When I was 12, my mother was killed in an United Airlines plane crash, leaving by father bereft with six kids ages 5 – 16 to raise alone. At 52, he had just retired a Colonel from the Air Force and was starting a private practice as a physician. He needed to have a way that we kids could get along and learn to treat each other fairly without him always having to resolve disputes.
I remember one system we used that taught us all to be more fair than we would have been if our dad had let the big kids rip the little kids off and hog up a pig’s share of a cake:
Whoever cuts the cake, gets the last piece.
This is a lesson that those in power at SCA need to learn if self-management is to succeed.
What’s wrong with the SCA system of “self-management”?
First and foremost, SCA is not fair. The big kids (the Board, the GM, and the attorney) are bullying the little kids (owners, residents and dissenting directors) to hog up all the cake that rightly belongs to owners.
- The Board President is running amuck, consolidating power by controlling who can participate in decision-making by creating Board work groups and blocking owner-oversight committees.
- The Board President is also misusing his power to disenfranchise political opponents and to silence opposition to the “party line”.
- By disempowering appropriate owner oversight, executive limitations are poorly defined and internal controls are inadequate to ensure fair and equitable treatment of ALL owners.
- The Board majority is just going along with the bullying and hogging up the cake “on the advice of counsel”.
- The GM has been allowed to use the association attorney as her personal attorney (at owners’ expense), and is stealing the Owners’ cake and beating the crap out of the little kids who cry, i.e., owners /residents /board members who complain about non-owners grabbing their cake.
- The association attorney has shoved a very big piece of the SCA Owners’ cake into his own mouth and grabbed another big piece for the GM while waving the knife threateningly at owners who even look at the cake, let alone try to get their fair share.
Owners pay dearly for having no control over their own cake
Here are some examples of problems with the implementation of self-management caused by the Board’s enabling the GM’s resistance to appropriate owner oversight.
- Owners pay for everything, but can be blocked from even knowing what they are paying for or how much they are paying.
- There is no way to control excessive executive compensation.
- The Board can act in ways that create liability or don’t protect SCA against manageable risks and the owners just have to shut up and pay for it.
- There is no way to hold the Board, the GM, and the attorney accountable as fiduciaries or to prevent them from abusing their positions for their own profit or personal or political power.
- Owners can be unfairly treated without being afforded the due process required by law.
The SYSTEM must build in controls so it is fair no matter who is in charge.
SCA does not have a system in place that protects owners from the very people who are supposed to be acting only for us.
If the interests of owners are adverse to those the GM or the Board President, then there is NOTHING built into SCA’s version of self-management to ensure that the owners’ interests will prevail.
In fact, with Adam Clarkson and Sandy Seddon calling the shots, there is no owner-protection system in place at all.