October 26 SCA Board meeting wrap-up

Here are a few highlights from the October 26 SCA Board meeting that will give you a perspective that the Board tries to suppress.

GM Compensation is a really big concern
Rex made the almost off-hand comment during the President’s report that the BOD discussed “GM performance” in executive session, but gave no further details. My next post will be about GM compensation since my trying to get the board to handle GM compensation correctly is one of the main reasons they kicked me off the Board.  The issue of GM compensation is really important because seeing how the Board mis-handled it will show you that the real threat to SCA owners is the GM and the attorney duping the Board into handing over our wallets – not that my service on the Board was going to change the outcome of quiet title litigation.

Foundation Assisting Seniors
Rex noted the Foundation Assisting Seniors was being ordered evicted as the court agreed that no SCA Board in the past would have had the authority to transfer that space to FAS in perpetuity. (I thought it had been transferred to FAS by Del Webb before the entire property was taken over by the Association, but I could be wrong.) Rex said that Sandy would make a recommendation about the use of the space.

Restaurant Consultant RFP is Out
Sandy will be hiring a consultant according to some unknown RFP for some unknown amount of unbudgeted money to give us the answer to the question “Just what’s it gonna take to have a successful restaurant”. You already know how I feel about her spending unbudgeted funds to pay a consultant to answer the wrong question after she’s left a major amenity out of service the entire time she’s been on the job.

Opinions about the recall proponents destroying our property values
Rex broke his silence about the recall in the paternalistic tone I find so grating, reprimanding the small cadre of negative proponents of the recall who have defined SCA’s character over the years with their history of unwarranted vitriolic attacks. These “people” will force a death knell to volunteerism, and these malcontents are responsible for SCA’s negative reputation and the destruction of our property values. The attorney says their rhetoric is actionable defamation even if the most horrible attacks have been “scrubbed” from their online posts.

In my view, Rex should be more introspective. Rex seems blind to his own personal contribution to the community schism and to sustaining the unhealthy divide. But then, there were more comments on the subject at different points on the agenda.

Apparently some helpful soul decided that it would be good for the community cohesiveness to incite Art with 54 pages of diatribe from some unnamed blog. Art was predictably upset by it, stunned by the negativity and unfairness of it. Art has developed a total respect for the other board members who he sees as competent and blameless. (He didn’t mention me because I have become invisible. It’s as if they feel so utterly justified in taking the law into their own hands to erase me and 2000 owners’ votes, it’s as if I never happened.) Art blamed instead that unknown blogger’s disinformation, errors and false charges to be the prime contributor to a major loss of our reputation and property values.

I am irritated with the “helpful” individual who baited Art. If it was who I think it was, he’s been helpful like that in the past, and I believe he too should be more self-aware in terms of the impact he has on perpetuating a toxic culture and on enabling the Board’s unlawful actions against me.

It’s hard to say whether our property values have actually taken a hit by virtue of SCA’s negative reputation (which all seem to agree exists now as well as in the past), and if they have gone down, who is to blame. In the Financial Report, revenue of $103,000 over budget from asset enhancement fees was described as being caused by an unexpectedly high number of home sales. Although no information about home price was given, the fact that the number of sales is up which would lead one to the opposite conclusion about the impact of our reputation on prospective purchasers.

Three more spoke in this echo chamber, not surprisingly all representing the same point of view.
I didn’t catch the name of the man who demanded that the owners be given the names of the originators of the petition and that the names of those who signed the petition should be posted on the association’s website. Sandy helpfully said that anyone could have the names of those who signed the petitions by filling out the proper form.

Yes, this is the same Sandy who authorized expenditure of thousands of your assessment dollars for the attorney to conceal SCA records from me, a sitting board member. She threatened SCA and me personally with litigation saying “employer liability”would be created if I could see SCA records related to her compensation and the transition to self-management.

Is it fair for the GM to gleefully release information that could be used to harass and intimidate petitioners who oppose her management style at the same time she spends large chunks of unbudgeted SCA funds to prevent my review of her compensation with the ludicrous claim that I was violating her privacy rights?

It is my prediction that SCA will have no peace as long as the Board forces the community into two camps. The definitions of the camps may have been different in the past, but now, they seem to be camps of Sandy’s friends vs. Sandy’s foes.  I imagine you can see why I have a little bit of trouble being silent watching the two faces of our leading lady as she inconsistently enforces the rules, bestowing blessings on the one camp and curses on the other.

Next speaker to chastise the petitioners was Jean Capilupo who stated that she had made a commitment to come to each board meeting to say something positive to help the unfairly maligned directors buck up under the strain. Clearly, she identifies completely with the directors in a “there but for” sense and so her sentiments are myopic, but understandable.

Where I get off the train is having to listen every month to the criticism of the people who don’t come to the Board meetings. I am amazed at the current and former directors’ self-righteous disdain for a large chunk of the community and their utter lack of comprehension about why those people would find the constant self-congratulation vs denigration, us vs. them, patter to be quite alienating.

The grand finale was brought home by none other than David Berman who claimed he only decided to speak after being inspired by Jean’s profound remarks. He expressed confidence that the recall will fail (no surprise, recalls usually fail at the petition stage even without overt interference), and foretold ominously, “When this is over, the originators will find they have awoken a sleeping tiger!”  Catchy turn of phrase, but I’m not sure what it meant.

 

6 thoughts on “October 26 SCA Board meeting wrap-up”

  1. For years Sun City Anthem has been calling anyone who spoke out against the board, any board, malcontents. Over the years the amount of “malcontents” in our community grew as more and more residents became less than satisfied with the decisions made by the respective board members until you have what you have at this time.
    We have gone through Jack Troia’s time of the Channel 13 “Hall of Shame” and many other things that caused the entire valley to see the childish behavior of the people in charge of this community. Nothing seems to change although each election time so many promises are made and all are broken once the elections are over.
    At the beginning of this mess did the board members once say, “people are unhappy, let’s have a Town Hall meeting and see what we can do to fix things”, NO, WHY, because they didn’t care… and I think that is the whole problem…. I have watched Rex so often sit and hear people talk with his arms folded as if to say, “we do this because we can… ” It is a sad state of affairs but until we can elect a Resident friendly board WHO DOES NOT JOIN CAI nothing will change. That is my opinion after too many years dealing with HOA issues, I’m tired and want to spend the balance of my time left wishing the legislature would disband HOA living or change the law to make them responsible for common area ONLY.

    1. You are right on. We need more people to run for the Board who are willing to be trained on how to create and enforce a fair system and who will evaluate every Board decision by asking the question, “Is this action fair and in the best interests of the owners?” And be strong enough, if the answer is no, to not do it.

      1. This is very alarming information. I don’t feel most people know what’s going on or feel their vote in these matters will make a difference. Too bad your not on the board, you make perfect sense to me.

        1. Thank you for your support. There are many things which need to be cleaned up in this administration. I was actually kicked off the Board because they considered me a threat and so they took unlawful actions against me. I have filed a complaint with the Ombudsman to get my removal from the Board overturned. Even if the thought of going back on the Board is very unappealing, this cannot be allowed to stand because of the precedent it sets. There is nothing in the law that gives any non-profit Board to remove a Director unless there are no members in the corporation other than the Board who have a right to vote. Obviously, when you look at the facts, I was removed to keep me from blowing the whistle. The whole bit about me putting matters before the Board from which I could make a profit from is a load of crap. I will be shocked if the state enforcement officials will allow this Board to remove a director in retaliation for dissent, based on false charges, having provided no mandatory due process, and committed multiple substantive and procedural violations of state law and our governing documents in the process — just because the unethical association attorney said they could.

  2. Rana,
    Well said. I was about to write nearly the same thing.

    Why have a vote on a lawsuit against the builder of the Liberty Center, and then when it is voted against go ahead and do it regardless of the wishes of the residents. And on and on …

    A very strange place to live. Most people are so disgusted with the situation they don’t vote and don’t participate.

    1. It will be interesting to see on Wednesday how many people voted. I don’t expect a lot, but then, I was surprised that in a few weeks over the summer over 800 people signed petitions to give what was essentially an “Unsatisfactory” rating to the GM and the majority of the Board.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *