SCA’s Wasteful Loss of Foundation Assisting Seniors

The recent open letter attorney Clarkson wrote attempted to justify the SCA’s Board’s actions against the Foundation Assisting Seniors (FAS). It was very disheartening. It shows SCA is lacking a system that guarantees Board decisions actually will serve the best interests of the community. It also shows how the Board does not hold the GM accountable for ensuring mutually-beneficial and cost-effective resolutions to community disputes.

The GM did not do a competent job to collaborate with FAS on a solution beneficial to SCA owners.

The Board delegated the dispute to the GM for resolution, but she was incapable of developing a collaborative solution or to avoid escalating the conflict. Why doesn’t the Board hold her accountable for that failure? Why doesn’t the Board hold itself accountable for achieving a negotiated settlement that would maximize benefits of both organizations to the SCA membership?

Instead, the Board followed the unhealthy pattern of power politics where they forgot who they are representing and who they and the GM are supposed to be serving. Their “Board/GM must win/be right and Favil West must lose” strategy made the Foundation Assisting Seniors and all of SCA’s members and residents just collateral damage to their “fight fire with Napalm” approach.

We all lose when the Board and the GM don’t do their job

In the end, we all lose when the Board does not hold the GM accountable for preventing or minimizing disputes.

When neither the Board nor the GM hold themselves accountable for bringing the community together or for maximizing “neighbor-helping-neighbor” strategies, we all lose.

When the Board picks a side to throw their weight and our money into waging a war against owners perceived to be on the other “side”.

We all lose when the Board does not hold the GM accountable for the owner relations and “people” parts of the General Manager job as much as for the property management aspects of the GM job.

WHY are we paying her so much if she doesn’t exhibit sufficient leadership or collaboration skills to bring the community together synergistically or to negotiate mutually-beneficial arrangements that allow diverse groups to thrive here?
Evicting FAS was the unnecessary destruction of a community treasure

Escalation of this conflict should never have happened. Consider for a moment how Favil West described as the FAS’ beginnings:

In 2003 the Foundation submitted a grant proposal to Pulte for a community service building.  Pulte accepted the proposal.  The Foundation President negotiated the design of the building, a building worth more than $550,000, to house the Foundation and the services it started; SCA TV, Community Service, and Emergency Preparedness (all originally part of the Foundation). The end result was that the building would be provided to SCA in addition to Independence Center, with Pulte’s condition that space would be dedicated to FAS so long as it serves SCA seniors.  This was evidenced by the original plans showing and referencing the Foundation space allocation. This term was accepted by SCA and was documented by a board resolution at the SCA April 2007 board meeting.

 

These statements were presented as documented facts so they should have been easy to verify. Why was there no simple, fair internal cost-effective process to ascertain their veracity?

Instead of collaboratively evaluating the facts where both sides were given an equal opportunity to present their side of the story, those in power wastefully decided to disregard these assertions, to ignore the good that was being done by FAS, and to dismantle a 15-year-old community service and destroy community relationships for no good purpose.

Attorney added cost, but no value in achieving a good solution

SCA Board spent a huge amount of money on attorneys to evict FAS, and yet they still managed to break a few laws while taking this completely disproportionate action that benefitted the community not one whit.

For example, NRS 116.31088 requires a member vote before initiating a civil action, but the Board ignored that and filed case A-17-760014-C to evict FAS. Please note that attorney Clarkson’s was paid both to file the civil action against the FAS AFTER Clarkson was paid to give the Board the self-serving advice that SCA did not have to follow NRS 116.31088 in this case.

Another example is the violation of NRS 116.31085 (executive session) where FAS was repeatedly discussed in secret long before SCA board decided to take legal action.  Perhaps, had the Board allowed the community to listen to their deliberations, it might have been harder for the Board to settle on the most expensive and least beneficial final solution.

2 thoughts on “SCA’s Wasteful Loss of Foundation Assisting Seniors”

  1. You dont know what you are talking about. The GM was given the job of mediator between FAS and CSG. She asked for written requests from both parties. CSG provided a list of written grievances to the GM within 2 weeks. Favil West refused to do the same after being asked THREE times for written comments. GM warned him that if he failed to negotiate FAS would regret the results. He still failed to even respond . The main problem between FAS and CSG was that Favil treated them as “dirt” and subordinates when actually CSG was an SCA group and FAS was an outside charity.

    1. In April 2016 SCA and FAS had a deal. All that was needed was for the attorney to formalize the negotiated terms. The May minutes show that you attempted to get the Board to reconsider the deal a month later despite many signed petitions having been submitted in support of FAS. The Board declined your request to re-negotiate the deal, and that should have been the end of it. No further Board action was required.
      The negotiated terms were ratified by both the FAS and the SCA Boards. The deal should simply have been formalized into contract language and signed. It should never have been allowed to escalate into a pissing match that made all of us lose.
      You are right when you said that the Board assigned the GM to “mediate” as if the problem was between CSG and FAS. However, this was a fool’s errand because mediation cannot succeed unless the mediator is a skilled and disinterested third party. The GM is neither.
      The Foundation Assisting Seniors was an asset of great benefit to the SCA community, and now it’s gone.
      You should, but apparently don’t, hold yourself accountable for your part in destroying SCA’s decades-long, mutually-beneficial relationship with the FAS, and apologize to the community for the harm you caused in making us all lose this precious amenity for absolutely no good reason.

Leave a Reply

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