$50,000 for the removal election and still counting

Last June I did not think passing around recall petitions was a good idea. I thought it was a fool’s errand – disruptive and doomed to fail.

However, I am a strong, some say overly-aggressive, defender of owners’ rights. I just hate it when people with power abuse ANY owner’s rights, but especially if they use dirty tricks or create an uneven playing field and make the little guy pay the price. 

That’s what’s happening here now. The opponents of the removal election are making owners pay way more than we should, and they are trying to get us to blame the wrong people.

All the tens of thousands we will be paying for this removal election (above the less than $10,000 cost of an annual election) could have been avoided if the GM hadn’t blown me off by not even acknowledging my July 20 email:

Sandy Seddon didn’t answer me. Why should she? She knew that there was no one on the Board except me that cared one whit about maintaining the independence and neutrality of the Election Committee. Quite the opposite, she knew that she had the votes to approve anything she wanted to do make the removal election process difficult.

Who decided that these actions were in the best interest of owners?

Now, SCA owners are obligated to pay a bungling CPA firm $20,000 for the work done through September 30 no matter how poorly it was done. We will be on the hook for maybe triple that amount because their errors or omissions are significant enough that a second recall ballot may need to go out with Bob Burch’s name added to it.

Who made the decision to take away the Election Committee’s job?

Who decided that it was in the owners’ best interest to use an attorney and a CPA for the removal election when the attorney in five months is already billed $150,000 – FOUR times the $37,500 budget (In just September the attorney billed $43,873 and the CPA who replaced the volunteer Election Committee billed $20,000)?

Did I mention that there was:

  • no RFP for a CPA,
  • no approved CPA contract,
  • no Board approval to change the Election and Voting Manual,
  • no budget authorization for the CPA, and
  • the CPA has made so many mistakes that there might have to be a second removal ballot?

 

 

 

How to avoid unnecessary election costs

Some people have told me they are voting no on the removal election because they are under the impression that it will cost between $50,000 and $100,000 to hold another election for replacement Board members.

Cost to replace

This cost estimate is both wrong, and a poor reason for keeping the current ineffective Directors that are costing the community even more money.

First, let’s address the cost. The GM removed the “volunteer” SCA Election Committee (chartered to handle all SCA elections) from the removal election process. Instead, a CPA was hired without any official Board action to take over the EC’s duties at an unbudgeted cost of $10,000. As I have stated before, the CPA’s contract was not approved at any open Board meeting, and therefore the unnecessary cost of his services skews the actual cost of the removal election.

As far as the election for replacement board members; the established “volunteer” Election Committee is experienced and fully capable of handling the same fair election process as we have had in the past, with very little overhead. Our 2017 annual election cost $11,900, and the budget for the 2018 election is $17,500.

Reporting a falsely-inflated cost is a scare tactic and is being used to make owners mad at the petitioners for exercising their legal rights to call for an election to remove Directors that are not serving us well. I read in Dan Folgeron’s message re-posted on AnthemToday.com that the Solera removal election cost $8,000.

Cost to keep

More importantly, the cost of an election is no reason to keep Directors in office who are not protecting the membership. The cost of an election pales in comparison to the cost of abdicating control of the Association policies, owner oversight and budget to the GM and attorney. These Directors have given a blank check to the attorney and are allowing the GM to disregard the budget when she unilaterally decides to make expenditures.

Cost of cheating

Rex, Aletta, and Tom should be removed from office because they didn’t let owners vote and didn’t follow our bylaws 3.6 when they appointed someone to fill my seat one month after they unlawfully removed me:

“Upon removal of a director, a successor shall be elected by the Owners entitled to elect the director so removed to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term of such director.” – SCA bylaws 3.6 (page 11)

Rex, Aletta, and Tom should be removed from office because they doubled down and compounded problems created by my removal. They shouldn’t have filled my board seat without waiting for my appeal to be adjudicated, and they shouldn’t have filled my seat without letting any owners compete for the position. No one knew they were recruiting so no owner could compete equally for a chance to be appointed to the board. Instead, they just picked a guy (Jim Coleman), decided to appoint him in secret and appointed him to my seat at the very next properly noticed Board meeting. It’s not Jim Coleman’s fault the Board acted unlawfully, both to remove me and to replace me without an owner vote. Why can’t the Board make decisions that fast and decisive when it comes to doing something good for the membership, like opening the restaurant?

Cost avoidance and karma
I have a suggestion that I think would treat everybody fairly. I don’t want to displace Jim if I am reinstated because, in my opinion, Jim will be much better than Rex as a board member, at least he will listen to and respect owners. However, a fair way to avoid the expense of another election would be to put Jim in Rex’ seat when I am reinstated by the Commission and Rex is either voted off during the recall election or removed by the Commission.

Cost of dirty tricks

Note that I was elected to serve until May 2019 for the same two-year term as Rex. Rex got his role as President by using dirty tricks, and he is doing a terrible job for the people. As such, I believe that Rex is the most important one to remove from the Board, and if he were the only director voted off, no election would be needed. Aletta’s and Tom’s terms end in May, 2018, and if they were voted off in the removal election, their seats could remain vacant until the normal election.

By the way, when Jim Coleman was appointed, I told the Board that they made a mistake by appointing him only until 2018 since my term expires in 2019, and the bylaws 3.6 say that the replacement of a director that is removed shall “… fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term of such director”. Rex insisted that appointing Jim only until May 2018 was intentional, but there is no legal authority for the Board to decide that the new director’s term will be a year less than the term of the director being replaced.

Cost of cherry-picking rules and karma

Rex should be removed for cherry-picking which governing documents he choses to comply with. He led the Board in the violation of SCA Bylaws 3.6 by usurping owners exclusive right to vote to determine whether a Director is removed from the Board. He is responsible of Bylaws 3.6 being being violated a second time by not giving owners the right to vote on the replacement of a Director who was removed. Rex insisted on violating SCA bylaws a third time by shortening Jim Coleman’s term again since the new Director is required by our governing documents to fill the remainder of the removed Director’s term. Appointing Jim only until 2018 unfairly gives Rex the benefit of not having to run against Jim (by Rex making their terms not end at the same time. Rex’ act is to the detriment of Jim Coleman who is an innocent owner/volunteer who should have been appointed, if at all, to the end of my term. This act exemplifies Rex’s pattern of cherry-picking which rules he chooses to follow. Rex acts  benefit himself by consolidating political power and do not treat all owners, particularly political opponents, equitably. We deserve leadership that is better than that, not self-serving and that acts solely in the best interest of the membership by the consistent enforcement of the rules of the game.

 

FAQs: Removal election voting procedures

As you’ve no doubt noticed, the instructions on voting are confusing and the normal voting procedures have been changed. Here are some answers to the most frequently asked questions.

What return address do I put on the envelope if I own multiple properties in Sun City Anthem?
Put the address where each ballot was mailed. You may also note each property address on the outside envelope that contains the ballot envelope for that property’s vote.

Should I write the property address on the ballot envelope?
No. Do not write anything on the ballot envelope.

What if I mailed my ballot in without any return address?
Contact Ovist & Howard at (702) 456-1300 for replacement ballots. Ballots without a return address that matches where a ballot was mailed will not be counted.

What is the deadline for my vote to count in the removal election?
Your ballot must be RECEIVED by 5 PM on Thursday, October 26
by Ovist & Howard, 7 Commerce Center Dr. Henderson 89014

Can I drop my ballot off at Anthem Center?
No. Your ballot must be mailed or hand delivered to Ovist & Howard 7 Commerce Center Dr. Henderson 89014 so it is received before the 5 PM, October 26 deadline.

If my ballot got coffee stains on it, can I copy my neighbor’s ballot?
No. Only original ballots will be counted.

What if I threw my ballot away by mistake?
Contact Ovist & Howard at (702) 456-1300 for a replacement ballot.

How do I complain if I think this election is unfair?
Contact the Ombudsman or the NRED Investigator or both.
Charvez Foger, Ombudsman
The Ombudsman’s Office,Nevada Real Estate Division
3300 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 325 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
702-486-4480  Website: www.red.nv.gov
cicombudsman@red.nv.gov
https://scastrong.com/action-report-election-issues-to-the-ombudsman/  

You may also contact the investigator who is assigned to coordinate the numerous complaints currently filed against SCA Board, GM Sandy Seddon and attorney Adam Clarkson.

Christina Pitch, cpitch@red.nv.gov
HOA Investigations Section, Nevada Real Estate Division
Common-Interest Communities/Condominium Hotels
3300 W. Sahara Avenue, Ste 350, Las Vegas,NV 89102
Office (702) 486-4480 / Fax (702) 486-4520
https://scastrong.com/put-complaints-on-the-record/

Will it do any good to complain?
There are already serious complaints submitted to the Ombudsman against Sandy Seddon, Attorney Adam Clarkson, and BOD President Rex Weddle. It is important that the enforcement authorities hear from you as well if you believe the process has been made unnecessarily difficult or if you believe votes are unfairly not being counted.

 

How to vote in the recall election (video)

Help for Sun City Anthem homeowners who may not have understood that Ovist & Howard, CPAs’, letter was actually a ballot to vote to remove Rex Weddle, Aletta Waterhouse, and Tom Nissen from the SCA Board. Gives you info re Oct. 26 deadline and instructions to ensure your vote counts.

SCA Board & GM cause substantial decrease in happiness factor

This open letter is republished with permission from Favil West, President of the Foundation Assisting Seniors, who formerly served as a SCA Board member for six years as well as for three years on the Commission for Common Interest Communities. Favil describes his view of how much the SCA Board, GM and over-used attorney are causing our community to suffer under their system of mis-management.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Fake news abounds in our community. I’ve seen it produced by this SCA Board, a committee chair, a vice chair, a club president, a blogger and on down the line. Good grief even one of our board members has sent out a plea for you to vote no so she can stay on the board. A move without precedent

Let’s look at the Berman blog. He unabashedly states that the 3 board members, currently to be recalled, have committed “no crimes or malfeasance.” That just is not true. I personally know of 8 infractions of Statute. For starters, the 3 board members to be removed are accused of having violated the following statutes:

  1. NRS 116.31035
  2. NRS 116.31036
  3. NRS 116.31088
  4. NRS 116.31085
  5. NRS 116.3108
  6. NRS 116.31184
  7. NRS 116.31183
  8. NRS 116.31175

At least one of these violations is a misdemeanor and even though it is in the NRS 116 ACT, it falls under other jurisdictions.

Ron Johnson produces an editorial page, usually well documented, the most recent of which has factually debunked most if not all of the claims made by the OSCAR group. Dick Arendt lends his passion to the fray stimulating research and thought while Rana gives us a more even- handed treatment of the facts. Nona Tobin just started a blog. We won’t know its character for a while but I personally look forward to seeing it as I know it will contain significant detail. To top it off, through personal conversations with the Ombudsman, I know that NRED is concerned with what is taking place here at Sun City Anthem.

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of financial figures knows full well that numbers can be manipulated to show anything you want them to show. I believe all of us have heard the old saw, figures lie and liars figure. I fear that is true in the instant case.  Why doesn’t the board lay out the true cost of management in dollars and cents for all the unit owners to see? How much has this self- management debacle truly cost? What was our annual cost of management before self- management and what is it now? They should show consulting fees, the trips, parties, meals, salaries, separation payments, if any, the current salaries of the top 5 highest paid staff, their bonuses, their allowances, and their benefits, as well as the total salary costs including that of Lori, who has since left SCA. Then add in the legal fees which according to the budget are approximately $90,000 over budget, and all the outside contracted work such as IT, and all accounting services. Once all of that is together, we, the unit owners, can actually compare costs. Until this information is released to the unit owners, well, the old saw is still sawing away.

While unit owner’s angst cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents, there has been a substantial decrease in the happiness factor because of board, GM, and legal actions. In my nearly 18 years living here in Sun City Anthem, six years of which I served on the SCA Board, I have never seen anything that compares with what is now happening on our hill.

This removal election has already turned into a debacle. Words such as voter suppression, stupidity, mismanagement, failure of the board and its gm to do its fiduciary duty, and probably a few I cannot repeat are being bantered around while board members are pleading for you to vote no so they can continue this sordid behavior. Even those who do not support the recall agree that the ballot mailing and instructions show a high degree of incompetence.

In my opinion, these ballots should be thrown out and new ones issued. These new ballots should be color coded to eliminate confusion, a simple explanation included, and, finally, the outside envelope should say ballot enclosed. That’s not too hard is it. It’s what we done in the previous 17 elections. That is really not too hard if you know what you are doing.

Notwithstanding the impact this will have on the reputation of our Sun City, win, lose, or draw this removal election and the reasons for it remain  an everlasting stigma on the 3 to be recalled, the rest of the board and its GM. Frankly, in my opinion, Weddle, Burch, Nissen, and Waterhouse should all resign as they will have no respect in the future.

Folks, at the hands of this board board we are no longer the class active living community we once were. Our reputation has been sullied by incompetence, prevarication, and dereliction . How sad.

Favil

 

Voter Suppression Tactics

The following essay was written by Jim Mayfield, former member and Vice-President of the Sun City Anthem Board, and is republished here with his permission. Jim retired after six years service last May at the same time I was elected to replace Carl Weinstein.

On Saturday, we received our ballot for the recall election in the mail. At first, I almost discarded it in the recycle bin without even opening it.  I though it was another piece of solicitation junk mail.  (Subsequently, I was told that I was not the only one who thought this way.)  However, I opened the letter and found out that it was the ballot for the recall election and the instructions for how to mail in the ballot.

The purpose of this email is not to reiterate the obvious flaws (already noted by others) in the ballot process that should and could have been avoided by the CPAs retained to perform the voting process if they had studied and incorporated the time-tested SCA election processes.  Instead, the purpose of this email is to raise the ominous issues regarding 1> the motivation for the use of voter suppression tactics, and 2> the ethics behind obvious voter suppression tactics.

Preface
During my six years of service on an SCA committee and board of directors, I observed a steady decline in the willingness of SCA homeowners to volunteer their time to serve as club officers, SCA committee members and to seek election to the SCA board of directors.  This trend is indeed regrettable because of the large number of intelligent, talented residents who live within SCA and whose talents could be used to insure efficient operations at SCA and continuous improvement of the quality of life within SCA.  I also observed that fewer than half of the SCA homeowners vote in the annual board of directors election.  Even more significant, less than .75% of the SCA homeowners attend public board and committee meetings.

On one level, I empathize with why SCA homeowners do not chose to participate in the governance of their homeowners association.  Most people retired to enjoy pursuing life-long retirement objectives.  Annual assessments appear low compared to the benefits received.  However, as consequence of the lack of involvement by a broad group of homeowners in the governance of SCA, a small group of self-serving homeowners and management control and manipulate the operations of SCA. Their personal agendas frequently do not represent the best interest or service expectations of the homeowners.

Motivation for Use of Voter Suppression Tactics
The threshold to remove a director is just over 2,500 votes of the 7,144 SCA homeowners.  Anyone who doesn’t vote or whose ballot is disqualified is an automatic “no” vote. Obtaining the “yes” vote from 2,500+ homeowners is an almost impenetrable barrier to the removal of a director.  This reality begs the question of why management, members of the current board, and individuals wanting to maintain the status quo feel compelled to

  • use voter suppression tactics,
  • disseminate false and misleading information,
  • spend over $4,500 to get out their fake fact message, and
  • conduct possible violations of state law and SCA governing documents

to defeat the removal election.

The obvious answer is that they want to send the message that any attempts to dislodge them will be unsuccessful;` so, don’t waste your time.  They also fear that even an unsuccessful attempt at removal in which a majority of the votes cast are for removal will send the communication that a majority of the active members of the community are not supportive of the performance of current management or board of directors.  When faced with dissent, they rely on brutal, frequently illegal, tactics to suppress homeowner involvement and the dissent of any elected director who doesn’t “go along to get along”.

Ethics Behind Obvious Voter Suppression Tactics
The question we, the homeowners, need to answer in this recall election is the message we want to send regarding the ethics and culture of the SCA community. My experience since moving to SCA is that it is a community of fine, diverse people who share an incredible moral compass.  I do not believe that the actions of the current board or management reflect the moral values of the residents of SCA.

Personally, I never believed the recall election stood a chance of being successful. However, I believe that every “yes” vote sends a message to the corrupt, self-serving insiders who currently control the governance of SCA that their morals and actions do not represent the community.

I urge you to spend the 50 cents to send in you ballot and to vote “yes” in the recall election.

Thanks for reading a best wishes to all of you.

Jim Mayfield

 

A House Divided – the spin doctor at work.

 

On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln, while running as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, made his famous statement, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Of course, here we are, 159 years later and we as a country are perhaps as much divided now as we were then, but still standing.

I point this out because Sun City Anthem, our little community, a microcosm in the scheme of things, is at this time, greatly divided. At the root of this division is the performance of the current HOA Board of Directors, the General Manager, and the HOA Attorney.

There are those in this community that believe the Board, GM, and Attorney are doing a wonderful job. However, there are over 800 residents who feel that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

First let me address the fact that the NRS and the Sun City Anthem HOA By-Laws addresses in detail, the process by which the homeowners of this community can file a complaint against management and the Board, including the allowance for a petition to be filed for the recall of Board Members. These 800+ homeowners of Sun City Anthem have followed the rules and filed their legal petition. However, the Board, the General Manager, and the Attorney, in an effort to preserve their gravy train have done everything possible to prevent a fair recall election. I have pointed out one example of many in my blog article “How to Lose Control of Who Represents You on the SCA Board.”

One way that the Board is fighting the recall is through the use of a Spin Doctor in the form of longtime blogger David Berman. Mr. Berman has characterized this removal election as an ‘evil and traumatic injury to the body politic that is tearing the community apart.’ To that end, Mr. Berman formed an organization called OSCAR (Opposition to Sun City Anthem Recall) and has been publishing slanted half-truths to his readership on behalf of the Board and management. While the Board is certainly not paying Mr. Berman for his service, they are feeding his ego by making him an insider and feeding (or leaking if you prefer), key management and Board information for his nearly daily blog posts. Information, I might add, that is not posted in the Board Books or available to others in the community.

In fact, Mr. Berman uses this inside information to form hyperbole supposition and theories of doom and destruction as scare tactics to con his sheeple into believing that everything he states is gospel. But Mr. Berman’s rants don’t stop there; he personally calls out the names of people he feels are against his puppet board to ostracize them and calls for them to be banished from his kingdom.

In a piece published on October 9th, Mr. Berman used a thread posted by homeowner Bobbi Senneke on the NextDoor social app to prove that he is not the only person supporting the current Board, GM, and attorney. Apparently, there has been a growing conversation about the performance of the Board, GM, and the current state of the community that has frustrated Mrs. Senneke to the point of writing to Mr. Berman:

“I have finally had enough. The comments appearing on NextDoor from SCA residents, (names omittedby Berman) tipped me over the edge.  What follows is my posted response, with my husband’s blessing. I cannot muster the most meager kind thought for this gang.”

“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!” stated Senneke. Then, in fear that she may also become the target of those displeased with the current administration, Senneke continued by admonishing everyone to,

“…bring it on, or you can do a kindness for yourselves and for those of us who appreciate and cherish what we are blessed with here in Anthem, and JUST MOVE!”

Instead of accepting each individual’s right to their opinion and to publicly state their concerns over what they feel is an injustice to the community, as well as their right to a recall vote; Mrs. Senneke and, through his publication, Mr. Berman,  are encouraging a degree of hate talk and separatist thinking that is dividing the community.

With this one post, Mr. Berman causes further division in the community. He deflects attention from his hand by blaming the community unrest, not on the precipitating problems, but on the petitioners for exercising their legal right to call for a vote. Mr. Berman uses the quote to continue the fantasy that there are no issues of mismanagement and malfeasance and to legitimizes the false claim that the directors facing recall are innocent of any wrongdoing. He does not acknowledge that the concerns the petitioners raised could have been avoided, or at least, that some attempt at solution or mitigation would have been appropriate. Mr. Berman simply discredits the unhappy owners who are exercising their legal right to call for an owner vote to remove Directors for mismanagement and malfeasance.

If you read the entirety of Ms. Senneke post online, the extent of Mr. Berman’s spin doctor mind-controlling influence becomes clear, as most of her comments are merely a regurgitation of his past posts.

In all actuality, recall elections must overcome huge hurdles and are rarely successful. You can read about the challenges faced in this article that addresses a number of state recall elections. Nonetheless, as I stated above, the ability of the homeowners of this community to ask for a recall is well within their right.

So what is it that the members of the community are complaining about? I have put “11 Reasons Why We Need To Recall The Board Members” on this blog site. In addition to the 11 reasons, the over 800 homeowners also submitted a petition to call for a vote of no confidence to the Board complaining about the performance of Sandy Seddon as the General Manager. The petitioners requested that the issues be addressed and that the document be placed in her personnel file. However, rather than addressing any of homeowner complaints, the Board chose to File 13 the petition against the GM for the next garbage pickup. Mr. Berman published a blog about how worthless it was so he obviously had access to it, but the document was never made available to the membership or even to all of the members of the Board who requested it.

We are not going to convince the sheeple that are under Mr. Berman’s hypnotic trance that anything is rotten in Denmark. However, there are still those independent thinkers out there who might not live in the community full time or simply have not kept up with all of the facts. It will be a tough battle these next few days, and I urge everyone to have civility. But if someone that you know is on the fence and looking for answers, lead them to this document and the other documents on SCA Strong, where I firmly believe that Owners should ALWAYS come first!

 

How To Lose Control Of Who Represents You On The SCA BOD

There is a lot of confusion about what is happening to the recall petitions (with 825 signatures) to remove four directors from the Board. In my opinion, the homeowners are purposely being kept in the dark. The General Manager (GM), Sandy Seddon, is using a lot of dirty tricks to stop owners from voting. The suppressing of accurate and timely information is just one way to make it less likely that you will vote.

The removal election update at the Sept. 28th Board Meeting consisted of the reading of a letter from the HOA attorney that listed which petitions had enough signatures (715) to place a director on the removal ballot; Rex Weddle (758): Aletta Waterhouse (734); and Tom Nissen (726). However, the petition against Bob Burch fell two signatures short (713) of the 715 needed to place him on the recall ballot.

It is important to note, that the oral report did not contain any attorney-client privileged information, but did include specific details about the procedure for the recall election that should be immediately available (in writing) to the homeowners in order for them to plan their vote.

The letter reported decisions made by the attorney (that were not approved by anyone with legal authority) to restrict the owners’ rights and to change past voting practices including:

  • Changes to the dates the ballots are mailed to the homeowners (Oct.9 instead of Oct. 2);
  • Changes to the ballot return process
    • No ballot boxes;
    • Ballots must be returned by mail only (to the CPA’s unknown address, not to the Anthem Center);
    • Redefining the deadline for the returned ballot as the date received (by 5 PM October 26) and not the date of the postmark;
    • Makes no provision for those who will not be able to receive their mail during those dates.

So why not place this important information on the www.sca-hoa.org website in the official record of the Sept. 28 Board meeting.? According to Sandy Seddon:

“The Update was provided for reliance in relation to an oral summary of the status of the review of the petitions/removal election to be given at the meeting, and the update was drafted in a manner to be read aloud, not conveyed in writing. Written documentation will not be provided as part of the board book.”

I believe that Seddon’s justification is simply another attempt to obscure information in the hope that the homeowners will not correctly vote or not vote at all. The acts of suppressing dissent and disenfranchising voters are intolerable practices that permeate this administration. It violates one of the most fundamental principles of good governance: FAIRNESS!

I have forwarded my request to make this oral report available on the HOA website, along with Seddon’s refusal “justification,” to the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) Investigator assigned to my complaint. I have stated that the attorney, management, and Board President Rex Weddle are interfering with the removal election process and asked that the NRED look into this matter.

Click here to see the notarized complaint regarding election interference.

While the attorney, GM, and the Board are doing everything they can to obscure information from the homeowners, the “anti-recall” people are doing everything that they can to confuse the issue. Recently, the anti-recall people sent a letter to everybody’s home claim there are no complaints on record against the Board members that are up for recall. That is simply not true as I have personally filed four complaints which are being investigated by the Nevada Real Estate Division investigation unit, and Interference in this removal election process is one of the complaints.

Here are a few examples of a pattern of totally unacceptable conduct by management in biasing this removal election process:

  1. Taking over the removal election process and usurping all duties of the SCA Elections Committee in violation of their charter and the SCA Election & Voting Manual.
  2. Using the attorney in excess of the adopted budget ($73,000 over the approved budget in four months) to interfere with the owner’s rights to vote and to control who represents them on the Board.
  3. Making a secret contract with a CPA for at least $10,000 that was not in the approved budget and which has been concealed from owners, despite a legal right to see any contract of which SCA is a party.
  4. Refusing to step aside and allow the Election committee to do their job as usual with unpaid volunteers and, in this case, utilizing the expertise of the State of Nevada to ensure the integrity of the Removal Election process.
  5. Providing information and control to President Rex Weddle, who is subject to recall, and giving information access to David Berman, the self-proclaimed head of the Oppose Sun City Anthem Recall (OSCAR), anti-recall effort.
  6. Information was concealed from me, an elected Board member and liaison to the Election Committee, even though I was not facing a petition to be recalled.

In summary, I would like for you to ask yourself a question.

How is it ever good for homeowners to understand and properly participate in the community affairs if management prevents timely access to information such as voting rules controlling a removal election?

I may be going out on a limb here, but I say it’s never good for homeowners if management conceals information that owners need and have a right to know. So, who does benefit when management makes a fair and open removal election nigh on impossible?

Again, out on that shaky limb, I say it is beyond “not good for homeowners.” It is horrible for homeowners that this manager and this attorney, are working in concert with this Board to unlawfully interfere with the homeowners right to a fair election to remove President Rex Weddle, Secretary Aletta Waterhouse, and Director Tom Nissen, in accordance with the legal requirements afforded in the HOA By-Laws, but which they unlawfully suspended when they removed me from my Board position.