David's Anthem Journal

Coordinated Effort Seeks Action on Low-Flying Aircraft

 Quarterbacked by Bella Meese, the SCA Board's Vice President for Community Relations, a coordinated letter-writing campaign has been initiated to convince the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that low-flying aircraft departing and arriving from the nearby Henderson Executive Airport pose a hazard to the residents of the Anthem communities, Seven Hills, and Madeira Canyon.

A collection of letters in support of the initiative has been distributed by Director Meese for sharing with the community. These include the following:

An October 13 letter to Henderson Mayor Andy Hafen from the Seven Hills Master Community Association.

An October 27 letter to Mayor Hafen from SCA Board President Jim Long.

A November 2 letter to Mayor Hafen from the Madeira Canyon Board of Directors.

A November 3 letter to Senator Harry Reid from Mayor Hafen.

A November 8 letter from Sen. Reid to the FAA, urging that agency to send a safety team to the Henderson Executive Airport to review current flight procedures and determine if safety risks exist.

For the complete pdf file containing all the letters mentioned above, send me an e-mail (davidinlv@cox.net) and I will send you the file.

---------------

Editor's Note:

While this letter-writing initiative is more extensive than previous efforts in which our Board of Directors has been involved, it is not the first time that the Board has communicated with government officials to seek action on issues related to flights in and out of the Henderson Executive Airport.

Unfortunately, Rana Goodman, writing about the subject on her forum, claims otherwise.

Ms. Goodman writes in part:

A few years ago, residents, especially in my village of Big Sky which runs along the golf course, we started complaining of excessively frequent low flying small planes coming from the Henderson Executive Airport …After weeks of several villages complaining about the same thing, we asked the SCA Board for help, they said nothing could be done.

The FACTS tell a different story.

During the relatively short life of the Government Affairs Advisory Committee (GAAC), which Rana Goodman sat on as Vice Chair, the Board looked to that committee for guidance on this issue.

The agenda for the November 20, 2008 Board meeting contained the following GAAC Action Item for Board consideration:

It is recommended that the Board write a letter to each individual Congressman and U.S. Senator, explaining the safety issues related to the Henderson Executive Airport and asking for their help in solving our problems since they are the only ones that can influence the FAA.

The official minutes of the November 20, 2008 Board meeting contain the following result related to the GAAC’s recommendation:

Upon motion duly made by Carl Weinstein, seconded by Barry Friedman, and unanimously carried, the Board of Directors accepts the recommendation by Government Affairs Advisory Committee that the Board write a letter to each individual Congressman and U.S. Senator explaining the safety issues related to the Henderson Executive Airport.

My recollection is that the letters recommended by the GAAC were written and sent.

How convenient for Ms. Goodman to ignore these documented FACTS for the sake of bashing a prior Board to suit her personal agenda. But it is especially surprising that her “failure of memory” involves recommendations that she was a party to while on the GAAC.

 

The Most Important Meeting You Will Ever Attend?

 

 

Have you circled Wednesday, November 2, at 6:00 p.m. on your calendar? For several weeks now, our community members leading the fight against the proposed Sloan Hills mining project that threatens our Sun City Anthem lifestyle have been beating the drum to urge attendance at the Bureau of Land Management public meeting to be held at Coronado High School (below) on November 2nd.

 

 

Continued stalling of legislation in Congress to remove the land designated for the mining project from consideration requires that the BLM continue with the legally mandated process of analyzing the potential impact of the proposed project.

In August, the BLM issued its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with a public comment period of 120 days, noting that input from the public is essential to this process. Perhaps you are among the few people who have taken time to read or browse through the 500-page-plus EIS, which was made available online and at the SCA administrative office.

The Wednesday evening meeting offers the first organized opportunity for our residents to comment on the project, in a format that starts with a one-hour opportunity to meet with specialists to get answers to questions, followed by a 30-minute project presentation, and finally a 90-minute public hearing where the public will be able to comment on the draft EIS. To say it is scary is an understatement.

Our community has turned out in massive numbers in past years when serious issues confronted us, such as proposed changes in the Anthem Master Plan and plans for a heliport close to our borders.

This is another one of those occasions where a massive turnout is being asked to let the BLM know of our concern about the threat of the mining project to our well-being.

Coronado High School is only 2.5 miles from the top of Eastern Ave., so there is no reason not to attend this meeting.

Directions: Drive down Eastern Ave. and turn LEFT onto Sunridge Heights Parkway, which is between Walgreen’s and Lee’s Discount Liquors. Then drive past just a few streets and turn RIGHT onto Coronado Center Drive. The school will be just ahead on your left.

 

Need A Ride?

 

 

Even though Coronado High School is very close to SCA, there may be some readers not planning to attend because they do not drive after dark.

We have room to take THREE people to the meeting in our car, and will gladly provide this transportation to the first three who respond to me via e-mail, davidinlv@cox.net.

Additionally, we are willing to serve as a clearing house for those who would either be willing to offer transportation to fellow residents or are in need of a ride. Just e-mail me in either case and we will work hard to match you up.

Do not miss this meeting! Putting bodies in seats, and letting the government officials know that our entire community is concerned, is a guaranteed way to make a profound impact on this process! 

 

Is This Editorial Cartoon Offensive?

 

Dear Readers: In my entire life, I have never taken personal exception to an editorial cartoon, certainly not to the point of writing to a cartoonist’s editors to complain. My firm belief is that editorial cartoonists perform a valuable public service, and defense of the First Amendment is paramount to life in a free society.

I finally made an exception, however, when I saw the following cartoon by syndicated Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial cartoonist Mike Luckovich, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, published in today’s (Sept. 28) Las Vegas Review-Journal.

 

This is the cartoon:

 

 

I take offense not to the message or the intended humor, but to the fact that the cartoonist pictured Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu with a Star of David on his suit.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the Jews under Hitler knows that they were required to sew Jewish stars on their clothing to identify themselves …until they could be exterminated.

Publishing of the cartoon seemed especially ill-timed, coming on the eve of the Jewish New Year.

In addition, the image of the star on Netanyahu’s suit seemed both unnecessary and redundant, in view of the fact that he is also drawn wearing a large button that says “Netanyahu.”

I leave it to my readers to indicate whether they think I am overreacting.

Invitation to Meet Congress Candidate Kate Marshall

 

Readers: Though I respect my readers’ diverse political views by not getting the blog involved in partisan politics outside of Sun City Anthem, I am also always willing to help publicize events that have a direct relationship to SCA, whether they are Democratic or Republican.

With that in mind, I have been asked to let readers know of an opportunity to meet Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall, Democratic candidate for Congress in the Second Congressional District, which includes a portion of Sun City Anthem.

 

 

Treasurer Marshall is running against Republican State Senator Mark Amodei in the special election for this seat, which was vacated by Congressman Dean Heller when he was appointed to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the resignation of John Ensign.

The special election to fill the Second District seat is right around the corner, on Tuesday, September 13.

Sun City Anthem residents Bev and Jerry Saperstein are hosting a reception for Kate Marshall at their home on Saturday, August 20, at 12:30 p.m.

The address is 2240 Savannah River Street. Directions are available by calling the Sapersteins at 236-0196.

The Sapersteins invite all interested residents to meet Treasurer Marshall and enjoy wine, cheese, other refreshments, and their famous chocolate fountain.

RSVPs are requested by calling Mandi Karp at (775) 230-7106 or e-mailing her at mandik@katefornevada.com.

 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Sloan Hills Mining Project Published by BLM

As the community knows, Senator Harry Reid and the rest of the Nevada Congressional delegation have been working to get legislation passed that would remove from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) control the controversial nearby area that could be the site of a major minerals pit-mining operation.

But while this legislation is stalled in Washington, the BLM is mandated to move forward with the legally required process of considering the applications it received for the mining project.

A major component of the process is the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and   the BLM has just published (on August 5) the proposed project’s Draft EIS, beginning the 120-day period for public comment.

 

 

Upon receiving notice of the issuance of the Draft EIS, resident George Meese, who has been leading the team of residents opposing the project, issued a statement that reads (in part) as follows:

This document describes and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of five alternatives for the proposed action, which would be the sale of mineral materials on two parcels of land administered by the BLM in the Sloan Hills are of Clark County, Nevada.

Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by email or postmarked no later than 120 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes in the Federal Register.

Public hearings will be held at several venues in the Henderson/Las Vegas area. Residents in areas that will be adversely affected by the development of the Sloan Hills Open Pit Mine will be kept advised as to those locations, times and dates of the public hearings.

Because congress has been unable or unwilling to act on the legislation that would end the threat of the development of a mine or similar activity in the Sloan Hills area, the hearing process with the Bureau of Land Management may be the fastest way to bring this matter to a conclusion. The Sun City Task Force will be meeting soon to  determine the best strategy for addressing this development.

The Draft EIS is more than 500 pages long, and it can be accessed in sections by clicking here.

Although printed copies of the Draft EIS are also being made available at area public libraries, I believe the Association has plans to print out the entire document during the coming week and make it available for residents to review at the Administrative Office.

If you click on the link I furnished above, I would recommend that you at least consider selecting the first item on the list, which is titled Front Cover, Cover Sheet, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Chapter 1 – Introduction. This portion alone is a relatively manageable 66 pages, and it offers an excellent overview of the thoroughness and detailed work involved in conducting an EIS.

Then, if you have a nose for detail, you will learn much more by selecting other portions of the document, which goes back in time to the very first public scoping meetings that were conducted at the Henderson Executive Airport.

Anyone who wants to know anything about the proposed project, the geographic area it would cover and affect, and the collateral issues that are involved, will find everything in this report. 

 

Legislative Update: SB 204 – Part 3

 

QUORUMS – Section 42 of this bill amends NRS 116.3109 in two important ways as it applies to quorums.

The first change relates to what constitutes a quorum at meetings of the units’ owners. The most important of these meetings, of course, is the annual Members Meeting each November at which the SCA budget for the coming year is ratified …by default, as not enough members show up to reject the budget.

The new law says that a quorum of unit owners is present, unless the governing documents state otherwise, if persons entitled to cast 20 percent of the votes in the association are (a) present in person, (b) present by proxy, (c) have cast absentee ballots in the prescribed manner, or any combination of these three methods.

Our governing documents DO set a lower percentage for a quorum: 10 percent. This 10 percent figure would amount to representation by at least 715 units out of our 7,144.

In addition, Section 8.1 of the SCA CC&Rs requires that 90 percent of units must reject a budget to prevent it from being ratified, which amounts to 6,430 votes, not a mathematical impossibility but certainly a practical one.

The more significant change in quorum requirements relates to what constitutes a quorum of directors at board meetings.

Under current law and our governing documents, if a quorum of directors – at least 4 out of 7- is present at the beginning of a board meeting, the quorum is considered to be still in effect for voting purposes if the number of directors present drops below 4 at any point during the meeting. For example, a board meeting could begin with 4 directors present but the number drops to 3 during the meeting when one of the directors leaves for a medical appointment. Under current law, the board can still vote on agenda items, because a quorum was present when the meeting started.

When the law changes next January, however, a quorum must be present at the time each vote on an agenda item is taken:

Unless the governing documents specify a larger number, a quorum of the executive board is deemed present for purposes of determining the validity of any action taken at a meeting of the executive board only if individuals entitled to cast a majority of votes on that board are present at the time a vote regarding that action is taken. If a quorum is present when a vote is taken, the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present is the act of the executive board unless a greater vote is required by the declaration or bylaws.

The speakers at the Legislative Update did not deem this change regarding board-meeting quorums to be beneficial to HOAs. The way the new law is written, they said, one or more directors could simply step out of the meeting room to deny the board a quorum for voting on a particular issue, and could then return to the room for the rest of the agenda.

---------------

Robert’s Rules of Order – SB 204 mandates that members meetings and board meetings “must be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless the bylaws or a resolution of the executive board adopted before the meeting provide otherwise.”

The current SCA governing documents do specify that meetings will be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules. Our Board meetings, in particular, do follow Robert’s Rules closely, though not religiously. It may be that our Board may need to adopt a resolution specifying how Robert’s Rules will be followed or not followed.

(to be continued)

 

Legislative Update: SB 204 – Part 2

 

EXECUTIVE BOARD ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY -- A very significant provision of SB 204, signed into law by Governor Sandoval, concerns the authority of an executive board to take enforcement actions for various violations.

This is new language in the law, and bears stating in its entirety:

The executive board may determine whether to take enforcement action by exercising the association’s power to impose sanctions or commence an action for a violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules, including whether to compromise any claim for unpaid assessments or other claim made by or against it. The executive board does not have a duty to take enforcement action if it determines that, under the facts and circumstances presented:

(a) The association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action;

(b) The covenant, restriction or rule being enforced is, or is likely to be construed as, inconsistent with current law;

(c) Although a violation may exist or may have occurred, it is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or

(d) It is not in the association’s best interests to pursue an enforcement action.

The executive board’s decision …not to pursue enforcement action under one set of circumstances does not prevent the executive board from taking enforcement action under another set of circumstances, but the executive board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.

I take a couple of things away from my study of this new statutory language. One is that the board cannot be compelled, after consideration of circumstances, to take, or not take, actions to issue sanctions for various violations. Also, just because the board does or does not undertake sanctions to address various violations, homeowners who claim inconsistencies in how the board addresses similar fact patterns may find the board able to justify different outcomes if it can show that it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.

---------------

FILLING BOARD VACANCIES -- SB 204 makes another significant change in how board vacancies can be filled when an opening occurs between regularly scheduled elections.

…the executive board may fill vacancies in its membership for the unexpired portion of any term or until the next regularly scheduled election of executive board members, whichever is earlier. Any executive board member elected to a previously vacant position which was temporarily filled by board appointment may only be elected to fulfill the remainder of the unexpired portion of the term.

By example, let me explain what this means.

In the 2011 Board election, we elected four new directors for two-year terms. Let’s say that one of these directors resigns from the Board next week. The Board can appoint someone to fill the vacancy, but the person so appointed cannot serve for the remainder of the two-year term of the director who resigned. Rather, the appointee can serve only until the next regularly scheduled election, in 2012. Then that seat must be filled for only one additional year (the remainder of the two-year term of the resigned director) in the 2012 election while three people are elected for the normal two-year term.

This preserves the staggered election system –3,4,3,4, etc.- currently in place.

---------------

REMOVAL ELECTIONS –- Section 37 of the bill reverts back to the law as it was in 2009, and says that any member of the board can be removed, with or without cause, if at a removal election, the number of votes cast in favor of removal constitutes at least 35 percent of the total number of voting members of the association and is a majority of all votes cast in the election.

What this means for SCA: In a removal election, at least 2,501 units (35% of 7,144 units) must vote in favor of removal AND those voting for removal must be a majority of all the votes. This means, in a removal election that meets the 35-percent total voting for removal, that number must still be a majority of all votes cast in the removal election.

The practical effect of this language is that it will be next to impossible to remove a director in a removal election, certainly much more difficult than simply defeating that director in a subsequent election where the top vote-getters are elected.

Under the new language, it is easier to call for a removal election than to actually succeed in one:

A removal election may be called by units’ owners constituting at least 10 percent, or any lower percentage specified in the bylaws, of the total number of voting members of the association. For SCA, this is 715 units. Readers may recall that an effort was made to call for a removal election of the previous Board, but the proponents could not even obtain the necessary 715 petition signatures to trigger such an election.

(to be continued)

Legislative Update: SB 204 – Part 1

 

Note: In this and other articles I will be publishing on the new HOA legislation, my personal observations and editorial comments will be in red type. (The use of the word “he” or “his” in these articles applies equally to “she” or “her”).

Senate Bill 204 was, by far, the most comprehensive bill signed into law. It contains 61 sections, and in this initial series of articles I will focus strictly on those I believe most directly impact Sun City Anthem. The provisions of this bill take effect on January 1, 2012.

It must be noted that the Nevada homeowners-association statute, NRS 116, does not exist in a vacuum. NRS 116 was created when the Uniform Common-Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA) was legislated into existence. What most of the HOA bills do is enact amendments to the UCIOA, with the requirement that NRS 116 must be changed or amended to comply with the changes to the UCIOA.

---------------

NOTICES – Notices that are legally required to be sent to unit owners must be sent by the Association to any mail or electronic mail address a unit owner designates. This means that a unit owner can specify that he wants his notices delivered electronically. If a unit owner has not designated a mail or electronic mail address, the Association has the option to deliver notices by: hand delivery; U.S. Mail or commercial delivery service to the mailing address of each unit; electronic means if the owner has given an electronic mailing address; any other method reasonably calculated to provide notice to the unit’s owner.

The ineffectiveness of a good faith effort to deliver notice by an authorized means DOES NOT invalidate action taken at or without a meeting.

I believe the last paragraph above means that if an owner complains that he did not receive notice of pending actions, the failure to receive the notice does not invalidate the actions of the Association or Board if a good-faith effort to deliver the notice can be shown. Also, since this section does not state how and whether an association should obtain the preferred notice information from unit owners, I would presume it is the obligation of the owner to tell SCA management if he wants his notices to be delivered other than via the standard mailing processes we currently employ.

These notice provisions do not apply to the notice requirements related to foreclosures and liens, which are spelled out in NRS Sections 116.3116 through 116.31168.

---------------

INDEMNIFICATION OF BOARD MEMBERS – If a member of an executive board, such as the SCA Board of Directors, is named as a respondent or sued for liability for actions undertaken in his or her role as a member of the board, the association shall indemnify the member for his or her losses or claims, and undertake all costs of defense, unless it is proven that the member acted with willful or wanton malfeasance or with gross negligence. After such proof, the association is no longer liable for the cost of defense, and may recover costs already expended from the member of the executive board who so acted.

This section essentially reenacts and reorganizes sections of the law that already exist. It will be seen in action on August 23, when several former directors, including this reporter’s spouse, will be respondents, defended by SCA’s directors and officers liability insurer, in a public hearing before the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Hotel Condominiums at the Grant Sawyer Office Building in Las Vegas. The respondents are charged with making changes to SCA’s governing documents nearly three and a half years ago without a vote of the unit owners as required by the governing documents. The minutes of the March 27, 2008 Board meeting state: “The Attorney reviewed the CC&Rs and By Laws for updates to conform to NRS 116. These corrections can be voted on by the Board and do not require homeowners’ approval. These corrections are merely to bring the CC&Rs and By Laws of the Association into compliance with current legislation.”

---------------

RESPONSES VIA OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS – The current NRS 116.31175 provides the opportunity for residents to have equal space to present opposing views and opinions in an “official publication” when the publication contains or will contain the views or opinions of the association, the executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association concerning a matter of “official interest.”

Some residents have availed themselves of this opportunity by requesting and receiving space for their “op-ed”comments in our Spirit magazine.

SB 204 adds the additional requirement that if an association –such as Sun City Anthem- has a closed-circuit television station –such as Channel 99- and “the station interviews, or provides time to, a candidate or a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of a ballot question, the closed-circuit television station must, under the same terms and conditions, allow equal time for all candidates or a representative of an opposing view to the ballot question.”

Since few if any HOAs beyond Sun City Anthem have such a television station, it is reasonable to assume that this change in the law was advocated and lobbied for by one or more SCA residents. Effective implementation, however, is problematic for several reasons.

First, we must be aware that the statute specifically defines the term “issue of official interest” as follows:

• Any issue on which the executive board or the units’ owners will be voting, including, without limitation, elections; and
   
• The enactment or adoption of rules or regulations that will affect the common-interest community.

If the subjects that generate a request for equal space to present opposing views are not related to matters on which the board or unit owners will vote, including a board election, or related to the adoption of rules and regulations, then it seems to this reporter that a resident will have no right to present an opposing view.

In addition, there is the matter of timing. In most cases, those wishing to present an opposing view do not know what it is they want to respond to until the original comments are published or aired on the television station. It then takes at least one publication or broadcast cycle for someone wishing to respond to obtain the equal time or space to which he is entitled, which potentially could make the response moot, depending on the time frame to address the issue.

I seriously doubt that a resident would have the right of “prior review” in order to go on a fishing expedition to determine if there is something he wants to respond to.

With regard to Channel 99, there is also the fact that the operation is manned completely by volunteers, and scheduling the time of these volunteers to participate in facilitating a resident’s response could be a logistical challenge.

With regard to Board elections and Channel 99, it would seem the safest, most efficient approach would be to follow the practice of the past two years, which is to provide no election coverage at all. While this will have the effect of denying homeowners election information via Channel 99, it is an unfortunate consequence of changes in the law, most likely promoted by one or more SCA residents.

                (to be continued) 

 

Legislative Update

 

As happens every two years, the recently concluded session of the Nevada Legislature made a number of changes to Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 116, the law that governs the state’s homeowners associations.

One of the most popular seminars following in the wake of the legislative session is the biennial Legislative Update sponsored by the HOA law firm of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin on behalf of the Community Associations Institute.

About 300 people, comprising HOA board members, employees of management companies and interested HOA residents, including this reporter, attended the 2011 Legislative update on July 21 at the Gold Coast. Each attendee received a comprehensive summary of the new HOA-related legislation, and professional managers received continuing education credits for their participation in the four-hour session.

As in 2009, the event was facilitated by three of the top Nevada HOA attorneys: Michael Schulman, Gayle Kern and John Leach.

Not everyone attending the session fell into the category of being friendly to the presenters or the information they presented. Noted Sun City Anthem dissidents Tim Stebbins, Nelson Orth and Ron Johnson were there, as was self-styled HOA advocate Jonathan Friedrich.

Over the coming days I will provide you with information about some of the specific changes to NRS 116 that I deem significant to SCA residents. On balance, the changes constitute a mixed bag, depending on your point of view. Major problems were sidestepped when an especially egregious piece of legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Harvey Mumford, Assembly Bill 448, was defeated. Another bill that would have greatly benefited homeowners was vetoed by Governor Sandoval after passage by the legislature. But I will be focusing only on the legislation that was actually signed into law and you should be aware of.

During introductory comments by Senator Allison Copening, a leader in developing HOA-related legislation with the help of a study group she organized between the last two sessions, as well as comments from facilitators at the Legislative Update, it was noted that this year’s session in Carson City was characterized by an unusual level of misinformation and personal attacks by self-styled HOA advocates against some who did not share their points of view. This somewhat mirrors the method by which dissidents in our own community operate, and I am confident that efforts will be made to blunt the effects of this unfortunate style of politics as the months pass in advance of the 2013 legislative session.

Meanwhile, there is a highly superficial, misleading and inaccurate article about the Legislative Update on the Rana Goodman forum if you care to read it. It contains almost no information about the actual bills that have become law, information you will shortly be reading here. And it quotes from several e-mails or letters to state officials from writers who apparently are afraid to allow Ms. Goodman to publish their names.

 

 

Breaking News: Bateman Takes Ward 4 Council Seat in Landslide

News media reported this evening (June 7) that Sam Bateman, who works in the Clark County District Attorney’s office and is a Henderson planning commissioner, has won an overwhelming victory over former Henderson Police Chief Mike Mayberry in the race for the Henderson Ward 4 City Council seat.

Bateman captured 63 percent of the vote in an election that saw a turnout of only 11 percent of eligible voters.

Review-Journal story here:

http://tinyurl.com/3rszvel