Restaurant – SCA Strong

At SCA, either you’re “IN” or you’re “OUT”

Why knock them down & then kick them?

The Foundation Assisting Seniors (FAS) does not deserve to be treated as dead to SCA, “rubbed out” after being kicked to the curb.
After many successful years of partnership between FAS and SCA,

What changed…

that forced SCA to lose such a valuable amenity?
that converted a positive, mutually-beneficial arrangement into the bitter banishment of our partner?

I won’t rehash all the unnecessary escalation by SCA, that culminated in evicting FAS from their 15-year home on the flimsiest of reasons, but some things should never have happened:

assigning the GM to “mediate“ a dispute in which she was an interested party, and then blaming FAS for the failure to resolve the conflict,
filing a civil action against FAS without the required owner vote to approve it,
racking up $40,000 in unnecessary attorney fees that one of the two non-profits (SCA or FAS) had to pay.

Adding insult to injury

Yet, it has not been enough to force FAS out. SCA management is now refusing to print any article or picture in the Spirit if it says anything positive about FAS.

The recent incident that chapped my hide involved refusing to allow the Women’s Golf Club to report on the 2018 FAS Memorial Day Golf Tournament.

The most significant FAS fundraiser is this annual golf tournament at Revere in which 250+ golfers participate, and probably, 50 or more volunteers organize and put on.

In the past, the Spirit frequently had articles, maybe even a cover story, about the FAS Memorial Day golf tournament. But not this year
The Women’s Golf Club liaison to the Spirit submitted an article for the August issue that included a reference to the FAS golf tournament.

The Spirit contact was polite and tried to help get, at least, part of the FAS article published.

But SCA GM/Board would not allow it. Why?
Why must FAS be treated as dead to SCA?

How do SCA owners benefit by this brutal break-up?

The rationale for evicting the Foundation was that FAS was using facilities that belong to the association, and it would be a violation of the Board’s fiduciary duty to let FAS get a free ride.

This is not true. FAS was a free service, an amenity, that many volunteers and donors from across the valley contributed to over the years. By the way, the anonymous donor has extended his offer to match all contributions until the end of July, and I think FAS is only at 2/3 of their $30,000 goal now.

FAS continues to provide 85% of its services to Sun City Anthem despite being evicted and the SCA Board approving $25,000 for the Community Services Group (CSG) to purchase durable medical equipment to duplicate FAS’s service to SCA residents.

According to Favil West,

“The total amount the Foundation has paid as a benefit to SCA has been nearly $200,000.”

Aren’t SCA owners being forced to pay more for less?

How is the GM/Board’s making services to owners more expensive and less convenient meeting their fiduciary obligations?

Compare the actual benefit SCA residents have already received from our long affiliation with the Foundation with the “betting-on-the-come” deal the SCA Board/GM almost cut to bring in a restaurant vendor:

Free rent
Free utilities
Monopoly on catering
No share in the profits for SCA until a nearly impossible $1.4 million in annual revenue is reached

That deal fell through, but I’m just saying…

I don’t think owners are well served when the GM/Board offers sweetheart deals to some people who can make a profit off the owners’ backs while other people who have served our community for years, but who are not in the current IN-GROUP, are beaten up like a poor step-child.

Collateral damage: the Coffee Corner

Really, why use volunteers when paid staff will do?

No restaurant as of June 28 Board meeting

The game goes on…but now they’ve got a scapegoat.

I have been dealing with other things this past month, and had not kept up with the last month of the two-year restaurant process. I had heard that the negotiations had broken down with the one vendor left standing.

So, I went into the Board meeting thinking that the deal with G2G was off the table.

When I sat down, an irritated resident told me the Board was still negotiating a sweetheart deal with G2G.

I was further confused when I opened my computer and saw that at 1:13 PM, literally minutes before the 1:30 PM meeting, palace-favorite, blogger Berman published a letter G2G sent to the GM saying that the deal was off, no matter how big the subsidy.

And here’s the kicker – it’s all Dick Arendt’s fault that G2G pulled out because he talked bad about them on Anthem Opinions.

How (and why) did Berman get a leg up?

It is inappropriate, from my perspective, for the GM and the Board to have a death grip on information which should be openly and immediately shared.

But it’s worse when they blatantly give David Berman “scoops” because they can count on him to consistently write favorably about the GM and the Board – NO MATTER WHAT – and unfavorably about other bloggers who won’t give the Board or the GM a free pass when they screw something up or screw someone over.

Shouldn’t everybody have easy access to the same information at the same time?

If it is confidential, it is confidential from everybody. If it is not confidential, it should be made readily available for the easiest possible access. The GM and the Board are creating a huge amount of unnecessary conflict by the way they mis-handle communications.

The GM and the Board play favorites and do not uniformly enforce the rules of confidentiality. They use information as power, and block access from their detractors. When criticized for this failure, they go crazy, and threaten the owners, particularly bloggers, who out them.

Why couldn’t G2G make it?

Apparently, free rent, free utilities, and ZERO profit-sharing with SCA until the obviously-unattainable $1.4 million revenue number was reached was not a sufficient subsidy to overcome the damage done by the bad-mouthing of the non-Berman blogger.

How did the GM characterize what happened?

The GM did not quote the entire G2G “we’re outta here” letter with those attending the Board meeting that she unfairly shared with David Berman before the meeting.

I say “unfairly” because it allowed her to use a willing tool to illegitimately stoke the fires of animosity AGAIN against their common nemesis, and his reviled, competing blogger, without her having to dirty her hands.

Anyone else who requested such a document would have been threatened with sanctions for even asking for it, and then had to swear on the head of her newborn grandchild that it would not be disclosed before it would have been handed over.

She did, however, in making her report, focus on the phrase in the letter that most effectively, albeit unfairly, shifted the blame away from her, and her own gargantuan part, in designing an RFP/negotiation process ensured to fail.

She said that the SCA-G2G negotiations had reached impasse over “drop and go’s”, alcohol and pot lucks,

The Board wanted to talk some more, and SCA’s team thought they could get a deal, but G2G wrote her today that it is no longer interested. She paraphrased this part of the pull-out letter.

“… the blogging of Dick Arendt and his call to boycott the restaurant even before we opened.

So, …(we’re withdrawing due to)… the poisonous atmosphere illegitimately manufactured by a blogger.” G2G

What’s the bottom line?
The Board approved a motion to direct management to continue to look for a restaurant tenant.

The GM asked the Board to approve two Board members to work with her. Tom Nissen is now fully retired from the Board and not willing to serve as a non-Director member of the work group. No matter how many times this method has failed (using a couple of Board members with the GM instead of an independent, specialized expert), hope springs eternal.

The good news is Gary Lee, the Director I think has the most experience negotiating restaurant contracts, was appointed to the team.

The bad news is that, to get a successful restaurant, Gary Lee will probably have to do a lot of the GMs job. The GM has not demonstrated herself capable of getting a successful restaurant tenant in place since she got here in November 2015 – even through that expectation was the one specific criterion the Board adopted – and probably ignored – for her 2017 bonus.

Public comments

One owner had specific suggestions about how to economically poll owners about whether they want a restaurant at all, and encouraged the Board to look at the possibility of just a bar and appetizers. There were suggestions for the Board to take a broader view of what would work in that space, including a food court or the high quality of places he had seen in Asia.

The old guard continued to promote the idea that only people who show up at meetings should get a voice, but I got the sense there was a small crack opening in Board acceptance of the idea that other people need to be heard.

What were some of the Board comments?

Several Directors said they were disappointed to be back at square one, but had an interest in getting more owner input. They saw the need for improving the RFP process to more clearly spell out the parameters in advance and to be open to wider competition.

Several Directors unfairly blamed bloggers, particularly Dick Arendt, for G2G pulling out, just as other Directors have voiced this same unfortunate refrain to deflect criticism of previous Board decisions that weren’t particularly owner-friendly.

“Shut up. We’re in charge here.”

They again asserted that the Board should take legal action to stop the criticisms of the Board and management that they think are totally unwarranted.

It’s a weird perspective to me – this being America and all. Utterly lacking in a sense of what gives legitimacy to their power

“Governments are instituted …deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
-the Declaration of independence

I am particularly saddened when I hear Art and Jim rant about the need to silence dissent. I like them both, on a personal level, and think they are good people.

I think they just are not getting how they are unwittingly contributing to the polarization of the community by representing only some of the people, and by not tolerating diversity of opinion about the way we want to be self-governed.

To self-righteous and aggressively defend themselves and those who agree with them against perceived injustices only becomes dysfunctional when that outrage is used as justification for intolerance and threatening to use legal force to stop the free expression of dissent.

I never wanted to be a blogger, but now, I will defend my right of free expression to my last breath.

SCA Board officer selection orchestrated again

Officer elections over in a flash

No competition
No owner input
No surprise
No hope

President Bob Burch
Vice president Rex Weddle
Secretary Candace Karrow
Treasurer Forrest Quinn

Why was last year’s officer election so bitter?

Simple answer. I committed the ultimate sin.

I volunteered to fix what I saw wasn’t working right in the transition to self-management. I told them the truth.

Unfortunately, changing the tone at the top means regime change.

OMG! Shut up!! You did not!

Yes, I did. Unlike this year’s newbies, I was totally unaware of SCA’s political realities. I never dreamed that volunteering to share my expertise would be treated as a capital offense.

How low will they go?

Frankly, I was surprised to see that Rex and his cronies would do anything – even break the law- to crush a political opponent.

And yet, here we are.

We have a full year of evidence that proves this point. This past year, we have seen VERY clearly many examples of how they have spared no expense (owners’ money, of course) to keep a death grip on the reins of power.

So, Dona Quixote, what did you say to tick them off?

I told them the incumbents were the bottom vote-getters so it was…

“a mandate to improve the effectiveness of the Board as a unified governing body“

That’s really bad. What other evil did you spew?

I caused an uproar of outrageous indignation when I said that the vote showed an interest in changing the “tone at the top”

Yes, horrible as it was, I also said

the Board needed to be trained together to be guided by common, articulated goals.

You said what!!?

Actually, what I said is exactly what happened. The Board predictably devolved.

“…(absent proper training)…this Board will predictably devolve and return to a pattern of making backroom deals, abdicating its policy role to management, creating dissent in the community, and interfering with operational decisions which should legitimately be handled by staff.“

Examples of how my fears were realized.Obviously, you can’t be trusted to keep a secret.
Remember,

Snitches get stitches.

On the advice of counsel
Unbelievably, Adam Clarkson or his underling, John Aylor, said these things directly or helped the GM and her buddies on the Board do them.

the Board can act without voting
the GM has rights that exceed those of the membership
directors facing recall have more control over the recall election than directors who were not named in petitions because the attorney says so
it is okay for the GM to use the attorney however she likes, including to get rid of a director who is too nosy about her pay and protecting the directors who like her from getting recalled
owners must pay whatever the GM and the attorney sayYou are so arrogant and mean, and you lie.

Even if I were arrogant and mean, I am not lying. Everything I say, I will eagerly say under oath.You deserved to be kicked off because, obviously, you are making a profit from doing this.

Seriously. They said that.

No decent Board member should have to work with you.

Well, that hurts.

It shows how stunningly effective a marketing campaign to demonize me has been. It persuaded a lot of people to agree with both that unfair assessment of me and with the ridiculous claim that other directors are above me and special.

It’s really sad, but the smear tactics have been led by,
Guess who?
current and former members of the Board, with the full support of the GM and the attorney, and funded by guess-whose money.

I was forced to become a blogger to respond to GM-initiated defamation and threats of litigation.

And now, Rex put out another self-righteous editorial claiming that it is the bloggers that have destroyed our property values.

Exhausting.

Since Rex has aggressively blocked anyone having equal time to debate his self-serving prostelyzing on the Spirit, the website or at meetings or any other forum, the only way to get the other side of the story out is to blog.

Will Bob write patronizing, insulting President’s reports?

If his diatribes during director comment periods at Board meetings are any indication, he will invest a great deal of energy in verbally assaulting anyone who disagrees with him that tries to speak up.

But, I’m pretty sure the deal he made with Rex, our new Vice -President, was to be a version of co-Presidents so Rex can keep a grip of the reins.

By my best guess, as far as the written word goes, Rex will continue to treat the Spirit as his personal snide blog as he ghost writes the President’s reports next year for Bob.

Previously, Bob complained that he finds writing boring when, on May 1, 2017, immediately before I disturbed the peace of last year’s pre-determined officer election, he wrote

“I have no desire to be President. In my entire military and civilian careers, I have never found writing reports or articles in magazines very interesting. Therefore, writing monthly Spirit articles, monthly Board meeting recaps, etc., is not something I would look forward to doing.”

So, President this year,

Way to take one for the team, Bob.

Big surprise: G2G was picked to run the “closed only 2+years” restaurant

Lesson 4 – Process determines product

If you set up a process to be the same as the process that failed in the past, you can expect to fail again. As Edward Deming, world-renowned statistician and management expert, said,

Quick re-cap

Sandy Seddon and Tom Nissen had a cozy relationship with one of the vendors, G2G, before putting out an RFP.
They picked G2G.

Operating parameters –
decided after only two vendors had submitted proposals

can’t have smoking,
ok to have a subsidy of free rent
can’t operate 24/7
vendor can decide not to have gaming (who needs it if owners pay your rent?)
coffee window is closed while restaurant open
100% catering is restricted to G2G in all three centers

Now, let’s make a deal.

Negotiating team is also a big surprise

Tom Nissen, Sandy Seddon and Forrest Quinn will now negotiate. Isn’t Tom going off the Board?

No problem.

A special exemption from the Rex only-buddy-director- work group philosophy was made to keep Tom Nissen, who is leaving the Board in two days, on the team with a death grip on the controls.

No other owners are included on the negotiating team. Board candidate Gary Lee who has negotiated many (I think I heard him say 500) restaurant leases, was not deemed worthy of participating.

But, good news! Rex did say that he was considering accepting help from Jean Capillupo, whose expertise is solely derived from her hand in the last failed restaurant lease.

Being a control freak sometimes backfires, Rex

Polly Anna, signing off.

SCA Board inched closer to restaurant decision

Volunteer Tom Nissen led the Board’s latest decision-making process on the restaurant space study. Once again, the highly-compensated GM sat coyly by and let the man who hired her hold center stage.

Remember where we left it. The GM was charged with having a decision by the end of 2017, but instead she chose to hand off leadership to two Board members, Tom Nissen and Forrest Quinn. The three of them had workshops, gave regular retrospectives about what their little triad had done, listened to owners patiently, and then handpicked 10 potential bidders. Coming in to today’s meeting, only two remained in the race – the Village Pub and G2G, the preferred candidate with a leg up.

Now, instead of before the RFP was put out, they decide to define parameters. It is all but guaranteed that the vendor that Tom had met with for a year before nine other vendors were invited to apply is all but a shoe-in.

The Board passed seven of Tom’s eight motions to decide operational restrictions that will be placed on the one of the two providers left standing.

Approved having a restaurant vs. attempting to re-purpose the space.
General public can be customers of the restaurant. It won’t be only for members and accompanied guests.
No smoking will be allowed in any SCA facility, but there will be designated outdoor smoking areas as exist now.
The provider will get exclusive rights to catering in ALL SCA facilities – Anthem Center, Independence, and Liberty. However, the good news is that potlucks will not be prohibited. There might even be an opportunity for pizza or some other type of delivery, said the GM, based on her experience at other Sun Cities. She also said that G2G didn’t really mean it when they said in their proposal that they wanted clubs to be restricted from having events off site.
Approved having a subsidy. This was an odd way to put the thumb on the scales considering only one of the two bidders is going for the free ride approach. The Village Pub offered to invest $750,000 to $1 million of their own capital to set up and then to pay $3,000/month. The one they have nurtured through the process, G & G, proposed getting free rent and free utilities.
Coffee window to be closed while restaurant is open.
No 24/7. Restaurant hours will be limited to the hours the Anthem Center is open unless there is a special event.
The motion to prohibit gaming failed so it was left to the discretion of the Tom/Forrest Board work group and the GM to work it out with the last vendor standing. No substitute motion was forwarded.

Financial vetting must be rock solid

Several people have over time raised the question of how the financial stability of the chosen one will be vetted. The answer has been vague so there are rumors out there that G2G has been in bankruptcy four times.

So, I checked. The chapter 7 bankruptcy is some other G2G, LLC. – not our guy, who is G2G Management Group, LLC

I don’t know anything about this vendor. My objection is to any process that gives one competitor an edge. While I was on the Board, I wasn’t “authorized” to work on the Restaurant Space study, but in response to concerns that the bidder might have dark secrets, I checked. A quick glance tonight at the NV Secretary of State’s website and bankruptcy court public record was sufficient to show that our bidder is none of these problem entities that raised red flags to some owners.

Problem entities

Bidder for SCA’s space

I’m sorry. We weren’t so lucky after all.

I have to take back what I said about the restaurant. I can’t recommend any one of the three bidders.

The process being used was so flawed that it virtually guarantees the same failures as SCA earned in the past.

To use an SNL metaphor, trusting the GM to get this right is like trusting Stevie Wonder to do my grandson’s bris.

Doing the wrong job really well so the right job can’t be done right

There’s no point in even giving you a summary of Tom Nissen’s and Forrest Quinn’s reports – even though they tried really, really hard, and they did a lot of fine work. It was just the wrong job, and doing it that way hijacked their job as Board members.

And worse, by them doing the wrong job, it makes it impossible for the Board as a whole to do its job right.

Remind me, what is the Board’s job?

The Board, working as a unit, sets policy, gives direction and defines financial limits and rules to control the GM. The GM then must design and manage the process for getting done what the Board, as a single entity, told her to do.

The Board must hold the GM accountable to get the job done right, not let her pick a few Board members to do her work or let her keep secret what she’s doing.

That’s why she gets the big, big, big bucks. To my way of thinking, she has a long way to go to prove that she’s worth it to the owners she is here to serve.

The Board must hold the GM accountable for building community consensus before she acts – even though, as she often complains,

It’s really, really hard. After all, at the end of the day, some owners are just whiners.

The Board should have required the GM to do the job right by:

using a volunteer owner-oversight committee to guide a fair and open process and monitor her use of appropriate experts and/or neutral brokers.

(I know. I’ve been warned that I better be careful talking bad about La Principessa. Last time I criticized her performance on the restaurant, I got a cease & desist letter from her attorney, I mean from SCA’s, attorney that probably cost owner’s a couple grand.)

It makes me so sad I want a drink, and there’s no bar.

Really, it breaks my heart. I still really want a restaurant. Well, actually, I mostly want a great big, long bar with a great, long happy hour, but there are just way, way too many things wrong with the process to even consider proceeding to choose a vendor from this highly selective RFP.

There was too much done without the right people being involved and too much info given to the wrong people. Two Board members were doing the wrong job so they couldn’t do the right one. The GM wasn’t doing her job right.

The workshop really hyper-accentuated what has got to change around here. (I’m sorry. I really hope you don’t have to pay for Clarkson to write me another letter.)

Learn not to swallow poison pills

On the bright side, this is a very valuable lesson. The fatal flaws in this restaurant selection process are the same leadership failures and systemic deficiencies that will doom the viability of self-management, if we let it. But having identified the poison pills, we just need to pay attention. We don’t have to swallow them any more. And, if we do, as SCA’s attorney advises, it’ll be our own fault.

What do poison pills look like?

Confusion and blurred lines between the Board and GM roles
Board as a single entity not providing adequate direction and limits to GM
Board’s failure to hold GM accountable for developing processes to achieve cost-effective results
Using 2-member Board work groups or attorneys to propose policy or to do the GM’s job
Lack of transparency where it counts
Incentives that reward the wrong behavior
Relying on the wrong experts, e.g., attorneys everywhere and experts with the requisite skills nowhere
Board allowing the GM to block functional owner oversight through refusing to have a committee structure appropriate to self-management
Board President’s abuse of authority and attorney to make sure Board members are compliant or are disappeared
Cultural pattern of “In-groups” and “Out-groups”

We are VERY lucky the restaurant choice is obvious

Two years the restaurant has been closed, and the process being used by the GM and a couple of Board members to make a decision seemed doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Three proposals from the 9 invitees

Click this link for the PDF of the spreadsheet below. It’ll show you my very quick review of the responses, but the decision is, frankly, a no brainer.

Recommended Proposal: Village Pub

The Village Pub offers the only opportunity for a successful enterprise. They have accepted all the risk because they are confident in their model and the effectiveness of their marketing. They will put up $750,000-$1 million to the cost of renovating the facility for their use. They have a solid, tested program, and would pay $3,000/mo. rent.

Best of all – they expect to only need to meet with management once a year. This inspires true confidence that the GM and the Board would stay out of their business and let them succeed here like they have elsewhere.
G2G Proposal

I was turned off immediately by the first paragraph.

“The Club”…is also reflective of the Country Club style restaurant we have been discussing with you for a year.“

The GM’s interaction with one vendor bodes ill for an arms-length transaction. It also totally chaps my hide because when I was on the Board, the GM would not work with me on the restaurant as she only favored working with Tom Nissen and Forrest Quinn, Board members who “treat her right.” When I told them I had heard that they were meeting separately and playing golf with one of the potential vendors for the restaurant lease, they blew me off:

You are not authorized to be work on the restaurant even though you are a Board member. The GM is in charge, and Rex did not put you on our little Restaurant Space Board Work Group. Thank you very much, but no thanks.

Your concerns about our cozying up to one competitor are just silly. We don’t think we are creating a biased or inadequate selection process that creates future problems and conflicts of interest. Therefore, we’re not. So go away. Your comments have been duly noted and round filed.

Given this personal context, I’m sure you’ll see that it was hard for me to look favorably on G2G who, from all appearances, had a leg up. So, I’ll let his proposal speak for itself.

Annie’s Gourmet Proposal

Annie’s is a very small operation, and selecting Annie’s would present SCA with an unacceptably high level of risk with a promise of considerably less reward than we could get from the Village Pub.

Remodel for alternate use of the space

Table this. Save the money that would have to be invested in remodeling. Save the time that would be sent in further dithering.

Let us have a restaurant that people like and can afford and that owners don’t have to subsidize.

If the Village Pub pays up to $1 million for their own renovation and setup, doesn’t rely on SCA for any marketing support, pays $3,000/month, and runs a business like they are running in 13 other successful locations in the valley.

Don’t interfere with their business. Let them do it. They know how.

Save owners the $4,000/month we are wasting while the GM dithers.

January 25 BOD meeting wrapup

Nothing that I think is really important to tell residents about what happened at the January Board meeting is included in the meeting summary on SCA’s official website www.sca-hoa.org:

Here’s what I think owners might want to know:

Restaurant space decision delayed again

Here’s what appeared in the Board book:

There was a 17-minute verbal report explaining why the GM won’t have until April the recommendation (due last December) on whether to have a restaurant or not. She did not mention that it’s been closed during her entire tenure despite the fact that SCA CC&Rs require:

The GM, working with two Board members, analyzed past failures, legal issues and input from two workshops.

1/8/18 Issued an RFP to 9 potential bidders for restaurant

It is unknown who the potential bidders were or how they were selected
Gaming is still under consideration to subsidize a restaurant.
She held a bidders’ conference to see what were “operator expectations”
The RFP is not available for review by owners, but is promised for the February meeting
Bidders had until February 2 to put in a proposal.

Alternative use of space is being studied simultaneously

“If it can’t be restaurant, what can it be, given there is almost an insurmountable vote. If the board repurposes, then if 10% object then 50%+1 has to vote to make change.”

Forrest Quinn is focusing on construction and engineering and met with an architect, and he commented that the kitchen is disproportionately large:

The kitchen is 4300 square feet and the restaurant is 3300 square feet
With only 162 seats, probably a 700-square-foot kitchen is needed

The GM repeated several times how difficult it is because it is so emotional and important not to make a mistake. No matter what decision is made, there will be costs.

Tom Nissen, who is working on the restaurant part of the analysis, commented–

“What we’re trying to do is take a disciplined approach of the pros and cons to having a restaurant. Maybe there will be a subsidy, it’ll depend on what the responders say.”

My concerns were stated (and ignored) earlier:

“Our past failures have been due in substantial part by the the inability of Board members and management to allow an equitable arms-length selection and leasing process to be conducted by an experienced, independent broker who specializes in restaurants, bars, and gaming. Neither the GM, the Board or any individual Board member, regardless of their expertise and experience, would be as effective in handling the selection process as a neutral expert would be. It would simply be a poor business decision to insist otherwise.”

I hope they prove me wrong.

Director’s Comments

Art Lundberg highlighted the successful fundraising of the Women’s Club for charities equaling $43,400 in 2017 and $400,000 since 2000.

Important, but not agendized: Future of Revere

Revere is safe from residential development in perpetuity!

Tom Nissen reported that because golf courses around the country have been converted to other uses, such as residential development, three directors visited City of Henderson officials and Revere management to determine if Revere was at risk of being plowed under for alternative use. The news from both fronts is good.

Revere has no plans to close as their business is good.
Zoning is currently PS (Public and Semi-public), and the City would make a zoning change difficult.
The best news is that a document, “Operating & Maintenance Instructions”, is on file with the City of Henderson, that limits future use and has a permanent restriction: “Residential development on the property of any type is prohibited.”

As an owner who lives on the golf course, I am thrilled that these directors took the initiative to research this concern. When Legacy Golf Club was threatened with permanent closure for residential development, an owner there told me her property value dropped $60,000 overnight.

My only concern is that this was done on their own initiative, and it was not handled by the SCA-Revere Golf Course Liaison Committee which was abolished when we went to self-management. The GM felt that the only golf course issues were management-related and so the GM herself would be a more effective liaison than homeowners. I think that decision should be re-visited.

Board-Work Group report on Communications

Board Work Group (Aletta Waterhouse and Jim Coleman) are totally committed to the project of improving Board-owners communications, and yet, they do not seem to see the irony that their little committee does not include any owners.

They reported that they will hold two workshops:

February 6 @ 11 AM to discuss their plans for improving communications and getting owner feedback

February 23 @ 1-2:30 PM to discuss:

The role of NRED and the Office of the Ombudsman
How the Community service Group plans to deal with durable medical equipment
Tom Nissen will give his presentation on self-management

GM’s Report

In another mis-step when it comes to truly effective communications, the GM’s report mentioned that a new website will be online by March. It is unknown if any owners had any input into the design. Probably not as I think the Owner Communication Committee was disbanded as not being needed under self-management.

Disappointingly, and contrary to the lip service being paid to transparency, the website will still require a password. Too bad when Tom Nissan was looking at self-management, he didn’t look at Sun City Summerlin’s website which does not require a password, and it has been self-managed since 1997.

Proposed Tow Policy was a big surprise

Continuing on the theory that telling owners what is being done to them after the fact is a form of transparency, the Board sprung on owners a surprise, fully-developed set of proposed parking prohibitions.

Fortunately, the Board tabled the whole proposed towing policy after many owners objected to being surprised by the proposal to prohibit ALL on-street parking in Pinnacle without consulting those most impacted and without offering an alternative solution.

ALL on-street parking in Pinnacle Village to be prohibited?

The proposed towing policy section 5 uniquely impacts Pinnacle Village because it is gated and so the streets are Association property and not controlled by the City of Henderson:

On-Street Parking Is Prohibited Within the Gated Neighborhood of the Association Commonly Referred to as “Pinnacle” or “Pinnacle Village”[NRS 116.31031, 116.3102, NRS 116.31065; CC&Rs §§ 3.3(a), 3.6(m), 7.4; Bylaws § § 3 .1 7, 3 .18( f)]: Unless otherwise excepted by the express written authorization of the Association’s Board of Directors, on-street parking is prohibited within the gated neighborhood of the Association commonly referred to as “Pinnacle” or “Pinnacle Village”.

The Board tried to soft peddle it by saying that enforcement was not going to be “proactive”. Rex even asked, after an hour of complaints, if it would be enough if the Board rendered the policy “inoperable”. It wasn’t.

Here’s the gist of what the speakers complained about:

No notice – just found out a few days before.
Shocked, thought it was fake news.
Taking away something that was a benefit when we bought in is awful, but even worse, there is no parking alternative proposed.
Why would anyone move into Pinnacle if there is no parking?
Why wasn’t the Pinnacle Neighborhood Advisory Committee involved, or preferably given the lead, to come up with a solution to the problem, if a problem even actually exists?
This is a lawyer’s dream. If you have a written policy you don’t enforce, then it is litigation for differential treatment the first time you do.

The proposed parking prohibition in Pinnacle dominated the discussion, but also mentioned was the negative impact on people with RVs. There is also a proposed prohibition of parking in ANY center’s parking lot – Anthem, Independence, and Liberty Centers – ANY night from midnight to 5 AM, but it not really discussed. It wasn’t clear what “not proactive” enforcement would mean.

President’s Report

Per usual, Rex Weddle reported out of the morning’s executive session multiple discussions and actions that had no relationship whatsoever to the agenda published for that meeting:

Here is Rex’s version of telling owners what they need to know about what the Board privately discussed:

The Board heard an architectural appeal.
The Board discussed its proposed response to an unspecified NRED complaint.
There was a legal update, and they discussed taking action on some unnamed cases.
A legal opinion was provided on something also without a name.
The GM’s performance objectives were discussed again, and again no mention was made of whether or not she received a bonus, and if so, for what.
A pending legal settlement was discussed.
An ADA accommodation request was heard.
An unspecified NRED complaint related to the Foundation Assisting Seniors was “dismissed as baseless”.

Rex didn’t mention the collection status report which was actually on the agenda nor did he explain why that report is not made in open session as required by our bylaws:

Proposed Publication Policy

This policy was not discussed, but it bears looking at before it comes up at the next Board meeting on February 22 @ 5:30 PM.

To me, it is ghastly, and a stunning example of why the over-reliance on attorneys is detrimental to our happy lives.

I bet this proposal is an over-reaction to the complaints filed when the GM refused to provide equal time to proponents of the recall. The proposed policy gives tons of power to the GM to refuse equal time to opposing viewpoints and to prevent a dissenting opinion from being published without providing “clear and convincing” evidence that their opinion is not defamatory.

Then, to add insult to injury, after official publications are inaccessible to the requester, merely asking to be heard is considered a violation of the CC&Rs worthy of a penalty.

How much money we waste on attorneys to come up with this crap is a topic for another day.

December 7 Board meeting: Part 2 Self-management and the GM

Self-management Status Report

Tom Nissen described the management company’s (FSR) deficiencies that motivated the Board in 2015 to decide to go to self-management. He said the decision was not primarily to save money, it was to “get better information to manage the business more effectively”.

True, FSR dropped the ball on maintenance projects and bungled the reserve study. True, FSR allowed IT, the phone system, and financial reporting to become obsolete. These were all good reasons for converting to self-management everyone agrees on. Tom also gave a detailed report on his personal study of how SCA compares to other highly-rated HOAs. He came to the obvious conclusion that the transition to self-management was the right decision for SCA.

No argument here.

True, FSR had to go and SCA should be self-managed. Good points and totally true, but his praise was like Nancy Pelosi praising Senator John Conyers as an icon of the Senate before she said he had to go amid sexual harassment allegations.

Tom described the research he did, as an individual Board member, and it was great. What he didn’t mention was that when another Board member tried to review the transition plans, the Board unlawfully held an unnoticed, “emergency executive session” to order her to cease & desist and paid the attorney to block all of her document requests.

However, Tom didn’t mention any of the things that are areas of disagreement, like excessive compensation for the GM and several top managers, or how the GM conceals association records or how the GM has not developed written transition plans or timetables since she got here in 2015, and does not have adequate personnel management systems needed to protect SCA from “employer liability”.

Below is an excerpt from one of the many “legal letters” Clarkson graced me with (and you paid for) to explain why they would not let a Board member examine any SCA records. This one says SCA doesn’t have to produce the transition plans because SCA doesn’t have any. Then, to fake the Ombudsman out, they submitted 184 pages of powerpoint slides done by Tom Nissen in 2015 before the GM was hired.

It is simply wrong for certain individual Board members to “get better information to manage the business more effectively” and at the same time, tolerate the GM concealing that same management information from other Board members and the unit owners.

GM’s Performance Appraisal
(as reported in President’s report)

Rex stated simply that the GM’s performance appraisal was completed and will be put in her personnel file. The end.

Seriously. Not another word about it.

Unless you uncharitably interpret the self-management status report Tom gave later in the meeting as a surreptitious justification for giving her a raise/bonus without telling owners.

Here’s why I say the Board is not protecting owners if they don’t hold the GM accountable for customer satisfaction as much as for facilities maintenance:

Board refused to put the petitions for vote of no confidence in her file as requested. Petitions signed by 836 owners called for a vote of no confidence in the GM were turned in during this performance rating period. This is more than 10% of ALL owners (and probably more than 50% of the owners who even knew there was a petition or how to sign it) who gave the GM a customer service rating of “F”. That is extraordinary, and yet the Board vehemently refused to honor the simple request to put the petitions in the GM’s personnel file. Board members, notably Bob Burch, expressed outrage and castigated the owners for even signing the petition.
The Board did not respect owners’ right to express their dissatisfaction with the GM’s performance. Instead, a lot of time at meetings is spent with them droning on and on about how much they love her because she answers all the Board’s questions and she is way better at not deferring maintenance than the prior managing agent (that we fired). It is the Board’s job to treat customer service concerns as legitimate and attempt to address them even if they don’t agree or even if they think that any owner who doesn’t agree with them is a worthless malcontent.
Rex didn’t say what the Board did about her bonus. Is she getting a bonus when she didn’t meet any objectives (No restaurant or even a recommendation about whether to have one. Poor job dealing with the Foundation. Springing surprise changes on Clubs. Lots of unhappy owners) If not, her pay should drop by $20,000. The 2016 bonus cannot be considered a part of her base compensation. I wish somebody other than me would make an information request to find out if they are letting her keep the $20,000. I can do it, but the GM slow-walks my requests and uses the attorney to write me “legal letters” manufacturing bogus reasons why information legally available to any unit owner should be withheld from me.
Rex didn’t say what the Board going to do to fix the significant problem of the GM’s excessive salary.

No Recommendation on the Restaurant

“The SCA Board earlier this year directed the GM to make a restaurant space recommendation to the Board.”

Actually, when the restaurant was discussed at various Board meetings, Rex reported that in her last year performance evaluation, the Board instructed her to have the recommendation completed by this December. A rejected 6/22/17 information request was fulfilled by the attorney through the Ombudsman on 9/13/17, in which was the actual wording of the performance expectation about the restaurant:

“2017 GM Criteria for Bonus Consideration
Prepare a recommendation for the use of the restaurant space. The recommendation should result from a detailed analysis of the possible uses of the space. If not used as a restaurant, the analysis will include costs for each option to include those costs associated with the modification of the space.”

I have argued for the past six months that allowing the GM a year to come up with just a recommendation is an extremely low standard, particularly since the CC&Rs require the continuous operation of the restaurant without the written authorization of 75% of the owners to close it. Is it too much to hope that the Board will hold her accountable for not having accomplished ANY “detailed analysis of the possible uses of the space”. After she refused to consider any analysis I submitted or let me see anything she was working on, I certainly don’t want to see her getting a bonus if Tom Nissen or Forrest Quinn whip something up for her.

Most recently the Board asked that I send RFPs to restaurant consultants to produce an opinion on the restaurant option. Some directors were reluctant to proceed without a definitive expert opinion on the viability of another restaurant at our location. And if viable, in what likely format.

Really? When did the Board ask her to get a consultant? I remember objecting to her reporting that she was going to do it because a) there was no money budgeted for that purpose, and b) she is costing homeowners over $300,000/year in salary and benefits, she ought to have the skills to put together a competent analysis. Also, why is she holding back because “some directors were reluctant to proceed”? Why isn’t she dealing with the Board as a whole and treating all directors equally?

On January 25, the GM will recommend to the Board whether SCAshould have a restaurant or repurpose the space.

“That recommendation only awaits one clarifying legal point connected with repurposing the space.”

SCA already has a legal opinion about owners getting an opportunity to vote if they don’t like what the Board wants to change it to, IF 10% petition for it. I’m mystified about why the attorney has to be brought in over and over. I’m also surprised that this important sentence is on the audio, but was left out of the written version of the GM’s report that David Berman posted.

In the interim, I will also prepare an RFP for possible restaurant tenant response. Then the Board will have all the information needed to concur or disagree with whichever recommendation I make.

I don’t know if you noticed, but the recommendation I made six months to have a local commercial broker specializing in restaurants, bars and gaming handle the process was ignored even though the GM’s approach is doomed to be a repeat of past failures. There needs to be an independent expert to develop a lease that is fair to, and protects, both parties, allows a vendor to deliver a product the residents want, and keeps the GM’s and the Board’s fingers out of the pie.

Missing in Action

Stuff that should be on the Board agenda, but is not…

GM performance and compensation is not on the open agenda but it is on the Dec. 7 @ 9 AM executive session agenda

Here is what I predict will happen tomorrow. The Board will:

continue to overpay the GM, including possibly another unjustifiable $20,000 bonus, without transparency or accountability to the owners
fall prey to the Halo effect to give excessively high ratings by giving her a pass on failing to adequately perform significant aspects of her job.
refuse to consider that customer service ratings might diverge greatly from their assessment of the job she is doing.
continue to ignore that there have been multiple incidents of actions on her part which would be just cause for her termination as a violation of her duty to the membership and violations of the standards of practice of her license.
fail to hold themselves accountable for paying her over $100,000 over the value of that job and allowing her to pay other SCA managers at excessive rates.
continue to refuse to allow appropriate owner oversight over the personnel system in favor of less qualified “Board work groups” controlling policy or abdicating too much authority to the GM.
continue to dismiss and trivialize the concerns of the 836 residents who gave the GM an “F” for owner relations and signed a petition of no confidence against the GM. The Board did not seriously evaluate one single criticism by owners to attempt to improve the division in the community. Instead, the petitioners were insulted and marginalized as if they were not members of the community of equal value. The Board treated them like just a bunch of whiners and malcontents and discarded the petition was if it was just unwarranted “negativity from small vocal elements“.

I hope I’m wrong.

Not even a recommendation regarding the restaurant space

SCA CC&Rs 7.2(b) requires that the restaurant (or any other amenity) shall not be discontinued without the written authorization of 75% of the owners. CC&Rs 7.9 define the process by which the Board can change the use of the space. Neither of these provisions have been followed.

The Board locked up the restaurant right about the time the GM was hired. Ignoring the owner vote needed per 7.2(b) to lawfully discontinue operation of the restaurant and giving the GM over a year to just come up with a recommendation for the space was bad enough. Then, Rex made it worse by paying the attorney to opine in yet another no-good-for-owners violation of Board Policy Manual 4.10 that a temporary use of the space would require a vote of the owners. Then, the Board made it worse by letting her hire an unbudgeted consultant for an unknown amount of money to do the one job, by the one deadline the Board actually gave her.

So, what are we waiting for? How many excuses do we have to listen to? And how many people are we going to pay to not get the job done?