Bob Frank’s Stand-Up Comedy Act

 

 

The comedy relief at the February 23 Board meeting came from Board candidate Bob Frank, during the second Member Comment Period.

Entering the meeting after it started, Bob obtained ticket number 3 for the second Member Comment Period.

Later in the meeting, I took ticket number 4 for the purpose of asking questions about two agenda items that were covered during the meeting.

When it came time for Mr. Frank to speak as the holder of ticket number 3, he insisted that I go first.

His reason for doing this soon became apparent, because after I had spoken on my subjects of interest, Mr. Frank used part of his speaking time to launch into a blistering attack on David Berman, by name.

Though Board President Jim Long should have cut Mr. Frank off as soon as he began verbally attacking me, because resident-vs-resident attacks are not permitted during Board meetings, Long did not do so.

Mr. Frank then proceeded to tell one of his outright lies.

He said that at the February 21 Election Committee meeting, previously reported on this blog, I accused Mr. Frank of being in line for a finder’s fee in the current IRS audit matter.

I had to run back to the microphone after Frank spoke to note that he had lied, and that all I had done at the Election Committee meeting was to ASK if he had made a disclosure of a potential conflict of interest on the disclosure form he submitted with his candidacy filing.

Several audience members at the Board meeting, who also had attended the Election Committee meeting, agreed with me that all I had done was ask the question, not make an accusation.

This is typical of Bob Frank, who distorts, misleads, and ignores the truth at nearly every turn.

The man can’t even admit that he doesn’t know how to extract information from a public court record, preferring to insist instead, as he has in the past, that the information must have come from privileged, inside sources.

Wait a minute …Bob Frank DID write that he didn’t know where to find the court information, which I had easily located in the Clark County District Court online records. But even with that admission, he accused me of benefiting from favoritism anyway.

 

 

Comments

[Eugene Greenberg]

This type of discourse in a public forum is counter productive to the good of the community if not purely disgusting. As the leader of the community, Mr. Long should convene a meeting between the interested parties and try to find a peaceful solution. If either party violates the agreement Mr Long should call them out. If there is no direction from our elected official, he is failing to advance the good of the community.

If polled, my guess is that SCA residents would give the current arguments lower marks than the efforts of the U.S.Congress. That is not an acomplishment to be proud of!

[carl Weinstein]

There is something that bothers me even more than Bob Frank's actions and words. That is that Board President Long allowed the public attack to continue without abatement. That sets a reversal of the trend to decency at Board meetings. I can remember several hyears ago how nasty Board meetings could become when the President did not control outbursts and sometimes was also guilty of inappropriate outbursts.

[Sherryl Daly]

Jim Long did all of us a favor by allowing this resident-to-resident attack to continue. The Election Committee outburst by Bob Frank has been spoken about in private conversations ... let's get it out into the open.

But most of all, let's hear Bob Frank's answer to David's original query at the EC meeting. All of BF's outbursts have been distractions from the question that he needs to answer:

So Bob Frank, did you reveal a potential conflict of interest on the disclosure form you submitted with your candidacy filing?

[Phil Berns]

Death, Taxes and Bob Frank.

[John Burke]

Right or wrong, president Long made a wise decision. Mr. Frank stayed well within his allocated time and, if history means anything, to have intervened would only have resulted in protestations and prolonged the meeting.

[alan]

the question is would the IRS have found the mistake in our tax return anyway. if its "anyway" then none of this matters. My question is how many past years are we on the hook for because of stupid board member? 2007 could just be the tip of the iceberg. so we each owe 200 for 07 , how about 08, 09 etc???

[David Berman]

Here are your answers, Alan:

It was not a "mistake." It is a difference of opinion on how to file the SCA 2007 tax return, and the Board believes its filing, based on expert advice, was correct. When the matter is over, we'll then know if the decision was a correct one.

But would the IRS have found it? The answer, in my opinion, is no. Bob Frank and some colleagues brought it to their attention.

I doubt if there would be tax consequences for the years 2008 through 2010, because over those three years the Association "returned" more than $4 million in excess revenues to homeowners in the form of fourth-quarter assessment holidays.

Alan, don't you remember having been relieved of your dues obligation over those three years?

[Al]

Two points of view have been expressed about Board President Long's inaction re Frank's diatribe against David.

It seems to me, both contain elements of validity. I wonder if a definitive rationale can be made for either side.

[alan]

yes i remember we got some money back but was not sure if that would cover the other years or not. this is good to know and relief.