CAI lobbyists who are also HOA attorneys have a major conflict of interest
Nevada has long had many HOA homeowner protections built into state law, but speaking from personal experience of living in an HOA where the attorney is also the debt collector and also the CAI lobbyist, the law doesn’t matter because he interprets it to be something other than what the black letter of the law says.
He says the law is what is most favorable to himself and to the other CAI affiliate managers/agents, not they fare in danger because the lobbying organization for the HOA attorneys, managing agents, debt collectors, and other vendors who “service” (in every sense of the term” HOAs, the Community Association Institute (CAI) has been chipping away at homeowner rights and building in rights for HOA agents who are supposed to be fiduciaries.
In 2006, AARP wrote an amicus brief to a case where an HOA prohibited people from posting political signs.
The AARP amicus brief in Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners Association argues that HOAs may violate the following homeowner rights:
The right to free speech
The right to due process
The right to privacy
The right to equal protection
The right to a fair hearing
The right to be free from discrimination
The AARP brief argues that HOAs often have rules that violate these rights. For example, HOAs may have rules that prohibit political speech, that require homeowners to get permission before making changes to their homes, that allow HOAs to access homeowners’ homes without a warrant, that discriminate against certain groups of people, or make it difficult for homeowners to challenge HOA decisions.
The AARP brief argues that homeowners should be aware of their rights and that they should not hesitate to challenge HOA rules that they believe are unfair or unreasonable. The brief also argues that state and federal governments should enact laws that protect the rights of homeowners.
Here are some specific examples of how HOAs may violate homeowner rights:
An HOA may prohibit political signs on residents’ property.
An HOA may require homeowners to get permission before making changes to their homes, such as painting their house or adding a fence.
An HOA may allow HOA board members to access homeowners’ homes without a warrant.
An HOA may discriminate against certain groups of people, such as families with children or people with disabilities.
An HOA may make it difficult for homeowners to challenge HOA decisions, such as by requiring homeowners to pay high filing fees or by requiring homeowners to go through a lengthy appeals process.
The AARP brief argues that this model bill of rights would be a valuable tool for protecting the rights of homeowners. The bill of rights would help to ensure that homeowners are treated fairly and that their voices are heard. The bill of rights would also help to promote transparency and accountability in HOAs.
2006 Model HOA Homeowner Bill of Rights
The right to free speech: Homeowners have the right to express their views on matters of public concern, including by displaying political signs on their property.
The right to due process: Homeowners have the right to fair notice and a fair hearing before they can be subject to disciplinary action by their HOA.
The right to privacy: Homeowners have the right to privacy in their homes and on their property. HOAs cannot unreasonably intrude on homeowners’ privacy.
The right to equal protection: Homeowners have the right to be treated equally under the law, regardless of their race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
The right to a fair hearing: Homeowners have the right to a fair hearing before their HOA can take disciplinary action against them. The hearing must be conducted in a timely manner and must be fair and impartial.
The right to be free from discrimination: Homeowners have the right to be free from discrimination by their HOA. HOAs cannot discriminate against homeowners on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
The right to know about HOA rules and regulations: Homeowners have the right to know about the rules and regulations of their HOA. The HOA must provide homeowners with a copy of the rules and regulations in a timely manner.
The right to participate in HOA meetings and elections: Homeowners have the right to participate in HOA meetings and elections. Homeowners must be given reasonable notice of HOA meetings and elections.
The right to appeal HOA decisions: Homeowners have the right to appeal HOA decisions. Homeowners must be given a fair opportunity to appeal HOA decisions.
The right to be free from unreasonable fines and fees: Homeowners have the right to be free from unreasonable fines and fees. HOAs cannot impose fines and fees that are excessive or that are not reasonably related to the cost of providing services to homeowners.
The right to be free from harassment and intimidation: Homeowners have the right to be free from harassment and intimidation by their HOA. HOA board members and employees cannot harass or intimidate homeowners.
The AARP amicus brief argues that this model bill of rights would be a valuable tool for protecting the rights of homeowners. The bill of rights would help to ensure that homeowners are treated fairly and that their voices are heard. The bill of rights would also help to promote transparency and accountability in HOAs.
12/5/13 Executive Session – Items related to the Board enforcing the governing documents
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors. 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
President’s Report is the minutes of actions taken in executive session
President Jean Capillupo’s report: “At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result.
I plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
“17. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts. ACTION ITEM 1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. [R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
Note the inconsistency with how write-offs and waivers of fees are handled.
SCA Board did not vote in June 2014 to write off the amount in excess of NSM’s $1,100 offer.
See SCA 302 – NSM’s 5/28/14 offer of $1,100 (one year of assessments) See SCA 295 – RRFS presented SCA 302 to BOD as an owner request of waiver of $459.32 of interest and late fees while telling the Board that RRFS $3,037.64 collection fees cannot be waived.
5. Must be uniformly enforced under the same or similar circumstances against all units’ owners. Any rule that is not so uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any unit’s owner.
SCA 315 implied that the sale was approved on 12/5/13 [R05-120513]
The only disclosure made by SCA or RRFS to prove that the SCA Board approved the sale was SCA 315. which implied that the Board approved the 3/7/14 sale at the 12/5/13 meeting by approving resolution “R05-120513”
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
SCA 315 was the only evidence proffered of Board action to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive on March 7, 2014.
SCA 315 alleges that Jean Capillupo, Board President, signed on February 27, 2014 a statement on RRFS letterhead, dated February 14, 2014,
“The
Board of Directors of Sun City Anthem Community Association approves that Red
Rock Financial Services is to proceed with the foreclosure of the property
address 2763 White Sage Dr., Henderson NV 89052 on March 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM
pursuant to this authorization and the conditions set forth in the Permission
for Publication of Foreclosure Sale and Authority to Conduct Foreclosure Sale.”
SCA
315 also includes a note, handwritten by an unknown author, that stated
“approved
12/5
R05-120513”
Item R05 – 120513 on page 2 did not authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive.
“(R05-120513) UPON motion duly made by Dan
Forgeron and Jim Mayfield, the Board
unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study group for analysis and
recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.”
2012 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
9/27/12 Minutes
At today’s executive session, our Board considered six requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for a payment plan, and one request for variance of age requirement.
9/27/12 minutes page 10 of 13 Attachment 1 President’s report
10/25/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for credit, one request for a payment plan, and one request for write off of bad debt outside of the nine month super-priority.”
10/25/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
11/15/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines”
11/15/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
“Write off bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the 1/24/13 executive session meeting in the amount of $3,431.39 and for one account reviewed at the February 28, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $13,395.48, for a total of $16,826.87 that is outside the nine (9) month super priority lien.”
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines by Committee and take action on appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“There were no bad debt or write-offs considered at the Executive Session held earlier today. The Board considered three appeals for wavers of fines, and one appeal was returned to the committee.”
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“The Board will discuss the collectability from particular owners and the potential write off of same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors 6. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“At today’s our Board considered two requests for payment plans of delinquent assessments or waivers of fees and/or fines. We approved foreclosure proceedings on fiveproperties and took no action on bad debt.“
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors. 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts.
ACTION ITEM
1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien.
[R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo andseconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
“At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result. plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
Page 2 Resolution [R05-120213] that SCA 315 alleged was approval of the sale
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
2014 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
SCA board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May BeTaken)
7. UPDATE ON PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE8.
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
“”In our executive session held this morning, our Board heard appeals from residents regarding assessment payments and other issues of enforcement and acted to write off bad debts in the amount of $18,349.17”
[R25-012314] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Dan Folgeron, the Board unanimously approved the write-off of bad debt for accounts reviewed at the January 23, 2014 meeting in the amount of $18,349.17.“
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5.STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF PRE-COLLECTION ACCOUNTS (Action May be Taken)
7.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
8.REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9.REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. (Action May be Taken)
5. STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken) 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. RED ROCK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
4/24/14 minutes of open session item 16 approved the action the Board took in executive session under agenda item 8.
4/24/14 SCA BOD minutes President’s Report on page 9 of 10 did not include any report of the action the Board took, or the information the Board received, under items 5, 6, or 7.
President’s report (Pg 9 of 10 4/24/14 minutes) does not report on action the Board took, or on information the Board received from RRFS, in closed session under items 5, 6, or 7.
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
5.STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS (Action May Be Taken)
6. RED RECK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
8. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session
5/22/14 on page 7 of 14 of open Board meeting minutes, item 17, documents Board action agendized as #9 of the closed session agenda, “Review of Bad Debt” (Page 2 of 6)
5/22/14 President Report on page 9 of 14 is the same as 4/24/14 Page 9 of 10. There are no minutes related to Board action or discussion on items 4 (appeals & hearing), 5 (reconciliation of all SCA accounts), 6 (RRFS foreclosure report), 7 (review of potential foreclosures) or 8 (review of properties previously actioned for foreclosure)
President’s report (Pg 9 of 14 5/22/14 minutes) does not report on action the Board took, or on information the Board received from RRFS, in closed session under items 5, 6, or 7.
SCA 7/24/14board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”
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 Spiritsubmitted 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 theGM/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?
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.
This is the third, and final, part of my 6/6/18 email to the NRED Chief Investigator and Ombudsman to clarify NRED’s process for ensuring that
1. the rights of homeowners in HOAs are protected,
2. Nevada statutes are uniformly enforced, and
3. Board members or agents suffer consequences if they fail to act as fiduciaries.
Justice delayed is justice denied
Three Hawaiian Princesses – Tara Noalani, Ella Nahiena’ena welcome Issa Anale’a to the world. I fight to ensure “liberty and justice for all” is a core value in the world we pass on to them.
Justice delayed is justice denied
The length of time NRED has taken to address the complaints I submitted last September without response has unfairly diminished their credibility or, in some cases, rendered them moot.
This is unacceptable, particularly since these issues (election interference, concealing association documents, retaliation, harassment, unlawful removal from the Board for essentially political purposes are all issues of great import to protect homeowners in all Nevada HOAs.
Denial without prejudice? Hardly.
Denial “without prejudice” in one election interference case was nonsensical. A 10/20/17 complaint that Bob Burch was wrongly left off the removal election ballot because two pages with a combined total of 22 signatures mysteriously disappeared so allegedly, he was two signatures short of being placed on the ballot. On 12/11/17 the complainant (not me) was notified by Christina Pitch that the case was closed stating:Say, what?
Claiming that the Ombudsman’s attendance at the vote count of the ballots (ballots that did not include Bob Burch) was sufficient justification to deny the complaint that Bob Burch’s name was wrongly excluded from the ballot (due to 22 missing signatures) is a complete non sequitur.
NRED might as well have denied the complaint because Kilauea volcano erupted.
Further, Bob Burch was treated as a non-conflicted Board member at the November 1 recall vote count despite the complaint about his not being included on the ballot was still open until NRED’s December 11 rejection.
To say that this was not prejudicial to the claimant (meaning that he could file the complaint again after the point was moot) adds insult to injury.
Inappropriate use of association attorney
NRED appears to condone SCA GM and Board giving an inappropriate level of deference to association attorney Clarkson.
Those same 11/1/17 recall vote count owner meeting minutes show the tip of the iceberg of the completely inappropriate role Adam Clarkson took in the recall election process. Not only was there no Board approval:
to amend the adopted SCA Election and Voting manual,
to dump the volunteer Election Committee and
no Board approval to hire a CPA and
no Board approval to pay the CPA firm and the Clarkson firm over $100,000 in unbudgeted funds to take over (and bungle) the recall election,
No law gives an HOA attorney decision-making authority
There is substantial additional evidence that Clarkson unlawfully acts as a decision-maker, or as the GM’s attorney, rather than solely as a legal advisor to the full Board.
What more does NRED need?
In what form can I submit this evidence where I can be assured that it will be weighed by an independent trier of fact?
Freedom of information is non-existent at SCA
GM’s concealing association records and using the attorney to threaten owners for even asking appears to be condoned by NRED.
NRED gave two different responses to the draconian records request form revised by the Clarkson law group 2/28/18 to suit the GM regardless of the law or best interests of the homeowners.
NRED response 1 was pro-homeowner.
The first was an email response to a homeowner in March correctly stated the owner protections in the law,
“The “mandatory acknowledgement” form…is contrary to NRS 116, as such a document is not required by law.”
NRED response 2, as reported by Bob Burch, was pro-management.
The second NRED response was only reported verbally.
I haven’t seen any written response from the Ombudsman to the SCA Board, but the Board President has reported that NRED approved the unlawful “acknowledgements” on the document request form that restrict the homeowner from sharing legally accessed material with third parties. Could this really be true?
According to the Board, NRED has approved the SCA threatening homeowners that, if the information (released per NRS 116.31175) is disclosed to third parties, the owners may be subject to fines and penalties up to foreclosure.
These Clarkson-crafted “acknowledgements” are allegedly (according to Clarkson) binding even if the owner does not sign or agree. According to SCA, NRED says this is okay, just so long as the owner is not required to sign the acknowledgement.
Does NRED have a double standard?
Note that the document request form’s revision was not approved by an official Board action despite the requirement of SCA bylaws 6.4(a)(b) p. 24.)
The Board abdicated its duty to make records accessible to owners contrary to NRS 116.31175, and the GM never signed a management agreement acknowledgement per NRS 116A.620(1)(a)and (m) that the HOA records do not belong to the manager. Yet, NRED apparently issued a verbal ruling giving the SCA Board and management carte blanche to carry on.
Could this really be true?
And one last thing
Lack of transparencyallows SCA homeowners to be put at risk due to
management errors,
bad decisions,
inappropriate use of the attorney at triple the adopted budget, and
resistance to implementing sufficient checks and balances.
My insistence in attempting to address these problems led to the harassment and retaliation that was the true impetus of my removal from the Board.
Note that NRED has not responded to my 7/21/17 Form 781 complaint other than to refer it to the investigations division. The problems of withholding and concealing records have been exacerbated over the past year, and I have submitted additional documentation to the complaints in September, November and January evidencing this unacceptable pattern.
This is the second part of my 6/6/18 email to the NRED Chief Investigator and Ombudsman to clarify NRED’s process for ensuring that
1. the rights of homeowners in HOAs are protected,
2. Nevada statutes are uniformly enforced, and
3. Board members or HOA agents suffer consequences when they fail to act as fiduciaries.
Issa Anale’a didn’t make us wait as long as NRED
Why has NRED needed more than nine months?
Tomorrow, I’ll see what NRED Chief Investigator’s perspective is on the 6/6/18 email I am sharing below in Part 2 “Secret meetings”, in the previous blog, “Why so quiet?“, and in the final part 3, “In case you don’t think this is enough evidence”
Part 2: Secret meetings in general
The second complaint was that the Board deliberates in secret meetings. This complaint being dismissed perfunctorily is also problematic. It appears as if NRED condones a pervasive pattern at SCA of decisions being made by the Board, the attorney, the GM or individual directors without proper action by the Board in open session.
It also appears that there are no consequences if SCA Board is not compliant with NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, or SCA governing documents.
NRED previously instructed SCA on this point
Previous NRED officials have issued letters of instruction (attached to previous email) to require statutory conformance (with owner protection laws) which SCA now ignores.
I, as well as other SCA residents, have alleged that, currently, many Board decisions are made improperly, i.e.,
in group emails,
in “workshops”,
in improperly noticed meetings,
private Board training (no notice, agenda or minutes) sessions which are
deemed “attorney-client” privilege while
simultaneously are deemed to NOT be executive sessions, but of which recording is prohibited:
meetings or email chains involving only a few Board members or which pointedly exclude dissenting directors
What does it mean when the NRED investigation of these complaints just stops without a finding?
Obviously, the SCA Board was notified that SCA has won by default, but apparently the owner who complained was not.
As Bob Burch said,
Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed.
This is essentially what has occurred in 100% of the cases filed in the past year.
Is that NRED’s intent?
Does NRED really intend to say that this Board conduct, that has generated many owner complaints, is permissible despite the Board’s failure to meet the requirements of NRS 116.31183 or NRS 116.31085?
Or are you not convinced that the complainants accurately reported impermissible acts?
Does NRED’s investigative protocol permit your investigator to rely on information provided by the HOA, but prohibit further investigation by seeking additional information, or at least a response, from the complainant?
Whose call is it anyway?
NRED needs to be aware that at SCA, Board decisions are routinely made by the GM or attorney in policy areas in which the Board is prohibited from delegating by SCA bylaws 3.20 and 3.18 pursuant to NRS 116.3106(1)(d).
These wrong parties (the GM, the attorney, a subset of the Board) falsely claim the Board made decisions that the Board didn’t make correctly, or worse, didn’t make at all, e.g.,
hiring debt collectors without an RFP (competitive process),
increasing group exercise user fees,
failing to comply with the Election & Voting Manual in the 2017 recall election,
hiring a CPA without a contract or an RFP to do the volunteer Election Committee’s job,
paying that CPA and attorneys, at a $100,000+ un-budgeted combined cost, to usurp the recall election process,
over-expending the legal fees budget by $200,000+ in 2017,
taking punitive actions, without legal authority, against me as a Board member and unit owner, i.e., threatening letters and kicking me off the Board in retaliation for my complaints and records requests,
authorizing the use of owners’ money to pay for the association attorney
to appear in the GM’s divorce and
to withhold SCA records in discovery that had been previously released to OSCAR, the anti-recall group.
When the NRED investigation into these actions just stops, or maybe never even starts, what does it mean?
Is abdication and usurping of Board authority okay in NRED’s view?
Does NRED need more documentation and more specific examples to establish that this practice is occurring?
What else does NRED need to stop this?
Here is a link to a www.SCAstrong.com blog, “If they had only known, part 3” that gives some examples of GM decisions that resulted in election interference, hiring bankrupt or conflicted debt collectors without due diligence or following proper procedure, a biased selection of a restaurant vendor (that is not proceeding for unknown reasons, leaving SCA with no restaurant for 2 1/2+ years and counting).
I can also provide you links to the actual documents that are are evidence of these and other specific incidences if NRED needs more documentation to make a finding and prohibit agents from taking advantage of SCA.
Coming up:
Part 3: In case you don’t think this is enough evidence
Sorry for the big break in my updates about SCA shenanigans.
I’m in California for some family events,
Nathaniel graduated
and a new granddaughter due any minute
But, while we’re waiting for the next big thing, I’ll tell you
The real cause for pause
After a fun-filled trip to Mexico, I dragged myself to the May 24 Board meeting. I was immediately stunned by the President’s report that NRED had stopped investigating two complaints that impacted me.
I wondered if NRED’s practice was to rely on management or agents rather than get the whole story. I hoped not. But, I had a sinking feeling…
Ordinarily, I would have posted something right away, but I decided to talk to NRED’s new chief investigator, Terry Wheaton, first. Multiple attempts to set up a meeting were unsuccessful so I documented my concerns in writing.
It is even longer than my usual missives, so I’ll break it up for you. It was full of hyperlinks to the actual evidentiary documents. I will break the links in this public distribution, just in case, my transparency forces the SCA Board and GM to claim it is their fiduciary duty to pay the attorney $10,000+ to threaten to sue me to kingdom come.
Part 1 of email to NRED
Fwd: Issues related to dismissed and open investigations; NRED Letters of Instruction to SCA
I have not received a response to my request for a meeting with you, and I have been instructed not to contact the Ombudsman because all my intervention affidavits (IAs) and complaints against management have been referred to the investigations division. I understand you are new to your position and may not have seen the full measure of the issues that I, and other SCA owners, are asking your office to address.
The fundamental questions raised by this myriad issues are:
How does NRED fulfill its role in ensuring that licensed HOA agents (managers, attorneys)
act as fiduciaries and not for personal, political, or financial purposes?
do not take advantage of homeowners or disenfranchise voters to manipulate the composition of HOA Boards?
How does NRED use the negative experiences of this HOA to develop policy guidance that protects all of the 3,000+ HOAs and 57% of Nevada households that are in HOAs?
I am writing you now to document my concerns and request that you evaluate these documents before there is a final determination on my form 514a, 781, and three form 530 complaints (harassment/retaliation, recall election interference, and for removing me from the Board without complying with NRS 116.31036 on false and unproven charges that I had placed matters before the Board from which I stood to make a profit.
1. NRED investigations are closed without notice or reason
In March, I raised this concern to Christina Pitch in the email I am forwarding here. You can see her response. However, the pattern of NRED closing complaints without a clear, legally defensible, equitable resolution seems to be continuing.
At the last Sun City Anthem Board meeting on 5/24/18, the new President Bob Burch made the following claims in his President’s report which were extremely disheartening because I have received no communication from NRED about these issues which intimately affect me and about which I have formally filed affidavits and declarations.
President’s report
Next, I would like to report that we have been advised by the Nevada Real Estate Division that two complaints filed against the Association have been closed. In one case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held an emergency meeting on July 18, 2017 to discuss employer liability and that the meeting did not meet the requirements for an ‘emergency’ under NRS116. In the second case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held secret meetings beginning in March or April 2017 in which appointments to committees were agreed upon and Association business was decided upon. Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed. – Bob Burch, 5/24/18
What does “no good cause to continue the investigation” mean?
Does NRED condone or just not care?
Dismissed complaint 1: July 13 “emergency” executive session
In my view, having a Board meeting without notifying me for the other six directors to approve a cease & desist order against me was an unlawful abuse of authority and certainly not an emergency.
What does NRED think?
Does NRED’s closing the complaint investigation without disciplinary action against SCA mean:
That NRED says it’s okay for the GM to fail to give me, an elected Board member, ANY verbal or written notice that the Board I was elected to was being called into an “emergency” executive session two hours after I was standing in her office being denied access to ANY SCA records despite NRS 116.31175 and SCA bylaws 6.4(c)?
That NRED says it’s okay for a GM, an at-will employee, to use the association attorney at SCA owner expense to threaten litigation against SCA (her employer) and me, a Board member, personally for creating “employer liability” for asking for justification for her being paid double the market rate and criticizing her performance and judgment despite NAC 116A.345(5)?
That NRED says it’s okay for six Board members to meet without and issue orders against me, the seventh EQUAL, ELECTED Board member, to limit authority as a Board member, restrict my duties, TOTALLY restrict my access to information needed to make decisions as a Board member, and restrict my right to vote on an equal basis with the other directors despite the prohibitions in NRS 116.3103(2)(d)?
That NRED says it actually was an emergency as defined by NRS 116.31183(12) affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community for 6/7 of the SCA Board to meet to order me, the seventh, to stop asking for a verification of the GM’s former salary and to reprimand me, without legal authority, for asking the GM to reconsider a ruling she made to prevent equal time in SCA official publications for a proponent of the recall election?
That NRED says that six members of the Board constitutes a quorum, and they (6 of 7) can meet in executive session to make decisions for the Board as a whole or to take action against the seventh Board member even if the six directors prevent the seventh Board member, despite the limitations defined in NRS 116.31185 or NRS 116.3103(2)(d),
from attending their secret session,
from voting, or even
from knowing their secret meeting is going to occur ?
That NRED doesn’t care that the SCA Board failed to comply with multiple provisions of state law and SCA governing documents?
Or is NRED saying
these owner complaints are frivolous and aren’t serious matters worthy of at least a complete investigation?
That meeting, actually held on 7/13/17, had numerous flaws which I spelled out to NRED in form 514a on pages 4-5 and claims are supported by written evidence.
Rex Weddle’s’s May President’s Report in SCA’s SpiritMagazine is entitled (apparently unaware of the irony) “Keeping our nest clean“. Rex again devotes his entire official communication to sharing with all owners and residents his personal and chronic whine about how owner complaints about him, the GM and the Board are ruining this community.
Boo hoo.
Bloggers called Rex and his buddies “thugs and bullies”. Private individuals accused him, the Board, the attorney and the GM of unlawful conduct and criminal corruption. Rex belittles those who complain, but without specifically denying any of the charges.
What’s a poor, hand-wringing President to do?
Rex seems oblivious to his contribution to SCA’s problems. He did not suggest any way he could use his position of authority to address owner concerns or to heal community division.
Rex thinks that bullying bloggers into silence is the best course of action.
Rex apparently lacks any self-awareness of how inappropriate it is to use the Spirit, SCA’s official publication, to express his personalopinion and his personal hostility toward certain members of the community.
The President of the Board has a column in the Spirit which is intended to share with the entire community news about what actions the Board is taking, how the owners’ money is being spent, or to provide inspirational words of leadership.
Rex, unfortunately, has chosen instead to use SCA’s official publication as a personal soap box, to chastise residents for complaining about him personally or for criticizing actions of SCA elected official or agents that individual owners or bloggers believe are detrimental to the community.
Rex’s message: “My way or the highway“
Don’t you think it is ironic that Rex Weddle, speaking officially as the SCA President, uses the Spirit, the SCA website, Board meetings, and other official SCA communication channels, to shame and demean residents for expressing their personal opinions on blogs that they privately own, just because he personally disagrees with them?
Doesn’t it seem odd that he does not recognize that his claim that blogs have a negative impact on our property values is just his personal opinion, and one that has no data to back it up?
“Because they read like a bad restaurant review, the buyers may choose to go elsewhere.” -Rex Weddle
That is like a restaurant owner blaming his bad Yelp reviews on the customers instead of trying to figure out why they are saying the food and the service sucks.
Bob Burch only hears those on his side
Don’t expect these Spirit President Reports to be any better now that Rex’s protege and probable puppet, Bob Burch, will have his name on the President’s report byline. Bob’s intolerance of dissent and his blind spot when it comes to equal treatment of resident’s are huge.
How can I say such mean things?
I am just defending myself and my rights and protecting the rights of ALL owners. I don’t see that as being mean. I do see what Rex et al are doing as being mean.
For example,
after the restaurant workshop, I forwarded a copy of a blog, “How to cook our goose” to all members of the Board. I wanted them to know I thought the restaurant vendor selection process was unfair and incompetent.
Here’s what Bob graciously emailed me back:
“You really are a very strange person. In any case, any further emails from you will be considered SPAM and will be treated as such.” -Bob Burch
And another example of responsive leadership
Here is the gratuitous observation Bob made (not to me, but about me, on the only community blog that Board members seem to think deserves their respect) in response to my blog, “Being accountable for being good neighbors“,
Ouch.
I wonder if Bob is so non-judgmental about all of his constituents, or if I am just special.
How do SCA owners benefit by this brutal break-up?
Say, what?
Nathaniel graduated
