David's Anthem Journal

Comments on the Election

I don’t think there’s a lot to be said about this year’s election results. Once again, our homeowners voted to continue supporting the current direction of Sun City Anthem, a direction that maintains our lifestyle while keeping dues at a manageable level.

As significant as the outcome was, it was also significant that the positions articulated by Bob and Kay Frank, positions that relentlessly allege high crimes and misdemeanors, have been again repudiated by a community that is just not buying it. What the police have apparently decided, however, is that Bob Frank filed a false police report in making some of his allegations. We won’t know whether the charges against Bob Frank and one other resident will stand until the matter is tried.

I hope my readers have noted the efforts I made to treat all candidates in the Board election as fairly as possible, with the exception of Mrs. Frank, whom I deemed not qualified to serve. But even Mrs. Frank could have had the opportunity to reach my readers with her message, an invitation I courteously offered to her, without any editorializing by me or my readers.

In this regard, I hope you, my readers, appreciated the opportunity five of the candidates accepted to present their statements and materials to you via this blog. No other blog or communications channel in Sun City Anthem opened up their publications so completely.

For example:

• You had the opportunity to view  uncensored, unedited video statements by the candidates.
  
  
• I published each of the five candidates’ flyers.
  
  
• Additional campaign literature was posted here upon the candidates’ requests.
  
  
• Carl Weinstein’s second newspaper ad was published here.
  
  
• My editorializing regarding supported candidates was done once only, with a minor follow-up as the ballots went out.
  
• Links to candidate websites were provided.
  

Among the comments I most cherished –and this may surprise you- were messages from Carl Weinstein and his campaign manager expressing approval and appreciation for the restraint I exercised in commenting on Carl’s candidacy.

We are in a perpetual election cycle here in Sun City Anthem. If any readers have suggestions for improvements in my future election coverage, feel free to offer them.

 

 

Does Anthem Voice Know How to Read a Contract?

Anthem Voice, the new community organization that I believe stands for improving our community life, devotes half a page in its November newsletter to accusing RMI, our management company, of failing to follow proper accounting procedures.

Specifically, the newsletter article, titled "Another Accountability Issue," says that RMI violated its management agreement with Sun City Anthem when it issued a large check to the Minuteman Foundation.

According to the article, "The ISSUE is that the SCA management agreement forbids RMI from issuing any check for more than $5,000 without approval by the full SCA Board of Directors."

This would be a serious breach by RMI -- if it were true.

But it is NOT true!

Section 1.02 of the management agreement says that the Managing Agent shall "Make all contracts, consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the Governing Documents, necessary to carry out the duties conferred and imposed upon it by the Association and this Agreement, up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). Contracts obligating the Association to expend additional amounts or to be bound for a period of more than one (1) year shall require Board approval and the signature of two board members. All contracts binding the Association shall be signed in accordance with the Governing Documents."

Ladies and gentlemen, the paragraph quoted above pertains to CONTRACTS and ONLY CONTRACTS, a provision which RMI strictly adheres to, as far as I am aware.

The complaint presented in the Anthem Voice newsletter article has nothing whatsoever to do with a check related to a contract. I repeat, nothing whatsoever! In fact, RMI routinely and legally issues checks in amounts greater than $5,000 for legitimate and permitted purposes without full Board approval (but with the required two signatures).

Anthem Voice has played fast and loose with the facts in order to attack RMI on a phony issue, and I would advise all fair-minded residents to keep an eye open for similar misstatements and misinterpretations of our Association documents without proper homework having been done.

My apologies to fellow blogger and hard-hitting journalist Ron Johnson, who I'm sure would have caught this significant Athem Voice error and reported it in the near future. At least, I think so. And perhaps the December issue of the newsletter will contain the correction and apology that good, fair journalism would seem to dictate.

What is the Proper Role of a Committee Board Representative?

In the current political atmosphere, in which some residents think that one Board member can do no wrong no matter how inappropriate his behavior and six Board members can do no right no matter how meritorious their behavior, it seems that the one should be Teflon-coated and immune to constructive criticism for even flagrant misbehavior.

Consider the matter of the non-voting Board member who serves on each SCA standing committee. The role of the non-voting Board member is to serve as a conduit or communications channel between the Board and the committee, and between the committee and the Board. The agenda for each regular committee meeting provides for the committee's Board representative to give a report, with the understanding that the report will be for the purpose of the Board member to share information coming from the Board that affects and is of interest to the committee.

At last week's monthly meeting of the Properties & Grounds Committee, that Committee's Board Representative, Bob Frank, made unusual and unprecedented use of his "report." Rather than convey information from the Board, he instead delivered a personal statement of why he opposed, and will continue to oppose, a recent action that was taken by the Committee and the Board regarding the painting of the common-area fences in Sun City Anthem. Common-area fences, some of which are falling into visible disrepair, are those that face out onto Association property on one side and onto homeowners' property on the other.

According to my notes, this is what Bob Frank said.

First, he said that even though the P&G Committee on which he serves voted to recommend that the Board approve a common-area fence-painting contract in the amount of $197,000, he would continue to oppose it and work against what his committee voted for.

Then he said that even though the Board voted to accept the P&G recommendation and award the painting contract, he would continue to oppose and speak out against it.

Finally -and this is what I found most surreal- he acknowledged that the CC&Rs require that this painting be done, but he declared his opinion that the CC&Rs are illegal in this regard, and he said he would continue to oppose the project, while acknowledging that changing the CC&Rs is always an arduous and time-consuming process.

As Attorney Roger Grant advised the Board in his seminar with them, it is fine to state one's opposition to a proposed action, but once the action has been taken and ratified, full Board support is needed and one must move on.

In the history of Sun City Anthem, I've never seen a Board member so vigorously oppose an action by his committee AFTER the action has been taken, by the Board AFTER its action has been taken, and with complete acknowledgment that both the Committee and the Board acted in full compliance with the CC&Rs.

Even under the prior Board with its own set of problems, we all knew that Sun City Anthem is a wonderful place to live, with much to enjoy and celebrate, and much that is "right" about our outstanding community. But in the eyes of one current Board member, it seems that nothing is right, conspiracies abound, the committees and our paid management are dysfunctional, no one is deserving of respect. and only one person has the brains to figure it all out. I would hope that many would differ with his assessment.

A Concerned Resident Speaks Out

A Sun City Anthem resident named Bob Burch is known in the community as a low-key, thoughtful person who attends many Association meetings and forms his own opinions based not on what others tell him, but on what he hears and observes for himself.

Burch received an invitation to attend the most recent meeting of the Anthem Voice group. When replying to decline the invitation, he took the opportunity to explain his views on current SCA politics. Though at first he didn't want to publish his thoughts to a wider audience because he realizes that those who disagree with Anthem Voice expose themselves to personal attacks, he has now decided that his analysis should be shared with the greater SCA community. So here, with Bob Burch's permission, is what he wrote:
---------------

Unfortunately, there are a few in the community who will
not tolerate opposing points of view - no matter how much sense these views
might make. And these few residents have stifled the free, open and
rational discussion of issues in the community.

Thanks, again, for the invite but, once again, I'll decline the invitation.

I've taken the time to look at the AV Blog and the garbage on Ron Johnson's
website. It's not hard to see that most of the posts are submitted by the
same dozen or so residents. The most prolific would be Rana Goodman, Tim
Stebbins, Norm McCullough, Marcia Kosterka, Rivka Wolf and Bob Miller.
These folks seem to feed on each others comments to see who can come up with the most vile post.

It also seems to me that, unless the answer is what these people want to
hear, they will not accept anything that is said to them. For instance, Tim
Stebbins wrote about the $10 fee. Had he stayed at the last Board meeting,
he would have learned that RMI is producing several hundred pages of
documents for a very few residents and that these residents either do not
come by to pick up the data or they refuse to accept it when they see how
much there is. I don't necessarily like this fee but it is necessary to
stop these frivolous requests. It is extremely rude and unprofessional to
make the demand on RMI and then to refuse the documents once produced.

Norm McCullough continues to claim that the Board cannot make updates to
Reserve studies because they are not certified. He continues to make this
claim after being told that, while the Board cannot do the actual study,
they can make adjustments to it as new information is received. I believe
these adjustments actually played into the assessment reduction for the
Villas' owners. However, Norm just doesn't get it.

Rana and Donna Dickey are self described NRS and Robert's Rules of Order
experts. Rana has indicated on several occasions that she has filed
complaints with the Ombudsman. If this is true, what was the outcome? I
have to assume that she did not win because, if she did, it would have been
announced all over the community. While I understand that the Board is to
follow these rules, it's not a big deal to me if they miss a point here or
there. This is a homeowners association not the Congress of the US.

I have to admit that I just do not understand Bob Miller. He posts and
posts and posts and demands records from the Association but one never hears
the outcome of his demands. Where has the money lead him?? What has he
found out??

And this leads me to the great conspiracy theory. All of these people seem
to believe there is some great conspiracy afoot in SCA. I guess these
residents also believe that the Royal Family ordered the murder of Diana;
that the AF is hiding space aliens from Roswell; and that JFK was
assassinated by the CIA. Surely no rational person believes there is a
conspiracy in SCA. If this was the case, do you really believe that David
Berman, Bob Sansing, Lyndel Ruiz or Dave Weil would help Favil keep the
secrets? Do you really think that Elaine, Kay or Bob Berman would help Mike
Dixon keep the "secrets"?? The great conspiracy theory just doesn't hold
water.

And now to the real issue nagging at all of these people: Bob Frank. Once
again, this group of residents refuses to understand that the By-Laws allow
for the Directors to appoint Officers. Residents do not vote for Officers.
They vote for Directors. Regardless of what may have happened after the
election, the Directors chose their Officers - period. By the same token,
the By-Laws allow the Directors to remove an Officer for any or no reason.
And they did just that in the case of Bob Frank. I was a supporter of Bob
Frank. I even had his poster in my front yard. Having said that, he has
shown that he is definitely not a team player. I don't know why the Board
removed him but that was their right. For Bob to leave the meeting; for him
to not speak to the agenda item that he had placed on the agenda; to not
come the Election Committee meeting that he wanted; for him to sort of just
disappear, is not very professional. I think that Bob has some valid issues
that probably should be addressed. However, bullying the other Board
members will not help his cause. I suggest he either join the team or
resign as David Berman did.

It's clear that the vast majority of residents feel that SCA is truly a
great place to live and they do not have the time to participate in the
shenanigans of a few very unhappy residents. It is really sad that the
unhappy residents seem to have the ear of the local free newspaper and that
they use this vehicle to trash the community. Not very professional and
certainly not representative of the vast majority of residents.

My Role In The SCA Post-Election Era

A number of friends have asked me how I perceive my role in regard to ACE and this blog now that the ACE-sponsored Board candidates have achieved a stunning victory and I suddenly find myself, a former Board member, now the spouse of a Board member, much like could happen with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

One thing I can promise is that I will not be revealing to the community, whether on the blog or in any other communications medium, information that should not be revealed because it is confidential to the Board. This is not to say that I'm going to be in the pipeline for this information anyway, because it is Roz who is the Board member, not yours truly. But there is always the possibility that a spouse will hear something or be made aware of something, whether inadvertently or not, and the integrity of the Board process, as it exercises its fiduciary duties, must never be compromised.

Does this mean that the blog will now become an apologist for the Board? Anyone who knows me well should understand that this will not happen. Rightly or wrongly, I have always viewed myself as a constructive critic of the Board when I believed criticism was warranted. I do not expect that to change, nor do I expect to censor blog contributors who wish to express criticisms, as long as we continue to do so in a respectful manner. I take VERY seriously the mission of the blog to provide, among other things, a free and open forum for us to receive and exchange information and opinions. I intend to proceed along that path, and I invite you to let me know if/when you think I have forgotten to do so.

The next question concerns the future of ACE. I've lost track of the number of residents who have vigorously argued that ACE must continue. We are an issue-oriented, better-government organization that should continue to grow. We didn't organize just to win the 2007 election. The greater goal is to continue engaging the community in discussions and actions related to improving our governance and our lives in SCA. -- That having been said, our election work should also remain an important part of our activities. Three more seats come up for election in 2008, and I hope that ACE will do all in its power to identify the best candidates, present them to our supporters for their approval, and then help them to get elected. A number of highly qualified potential candidates stayed out of the race this year, some because of personal commitments and some because they needed to see that we were successful in moving our governance in a positive direction before deciding to run themselves.

The Board President's Interesting "Report"

Having been pronounced by the Election Committee as being above before-the-fact regulation by that august body, although the Committee is allowing nothing else of an election-related nature to be be broadcast without its prior review, our esteemed Board President is not hesitating in capitalizing on his license for political commentary in his Channel 99 Board President's Report for the week of February 19.

Don't look for any actual news from the Board this week, as Favil West's "report" is a rather curious mix of self-congratulation and thinly veiled political commentary. He begins with the observation that he has received 400 e-mails congratulating him for his outstanding service to the community, and then reads a long e-mail from a purported admiring couple, one that seems to remarkably mirror the views he has stated on numerous occasions about those who disagree with his approach to governance.

To help Favil spread the word, I am honored to share his thoughts with you.

I will quote the bulk of Favil's political comments without any editorial interjection from me, though I do have a couple of personal observations to make at the end of this message.

Favil says, after criticizing "those that are stirring the rumors and participating in the negativity:"

"Why are we allowing a few to poison our minds? Why are we allowing that same few to destroy our property values and our wonderful lifestyle? What happened to all the nice people with the great attitudes that were once here?

"This Board, unlike other boards, allows our residents to participate in the decision-making process at every Board meeting. This is our fifth year without a dues increase. We have absolutely the best communication system of any Sun City anywhere.

"So why are we acting like Pavlov's rats and eating each other? For the life of me, I'll never understand why people blindly believe something that they read without so much as questioning it.

"Well, over the next couple of months I would ask you to take a look around and find out who's campaigning against things and who's campaigning for things? Who thinks being critical is better than furnishing us, the electorate, with their ideas for the future? Look at what people are writing, are saying and doing, and ask yourself, are they trying to make me and my community into one of the 'sky is falling' groups, or am I going to be one of the group of people who has fresh ideas they are willing to put forward to help the community?

"This community is us, all 11,547 of us. It is not the few for whom the cup is half empty, it's not Chicken Little, it's not the negative side of the community. It is Sun City Anthem, our place to call home."

I promised a couple of personal observations at the end of this message, so here they are:

First, I completely agree with Favil. All voters of Sun City Anthem should definitely pay heed to what the candidates are saying and writing, and they should definitely pay attention to who "has fresh ideas they are willing to put forward to help the community." These words by Favil sound almost like an endorsement of the ACE-supported candidates, because those candidates are brimming with fresh, creative ideas to help the community.

Second, it is important that we set the historical record straight:

Pavlov trained dogs, not rats.

Clarification of Room Rental Denial

In view of developments over the past 24 hours, it is necessary that I clarify the circumstances under which the Board of Directors denied me the February 6 rental for our Ace members general meeting to hear and endorse candidates for the Board.

When I received the message about the denial from the Activities Manager, he didn't just say that the Board denied me the rental for February 6. He also said that I would be allowed to have the rental any time after March 12, five weeks after my originally requested date.

I did not mention this in my original report because the March date was useless for ACE purposes in view of the fact that ballots go into the mail on March 20, only seven days after the earliest date I would be permitted to have the rental. HOW CAN WE CAMPAIGN FOR OUR CANDIDATES IF WE DON'T KNOW WHO WE'RE SUPPORTING UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE BALLOTS GO INTO THE MAIL?

In addition, all of this continues to unfold in complete defiance of the right of a resident to rent a room, if available, as provided for in the Facilities Usage Manual. There is NO right of the Board to interfere with this rental under these circumstances for a private, non-disruptive meeting of our members and supporters.

Consequently, we must go ahead with our plans for an off-premises meeting.

MEMO TO THE BOARD: I was told that the Board took a vote on this and the decision was unanimous. You are not allowed to take votes/make decisions in closed-door private meetings unless it is during a properly noticed executive session for the purpose of discussing topics that under statute are permitted in executive sessions. This matter is certainly not one of those topics.

Sad to say, this Board thinks statutes, rules and regulations are merely guidelines to be followed or not followed, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

BREAKING NEWS: Board Denies Meeting Space, Violates Association Procedures -- Again!!

A hallmark of the Favil West-led Board of Directors is to profess adherence to our Association's governing documents, but then, whenever it suits them, to disregard those documents for personal or vindictive purposes.

The latest case came today when, according to the SCA Activities Manager, the Board voted unanimously (with five members attending) to deny me the right to rent a room on February 6 at Anthem Center. This is in complete disregard of the Association's Facilities Usage Manual, which states: "Residents and non-residents may reserve facility space for private events after executing a reservation contract and upon approval of the Community Manager."

Under the language of the Usage Manual, a resident renting a room, and paying for the rental, does not have to give a reason for the rental. Now it happens that my purpose was for a general meeting of ACE members, similar to the rental I made without incident several months ago. At the planned meeting, we are to listen to Board candidates interested in obtaining an endorsement from ACE, and our membership will then vote on which four candidates to endorse.

When Favil West learned the purpose of the meeting, he consulted with his Board in private, which was completely illegal in itself because Board decisions like this are not permitted to be taken in private. But the Board decided -unanimously- to deny the rental.

When the Activities Manager called to tell me the decision, he said it had something to do with the Board not wanting any ACE activities to interfere with the "official" election activities.

HUH?? Does anyone have the vaguest idea what a private meeting to hear and endorse Board candidates has to do with official election activities? And does anyone have any idea what business it is of anyone in the Association why I wanted to have my private meeting, to be attended exclusively by residents?

This is just one more signal from Mr. West, and apparently from his Board, that they are desperate to prevent democratic activities to take place in Sun City Anthem if the activities happen not to pass their personal smell test.

It is especially disheartening to see Election Committee Chair Elaine Berg, who is also a sitting Board member, failing to exercise any leadership by standing up for resident rights and, once again, flouting our written policies and procedures with impunity. It is none of her business why I would have a private meeting, and she is showing that she doesn't understand our written documents if she thinks she is acting properly -or, more correctly, failing to act- in this matter. She is well on the way toward turning this election into a partisan contest by allowing her own Board President, and the rest of the Board,to run wild.

This meeting will be held, most likely at an off-premises location to be announced.

Shady doings like this often have the effect of galvanizing people into action when they see something so patently wrong. I hope this will help people to understand the importance of the upcoming election. After the ACE members have spoken and made their choices, I will be among those working hard to elect candidates committed to ending this dictatorial approach to community governance. And I hope you will all be out there making the effort that it takes to bring change. For just a short period of time, your support and efforts can make the difference.

Board Member Boot Camp

The Community Associations Institute (CAI) is a national organization dedicated to promoting healthy, successful common-interest communities such as the Sun City Anthem Community Association. CAI has an especially active Nevada chapter, which offers educational literature, classes and seminars, and a wealth of other opportunities. Though CAI is targeted in large part at sitting board members and professional community managers, its seminars and activities are also offered to would-be board members and any interested homeowners in common-interest communities.

This past Saturday (Jan. 20) I attended Board Member Boot Camp, a free three-hour seminar described by CAI as "designed to help Board members (and prospective board members) of common-interest communities master the skills of effective leadership." The seminar was presented by Robert C. Maddox & Associates, a prominent Las Vegas law firm that represents and provides legal advice to homeowners associations.

Surprisingly, no current SCA Board member attended this seminar, one of the best of the dozens of CAI presentations I've attended. Four Board candidates did attend: Bob Frank; Mike Dixon; Ed Rucinski; and Roz Berman.

Subjects discussed included Robert's Rules of Order; Contract Violations; Security & Safety; Collection & Reserves; Insurance Policies; Committees; Board Member Responsibilities; Elections.

As interesting as the seminar was, it was the private discussions with Atty. Bob Maddox during breaks and after the seminar that proved most interesting, because it gave us the chance to get specific with him about current situations at Sun City Anthem.

This is what I took away with me, based on my questions and discussions with Mr. Maddox:

1. Regardless of the claims Trumpets restaurant operators may have against the Association and Del Webb/Pulte, the Board will be at great risk if any resident(s) choose to pursue a claim that a fiduciary obligation has been breached by failing to take action on the breach of our lease with Trumpets operator S&D Cafe. An excuse that "they will sue us if we sue them" is not a valid reason for failing to enforce a lease.

2. The resident comment period at the beginning of Board meetings, provided by statute but currently confined to the reading of "blue cards," should be in an open-mike format with residents allowed a reasonable time to speak, generally in the range of two to three minutes.

3. The consent agenda, as currently used at our Board meetings, is really being ABUSED, because there are items on there that should not properly be placed on a consent agenda, regardless of the public's right to request that specific items be taken off the consent agenda and discussed openly.

4. Nevada Administrative Code 116 says that a member of a Board "shall not act for reasons of self-interest, gain, prejudice or revenge."

The "Crass and Undisciplined" Kitec Meeting

Board President Favil West continues to abuse his uncontrolled access to Channel 99 for the purpose of propagandizing instead of presenting genuine news to the community.

If you attended the January 7 Kitec meeting in Hanneman Hall or had an opportunity to see the videotape, you may find his Channel 99 comments on this week's broadcast very interesting.

Favil states as follows: "Approximately 150 out of 850 in attendance engaged in the most crass and undisciplined behavior I've ever seen in my life. It seems that people in our community are angry about everything. I really noticed it around March of 2005. It peaked between July and September 2005, then resurfaced this month. Is anything in life worth being ugly and disrespectful over? We're working with Del Webb to obtain money on things for our community. It seems about the time we start having some success, our own residents throw grease on the fire. It's a fact that we don't always agree with the developer, our Board, or even our friends. But there's never an excuse to display the kind of behavior we saw on Sunday. Don't you find it sad to know that for the first time in our history, we had to have security at a residents' meeting, and that the security had to quiet one of our residents? Yes, indeed, folks, something to really make Sun City Anthem look good, something to increase the value of our community, something to be proud of."