votes don’t matter.

December 7 Board meeting: Part 4 Penny wise, pound foolish

SCA agreed to pay $55,000 to settle dispute over $4,400 delinquent dues

In his President’s report, Rex reported the Release and Settlement of A-14-702071-C. SCA agreed to pay Citi Mortgage $55,000 as full and final settlement of all claims in a case where the homeowner defaulted and so the fight was between SCA and a bank. This is an example of how the Board is very wasteful by not avoiding problems or solving them when they are small. The excessive use of attorneys is a core failing of this Board under Rex.

Rex stated that Citi insisted on confidentiality and so he could not comment further. I seriously doubt that because what I’m going to tell you is in the public record. I happen to be familiar with this case from before I went on the Board. I learned nothing about it as a Board member because I was forced to recuse myself from ANY SCA collection matter “so as to prevent even the appearance of impropriety” regardless of whether it had any bearing on my quiet title case whatsoever.

Long story short.

In 2014, SCA’s agent RRFS refused to accept Citi ’s tender of the $825 super-priority portion of SCA’s lien for delinquent assessments claiming it was less than the full super-priority amount due. After four years of nonpayment of assessments ($275/quarter x 16 quarters = $4,400), RRFS claimed Citi owed $17,591.81. Citi paid it under protest, and RRFS cancelled the SCA foreclosure sale. Citi filed to get $16,766.81 back from RRFS that the NV Supreme Court said it was unlawful to force Citi to pay more than $825, the amount that has “super-priority” over the bank’s loan.

The Court ruled in Citi ’s favor against SCA, a year ago, stating:

“…(SCA’s) position ignores the question presented in this action, whether a homeowners’ association can force a first-security lienholder, or agent acting on its behalf, to satisfy the entirety of its lien, rather than pay the super-priority piece to protect its secured interest. The Court concludes it cannot.”

Even though this overcharging was done by SCA’s former agent’s, SCA was on the hook for it since RRFS was acting on SCA’s behalf. I don’t know why SCA even stayed in the fight. Why didn’t they make RRFS pay it and get out of the litigation years ago? Anyway, SCA deposited $5,000 with the court last December toward the $16,766.81 the Court ordered SCA to pay Citi . Then, Citi demanded $51,000+ in attorney fees and court costs.

Bottom line:

SCA owners are on the hook for $55,000 to settle with a bank over the misdeeds SCA’s former agent in collecting delinquent assessments of less than $5,000.

Wouldn’t writing off $3,575 in delinquent assessments have made more sense?
Or even better, shouldn’t SCA handle assessment collection in house rather than being on the hook for the wrongdoing of unscrupulous attorneys and debt collectors?
Can you see any risk SCA homeowners face by my telling you about all this?
Can you see any way I would profit by sharing this information with owners?

I guess you can see that the real risk is to the attorney’s profits. That’s why attorney Clarkson (SCA’s current legal counsel and debt collector) insisted that I be forced to recuse myself from all SCA collection issues even if they are not remotely connected to my quiet title action.

Cost of collections and fraud by SCA agents are other reasons SCA needs to be (better) self-managed.

Here is another reason SCA needed to go to self-management that Tom didn’t mention and probably isn’t even aware of. FSR was actually unfairly profiting from failing to pay SCA asset enhancement fees and new owner set up fees when there was a foreclosure. This happened twice with my late fiance’s house so it’s a better than even bet that this scam was done when other houses were snatched for a few dollars of delinquent assessments.

October Financial Report

This issue is also connected to a good reason why SCA needs to be self-managed, but also needs to have better control over its agents and managers.

The CFO reported that the revenue from Asset Enhancement Fees are $103,268 over budget. SCA gets 1/3 of 1% of the sale price when a home is sold, and other fees associated with home sales are up a similar amount. This is due to an increase in the number of sales reported to SCA which is, in small part, due to SCA’s former agents not crediting SCA with these fees upon sale of foreclosed properties. Title to my late fiance’s house was transferred three times in country property records, and FSR twice failed to record that SCA was paid any of those fees as if two of those three sales never happened. Those two incidences can’t be the only times that SCA was shorted fees due to us.

I mention this not just because it’s something nobody else would notice, but SCA’s way of handling collections is flawed and when I offered evidence of it, I was seriously and wrongfully attacked. I reported this problem to Lori Martin and Rex Weddle before I decided to run for the Board and they refused to even talk to me about it, let alone assess the degree of loss to SCA. I included it in my court filings in the quiet title case, and our current attorney (who is also SCA’s debt collector) used it as a bogus justification for kicking me off the Board (putting matters before the Board from which I could make a profit) rather than looking at how SCA was getting ripped off by our agents who are supposed to be fiduciaries.

CFO Jim also reported that there are 45 cases in collections with $77,000 outstanding. This is a small amount, a fraction of the nearly $9 million in annual assessment revenue, but it is a completely unsatisfactory level of accounting and reporting to prevent problems. This level of Board control/owner oversight is insufficient to prevent possible mismanagement, theft or fraud by SCA agents.

Turning collections over to attorneys when there is only a budgeted projection of having to write off $12,000 in 2018 is a gross waste of money. It is truly fighting fire with Napalm, and then making owners pay for all the collateral damage.

GM Dumped $73,000+ Removal Election Costs on SCA Owners

The GM is to blame for the big bill – not the SCA owners who must pay it

This huge expense is still climbing, but it was totally unnecessary, not legally authorized by the Board, and did not serve the best interests of SCA.

Both the GM and the attorney should be fired for spending our money to interfere with the integrity of the removal election.

This unauthorized expenditure is sufficiently egregious to warrant the termination of both the GM and attorney, but that won’t happen because the beneficiaries of the election interference by SCA’s agents included a majority of the Board which was apparently important enough to them to stand by and let SCA owners foot the huge and unnecessary bill.

While I was on the Board I aggressively attempted to protect the independence of the Election Committee, but alone and constrained by ethical boundaries, I was no match for the abuse of power by the Board President and SCA’s agents who were not so constrained.

A well-documented contributing factor to my unlawful removal from the Board was that I informed the Ombudsman on July 24 of my concerns about the need to protect the independence of the Election Committee (and also to protect owners lawfully collecting petition signatures) from the significant GM/CAM/attorney/Board interference I observed.

Berman’s constant improper placement of blame

David Berman continues to perpetuate the myth that these unnecessary and unauthorized costs were caused by the petitioners who (legally) called for the removal election.

This targeting of unit owners is obviously wrong. Owners don’t have enough power to be culpable.

Think about it.

If 1,200 unit owners had wanted the Election Committee to conduct the removal election, but the GM did not want it, would they have been able to make their wishes happen over her objections?
If any of the petitioners had come to the Board meeting and begged to have SCA fork out over $73,000 to pay an unknown CPA and the attorney to do the Election Committee’s job, would SCA have spent one dime?

Both the GM and the Board President had to want SCA money to be spent on agents of their choosing to run the removal election (incompetently or, more likely, unethically), or OUR money would still be safely in the bank.

The Spin Doctor at work

Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, David Berman persists in promulgating this almost laughable propaganda that unit owners could make the GM do something that doesn’t serve her interests. Smug in this delusion, today he blogged with a melodramatic and an almost audible sigh that this big $73,000 number would still be bigger when the attorney and CPA bills all come in:

Sad. SCA deserves so much better.
But, wait, hope may be on the horizon:

CIC Commission recently held a GM accountable despite HOA attorney advice that action was OK under NRS.

If Rex and Sandy having Clarkson on speed dial is no longer as good an excuse as “the dog ate my homework”, then maybe…

AnthemOpinions blogspot reported about a case that was heard at the recent CIC Commission meeting which seemed to demonstrate the Commission’s repudiation of the “the attorney said I could” defense.

The Zeitgeist
Perhaps, we are reaching a tipping point.

In the whole country, the public conversation has shifted seismically around sexual harassment. Suddenly, society-at-large is not just standing silently by while men in power abuse vulnerable people with impunity.

Maybe the tide is turning here at SCA too.

Now, owners no longer seem so resigned and no longer seem willing to tolerate inexcusable behavior or poor leadership. A critical mass is forming, and this is a necessary step to creating a healthier balance of power in our community.

As formerly discouraged and disenfranchised owners are more willing to speak up and stand up to bullies, SCA’s bullies will predictably face a Come to Jesus reckoning. A tectonic power shift will occur that, in retrospect, we will be surprised at how long it took us to take our power back.

Jim Mayfield re annual budget mailer

Jim Mayfield writes:

We received the annual mandatory budget mailer in today’s mailer. I have reviewed the budget in detail as well as the materials sent with the budget mailer.

1. The “Summary Budget” does not contain any information that compares the 2018 draft budget to the adopted 2017 budget. Furthermore, a comparison is not provided of the 2018 draft budget to the projected actual financial statements for 2017. Without these comparisons, unit owners have no way access the expected actual to budget performance for 2017 OR to see how spending priorities are budgeted to change between 2017 and 2018.

2. The Budget mailer does not include a proxy form or return envelope for unit owners to use to vote for or against the budget. This is a change from prior years. Instead, the cover letter states that if a unit owner desires to vote for or against the budget, the unit owner should see NRS 116.311. (So much for transparency and encouraging unit owner participation in the governance of SCA.) The strategy is obvious: Don’t raise the dues and hope the unit owners don’t care how their money is spent and find it too hard to find out to bother.

3. The capital budget includes an authorization of $45k for “chairs, outlets, storage shed, BBQ tables and benches for the Pickleball court area.

Notes from Nona on saving some bucks

I haven’t received my budget mailer, but I want to address easier voting described in NRS 116.311 as they can be used as an example of how SCA could avoid most of our huge legal bills. The Board and the GM are not competent in preventing owner problems using the attorney as their sole guide. They should shift from paying for secret attorney opinions defining the legal minimum to asking owners to help develop popular “best practices”.

The NRS 116.311 code section is entitled,

“Voting by units’ owners; use of absentee ballots and proxies; voting by lessees of leased units; association prohibited from voting as owner of unit; voting without a meeting.”

This section offers ways in some situations that voting could be made easier on owners – like absentee ballots, proxies and voting electronically. Even though simpler, more convenient methods are available, doing things in the most “user-friendly” way doesn’t seem to be much of a priority for the Board or the GM even if not doing it the easy way is more costly.

The default seems to be just knee-jerk asking the attorney for an opinion. The attorney’s opinion generally veers toward advising the Board or GM what is the minimum that can be legally done. Conceptualizing a problem in terms of improving customer service is simply outside of the attorney’s paradigm, training and expertise – and yet he is their top-dollar “Go-To Guy”.

The GM does not seem to be inclined to focus on improving owner relations or utilizing owners’ expertise to research and recommend “best practices”. Instead, just handing over $325/hour for the attorney to rule on what the Board and GM can probably get away with is her counterproductive modus operandi. The Board has a total blind spot to this failing.

A better way of doing business would be to evaluate EVERY Board or management decision by asking owners BEFORE taking action,

“Is this action in the best interests of the membership?”

Then, if there are lots of owners who disagree, listen to them and remedy the problems. This could be done easily and systematically by utilizing the expertise of owners in a re-invigorated committee system. It certainly would be more cost-effective.

I believe that, had the Board and GM in 2017 followed the simple principle of acting SOLELY in the best interests of the membership, at least 90% of the $200,000 SCA is projected to spend this year for attorney’s fees could have been avoided, and there would have been a lot less community turmoil.

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:
1. Why is the GM paid $100,000+ over the appropriate salary for that job?
2. Why does the compensation for four managers eat up about 10% of the 2017 operating budget?
3. 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.

Recall Supporters

SCA BOD recall ad

Hello, my name is Nona Tobin. I have been happily retired and a Sun City Anthem homeowner for over 13 years. But, in the last year, I became concerned about the way this community was being managed, so I decided to do something about it and successfully ran for a seat on the seven-member HOA Board of Directors, garnering 2,001 votes. My campaign slogan “Owners Always Come First” has become my mission.

As I began asking questions and requesting information about past Board actions, I was met with resistance from management and my fellow Board members. Just 116 days into my tenure on the Board, the other six members of the Board, along with the HOA Attorney and the paid management staff, held a secret meeting to illegally vote me off the Board. This action is one of many illegal and unethical actions that I, and many others, have questioned.

Over 800 homeowners signed petitions for a recall election to remove four of the Directors. Of the four petitions, three (Rex Weddle-758, Aletta Waterhouse-734, and Tom Nissen-726) had more than the needed 715 signatures to be subject to a removal vote. Bob Burch managed to skate receiving only 713 signatures, two short of the requirement.

So far on this website, you have only heard my voice. But my voice is not the only one that is speaking out. Above is an ad supporting the election recall that just ran in the current, October 2017 issue of The Vegas Voice, a monthly publication serving the 50+ community in Las Vegas.

Here are a couple more links, and we will be updating the Resources section of this website with more periodically.

http://anthemtoday.com/ – This website is published by Rana Goodman, a SCA homeowner.

http://anthemopinions.blogspot.com/ – This website is published by Dick Arnedt, a SCA homeowner.

Get Involved

ACTION Items:

Get informed: review our blog posts and resources
Vote in the Recall Election – mail your ballot so that it is received by October 26th
Stay involved: share this website and information & sign up for notices

Owners should ALWAYS come first!

Fact Checking and Financial Hanky Panky

The following was originally written and distributed by Ron Johnson and is republished here with his permission for you to see what others are saying about the current HOA Board and happenings.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Fact Checking Some of OSCAR’s Claims

In a letter to residents, OSCAR’s leadership team of former board members and others have attempted to support their opposition to the Board Directors removal petition by making a number of claims about SCA’s self-management, financial condition and other issues. Unfortunately for the intended readers, the OSCAR letter makes a number of gratuitous and false claims, which I have commented on below.

Opinion and commentary by Ron Johnson

Self-management is working.

OSCAR’s Claims	What are the Facts
Our facilities are in better condition than they ever were with the management company.	False. It’s blatantly misleading to attribute the poor condition of Liberty (and now Anthem) Centers to FSR when successive Boards deliberately ignored and refused to timely address needed repairs.
We no longer have to pay $36,000 per month to a management company.	True. However, SCA is compensating key management staff a similar amount per month.
Current payroll expenses are less than we formerly paid the management company to manage our Association.	Inconclusive. There’s an array of issues that affect payroll expenses, including startup vs. FSR wage scales and employee turnover, which happens to plague custodial jobs here.
Communication with and understanding of members’ issues has improved.	False. The Board eliminated members’ primary venue to voice their individual and collective input when it transferred the project management mission from the Property & Grounds Committee to the General Manager. With the loss of that venue, there is no longer any effective means

Sun City Anthem is in excellent financial condition.

OSCAR’s Claims	What are the Facts
Expenses are under control.	False. With management deferring over half a million dollars in originally scheduled repairs for 2017 to 2018, that’s a picture of expenses out of control, not of expenses under control.
Revenues exceed expenses by nearly $450,000 through August.	False. Indeed, management simply manipulated the books to reflect that revenues exceeded expenses. How did they do that? They did so by moving $550,000 in reserve expenses that was originally scheduled for 2017 to 2018. In doing so, SCA’s revenues for 2017 could only then reflect an excess over expenses. Some might refer to that as hocus-pocus accounting. If all of that originally scheduled work had been performed in 2017, expenses would have exceeded revenues by $100,000, just the opposite of the surplus that was claimed. It’s reasonable to assume that the Board and management, possibly for political reasons, wanted the financials to report a “surplus” rather than a “deficit.”
No dues increase is expected for 2018.	True, but. Only on the basis of questionable financial statements does the “no dues” decision make any sense. In reality, though, the Board is keenly aware of the extent of SCA’s financial problems. It’s evident that SCA did not have the funds needed to do all of the work that had been scheduled for 2017. And faced with the recall effort and despite incurring excessive costs for unbudgeted work at AC, the Board was unwilling to confront the downside of requesting members to authorize a supplemental assessment, let alone an increase in our annual dues. Further, the Board was privy to a legal opinion that will require homeowners to significantly increase their contribution to SCA’s reserve fund, further aggravating SCA’s financial picture going forward.
The 2017 dues increase was to replenish the Reserve Fund after costly repairs to Liberty Center.	Assuming that to be true, that increase should have been returned to the homeowners in the 2018 budget. That return is not scheduled to happen, especially given SCA’s current funding problem.

The number of NRS complaints filed is an invalid metric.

OSCAR’s Claims	What are the Facts
The Ombudsman and the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) have agreed that our Board has handled each situation correctly in all cases for as long as these directors have been on the Board.	False. Regrettably, OSCAR’s former directors are either grossly misinformed or are intent on misrepresenting SCA’s history with the Ombudsman. First, I am personally aware that over the years, the Ombudsman has issued letters of correction notifying the association of the need to take specific corrective action to comply with this or that section of the statutes. Second, I am personally aware of at least one case in which the Division found that SCA had violated the law and recommended its prosecution before the Commission on Common Interest Communities. And third, I am aware of a number of Ombudsman cases where the Division has concluded that the case was not suitable for prosecution before the Commission, meaning that contrary to OSCAR’s claim, NRED had not agreed with SCA “that our Board has handled . . . [the] situation correctly.”
There are ZERO open complaints in the Ombudsman’s office.	False. I am aware of roughly a dozen mostly recent complaints that have been submitted to the Ombudsman’s office, which includes a recent case that I had filed and was assigned to an investigator of their Enforcement Section.

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Financial hanky-panky or something else?

Contrary to what others may have led you to believe, the 2018 Budget portrayed a not so rosy picture for our association’s condition. While SCA’s financial condition has the appearance of being good, even “excellent” according to those OSCAR advocates, appearances can be deceiving. There is no doubt that homeowners will be reassured in learning that our assessments will not increase in 2018, but in view of what’s going on behind the scene, such reassurances appear to be merely hype and misplaced.

So, what’s going on behind the scene? The association has a number of financial problems, problems the board and management have been reluctant to adequately explain, address or even disclose. I suspect that more than a few ears were raised when Treasurer Forrest Quinn recently alluded to SCA’s “funding problem.” As I see it, those problems include the following:

Funding repairs for damage to “hidden assets.” “Hidden assets” are typically underground or in the walls and in addition to the equipment needing repair may involve water damage, mold remediation and related construction work. When such damage occurs, it can be very costly, as at Liberty Center and the Locker Room project at Anthem Center, which together may exceed one million dollars.

Traditionally, hidden or invisible assets are not included in reserve studies, perhaps because they are not visible or due to the mistaken belief that such assets have a life expectancy of more than 30 years and, therefore, are not required to be reserved. As a result, there are no reserve funds set aside when such assets fail, thereby creating a funding problem.

That funding problem can be resolved in one of three ways: 1) a one-time only special assessment to fund the needed repair; 2) an increase in annual assessments, which was done in SCA for 2017 and subsequent years; or 3) utilizing existing reserve funds, which has the practical effect of robbing funds intended for Peter to pay for the work that Paul needs.

Note that the second option is effectively permanent unless the funds are subsequently returned to the homeowners after the initial need was satisfied. And note that the third option might create a shortfall in needed reserves.

Rob Peter to pay Paul? SCA’s management team has been very busy last year and this year in moving large sums of reserve funding around for reasons that I do not understand. I happen to get a little curious when association reserve projects do not get done as planned. How can that happen? Yes, a repair project here that there might be deferred a year for one reason or another.

Let’s take a look at the 2014 Reserve Study. That study, as all HOA studies do, sets forth a yearly plan of which equipment or projects will be repaired or replaced, presumably in advance of their estimated life expectancy. For example, the 2014 RS called for an estimated $225,000 in fence painting for 17 Villages in 2017. That didn’t happen, although some disappointed homeowners may have expected to have their fences painted in 2017. Such is life.

What did happen was that in 2016 in connection with the “mathematical” 2016 update performed by Criterium, management decided to eliminate that requirement for 2017 and changed the RS schedule for fence painting to read “2018” for each of those 17 Villages. Why did they do that? I do not know. I suspect that they might have done that because that money was needed for a different project for which there was no funding authority in the budget. Were similar deferrals made in 2016? I don’t know but I do know that the reported total dollar value of all changes made in reserve spending for 2017 and deferred to 2018 (based on the 2014 RS) was at least $550,000.

Now, this year our management team has been busy making similar changes to the 2018 RS plan, reportedly deferring in reserve spending in 2018 “as much as $800,000.” What’s going on? Management has claimed and would have us believe that they are merely saving the homeowners money that did not have to be spent on the projects that they decided to defer to the next year.

If management is going to make such changes to the estimated life expectancy of association assets, I would hope that they are adequately documenting the basis for those changes since they are deviating from nationally recognized standards that are employed by all HOAs.

Reserve for invisible assets. A decision to reserve for invisible assets would likely have a significant impact on future assessments.
Association’s liability for walls and fences. Rumor has it that a legal opinion has been received advising that the association is legally responsible for 100% of the walls and fences, i.e., both sides. Furthermore, based on Criterium’s recent study, the amount of lineal feet of coverage of walls and fences is far greater than originally plotted.

If true, that would mean that the amount of reserves needed to fund walls and fences is far greater than initially projected and will have a significant impact on needed reserves.

Other news

More on the Ham Radio Club under attack.

I had intended to report that the Management of the Amateur Radio Club was out to destroy the club. Follow-up investigations shines more light on this matter. On the top of Independence Center, one can obverse multiple antennas on the roof. This construction has occurred over the last few years. The SCA Board has procured amateur radios and supporting equipment expending tens of thousands of dollars of SCA funds. This equipment was intended for outfitting the Sun City Anthem Emergency Prep Service Group (EPSG). The EPSG has a room in back of Channel 99 in the Independent Center. This room is where the amateur radios are located.

It is left for another article to answer the question what is the SCA BOD doing buying amateur radio equipment. The question for today is who are the FCC licensees using this SCA funded amateur radio equipment. To operate Amateur Radio equipment an FCC test must be passed and FCC license granted.

Amateur Radio Licenses are public records. Are SCA’s volunteers properly licensed?

The SCA View-Journal, Inc. is an educational and news service designed to support the information interests of Sun City Anthem homeowners and is not affiliated with the Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc., Del Webb Corp., or Pulte Homes, Inc.

E-mail: [email protected]

Publisher/webmaster, Ron Johnson Telephone: 702-617-8172

How To Lose Control Of Who Represents You On The SCA BOD

There is a lot of confusion about what is happening to the recall petitions (with 825 signatures) to remove four directors from the Board. In my opinion, the homeowners are purposely being kept in the dark. The General Manager (GM), Sandy Seddon, is using a lot of dirty tricks to stop owners from voting. The suppressing of accurate and timely information is just one way to make it less likely that you will vote.

The removal election update at the Sept. 28th Board Meeting consisted of the reading of a letter from the HOA attorney that listed which petitions had enough signatures (715) to place a director on the removal ballot; Rex Weddle (758): Aletta Waterhouse (734); and Tom Nissen (726). However, the petition against Bob Burch fell two signatures short (713) of the 715 needed to place him on the recall ballot.

It is important to note, that the oral report did not contain any attorney-client privileged information, but did include specific details about the procedure for the recall election that should be immediately available (in writing) to the homeowners in order for them to plan their vote.

The letter reported decisions made by the attorney (that were not approved by anyone with legal authority) to restrict the owners’ rights and to change past voting practices including:

Changes to the dates the ballots are mailed to the homeowners (Oct.9 instead of Oct. 2);
Changes to the ballot return process
- No ballot boxes;
- Ballots must be returned by mail only (to the CPA’s unknown address, not to the Anthem Center);
- Redefining the deadline for the returned ballot as the date received (by 5 PM October 26) and not the date of the postmark;
- Makes no provision for those who will not be able to receive their mail during those dates.

So why not place this important information on the www.sca-hoa.org website in the official record of the Sept. 28 Board meeting.? According to Sandy Seddon:

“The Update was provided for reliance in relation to an oral summary of the status of the review of the petitions/removal election to be given at the meeting, and the update was drafted in a manner to be read aloud, not conveyed in writing. Written documentation will not be provided as part of the board book.”

I believe that Seddon’s justification is simply another attempt to obscure information in the hope that the homeowners will not correctly vote or not vote at all. The acts of suppressing dissent and disenfranchising voters are intolerable practices that permeate this administration. It violates one of the most fundamental principles of good governance: FAIRNESS!

I have forwarded my request to make this oral report available on the HOA website, along with Seddon’s refusal “justification,” to the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) Investigator assigned to my complaint. I have stated that the attorney, management, and Board President Rex Weddle are interfering with the removal election process and asked that the NRED look into this matter.

Click here to see the notarized complaint regarding election interference.

While the attorney, GM, and the Board are doing everything they can to obscure information from the homeowners, the “anti-recall” people are doing everything that they can to confuse the issue. Recently, the anti-recall people sent a letter to everybody’s home claim there are no complaints on record against the Board members that are up for recall. That is simply not true as I have personally filed four complaints which are being investigated by the Nevada Real Estate Division investigation unit, and Interference in this removal election process is one of the complaints.

Here are a few examples of a pattern of totally unacceptable conduct by management in biasing this removal election process:

Taking over the removal election process and usurping all duties of the SCA Elections Committee in violation of their charter and the SCA Election & Voting Manual.
Using the attorney in excess of the adopted budget ($73,000 over the approved budget in four months) to interfere with the owner’s rights to vote and to control who represents them on the Board.
Making a secret contract with a CPA for at least $10,000 that was not in the approved budget and which has been concealed from owners, despite a legal right to see any contract of which SCA is a party.
Refusing to step aside and allow the Election committee to do their job as usual with unpaid volunteers and, in this case, utilizing the expertise of the State of Nevada to ensure the integrity of the Removal Election process.
Providing information and control to President Rex Weddle, who is subject to recall, and giving information access to David Berman, the self-proclaimed head of the Oppose Sun City Anthem Recall (OSCAR), anti-recall effort.
Information was concealed from me, an elected Board member and liaison to the Election Committee, even though I was not facing a petition to be recalled.

In summary, I would like for you to ask yourself a question.

How is it ever good for homeowners to understand and properly participate in the community affairs if management prevents timely access to information such as voting rules controlling a removal election?

I may be going out on a limb here, but I say it’s never good for homeowners if management conceals information that owners need and have a right to know. So, who does benefit when management makes a fair and open removal election nigh on impossible?

Again, out on that shaky limb, I say it is beyond “not good for homeowners.” It is horrible for homeowners that this manager and this attorney, are working in concert with this Board to unlawfully interfere with the homeowners right to a fair election to remove President Rex Weddle, Secretary Aletta Waterhouse, and Director Tom Nissen, in accordance with the legal requirements afforded in the HOA By-Laws, but which they unlawfully suspended when they removed me from my Board position.

Board Meeting Wrap-up – 9/28/17

What they did and what you need to know and do…

Jim Coleman was appointed to fill my Board seat – I think the Board exceeded its legal authority by both, removing me from my Board position without a trial and proving legal cause, and appointing Jim Coleman to the Board without allowing others to compete for the position or the owners to vote. However, despite all that, Jim appears to be a man of integrity and principles and completely not complicit with the bad acts of the Board. I think that he deserves everyone’s support.

The 2018 budget of $10.6 million was adopted, doubling the attorney fees to $180,000 and projecting $53,000 in expenses for the restaurant (which is currently closed). The budget also maintains the current association assessments at $1,210. – I think the Board’s discussion was over-weighted by the gushing over Sandy Seddon, the GM, and how her management performance has been better than the prior management agent we fired. Massive gratitude to Seddon for the way she answered questions, it was quite telling. Her reply of “Whatever you want, Forrest.” is diametrically different when compared to her refusing all my requests by saying, “Talk to the attorney, Nona.”

Note: A Tale of Two Faces is a coming blog article about the face of Sandy Seddon that the Board knows and loves, and the face she turns toward the large segment of the community. The face that produced 836 signatures testifying to their polar-opposite experience. Our community has been divided into Have’s and Have Nots, and we need to examine why.

Restaurant update

No temporary use of the restaurant space for clubs or member use will be allowed.
A new attorney opinion rules that temporary use is prohibited without a vote of the members
No plan, no timeline, and no hope of getting the restaurant back anytime
Despite the fact that there is no funding in current (or next year’s) budget, the Board is looking to hire a Restaurant Consultant, for an unknown cost, to tell us what we already know.
The GM has sent out a Request For Proposal (RFP) to an unknown list of consultants.
The parameters of the proposed contract are unknown because the RFP was not in the Board book

It is a violation of our CC&Rs 7.2b to keep the restaurant closed this long, and because the Board treats this issue as trivial, no attorney opinion has been sought. I believe that the Board is cherry picking which rules to follow and this violation is one of the complaints I submitted to the Ombudsman. The restaurant is a major amenity which can’t legally be left closed except for maintenance and repairs. What if the GM just drained the pool and left it empty for two years? Even if you never used the pool, wouldn’t you worry that an empty pool would hurt our property values?

Other announcements

CAM Lori Martin’s resignation was announced a month after staff knew she was leaving. – It should be noted that I have consistently questioned (and been harassed and retaliated against for asking too many questions) the need for employing two high salary people with CAM licenses when only one license is required. I advocated that we employ a single CAM at the appropriate compensation level with a management agreement per NRS 116A.620. My complaint is now moot unless the Board decides to replace Martin.

Stay tuned for a future blog that will discuss why it is important to examine the structure of the organization before replacing Lori Martin with another CAM doing the same job.

Board action:

Jim Coleman was appointed to the Board (to fill my Board seat that had been deemed vacant on August 24).

Musical Chairs: Why stop the music now?

The Board said they could declare a (my) seat vacant just because they said so. I say kicking me off the board without a trial or members voting me off is not legal.
The Board says they don’t have to wait for judgment on the legality; they can just pick whoever as a replacement.
Rana Goodman asked the Board to wait a couple of months until the legality of the (my) vacancy is confirmed, or there are other vacancies because of the removal election.
Rex Weddle said the Board was way too busy to leave a (my) spot vacant.
Rana asked what they plan on doing when they are ordered to reinstate (me) the Board Member.
Rex said not their problem.

Public humiliation – brought to you by your Board’s secret and illegal acts

In his self-introduction, Jim Coleman quoted parts of an email from an owner asking him not to agree to fill my seat until my appeal was done to avoid being embarrassed or tainted by illegitimacy.

Jim rightly rejected the request to step aside but for the wrong reason. He thought it was a veiled threat. I don’t think it was.

I took it more like the writer didn’t want the Board to get away with pretending they had to power to illegally dump a disagreeing director on the strength of their six votes.

I don’t think the six voters on the Board should get away with usurping control of the seat from the owners who voted me in, and who next week may be voting some of them out, just by shifting the focus onto a non-existent fight between Jim Coleman and Nona Tobin over who gets to sit in the seat.

A question of values: Who is Jim Coleman?

Rex read a bio of Jim’s accomplishments, status as a top athlete, Founding President of the African American Heritage Club, and more.

But Jim eloquently told the crowd that we needed to know his character: He will listen. He will not rush to judgment. He will be fair. He stated that at 75-years-old, born in Mississippi, nothing in this place scares him and he will not be intimidated.

Owners Need a Big Voice

And we got one in Jim Coleman. When I was first elected, I took a strong stand claiming that neither the Board nor the community would be as good as it could be unless we reversed the direction Rex Weddle was taking us as President. Not being one for ambiguity, I declared, “Take an about face or walk off the cliff.”

My stance was a disaster, and I was branded an uppity naysayer who didn’t know her place. On day one, the tone for my tenure was locked and loaded.

However, that did not (or has not yet) happen to Jim Coleman.

The six directors dumped me without a vote of the membership, and they filled my spot without any notice, any recruitment or competition or any vote to fill the seat. These things are wrong, unfair and illegal, but Jim Coleman still needed to take that spot to protect all of us. If he didn’t take my spot, the board would just have appointed someone else in secret, without competition, and probably somebody in Rex’s image who owners would like a whole lot less.

Jim Coleman is a man who speaks of character, integrity, and principles. He deserves our support, and we must do whatever we can to ensure that he gets a different board seat should I be reinstated.

My personal preference is for Jim to take Rex’s seat on November 1^st, after more than 2,501 owners vote Rex out in the upcoming removal election October 9-26.

Board Action: Received oral update of removal election to be held by mail only. No ballot boxes. No walk-ins.

Ballots will be sent out on October 9^th and must be returned by mail and received by October 26 5 PM in the pre-addressed envelope to the CPA’s Office.

Art Lindberg read the update from (our very expensive) attorney about the removal election. However, no copies of the letter were distributed, and won’t be in the Board Book, thus continuing the pattern of making access to information as difficult as possible. Remember, over 800 people signed each of four petitions to call for a vote to remove from the SCA Board President Rex Weddle, Secretary Aletta Waterhouse, and Directors Tom Nissen, and Bob Burch.

The Recall Petitions were received by management on 8/10/17 and were given to the CPA to verify the petition signatures. Again, it should be noted that Management, upon the advice of counsel, took away all the normal duties of the volunteer Election Committee to pay a CPA that was selected by the attorney, at a fee of least $10,000 to verify, distribute, collect and count ballots.

Of the four petitions, three (Rex-758, Aletta-734, and Tom-726) had more than the needed 715 signatures to be subject to a removal vote. Bob skated as he received 713 signatures. What they didn’t mention was that there were over 65 signatures submitted after the petitions were submitted, and even though the state law says there is no deadline, those signatures will not be considered.

The law makes removing a director much harder than the election to get on the board in the first place. The law (NRS 116.31036) says that the only way a Director can be removed from the Board is by a secret ballot in a removal election which is called by petition of at least 10% of the voters (715 of the 7,144 in the community) in which at least 35% of the possible voters (2,501 of 7,144 Lots in SCA) vote to remove each director and at least half of those voting in favor of removing that director.

Clearly, the Board’s claim that six of them voting to remove me is equally powerful to the 2,501 votes from owners that it takes to legally remove one of them is ludicrous, and the attorney who authorized it should be fired.

I have a complaint to the Ombudsman, which has been referred to the HOA Investigations division, about the GM, attorney and Board president Rex Weddle interfering in the removal election process. The Election Committee was taken out of the process, and the Election and Voting Manual is being violated willy-nilly. This shows a continuing pattern of making the removal process even more difficult and further diminishes the value of each owner’s vote.

Specific instructions will be sent out with the ballot and must be followed exactly, or the vote will not count.
Ballots will be mailed on Oct 9
All ballots must be received in the mail by 5 PM at the CPA’s office on October 26. No ballot boxes. No walk-ins.
Vote will be counted by the CPA without the Election Committee on Wed Nov 1^st at 9 AM
Volunteer voting monitors welcome to monitor ballots

Just so that each homeowner is aware, the SCA By-laws specifically addresses the process by which a Recall Election must be organized.

3.6. Removal of Directors and Vacancies.

(a) Any member of the Board of Directors, other than a member appointed by the Declarant, may be removed from the Board of Directors, with or without cause, if at a removal election the number of votes cast in favor of removal constitutes:

(i) At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the total number of voting members of the association; and

(ii) At least a majority of all votes cast in that removal election.

(b) The removal of any member of the Board of Directors must be conducted by secret written ballot. If the removal of a member of the board of Directors is conducted by secret written ballot:

(i) The Secretary of other Officer specified in the By-Laws shall cause a secret ballot and a return envelope to be sent prepaid, by United States mail, to the mailing address of each Lot or to any other mailing address designated in writing by the Owner;

(ii) Each Member must be provided with at least fifteen (15) days after the date the secret ballot is mailed to return the secret written ballot to the Association;

(iii) Only the written ballots that are returned to the Association may be counted to determine the outcome;

(iv) The secret written ballots must be opened and counted at a meeting of the Association. A quorum is not required to be present when the secret written ballots are opened and counted at the meeting; and

(v) The incumbent members of the Board of Directors, including, without limitation, the member who is subject to removal, may not possess, be given access to or participate in the opening or counting of the secret written ballots that are returned to the Association before those secret written ballots have been opened and counted at the meeting of the Association.

Upon removal of a director, a successor shall be elected by the Owners entitled to elect the director so removed to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term of such Director.

Look for more information on my blog, coming soon, as to what you can do to help remove Rex Weddle, Aletta Waterhouse, and Tom Nissen in this election.

For now, if you know you will be gone or your neighbor will be gone, let the front office know at (702) 614-5800 to get the ballot sent somewhere else. We want to make sure all owners get a ballot and get a chance to vote. Ballots will be mailed out Monday, October 9 and must be received back by mail by 5 PM, October 26.

Life is short.

Life is short. Take the trip. Buy the shoes. Eat the cake.

Today’s hiking club meeting made me realize acutely how much of the fun of living here I gave up when I made a two-year commitment to serving on the Board.

I’ve been beating myself up for taking so long to get the word out about the SCA Board brutally ejecting me from my elected seat. They beat me bad and kicked the fire out of my belly.

Problem is they’re still spending lots of owners’ money to keep that fire out.

Right now, the fun life is calling me so I can’t see much value in fighting to get back on such a dysfunctional Board, but I can’t quit just yet.

Wild Ride

First, I need to show owners that we are being taken for an expensive ride, and how those in the driver’s seat are spending lots of our money to keep in control and to run over and crush the spirit out of anyone who gets in the way.

Thursday, Sept. 28, 5:30 PM Board will adopt the 2018 budget – that’s at 5:30 PM, not at the usual 1:30 PM.

This decision will be virtually 100% final even though there is a November 16th member “ratification” meeting in which 90% of all owners would have to vote it down. No big deal. The attorney says the GM doesn’t have to follow it anyway.

September 28th Board Meeting Agenda and Board Book (pdf)

Other Irritating Agenda Items Worthy of Note

Buying the Hand that Beats You

We have paid $103,000 in attorney fees in the four months attorney Adam Clarkson has literally been running the show. These giant legal fees just blew by the $30,000 budget for those four months without so much as a “fare thee well.” How much of that high-cost legal work was necessary and how much was used vindictively to punish a homeowner that was getting in the way, or to evict the Foundation Assisting Seniors, or to interfere with the recall election of Rex, Aletta, Tom & Bob?

Last Among Equals

I’m a little touchy about this attorney because he is a bully who cares more about the General Manager (GM) and Community Association Manager than he cares about homeowners. He’s bullied the board into not using their common sense, and lots of those dollars went to writing nasty letters telling me to stop questioning why the GM is paid $100,000 over market value or why four managers compensation eats up 10% of the operating budget.

It has cost the homeowners many thousands to use the attorney to threaten me, to carve me out from the Board, and to not only treat me less than the other Directors, but less than a human.

Embarrassing Loss of Budget Control

The attorney self-servingly advises that the GM doesn’t have to get Board approval or even notify members that money is being taken from Peter to pay Paul. Remember the consultant the GM needed to tell us why the restaurant is closed? It wasn’t budgeted in 2017, and I didn’t see it in 2018 either.

The 2018 budget will deal with it by doubling the amount budgeted for attorneys rather than asking why SCA needs to pay attorneys 100 times what Anthem Community Council pays in legal fees.

So, I guess the GM can take money from whatever purpose is favored by people she doesn’t like to pay the attorney. The Board sure won’t stop her. They didn’t stop her from paying a CPA to kick the Election Committee off the job for the October removal election.

Wait, what removal election?

I’m not surprised you didn’t hear that on August 11, 825 people turned in petitions to recall Rex Weddle, Aletta Waterhouse, Tom Nissen & Bob Burch for just cause – such as secret meetings and lying.

No official information has gone out about the HUGE event that the majority of the board was facing a recall vote. They didn’t even give me a notice that four of them were facing recall while six of them were secretly plotting to surprise attack me and dump me from the Board on just their say so.

When is Vote to Remove Rex, Aletta, Tom & Bob?

Who knows? They’ve done a good job keeping the word quiet. At Thursday’s Board meeting a verbal report will be made, and supposedly the ballots for their removal will go out on October 2 with the caveat that they must be back for counting by October 20. I guess people who are gone are just SOL and can’t vote.

Why didn’t owners get to vote when I was kicked off?

Who knows? Owners voted me in. I sure don’t want to pay the attorney $325 to write another letter saying why the law requiring 2,501 owners here vote for the removal of a Director doesn’t apply to me.