Deceptive disclosures: SCA Board 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 128

12/5/13 Executive Session Agenda

12/5/13 Executive SessionItems 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. “

See 12/5/13 Executive Session Agenda

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. “

See 12/5/13 BOD minutes, page 9 of 11

12/5/13 Board meeting, item 17


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.

See NRS 116.31065 Rules.

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.

See 12/5/13 SCA BOD minutes, page 8 of 11

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 is not SCA Board approval of the sale.

SCA Board minutes of the December 5, 2013 Board meeting Item R05 – 120513 reads:

[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.

See 12/5/13 BOD minutes, page 2 of 11 [R-05-120513]

  1.  SCA 315 was the only evidence proffered of Board action to authorize the sale of  2763 White Sage Drive on March 7, 2014.
  2. 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.”

SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures conducted by Red Rock Financial Services

2012 Board meeting agendas & minutes

Link to 2012 minutes 001-145

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

2013 Board meeting agendas & minutes

Link to 2013 minutes 001-133

2013 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret

2/28/13 Meeting

2/28/13 Executive Session agenda

“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.”

2/28/13 minutes item 17B write offs President’s Report pg. 8 of 9

3/28/13 Meeting

3/28/13 Executive Session Agenda

“At our executive session today, our Board considered one request for a waiver of fines and one request for a payment agreement. ”

3/28/13 SCA BOD minutes, President’s Report pg. 8 of 8

4/25/13 Meeting

4/25/13 Executive Session Agenda

“At today’s executive session, our Board considered one request for waivers of fees or fines and one request for a payment agreement.”

4/25/13 SCA BOD minutes, President’s Report page 9 of 10

5/23/13 Meeting

5/23/13 Executive Session Agenda

“At today’s executive session, our Board considered one request for waiver of the minimum age requirement and one request for a waiver of late fees.”

5/23/13 SCA BOD minutes President’s Report Page 8 of 8

6/27/13 Meeting

6/27/13 Executive Session Agenda

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.

6/27/13 Executive Session Agenda #6

“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines”

6/27/13 SCA BOD Minutes, President’s Report page 9 of 14

7/18/13 SCA BOD minutes There was no executive 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.

8/1/13 Executive Session agenda # 4 & 5

8/1/13 Meeting

8/1/13 Executive Session agenda

“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.”

8/1/13 BOD Minutes President’s Report Page 6 of 9

8/22/13 Meeting

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.

8/22/13 Executive Session agenda #4 & %

“At today’s executive session, our board considered three requests for waivers and/or a reduction and/or payment plans and one appeal.”

8/22/13 SCA BOD meeting minutes President’s Report Pg 6 of 8

9/26/13 Meeting

9/26/13 Executive Session agenda

“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.”

9/26/13 Executive Session agenda #6

“At today’s executive session, your Board considered six appeals including waiver of late fees, fines or requests for payment plans.”  

9/26/13 SCA BOD Meeting minutes, President’s Report: Page 8 of 20

10/24/13 Meeting

10/24/13 Executive Session Agenda

“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.

10/24/13 Executive Session Agenda #4-6

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 five properties and took no action on bad debt.

10/24/13 SCA BOD Minutes, President’s report page 11 of 25
Link to “Deceptive disclosures: SCA Board 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 128

12/5/13 Executive Session Agenda

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. “

12/5/13 Executive Session Agenda #6-8

(minutes of open session, page 8 of 9)

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.

12/5/13 SCA BOD minutes, page 8 of 11

President’s report -actions in closed session

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. “

12/5/13 BOD minutes, page 9 of 11

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.

12/5/13 Minutes Pg 2] Resolution [R05-120513]

2014 Board meeting agendas & minutes

Link to 2014 minutes 001-187

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…”

SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)

1/23/14 Meeting

1/23/14 SCA BOD Executive Session Agenda

“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.”

1/23/14 SCA BOD Executive Session Agenda

“”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”

1/23/14 SCA BOD Meeting Minutes President’s Report Page 9 of 13

1/23/14 SCA BOD Executive Session Agenda

[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.

1/23/14 SCA BOD Meeting Minutes , Pages 7-8, item 18

2/27/14 Meeting

2/27/14 Executive Session Agenda

“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-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.

2/27/14 Executive Session Agenda

2/27/14 SCA BOD minutes

2/27/14 President’s Report
Item 17 Bad debt write off, Pg 6 of 15

3/27/14 Meeting

3/27/14 Executive Session Agenda

 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. 

3/27/14 Executive Session Agenda
3/27/14 Item 18 Bad debt write off

Page 7 of 36 3/27/14 SCA BOD minutes

3/27/14 SCA BOD minutes

4/24/14 Meeting

4/24/14 Executive Session Agenda

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 Executive Session Agenda PAGE 1 -2 OF 2

See 4/24/14 SCA BOD minutes

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.

5/22/14 Meeting

5/22/14 Executive Session Agenda

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 Executive Session Agenda Page 1 & 2 of 6 Agenda – Board of Directors Executive Session May 22, 2014

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.

6/26/14 Meeting

6/26/14 Executive Session Agenda

6/26/14 SCA BOD minutes

6/26/14 Executive Session Agenda

6/26/14 SCA BOD minutes

Director comment

“Jim Long provided an update on Association-related foreclosures.”

Page 1 item 8 6/26/14 SCA BOD minutes
6/26/14 SCA BOD minutes
6/26/14 SCA BOD minutes

6/26/14 minutes pg 5. #16 write off bad debt

7/24/14 Meeting

7/24/14 Executive Session Agenda

7/24/14 SCA BOD minutes

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…”

SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
7/24/14 Executive Session Agenda
7/24/14 Executive Session Agenda

7/24/14 SCA BOD minutes

7/24/14 SCA BOD minutes page 9 of 16

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.

Part 3: In case you don’t think this is enough evidence

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:

  1. to amend the adopted SCA Election and Voting manual,
  2. to dump the volunteer Election Committee and
  3. no Board approval to hire a CPA and
  4. 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 transparency allows 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.

What is NRED going to do to address these issues?

Part 2: Secret meetings in general

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

Why so quiet?

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 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.

I now have a meeting scheduled for June 18.

Next time

Part 2: Secret meetings in general

 

Per Rex: “Shut up. We’re in charge here.”

Rex Weddle’s’s May President’s Report in SCA’s Spirit Magazine 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 personal opinion 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.

 

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.

New SCA Board – New chance to get it right

Congratulations to the newly-elected members of the Board:

  • Candace Karrow,

  • Jim Coleman,

  • Gary Lee.

Check below for why no congrats for Bob Burch

A message from Gary Lee

Nona …. I want to take this opportunity to thank any of your readers who voted for me in this election.

I recognize the fact that I do not have any “direct” experience on any of SCA’s committees or volunteer programs but … I do bring to the board an extensive background in the management of facilities, construction, budgeting, finance and human resources – all of which are basic to the operations of the SCA.

I promise to bring an element of “common sense” to the board and a diligent effort in exploring facts and conditions prior to voting on any subject.

I would welcome the thoughts and opinions of any of your readers. I will be open to receiving any input and I will certainly consider them in my decision making.                       -Gary Lee

All directors get an equal vote

I personally have great hope that Gary’s significant management experience will be treated with respect  as mine was not.

The restaurant negotiation

Will Gary’s substantial restaurant experience be used for the benefit of the membership to protect SCA from giving away the store in negotiating with the probably pre-selected vendor?

Or is Rex’s death grip on consolidating power so strong that his expertise will be rejected in favor of Tom Nissen and Forrest Quinn who have no restaurant or negotiation experience that is specifically on point as Gary’s is?

SCA experience is required only for some

Rex Weddle and Bob Burch, in particular, proffered the pretext that my not having been on SCA committees was sufficient justification to refuse to treat as an equal member of the Board.

Keep your eyes open, new directors!

The new Board members need to guard against the incumbents claiming to possess special authority over them. Or that the Board is allowed to have secret meetings on topics other than the four permissible topics in NRS 116.31085 and SCA bylaws 3.15A.

Abdicating and usurping must stop

There is a surprising willingness for the GM and the attorney to play favorites and play fast and loose with the rules so that decisions that are supposed to be made by the Board in open session, informed by professional managerial and legal advice, somehow get made by who know who and who knows when.

Be careful, it is very easy to get sucked in.

Which brings me to why no congrats to Bob Burch

I am having trouble congratulating the fourth person elected, Bob Burch, because ongoing NRED complaints against him have not been adjudicated since being filed over eight months ago. These complaints include serious charges:

  • interference with the recall election
  • harassment and retaliation
  • abuse of authority
  • concealing SCA documents from members, including a director
  • taking action by secret votes against owners without cause or due process
  • acting for reasons of self-interest or revenge
  • failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest and then repeatedly voting on the issue
  • and more violations of owners’ legally protected rights

Never heard about these charges?

Voters probably didn’t hear about these open complaints because they were concealed.

Unfairly, “on the advice of counsel” and on owners’ dime, the Board and the GM purposefully concealed  complaints against them, and the attorney from the membership.

They refused to place the complaints on an open Board meeting agenda as required by NRS 116.31187.

Board Policy Manual 6.1 was disregarded when they would not allow me, as an elected director, to discuss these violations in any open Board meeting.

They would not fairly even allow the complaints to be investigated or be fairly debated executive session.

When I tried to get the Board act lawfully, the Board’s official response was to kick me off the Board without notice or appeal.

Good luck to the new people.