April 29, 2008 by THE VOICE.

The most recent email from our Board President to another board member ( Dixon Secrecy) ( Transcript-Trumpets-Apr BoD Mtg ) is yet another example of how our community has failed to rid ourselves of the arbitrary and dictatorial management practices of Favil West and his collaborators.

Although the community was faithfully promised a resident-oriented/democratic board majority by the ACE organization during last year’s board election, the left-over board members quickly turned some of the ACE candidates into becoming even more arrogant, more self-centered, and more controlling than the individuals they replaced.

Unfortunately, we quickly learned we had swapped one domineering, ego-centric personality for another as board president, and our community has suffered yet another year under the struggle to free ourselves of such unsuitable leadership behavior and secrecy.

This year has been dominated with even more board secrecy than in past years, and even more unfair and unreasonable management practices than before. Some members even refer to our current president as “Favil” Dixon.

We only need to review the Anthem Voice articles and newsletters published this year to be reminded of how poorly we have been led by the current board coalition and its president, secretary, and VP/treasurer. Truly shameful results!

We deserve what the statutes direct: seven directors who work as equal partners to provide open and effective management of our SCA community property. No matter who is elected, we must demand that we get a balanced team.

From a governing standpoint, our community simply can not tolerate any more “one-person-rule” by the next Board. We must take the bull by the horns, implement the rule of law in Sun City Anthem and refuse to tolerate the rule by any more self-centered individuals on late-life ego trips.

Let us refuse to accept anything less than 7 equal board members implementing the rule of law who are truly dedicated to serving SCA homeowner interests!

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | No Comments »

April 27, 2008 by admin.

As a result of Mike Dixon’s disappointing performance this year, some SCA members have been looking into the many claims and promises made by him during last year’s board campaign. For your convenience, here is the 2007 Dixon Flyer

Dixon’s promises are particularly significant since as the elected President of a $7+ million corporation board for almost a whole year he has had the unique power and opportunity to deliver on almost every one of his campaign promises.

Few of Dixon’s promises have been kept and detailed performance reports on his work as Board President will be the subjects of future postings. However, today’s comments are focused on a single aspect of the trumpets restaurant lease matter.

Because of the recent disappointing results by the trumpets working group (under Mr. Dixon’s close supervision and his hand-picked leadership group) some community members have been questioning the nature and depth of Dixon’s often claimed experience of “Owned and managed an acclaimed San Francisco Restaurant”. The question is, if Dixon is so highly experienced in managing “acclaimed restaurant” operations, why did the working group results end up as they did?

One of our active SCA community members recently took the initiative and asked a close friend (who has lived his whole life in San Francisco and involved with real estate and restaurant operations) to check out Mr. Dixon’s claims. This special contact was personally operating an “acclaimed restaurant” in San Francisco in the 1970’s, and he is a very competent business source for researching information about possible competitors during that time.

However, nothing was found about Michael A. Dixon during the years of 1960 to 1980! Also not found was any information about any restaurant with an owner or operator with a last name of Dixon.

Detailed research included all types of county and city government files of all relevant types, as well as personal contacts in such organizations as the Geary Boulevard Merchants Association. The contact even checked through such recognized sources of SF “acclaimed restaurants” as the San Francisco Underground Gourmet book. Absolutely nothing was found.

These results were reported to a few AV associates, but to avoid possible misunderstandings, Kay Frank was asked to check with Mike Dixon about the matter.

So, after the April Board Meeting, Kay asked Mike the simple question, “What was the name of your San Francisco Restaurant? To her amazement, Mike’s response was “I don’t remember the name”! Then he refused to say anything more, turned his back, and quickly walked away.

So, what do we make of this? Was the whole claim a big lie, or is Dixon covering up information that his personal involvement in the SF restaurant business was insignificant? No one could ever believe that Mike Dixon could not remember the name of a restaurant where he was the owner and/or operator, or had some other key responsibility.

At this point, it appears that Mike Dixon, his wife Tina, and his number one personal promoter, David Berman, have been totally dishonest about Dixon’s claimed restaurant experience. What other conclusion is possible?

Will further research into Mike Dixon’s claimed business and academic accomplishments also produce unsatisfactory results? What should the consequences be for flagrant deceptions of this nature?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | No Comments »

April 26, 2008 by bobfrank.

I have been accused of conflicts of interest concerning the trumpets working group project by David Berman, Patti Shock and Mike Dixon. Those are knowingly false statements.

These are the very last people in SCA to attempt to claim conflicts of interest by anyone else! They are clearly trying to change the subject from conversations about their failed leadership and poor direction of a Trumpets Working Group that only produced one viable lease candidate for consideration by the Board!

It is also a waste of everyone’s time for them to attempt to cast the blame or suspicions for their failure on anyone else. We must not let these individuals get away with trying to cover-up their failures by hiding behind the hard work of the committee members–who were simply following the directions they had received. (For more about that, review the files included below.)

So, to be perfectly clear about their outrageous claims of my possible conflict of interest, I will say again that I previously attended a Vegas Valley Angels Small Business Seminar a few years ago. I recall that Mr. Bill Goff was a speaker at that event. I did not have any kind of business or personal relationship with Mr. Goff at that or any subsequent time. I have only commented that Mr. Goff impressed me some years ago as someone to respect as a highly successful Las Vegas businessman. I did not know that he was submitting a proposal for the lease, and it would not have meant anything–if I had heard something. I met Goff in person for the first time at the TWG tasting event at his Boulevard Cafe. There was/is absolutely no conflict of interests.

Unfortunately, individuals like Shock, Berman and Dixon are the kind of people who would attempt to distort that simple seminar event encounter a few years ago into claiming I have a “conflict of interest” concerning my role as a Director on the restaurant lease negotiations.

Rubbish! This is not worthy of further conversation by any person with common sense, or a sense of fair play.

Bob Frank, SCA CAI Director

For those who want to delve into some of the many emails and files concerning the Trumpets Working Group, and its long-term leadership problems, and its true conflicts of interest by Shock and Berman, here are just a few of the relevant files for review.

dixon_email_24apr081.pdf
bod-transcript_24apr08_trumpets.pdf
frank_response-to-db_25apr08.pdf
26nov07_email-to-shock.pdf
berman_blog_conflicts_25apr08.pdf
db_discloses_bias.pdf
berman_knows_shock-1997.pdf
db_meets_shock_oct99.pdf
disclosure_emails_twg.pdf
luvruleshendersonoverview.pdf
emails_between_dixon-and-frank_23feb08.pdf
petschaurer_disclosure.pdf
matson_report_8apr08.pdf
shock_violates_law.pdf
shock_email_25apr08.pdf
tasting_schedule.pdf
twg_email_shockberman_conflict.pdf
waldman_to_stevenson_10mar08.pdf
db_friendship_with_shock_1998.pdf

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 1 Comment »

April 25, 2008 by bobfrank.

Once again, Director Bob Frank finds himself unable to ignore yet another flagrant, false, defamatory attack by David Berman.

With so many false statements by David Berman and his comrades that are clearly designed to attempt to destroy Bob Frank’s livelong reputation for honesty and fair practices, what choice does he have but to try and defend his honor? Response To DB’s Latest Attack

Apr 08 BoD Mtg Comments

Bob concludes his statement asking how long does this have to go on? How does it end? Do you see anyone else doing what DB is doing? Why do we tolerate it? Is there anything the community can do to stop David Berman’s personal attacks? Or, are we doomed to suffer much more of the same in the future?

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 25, 2008 by admin.

Director Bob Frank has released the attached email sequence for public review. It shows, once again, the arbitrary style and (yes) illegal behavior of SCA President Mike Dixon. trumpets negotiations

Even if someone is not always appreciative of Bob Frank’s style, a reasonable person should not accept Dixon’s self-serving actions and overall controlling behavior. This style is truly harmful to the long-term benefits of the SCA community.

Dixon does not have the unilateral, or even special, authority to totally control such policy matters. All Directors have equal authority under the law to perform their duties. From the beginning of his term as board president, Mike Dixon has been allowing his personal agenda to degrade the success of this restaurant lease process–as well as damage the results of many other major policy issues.

Unfortunately, this community will continue to get what it tolerates from this and other self-centered board members.  We must demand that all board members serve the interests of the SCA community, or be replaced by those who will.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | No Comments »

April 24, 2008 by THE VOICE.

A highly reliable source told us this evening that some Anthem Country Club (ACC) Board Members have been accused of fraud and abuse through the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED).

And, ACC members have already raised the 10% of community signatures needed to justify a recall election.

For those unfamiliar with the notion of a “removal election”, here is the NRED procedure. Removal Election Procedures

If anyone can verify this information and/or add to it, please do.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

April 22, 2008 by admin.

Director Frank sent the following email to fellow board members and CAM managers on Monday, April 22, 2008. Late Board Meeting Agenda Notice

He received no reply.

After politely requesting a reply at the Tuesday morning Board Book Review, Mr. Dixon and Ms. Berman rudely shouted that the agenda was posted between 10 AM and noon on Monday.  Bob Frank had checked just before 10 AM on his way to attending the Current Events Club meeting, and apparently had just missed the bulletin board posting.  He reported that he found the agenda in his board book when picking it up at noon, and was concerned about the lateness of delivery of the agenda, and failure to provide access by the community according to the law.

However, Mike Dixon, Roz Berman, Lanie Berg other board members adamantly insisted they did not have to comply with NRS 116.31083.  While they acknowledged full understanding of the statute and they admitted that SCA’s implementation specifically required the monthly board meeting agenda to be posted on the web site and on the bulletin board “four working days prior to the meeting.”  That requires the agenda to be available to homeowners not later than close of business on the Friday before a Thursday board meeting.  Monday morning is definitely too late.

Mr. Dixon, Ms. Berman and Ms. Berg also readily admitted it was routine for the board meeting agenda to NOT be released according to statute, and they saw no problem with that situation. Mr. Dixon finished up with arbitrarily directing Mr. Frank to file a complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division. The board coalition also made it clear that their time was too valuable to be bothered by such a trivial matter of law.

So, once again, SCA finds itself with a board coalition that places itself above the law, and then callously dares anyone to do anything about it. They know that complaints to the Ombudsman Office against board misbehavior usually take dozens of hours to submit, and many months of follow-up to come to a conclusion.  We have not heard of any affidavits that are satisfactorily resolved.

Mike Dixon, Roz Berman, Lanie Berg and their board coalition has proven many times this year that they can get away with just about anything. Dixon wants members to submit “Intervention Affidavits” to the Ombudsman against board members because they become immediately confidential. No one can talk about the issues (without receiving threats of large fines) until months or years later. By that time, it is too late to achieve justice. In the meantime, the board members are free to do whatever they wish. Clearly, the Ombudsman procedure is a seriously flawed process.

Don’t believe it? Ask any SCA homeowner who has tried to seek justice through the Ombudsman Office. They have all discovered that attorney John Leach, and our board coalition has the deck stacked against homeowners at the Real Estate Division.

Of course, this is Sin City. Why would anyone expect an office focused on developers, the real estate industry, and their preferred attorneys to be truly interested in considering homeowner complaints against board members? It is a game of misdirection and intimidation–with no other viable options except through board elections (both regular and removal elections).

Mike Dixon has even bragged that he never loses at the “O”. But, contrary to his ego, it is not his skills that achieves such results. No, it is John Leach’s personal influence (after investing a couple of decades of effort) that has the real power over that government organization.

Again, you do not believe it? Ask those who have actually participated in the process. Try to find just one SCA resident who feels they were treated with respect and provided justice from any complaint against SCA board members submitted to the Ombudsman Office in 2007 or 2008.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if the board meeting on April 24, 2008 can make any lasting business decisions. The late agenda notice makes it possible to easily challenge the validity of everything on the agenda. The new board will be able to quickly reverse whatever it wishes in the future.

Finally, we were again reminded that SCA is plagued by a board coalition that frequently operates under it own rules–and ignores the rule of Nevada law.

As Ron Johnson has so aptly stated, “When Sun City Anthem’s history is written, I predict that the Dixon-Berman term of office will go down as the most corrupt of administrations we have ever experienced.”

We pray this will change with the seating of three new, independent board members in the near future. Sun City Anthem deserves MUCH better board treatment for its homeowners.  We can NOT tolerate more of the same this next year!

Posted in SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | 2 Comments »

April 22, 2008 by bobfrank.

This statement was posted on a Ron Johnson blog area in response to a guy named Charlie, and I have copied it here for the convenience of AV Blog readers. For Charlie:

The key reason why I insist on a truly independent, investigative/forensic audit of our community finances is because without it, we will not discover the true nature of the unanswered questions we have about our financial management. Such an investigative audit should clear up most of the mysteries you mention, as well as others.

If the “resident board” had sponsored such an investigative audit at transition time in May of 2005, and continued to do so each year since then, I am convinced the board could have saved this community millions of dollars, and avoided much of the trumpets lease and reserve funds fiascoes. It is just what is usually called “business 101″.

No doubt, in your lifetime, you have seen the value of having independent audits, and the costs of not having such, and I encourage you to keep asking the hard questions. This is just as much your money as mine, and you have every right to get clear answers. You also have the right to demand that board members be accountable for their decisions.

Don’t waste time praising all board members for volunteering their time. If board and committee member RESULTS are noteworthy, praise them.  But, if they are unacceptable, get rid of them.  No one had a gun to anyone’s head to serve, or to continue to serve. You have the right to demand excellence from all volunteers, and there are plenty of other honest, honorable people among our 11,000 residents who will volunteer–if community members will not accept poor management. It it hard to get truly qualified and motivated people to serve if they have to associate with leaders and others who do not share solid business qualifications and a passion for excellence in serving the needs of our homeowners.

Bottom line: Individuals who oppose/resist an independent/forensic audit are at risk of creating questions about their own agendas. Why would anyone not want to resolve, once and for all, every financial question/allegation? Only in that way can we face the future of this community with a clean financial baseline and achieve the peace and harmony that most members seek in this wonderful retirement community.

PS. See this link for some info on the difference between a “financial audit” and an “investigative/forensic audit”.
http://lindanoe.blogspot.com/2006/02/february-14-2006-investigative-audit.html

April 22, 2008 2:06 PM

Bob Frank, SCA Director

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 3 Comments »

April 21, 2008 by tim_stebbins.

I seldom comment on the blogs but a recent post by the Unity Team compels me to share my thoughts on their comments.

In this campaign, my focus has been on issues and suggesting new programs and ideas.  I have never spoken to what my fellow candidates do not bring to the table or why I think they are lacking in ability or experience. Each one of us can bring some very special and valuable experiences and accomplishments to the Board. Some candidates are more narrowly focused and some have a broader view of what’s necessary to meet the challenges here in Sun City Anthem.  For the remaining days of the campaign season for 2008, I will continue to focus only on my own campaign issues and the experience I have to meet the challenges ahead.

The campaign season is almost over. I am looking forward to May 2nd when the winners will be announced.  By now most of us have received the mailer from the Board regarding the important meeting to be held on May 2^nd.  I was disappointed that no mention was made in that mailer of the new board being announced at that meeting.  One of the issues I have campaigned on has been communication with the community.  An excellent opportunity was missed in this latest mailer to do that.  I will be attending that meeting to either be announced as a new board member, or to be in the audience to congratulate the winners and offer my support.    The campaign will be over and this will be our opportunity to begin a new relationship with the new board and the community.  Win or lose, I will be there to do just that.  Hope to see you all there too.

Bella Meese

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 20, 2008 by admin.

If you have an interest in the future of the Trumpets Restaurant Lease decision, you would be well-served by attending the workshop on Monday, April 21 @ 3 PM in the Anthem Center. Come early as it may become a standing-room only situation.

Bottom Line: After months of effort, the working group has come up with only one viable candidate–the Boulevard Gaming Group’s (BGG) proposal called “Top of the Town“. The Board will have to accept that team’s approach, and the terms and conditions it will accept, or it will have to start over–using the lessons learned from the first time around.

Many members believe this Board is obligated to defer the Trumpets lease decision to the new board next month. It would be unconscionable to vote on a choice at this time, and hang the new board with the consequences.

BGG is obviously a very competent business. It appears to have the operating expertise, resources, and business knowledge to become a successful operator for SCA. But, it is extremely difficult to negotiate final terms and conditions on such things as monthly rent rate, catering policies and procedures, catering profit sharing, and critical terms concerning how to share the SCA common premises. Since the lease period is likely to be 5-years with two, 5-year renewal options, the final decision must be carefully considered.

During their presentations, Boulevard made it very clear it sought exclusive access to all available SCA premises (similar to S&D Cafe in the past), and it proposed to decorate the restaurant and ballroom using its decorator in support of its new “Top of the Town” themes.  The company considered the old restaurant’s layout to be inefficient and old-fashioned.  BGG envisioned numerous facility and cooking area improvements that could affect the terms and conditions in the lease.  Also, BGG did not seem to know much about the CLEO design proposals for Hanneman Hall.

The company also seemed to be unwilling to share the catering premises or kitchen areas with other catering companies. This is not surprising to hear from BGG, but most of the SCA clubs are likely to strongly disagree with accepting those terms–once again. And, the BGG managers seemed to be wanting to have permission to have significantly extended restaurant and catering hours in the future, and to make expanded space available for restaurant operations that may encroach into the gallery and patio areas.  This could affect Anthem Center Security plans and cause additional wear and tear on the facilities.

All of these negotiating areas suggest that discussions are likely to become difficult to resolve when there is only one company in the competition. By not ending up with two or more viable lease candidates as alternatives, BGG has a huge negotiating advantage over SCA, and we can expect it to fully exploit such an advantage because BGG’s objectives are to minimize its risks while quickly establishing a profitable business.

So, we are faced with a choice to sole source the lease to Boulevard, and accept its terms, or expand the range of candidates, and risk losing BGG’s interest. Our current difficult situation reminds us of how some previous board members (particularly, Favil West and David Berman) got this community into so much trouble with the original S&D Cafe lease in 2002.  Deja vu?

So, come hear the working group’s presentation and the discussions on Monday afternoon at 3 PM, and then be prepared to voice your opinions BEFORE the Thursday board meeting at 1:30 PM.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | No Comments »

April 18, 2008 by admin.

Today, some of the Billiards Club Members published a report that helps to clear up many misunderstandings about this explosive issue. We encourage members to comment on this situation and help the board understand your opinions on this key policy matter.

Here is the report–the Billiards Club recommends the Board vote against the Lifestyle Committee recommendation for the April 24th Board Meeting:

TO: Board of Directors Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc.
SUBJECT: Whether the Sun City Anthem Billiards Club should become a private club?
DATE: April 18, 2008

On the advice of Barry Friedman, we have prepared this analysis of why we believe the SCA Billiards Club should not become a private club, with the expectation that it will be submitted to each of the directors so they can better understand our position prior to taking a vote on the proposal as has been presented by the Lifestyle Committee.

It is true that at the January 2008, quarterly meeting of the Billiards Club, the majority of the members present voted to have the Club become a private club. There were approximately 50 members voting in favor of the Club “going private”. However, it is vital that the directors understand the misconceptions that were disseminated at that meeting. We were told, emphatically, we had no choice….. If we did not consent, we could lose the room or our tournament time allocation could be reduced. If we agreed to become a private club, the Association would redo all of the felt on all 10 tables, re-level all 10 tables, provide the Club with new quality pool cues, and new and adequate lighting would be provided. It was these misconceptions that tilted the vote in favor of going private.

Once it was recognized we did have a choice, that we did not have to go private, most of the members who had voted to go private changed their opinions and signed the petition that was then submitted to the Lifestyle Committee. There were 65 signatures on the petition in the short time we had to prepare. The 4 past presidents all signed the petition. It was unfortunately too late for the Lifestyle Committee to take this into consideration.

If the Billiards Club was to become a private club:

· All of the expenses of operating the Club would now be borne solely by the members, resulting in an undue hardship for the Club.

· This would establish the principle that all other clubs – the Bocce Club, the Tennis Club, the Table Tennis Club, the Dance Club, the Aquacize Club and all the other clubs – must thereafter become private and maintain their own playing fields and equipment. We do not believe this was the intent of the Sun City Anthem Community. This would establish a gross inequity where the Billiards Club would be paying for all of its equipment and, at the same time, paying for a portion of these other clubs’ expenses through their homeowner dues. We do not believe the Board would tolerate such an inequity just to keep expenses in check.

· The intent of that room, which was negotiated with Del Webb (Bill Dively) and the Lifestyle Committee, was to always allow two tables to be available for open play during tournaments. This was in the spirit of the Billiards Room to be always open for all Sun City Anthem residents. This is why Del Webb and the Lifestyle Committee agreed to have ten tables in the room instead of the original eight that were offered.

· The Billiards Club is a very active club with tournaments six days a week. Many residents wish to play billiards (pool), but may not wish to partake in such a schedule. We do not believe these homeowners should be excluded from the opportunity of the use of that room and its equipment. Many of the tournaments currently utilize only 4 tables. This leaves a great number of tables available for open play during these tournaments.

· The Billiards Room is very popular, logging in over one thousand persons per month signing in to play. Locking that door and controlling entrance only to Billiards Club members is a potential administrative nightmare.

· We recognize certain clubs need to be private clubs because of safety and theft concerns. The Woodchips Club is an excellent example with dangerous and difficult equipment to operate. The Computer Club is also a good example with expensive equipment which can be easily stolen and removed from the room. The Billiards Club does not fall into either category.

Therefore, we sincerely petition the Directors of the Association to vote NO on the proposal to have the Billiards Club become a private club.

Hal Rosowsky Garth Clifford Dennis Eynon
Neil Schmidt David Bernstein (for all of the members)

Posted in Community Affairs, Clubs & SIGs | Print | 7 Comments »

April 18, 2008 by THE VOICE.

John and Carmen Briggs have requested that we remind residents that:

• This weekend:  Saturday Evening (April 19 @ 6 to 8 PM) and Sunday Afternoon (April 20 @ 1 to 3 PM) and
• Next Weekend: Saturday Evening (April 26 @ 6 to 8 PM) and Sunday Afternoon (April 27 @ 1 to 3 PM)
• will be the final open houses hosted by the Briggs as part of this board campaign.
•  Here is the original open house flyer with more details.

All SCA homeowners are invited. The Briggs live at 1893 Hovenweep Street in Model Village–near where the old Del Webb Sales Center was located. Here is a map with the Briggs home marked with the arrow. briggs_map.pdf

John and Carmen encourage members to drop by and chat about anything you wish.  RSVP not required.

Typical subjects at previous open houses have included SCA lifestyle matters, how to keep our dues low (while still maintaining our high quality facilities), and how to convert the culture of our board of directors into a resident-oriented management group.

In addition, Director Bob Frank will be available at all events to respond to questions about current board items such as (1) Status of the Trumpets Lease project, (2) Latest status on Rec. Ctr 3 construction schedule, (3) New info on the Shadow Canyon Trailhead issue, (4) Lifestyle Committee’s drive to convert the Billiards Room into a private club for Billiards Club members only, (5) Why SCA needs an independent audit and independent income tax review, etc.

For more info: 260-4941.

Posted in Community Affairs | Print | No Comments »

April 17, 2008 by bobfrank.

Breaking NEWS on Shadow Canyon Trailhead:

Yesterday at the Men’s Club breakfast, Lynn Phelps, Henderson Parks Supervisor could not answer the question about the status of the “Shadow Canyon Trailhead”. In fact, he seemed to not be familiar with it at all, but I could have read his body language incorrectly.

But, he promised to check it out and send email on the status. Below is his reply. Those resident of Shadow Canyon will see that his facts are quite incorrect. I will comment below his email.

—————–
From: Lynn Phelps
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:58 PM
To: ‘alansocolik@yahoo.com’
Cc: ‘jr4488@aol.com’; Dominick Casey
Subject: FW: SHADOW CANYON TRAIL HEAD

Alan, here is the latest on the Shadow Canyon Trail Head.

The project (Anthem East Trails Phase 2) looks like it will advertise for construction in May. The trailhead off of Shadow Canyon currently exists as a parking lot. We are adding a picnic table and shade shelter, trash receptacle, informational kiosk, landscaping and benches. Sun City Anthem has granted an easement to the City for the trail and trailhead through their property. There were a handful of residents strongly opposed to the trailhead improvements, but the vast majority is in support of the project. We have tried to address as many of the residents’ concerns as possible. Construction ground breaking will likely be in late summer with a grand opening in the spring of 2009.

Hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do. Thanks, lp

Lynn Phelps, CA-MS
Parks Supervisor
City of Henderson
Office: 702-267-4230
Mobile: 702-303-3583
Lynn.Phelps@cityofhenderson.comenderson

————-

Mr. Phelps is stating the facts much differently than I recall them. Here is what I understood:

1. Contrary to Mr. Phelps’ belief, only a FEW SCA residents supported the public trailhead proposal with their signatures. But, over 300 residents signed a petition to block the trailhead. Henderson City got it backwards. How did that happen?

2. I believe I heard Mr. Dixon state that he had negotiated with Henderson to place the trailhead far away from Shadow Canyon Road–up near the catch basin. But, Mr. Phelps says they are already into the contract award phase to place it immediately next to the parking lot.

Shadow Canyon and Desert Sky residents are encouraged to attend the meeting at 6:30 PM tonight in Anthem Center and get clarity on these items as something sounds like there are some serious misunderstandings on this, and perhaps other deals that Mr. Dixon may have negotiated.

Also, the South Valley Home News interview with Bob Berman and Mike Dixon got it wrong in this morning’s issue. Bob Berman was not the only Director opposing the trailhead easement. Most of you know that Rana Goodman and I led the cause to make sense out of the trailhead issue–not Bob Berman.

And, I still feel strongly that the residents of the new villages near the trail must be protected from future massive encroachment by LV residents and tourists who want to find convenient access to the trails passing by SCA.

When you see tonight how large the entire trail construction program is for the future, and see from the maps how convenient it will be for tourists and non-SCA-residents to park near the trail throughout Shadow Canyon and Desert Sky Villages, you will see what I mean about what problems public access and parking will mean to those villages in the future.

In my opinion, the trailhead and access to the trail from SCA is a good idea as long as access is restricted to SCA members only. I think it will be a very bad idea to allow public access through any part of SCA in the future. How to restrict such access in something we need to work on. It will not be easy, but we have over 10,000 voters up here and I believe we can achieve that objective.

Bob Frank

PS   In the meantime, to express your personal opinion to Mr.  Phelps, use:
Lynn.Phelps@cityofhenderson.comenderson

Posted in Community Affairs, Clubs & SIGs, News! | Print | No Comments »

April 17, 2008 by admin.

We are advised that there is a move afoot to propose to “privatize the billiard room”. It is also rumored that a board resolution to allocate the billiards room in Independence Center to exclusive use by the Billiards Club is being proposed for a board decision on April 24.

We have also heard there is talk about a parallel move to consider requiring the Billiards Club members to repair and maintain the table felt on all tables. This is said to be considered because the tables are being damaged by “hot shot” players who do not feel the obligation to make repairs when their high risk shots wind up damaging the felt, or cause the tables to shift, and need to be re-leveled. We wonder if either idea is dealing directly with the specific problems that exist?

The billiards room is only about 3 years old, and we would not expect the felt to be wearing out at such a rapid rate–if it is being used properly. Perhaps we are wrong or misunderstand the situation? Does the felt on tables with this kind of usage (daily tournaments) have to be replaced so frequently in other commercial facilities (i.e. every 3 years)? Are our reserves insufficient in this case?

With all of this in mind, we are seeking the facts. Can some members post the full story on this blog concerning the problems and alternative solutions? How about some pros and cons on the alternatives? Anyone can post a lead article on this blog. All you have to do is suggest it to be posted as an article (send email to anthemvoice@anthemvoice.org ) instead of just commenting on another posting. Also, we can attach files, or illustrations, or photos if desired.

Would it be fair to consider asking all club members to pay to repair the table felt when there is knowledge that only a few members may have been negligent? It would probably be a truly rare case to hear that no one knew when damage to a table felt occurred. If members do risky things and damage other areas of SCA community facilities they are required to pay for the repairs. Why not in the billiards room? Perhaps that should be a condition of use of the facility that each one initials before being allowed to use the equipment? Is there a better way to deal with the issue?

But, back to the “exclusive club use” matter. That seems like is could be a drastic move that would be unfair to the 7,000 members of this community. The billiards room was committed as a long-term amenity available to everyone in the community. It is something that almost every member should be able to enjoy at one time or another. Changing that operational status is a major policy matter. There should be compelling rationale to make such a decision.

Some say that this issue is much the same matter as in other dedicated rooms. But, we have trouble understanding why the health and safety and abuse rationale used for the way the wood chips, arts & crafts, computer, and sewing rooms are managed as being applied in similar ways to the billiards room. Could someone help us understand the arguments?

Moreover, Board members need to receive quite a bit of information before such a board meeting decision could be requested. At this time, we can not see how the board could be ready for a decision next week, and it is hard to anticipate the rationale for any urgency related to such an important change in management policy. The matter needs to be fully understood before a decision is requested.

For example, is the Billiards Club unable to effectively manage the joint use and care of the facilities by club members and residents using current procedures? Is the Community Manager unable to team with the Billiards Club in developing procedures to jointly oversee/manage the facility use with current RMI staffing? Do we need to consider having RMI hire a part-time billiards room monitor–as we do in the pool areas? What are the full range of options available for the identified problems?

Thanks to everyone who can help on this very important matter.

Posted in Truth Squad, Community Affairs, Clubs & SIGs | Print | 5 Comments »

April 15, 2008 by bobfrank.

In a partial response to the massive, unending, and hateful personal attacks by David and Roz Berman, I have been frequently asked to post something. So, reluctantly, here are some thoughts.

It is clear that many, if not most, of this community truly understand what is going on. The positive responses and appreciation received for my efforts this year by hundreds of residents has been heartwarming. It is a highly encouraging sign for the future of this community.

But, it is also well known what insidious contamination that David Berman’s compulsive, negative behavior has created for this community this year. It is commonly recognized that David Berman has used his negative blog, his know-it-all “8th-board-member mentality”, and his hateful, personal attacking writing style to poison the civility of discourse when anyone dares to disagree with him or Roz’s Board policies.

It is also easy to see (by most people) that David Berman’s hateful vendetta last year against Favil West, Lanie Berg, and other board members, has been replaced with this year’s vendetta against Ron Johnson, John Briggs and me.  They seem to always be bullying someone.

After chasing off Favil West, he and Roz have rebuilt a power coalition with the old board members plus Mike Dixon. Now they can enjoy the restored feeling of power that David lost after he was driven off the board by Favil in 2006.

But, it is also clear that David and Roz can not be satisfied if they are not in full control of SCA. The current board campaign proves they will do anything to retain power in this community.

Lately, we have seen David Berman blocking dissent on his blog. He freely admits he can not tolerate opposition from me and others. His blog is the basic source of all of SCA’s hateful, personal attacks, and we find ourselves tolerating it. But, do we have to continue to do so?

Those of us who dare to disagree find ourselves as both the butt and the cause of most of this misbehavior by the Bermans, and we need to consider changing our reactions. Instead of respectfully responding to David’s hateful postings, we should be treating him as the source of unwanted pollution to our environment, and disregarding his contamination so that it will fade away.

David Berman should be frequently reminded that his opinions are unwelcome. Since he is a self-admited forger, and suspended attorney, he is not a credible source of information or opinion on anything. We should not allow him to waste our time and lifestyle. Just ignore the Bermans, and they will eventually get out of our faces.

In other words, stop treating the Bermans respectfully unless or until they have changed their attack styles. Think about it. Who else does what David does, the way he does it? While some residents have tried to respond in kind, they are always sorry for having sunk down into the mud with him. It is reported on the internet that David has posted over 100,000 times to various blogs and news groups. Few could (or would even want to) match that level of thousands of hours of such compulsive behavior over the past few years! Why would anyone even want to try?

So, my advice is for everyone to consider David and Roz Berman unworthy of our time and attention. In addition, I would like to recommend that all other blog administrators consider blocking David Berman from posting on our sites–until he allows fully open dissent on his blog by clearly identified individuals. Blogging privileges should be granted only as a two-way proposition.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 1 Comment »

April 13, 2008 by kayfrank.

Dear SCA Friends and Neighbors,

Yesterday, I was the target of an identity theft and possible hate crime. Ron Johnson had already discovered that some sick individual was using the name of a real SCA resident to make nasty, even anti-Semitic posts about other SCA residents on his blog. What he and I discovered was that someone had also managed to log into his blog using my name. The post was only up a short time before it was discovered and removed. Ron has installed additional security measures to try to prevent this in the future. Thank you, Ron Johnson.

I believe anyone reading the truly hateful statement posted would have been highly offended–that was clearly the purpose. I think you were supposed to be so offended that it would hurt me and cause me to lose friends, hurt my husband, and cause him to lose some supporters and friends. It was also clearly intended to try to affect the current election of board directors. Perhaps the author wished to have us shunned by the community we love?

However, except for a few individuals, we do not believe our fellow SCA residents could be that easily deceived. It has been said that dirty political tricks and lies are best not answered to avoid more injury to a targeted person. While that might be true of a victim; we do not believe anyone in this community see us as victims. We can not tolerate the publication of sick lies and hateful political comments made under our names. So, be careful of anyone giving/sending you any outrageous remarks that are claimed to have been made by us or others. Always check them out with us.

Additionally, beware of blogs that have to be constantly modified when the author is confronted with proof of his lies, or forgets to put a disclaimer on a spoof meant to confuse residents and to skew the election. Please do not misinterpret my comments or intent. My husband and I are strong advocates of free speech and due process. Respectful disagreement is healthy; however, nasty, hateful, personal attacks must not be tolerated.

And, ask yourself, what could be the motives behind personally destructive actions and words? Why would individuals be so bent on trying to creating an atmosphere of hate and evil in this community and seeming to enjoy the nasty results? What would such a person be afraid of? What are the questions he/she is afraid of getting answered? In my opinion, such an individual(s) could be sick and potentially dangerous.

Please help us to find ways to deal with such fraud and abuse.

1. Let’s demand that business as usual does not continue. We must demand the right to ask hard questions and to get respectful answers. That will take away the incentive for personal attacks.
2. Let’s refuse to read or believe false stories, lies, and statements made by residents who have been proven to be untrustworthy.
3. Let’s try to use identity theft and hate crime laws to pursue this individual. It may take time but it may prove worthwhile.
4. Let’s identify the culprit(s), and publish their name(s) to the community.
5. Let’s discourage bad behavior in meetings by insisting that all meetings be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order and stop allowing some board members and residents to have super privileges.
6. Let’s require the board and standing committees to publish minority reports on key issues as provided by Robert’s Rules.
7. Let’s stop allowing some board members to have unique privileges (such as interrupting homeowners in board meetings, town halls and other meetings, using official communication elements for personal agendas without mentioning other opinions, bullying of board members, committee members and homeowners, and ignoring the statutes, etc..)
8. Let’s take back our official communications tools so that we have means to communicate and do not need to depend on blogs for information. More thoughts, ideas and especially minority reports will ensure good decisions because we will have more information and input about decisions.

I ask each of you to become more involved and help to end the evil behavior and personal abuse in SCA.

We live in a wonderful community. Each one of us deserves to be treated fairly and equally. We will be much happier, and our property values will increase, if we work to end to such hateful and disruptive behavior.

Kay Frank

Download Version of this Posting

Posted in Truth Squad, Community Affairs | Print | 1 Comment »

April 11, 2008 by admin.

David Berman is once again caught with a flagrant lie posted about John Briggs on his April 10 blog. Berman said:

“At the final candidate forum/debate on April 6, Briggs stated unequivocally that he would demand the resignations of all SCA committee members if he is elected and is in a controlling position on the Board. He also indicated that he would use this as an opportunity to “reevaluate” the committee members.”

But, in his opening statement to the SCA Forum on April 6, 2008, John Briggs actually said: “I will request that all board officers and committee chairs submit their resignations so we could determine if we want to retain them or replace them.“

John Briggs followed up in his closing statement at that Forum with: “I think that all of the officers, and all of the chairmen, should submit their resignations so we could accept them or reject them, depending on how we view that chairman of that committee and/or that officer–including president, treasurer and secretary.”

Did John Briggs mention “committee MEMBERS” in either statement.  He DID NOT!   Is this an important failure by Berman?  Analysis

For more information, and to listen to the audio clips of John Briggs’ Statements, check out the AV Web site: http://www.anthemvoice.org/7.html

Posted in Truth Squad, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

April 8, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Kathy Matson has released the following email to all SCA residents this evening. As one of the leaders of the Trumpets Working Group (primarily managed by Patti Shock, Jose Madrid, David Berman, Bob Sansing and Board President Mike Dixon) Kathy’s heartfelt report to current board members and board candidates may be critical to our future lifestyle.

In this report Kathy Matson illustrates why “cooperation–not confrontation” is not the best style to use when dealing with major SCA business issues.  SCA members must always press for openness and truth. We can not afford to accept anything less.

Many of you may not know Kathy. She has lived in SCA for just a few years. She is a retired senior manager from the Las Vegas Division of the Internal Revenue Service, and she exhibits strong moral values and ethics.

Kathy is also a co-president of the SCA Women’s Club and she knows how important it is for this community to find the right company to operate our restaurant and catering facilities.

“ From: “Kathleen Matson” <kdmatson@cox.net>

To: “Michael Dixon” <mikedixon70@earthlink.net> ; <nelsonorth@cox.net> ;<laniex@cox.net> ; <rozberman@cox.net> ; <rrberman@cox.net> ; “Rana Goodman” <rana0527@aol.com> ; “Bella Meese” <bellameese@embarqmail.com> ; <kaycd@cox.net> ; “Robert Frank” <bobfrank@cox.net>;<SBCheri@aol.com> ; <rcooper2@cox.net> ; <barrandmare@yahoo.com> ; <hr1955@aol.com>
Cc: “Kathleen Matson” <kdmatson@cox.net>; “Joe Madrid” <marjam@cox.net>

Subject: Fwd: Input on Restaurant Working Group

Date: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 8:23 PM

This is to the Current Board Members and all Candidates for the Board

After the restaurant working group meeting on Monday last, I was talking to three of the Board members about, among other things, being vocal and contentious. Some said that if you state your opinion and the rest of the group does not agree then you should support the group and quit being contentious.

I have been thinking a lot about this and recalling that I did just that when I voted against retaining Patty Shock on the Working Group when she volunteered to leave due to a conflict of interest. The group decided to keep her and while I did not agree I was in the minority and I quit saying anything about it and went along with the majority.

As people in the community began to tell me that Patty was more closely involved with LuvRules that she indicated I did not pay much attention, after all the Group had voted to keep her and I was a team player. The rumors began to get louder and more contentious, yet we continued with Patty as Chair and did nothing, despite the growing clamor that she was “in bed” with LuvRules and “the fix is in on this”.

It was not until a resident showed me the proof that the man behind LuvRules was living in Patty’s house that I pulled my head out of the sand and really looked at the issues. I began to think about some of the decisions that were spearheaded by Patty and some of the things she said. After one of the top four dropped out I emailed her to ask if we were going to bring the #5 contender into the mix. She discarded my idea and said that there was too big of a gap between four and five, even though we had talked about (but not voted on) the plan to bring up the next contender if one dropped out.

Patty sat in our review committee meetings and repeatedly stressed how much money LuvRules had to spend on this place. This was reiterated by the member of the committee who accompanied LuvRules on their tour. It was not until I found out about Patty’s relationship with David Moore, CEO (his title) of LuvRules, that I went to the Group and, through our Yahoo web page, expressed my concerns and again asked Patty to step down.

This came to pass, but the damage was already done. When we got to the financial phase of the process we discovered that LuvRules did not have any money, and they never did have any money to finance their proposal. They out and out lied to the committee and Patty was part of the lie. Her actions, or lack of action, prevented other contenders the opportunity to make a legitimate bid on the restaurant.

My regret in this was that I was not more vocal and perhaps contentious and forced the issue of Patty’s conflict when it was first brought out. Maybe we would have gotten to the truth at the earliest stages of the process and the group would have gone in an entirely different direction.

Contention has it’s place and unfortunately is sometimes the only way change is brought about. I think everyone remembers, or they should, that if there was not contention (great contention) we would still have Trumpets. We were on the verge of signing a new lease and if there was not such contention around the issue it would have happened.

The end result of this is that I believe the Restaurant Group process has been irrevocably tainted and flawed. I hate to say this but I think it should be started over with better controls over to who the request for bid is sent. Patty controlled at least part of that process and I do not know exactly what she did to inform potential bidders.

Someone else (RMI?) should control and monitor the process. I know the space has sat vacant since September 2007 and I realize the desire and need to fill it but I do not know if we have the right candidate(s). One thing I do know is that the process was skewed and the results tainted and I think that it is simply not right.

How I wish I had been more contentious, and I greatly respect those in the community who are, right or wrong, they make us think and look at all sides of issues.

You may share this with anyone or do whatever you want. I felt I had to point out to the Board and the Board Candidates the serious problems I see with what happened.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Matson
Trumpets Working Group Co-Chair

kdmatson@cox.net
cc: Joe Madrid - Working Group Co-Chair

Kathleen Matson“

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 3 Comments »

April 7, 2008 by admin.

In the previous AV post we accused the Board of Violating NRS 116.325:
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/03/dixon-and-berman-are-wrong-again/

Today, that was proved 100% correct!  Positive confirmation was received from an attorney present at the legislative approval of NRS 116.325, and from witnesses to NV Speaker Barbara Buckley’s related statements, that confirm there can be no question that the SCA Board violated law when it voted at the last Board Meeting to disregard the statute within SCA.

Our rogue board majority was so far out of bounds that it did not even have its own attorney’s support to back up their violation.  Our association attorney, John Leach, stated at the CC&R workshop in March that NRS 116.325 was the controlling direction, and that it was to be interpreted as allowing the display of multiple signs by homeowners–for all kinds of campaigns involving the whole community.

Since this has been a flagrant attempt to directly influence the outcome of the current campaign, some SCA members are considering this to be yet another reason for calling for an “accountability/removal” election of two or three of the offending board members.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | 2 Comments »

April 7, 2008 by admin.

David Berman said on his blog:

“Readers may recall that a few weeks back I published the faxed response to a question I asked of homeowners-association expert/newspaper columnist Barbara Holland regarding the campaign promise of a Board candidate (John Briggs) to change our rules so that homeowners would have to vote to approve a dues increase as part of the annual budget ratification.”

“My purpose in asking the question was to confirm that Briggs is making a promise he cannot keep because it would be illegal.”

Untrue. As usual, DB distorted the issue, created a false straw man, and shot down his own incorrect assumption.

Facts: John Briggs has proposed that SCA CC&Rs be updated to comply with changes in the NRS 116 where it only requires 50% plus one member voting to REJECT a budget during the month of the annual meeting. This would be a change from the current 90% of members showing up at an annual meeting to reject a budget. John’s change would only require a simple majority vote to reject a budget via a mail ballot. So, if the majority of homeowners have not elected to reject a budget via ballot, they have agreed to its approval.

John has also proposed that the (draft) annual budget and a ballot be sent to homeowners at least one month before the annual meeting. The budget would include a pro statement from the Finance Committee and con statement(s) from homeowners–similar to local and state government propositions.

John’s approach would require a CC&R change–not a law change. This would provide the honest opportunity for each SCA member to participate in the annual budget ratification process.

So, when John Briggs is given an opportunity to explain why he is in favor of homeowners being allowed to approve or disapprove dues increases, he says that the point is to bring our CC&Rs into line with state law in this area.

This would have the net effect of allowing the majority of homeowners to choose to say little or nothing, and thereby ratify the budget through their silence, or to return a ballot to reject the budget. Either way, the majority would rule, and that is the way it should be.

Posted in Truth Squad, Community Affairs | Print | 2 Comments »

April 5, 2008 by admin.

The following was mailed to AV for posting from a elderly villas owner who is upset over the way the villas owners have been mistreated by the past and current Boards and the Finance Committee.

99-year-old Villas Owner Complaint

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 2 Comments »

April 4, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Director Bob Frank has responded to critics of the request for an independent audit, and he has made some observations about the election.

See this link to the Anthem Voice Web site.

There was a follow-up exchange as follows:

Follow-up On Audit Situation

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »

April 4, 2008 by kayfrank.

This is my response to Bob Sansing’s post on another blog which said:

“Now let’s be clear. We are supposed to believe that at least 15 members of the Finance Committee, half of which are CPA’s, 10 members of the Board of Directors, our outside Independent Auditing Firm, are all in a conspiracy over the last several years to purposely falsify our tax returns and overcharge our resident dues. Why because Bob Frank and/or John Briggs who received their accounting degrees from where, tell us so.

I have just one question. What is the motive? And for those of you who actually believe their garbage, you get what you deserve. Have a nice day.

Bob Sansing (one of those 10 Board Members)”

Mr. Sansing–What do you think about the bankers, accountants and lawyers that work for a major bank that stunned most Americans by being taken over by another bank recently? They were specialists in a specialized industry–what about the accountants, lawyers and loan officers that work for many loan companies that have gone belly up after failing to protect their company and stockholders from bad loans?

What we have here at SCA are perhaps well meaning people with a little knowledge–always a dangerous thing–now having their egos (often not little) in danger and therefore, ignoring the coverup. And, just because lots of SCA residents do not have “CPA” or “ESQ” or “PhD” hanging off their names does not mean they are stupid or lacking in common sense.

Mike Dixon stated that 10 1/2 months ago, former board members Favil West and Dave Weil illegally signed the co-gen money agreement (1.4 million dollars of our money) to the greening of the 3rd Rec Center. Favil West and Dave Weil were no longer directors at the time they signed as directors representing SCA. Was that illegal or wrong?

Bob Berman also signed that agreement. Who did Bob Berman tell about that agreement? Did he tell the residents of SCA–after all, it was OUR money? Did he tell any of the other current board members?

We know he told Mike Dixon, because Mike told us he had been trying to void that agreement. Mike Dixon is president of the board, in law, that allows him only one priviledge not accorded to every other board member–chair the meetings. It did not entitle him to keep that information secret from other board members–as John Leach stated about the villa’s agreement. The board did not have the right to keep either agreement secret from the SCA homeowners.

In my opinion, Bob Berman and Mike Dixon have broken the law. Why did they cover it up for so long? If on May 3rd, or any time shortly after the signing, Bob Berman had informed the other sitting directors, the association board could have, in a timely manner, gone to Pulte and repudiated the agreement and demanded payment of the co-gen $1.4 Million.

The other directors lost that opportunity to collect that money and SCA residents lost the opportunity to decide how they would like to have the 1.4 million dollars allocated to us. Even if we took the money and paid taxes on it, we would have had almost a million added to our reserve funds. Bob Berman was apparently appointed without a legal board vote to be SCA liaison to Pulte by just Mike Dixon. The appointment and the actions were not legally defensible, in my opinon.

So, you are wrong if you deny we have a secrecy problem at SCA. We have a record of Mike Dixon admitting illegal secrecy at the March SCA Board Meeting. He rushed by that illegal action and quickly changed the subject to voting on the third rec center after waiting 10 1/2 months and leaving us with no opportunity to reject the greening or some of the greening. Bye, bye to 1.4 million dollars!

We MUST demand a stop to the secrecy about the tax returns and the reserve money and the villa’s money and all the many aggressive actions by the Dixons against SCA homeowners and the Minuteman Foundation through the Ombudsman’s office. Sure, our insurance company is paying to defend some board members and former board members, but the insurance only kicks in after a $25,000 deductible–per case. Plus what is the association paying for the Dixon’s cases against our own residents and the Minuteman Foundation?

At that same meeting, Mike Dixon illegally read false statements about my husband that he has since taken off the web site, but no apology for his defamatory comments have been given. He was warned by my husband, Bob Frank, while he was reading his statements that he was violating the law by telling those false items.

I wonder, was he stating those outrageous things in order to get you to be so upset that that you might leave the meeting or tend to miss the significance of what you were shortly going to hear about the $1.4 million giveaway that had been hidden from you, my husband, and some other board members?

In my opinion, Dixon, Bob Berman and Roz Berman have systematically kept vital financial information from my husband and you. Aren’t you more than just a little concerned? Luckily, SCA is not Enron, Bears Stearn or a failed loan company as we are not bankrupt. But, without better management, we might get there.

It is clear that members are being denied crucial financial information that as homeowners we have a right to know. We must demand the facts–not deceptions and patronizing reassurance that “all is great” like we got for 10 1/2 months on the third rec center and our $1.4 million co-gen money.

Follow the money. It will tell the truth. You have a legal right to the truth. Tell them to stop saying “trust me”. We want access to the full information, and we want the charges to access SCA records to be stopped.

Trust, but verify… Kay Frank

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

April 3, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Are the deceptive and disruptive actions by Mr. Dixon, his cooperating board members, the CAM, the Election Committee, and DABerman concerning political signs just evidence of stupidity, or are they guilty of serious campaign violations?

This massive group of SCA leaders have claimed that SCA ARC rules on political signs trump NRS 116. 325. Read it for yourself–they are clearly wrong!

Here is what John Briggs and Ron Johnson have cited from NRS 116.325:

“NRS 116.325 Right of units’ owners to exhibit political signs in certain areas; conditions and limitations on exercise of right.

1. The executive board shall not and the governing documents must not prohibit a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit from exhibiting a political sign within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner or occupant has a right to occupy and use exclusively if the political sign is not larger than 24 inches by 36 inches.

2. The provisions of this section establish the minimum rights of a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit to exhibit a political sign. The provisions of this section do not preempt any provisions of the governing documents that provide greater rights and do not require the governing documents or the executive board to impose any restrictions on the exhibition of political signs other than those established by other provisions of law.

3. As used in this section, “political sign” means a sign that expresses support for or opposition to a candidate, political party or ballot question.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2585)”

Why did our Election Committee and Mr. Dixon not acknowledge that NRS 116.325 is the final word?

Does this not look like a campaign violation by these leaders against the independent candidates?  What other common sense reason could they have?  Does anyone still wonder why some in our community feel there is some sort of conspiricy among these people?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 3 Comments »

April 2, 2008 by Norman McCullough.

The Villas Representative clears up confusion about the previously proposed painting plans for the Villas.

See Anthem Voice Website for details:  http://www.anthemvoice.org 

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »