It starts in a half hour.
I’ve made here a few satirical comments about how Rex Weddle will probably orchestrate the election of officers based on what actually happened last year.
Then, I’ll force myself to go into that hostile environment to see for myself what actually happens at the meeting.
What could possibly go wrong?
If it’s anything like last year, Rex Weddle will have worked it out in advance so only his handpicked directors can even be nominated.
Huh? Last year?
Here are the simple steps Rex followed last year to make sure he stayed President and to control who else could run:
- Met with or had serial emails with directors to set up quid pro quo trades to elect incumbents who could be “trusted” to vote as a block.
- Pay the attorney to say that standard election of officer procedures and Board-adopted Parlimentery procedures do not have to be followed.
- Rex, while chairing the meeting as President, got Bob Burch to nominate him.
- No other nominations could be made from the floor.
- If any disobedient director tries to nominate someone else, Rex claimed that it required a non-existent type of motion: a substitute motion. This is a handy trick because, once Rex got the attorney to bless breaking that standard protocol, it was used routinely to block seconded motions made on other matters by that same disobedient, second-class director.
- Rex even went so far as to text the director sitting next to me to give him the exact wording of the motion and name of who he was assigned to nominate for Secretary.
Hypothetically, what would be the worst case scenario this year?
Bob Burch will again nominate Rex, by reading a dramatic, praise-filled motion. Rex will again abuse the authority of the chair to block other nominations. Bob will move that Rex’s coronation be by acclimation and that the position’s title be changed to KING.
All of the bad outcomes for owners and resistance to best practices that I predicted last year that already happened will continue. All future dissent by directors or members will be crushed by the attorney who is beholding to Rex.
Jim Coleman will be nominated for Vice-President, not for his outstanding leadership qualities, which are substantial, but to show that Rex and the other incumbents are really not racists, like that name-redacted guy.
Bob Burch will be pressed into service even though (sigh!) he doesn’t want to.
Strategizing with his cohorts before the meeting, Bob figured it would be insulting to try and make “the woman” do it. Too bad, though, it would have been a perfect way to keep her from trying to steal Forrest’s Treasurer job that he sold his soul to get only last year.
Worse, Candace was the top vote-getter and has a strong financial background and a reputation for being outspoken. She might insist that the association’s records be accurate, accessible and that the laws be followed so owners’ rights are protected. She must be kept away from a chance to audit anything.
Forrest Quinn will be the Treasurer. He will continue to work full-time to do management’s job in an excellent manner. He will sing the GM’s and the CFO’s praises for the outstanding job he does for them.
Paying the GM and CFO double their value in the market and claiming that what SCA pays is a secret is a small ethical price to pay for the staff’s complete loyalty to him and their willingness to attack dissenters.
If other directors question the propriety of obfuscating the special pay arrangements privately agreed to, or if owners complain, he will have no problem encouraging the Board to sue the bastards for defamation and charge them with a CC&R violation that poses an imminent threat to health, safety and welfare, punishable by a fine of $1 million dollars or a sanction of foreclosing on their house and their banishment from the tribe.
Ordinarily, controlling who gets officer spots would be no big deal. Most non-profit organizations are thrilled when anyone will accept any thankless duties on a volunteer basis.
However, here and now, trying to ensure that a small clique controls everything is a problem that is costing us a lot of money and peace of mind.
Under Rex’s leadership and this particular GM, SCA is going in the wrong direction. This is negatively affecting our lifestyle, our property values and ultimately, will increase our assessment costs.
Isn’t that just a difference of opinion?
Ordinarily, yes. Ordinarily, it’s no big deal to have different opinions.
But, here and now, it is a problem. Rex and his cronies are operating from the perspective that SCA is a private company and that the Board should operate according to the norms that are applicable to a business.
This is bad, but not catastrophic, until the Dear Leader’s point of view is weaponized as the official party line, and the rule of law is suspended to prevent alternative points of view to be expressed, let alone be openly debated.
Weaponizing a perspective also involves inappropriate use of the association’s resources for maintenance of personal political power, and this is being done, here and now, on steroids.
Quid pro Quo –
you scratch my back…
Why would SCA agents, licensed professionals, play favorites with Rex and his cronies?
OBVIOUSLY, if the GM and attorney were to only work for the Board as a whole is nowhere near as profitable.
Further, if all Board actions were public, SCA’s agents could be monitored to ensure they were acting SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION.
Works for SCA agents to have a blank check, but it doesn’t work for owners
- SCA spent over $100,000 on attorneys in the first quarter of 2018, more than double the recently doubled budget.
- $40,000 attorney fees were charged to evict the Foundation Assisting Seniors, and more fees will be charged to fight over which non-profit pays them.
- They admitted spending $40,000 in 2017 on “Director Issues” to write me “legal letters” telling me to stop complaining about them violating the law and to stop demanding owners’ access to information affecting our lives and pocket books.
- The attorney made money protecting the GM who protects him so legal prohibitions for their conduct are easy to bust through.
- Both the GM and the attorney have violated the standards of their profession by claiming powers and rights that are not theirs by law, e.g., make certain policy decisions or expend un-budgeted SCA funds. (SCA bylaws and NRS 116.3106(1)(d) prohibit the Board from delegating policy-making authority in five areas.)
- There is money to be made whenever those who let the agents get away with it are kept in power and those who blow the whistle are silenced.