May 29, 2008 by tim_stebbins.

We face a very important fundamental question:   Will we support a restaurant operating in the Trumpets location of our Anthem Center?  Will we patronize the restaurant with regular or even irregular purchase of meals?   

If the answer is no then regardless of the form any new restaurant takes it will fail.  Regardless of the form any new restaurant takes unless we welcome it with open arms as a significant addition to our community and lifestyle it will fail. 

Many indications are not very promising.   

1. Members of Clubs are circling their wagons and digging in their heels by insisting they do not want any obligation to use the restaurant for their catered events.  They want the option to go to other vendors of their choice.  While this does not sound unreasonable at first glance it is indicative of a negative attitude.  It certainly does not demonstrate an enthusiastic spirit of support for our restaurant.  It is unlikely Club members who reject the restaurant for their social events will patronize that same restaurant for their personal dining. 

2. Most members have personal ideas of how the restaurant should be operated.  Too many members are saying they will only support the restaurant if it features what they want.  That might be prices.  That might be types of food.  That might be operating hours.  That might be ethnic dishes.  Personal tastes are all over the map.  This too seems to illustrate an initial negative attitude and does not get us off on the right foot. 

3. It seems most members agree two of the major features of our restaurant are the convenient location, right here in SCA, and the gorgeous views of the Las Vegas valley.  These sound good but they do not seem to be much real value or influence on us in practice.  Buckman’s Grille at the Revere Golf Club offers similar features.  Since the closing of Trumpets months ago there has been no big surge of members patronizing Buckman’s.  Buckman’s still offers only limited dinners at the same frequency as when Trumpets was open.  Members continue to dine out at various restaurants but generally are not choosing Buckman’s as one of them. 

If we choose to not properly support our restaurant, then that is our choice.  That would indicate we do not consider the restaurant very important or at least not important enough.  But then what is the point of having a restaurant?  Perhaps we should take a hard look at other uses of that space where it will actually bring benefits and enjoyment to most members.

Posted in Community Affairs, Lifestyle, News! | Print | 2 Comments »

May 29, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Director Bob Frank has posted some of the dozens of documents concerning last year’s Board Harassment and Retaliation actions against him. So far, this Board misbehavior has cost our association over $60,000–with no end in sight!

If Dixon, Berman and Leach can push the Nevada Real Estate Division to open up a formal court case, the total legal costs to SCA could easily be double or triple that amount. Why would they go to so much trouble and community expense if not because of wanting to cover-up the financial mismanagement that has been alleged?

See the www.AnthemVoice.org web site for details on Dixon and his coalition’s allegations, and for Bob Frank’s and his SCA-provided attorney’s conclusive rejections of the bogus complaints. 

http://www.anthemvoice.org/violations.html 

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

May 23, 2008 by tim_stebbins.

Our Governing Documents, the “Constitution of Sun City Anthem” (i.e., the “Declaration”, CC&Rs, By-laws and other documents), specifies the right to use Trumpets restaurant is limited to members in good standing and their guests only. This special lifestyle promise is in writing and we all received a copy when we purchased our homes. We all paid a premium price for our homes partly based on the very desirable amenity of a private restaurant.

We hope our board will promptly establish a wonderful restaurant at the site in the Anthem Center. A private restaurant we will all use and enjoy and one we will all be proud of. How nice it will be to have a lovely and peaceful eating experience with the best panoramic views in the Las Vegas Valley. We will be free from any concerns about interferences or inconveniencies caused by outsiders. It will be all ours and only ours. Is that great or is that great?

Historical Note: Back in 2002, long before most of us lived here, Del Webb was in total control of Sun City Anthem. At that time Del Webb entered into a lease with a company called S&D Café to operate Trumpets restaurant. Terms of that lease opened Trumpets to the public and violated the promise of a private restaurant. One of the worst things was suffering large catering events held at Trumpets with typically over 100 tourists and other strangers traipsing through our lovely Anthem Center. It was horrible. Numerous times members were denied entry to our own restaurant! This soured the attitude of many members about Trumpets and they started to avoid it altogether. At transition from Del Webb control to Resident control in mid-2005 there was a window of opportunity to correct the situation and return Trumpets to members as a private restaurant. Our board at that time did nothing, the window of opportunity closed and we were stuck with wide-open public access for over two more years. Finally S&D Café is gone – good riddance. We now have a fresh start and will once again have our private restaurant to enjoy.

Posted in Community Affairs, Lifestyle, News!, Other | Print | 9 Comments »

May 21, 2008 by bobfrank.

C. Thomas, commenting about me on D.Berman’s blog said: (and I must respond on this blog because Berman blocks me from responding over there.) “It could actually save him money since he and his spouse are paying MONEY to an attorney to fight these 18 allegations. Accepting would show the “regulators” his desire to help SCA with a VERY important taks and they might be more inclined to “settle”.”

Thomas could not be more WRONG. After almost 9 months of intensive efforts by John Leach and Mike Dixon, none of the 18 allegations against me have been substanciated. Currently, the board’s case against me is dead in the water.

Meanwhile, I have been entitled to UNLIMITED legal defense services at SCA expense against any charges filed against me while serving as a board member (including legal complaints by our own board). More specifically, I am provided legal defense services by our D&O Insurance Policy, and I am indemnified with additional legal services by SCA’s By-Laws.

The SCA-By-laws-provided attorney was in recent years selected as Nevada Trial Lawyer of the Year, he has over 3 decades of Nevada homeowner law, and he has been highly successful in his HOA and construction defects trial experiences. My D&O Insurance-provided Attorney is a defense specialist who is uniquely qualified in legal ethics, and in Federal and State law protecting whistle-blowers.

You can be certain my attorneys are vastly superior to the Dixon/Leach/Berman team. The other side’s feeble attempts to bully me with false statements and unsubstantiated statute violations have totally failed. I am not intimidated, and not even slightly concerned over ever being found guilty of any wrong-doing.

But, Mr. John Leach has so much influence in the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) that the Division has been unable to choose between totally dismissing the complaints, or going to trial without compelling evidence of statute violations.

So, while this stupid game has been playing out for the past 9 months, my defense expenses and Dixon’s complaint expenses have been borne ENTIRELY at the expense of Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc. Total SCA legal expenses are estimated to already be over $60,000, and mounting. If the new board sustains this path, the costs could easily double to over $120,000 by the end of this Summer.

Dixon, Leach and Berman are still trying to convince the State to launch a full administrative trial, and that would require dozens of depositions, witnesses, and extensive hearings. I would have no choice but to go back in time and call everyone involved as witnesses who had any knowledge about the Board complaints and related financial cover-ups. These witnesses could include past and present board members, past and present developer executives, homeowners, NRED/Ombudsman/Compliance staff, and CAM management staff.

I know that Dixon, Leach and Berman want to continue the case because they have done nothing to have it dismissed. If the case gets elevated by Board President Roz Berman into being recommended for an administrative trial next month, it could take a year or two to finally resolve. Meanwhile, SCA and the insurance company have to cover ALL of the legal expenses.

So, if the new board members decide to continue to pursue this witch hunt and try to force me off the board, it could get REALLY expensive, and extremely inconvenient, for the entire community! Not only would direct legal expenses get out-of-hand, but the insurance company is likely to cancel our coverage. It would cost a great deal more to get another underwriter to issue a D&O insurance policy in the future. Meanwhile, the negative publicity could severely damage property values of homes on the market.

In addition, if Roz Berman and Mike Dixon (1) fail to prove I have violated any statutes, (2) fail to prove I have violated my fiduciary duties, and/or (3) fail to prove I have used extremely poor business judgment in what I did between May and September 2007, they and the other cooperating board members could find themselves being held personally liable for misconduct. So, is this whole affair really nuts, or what?

Why have the prior 6 board members wasted so much time and money on trying to get me to quit, or trying to get the NRED to kick me off the SCA board? Of course, the probable answers are they have great fear about the community finding out the details about previous financial mismanagement, and they hoped the cloud of bogus claims against me could influence the outcome of the board campaign.

Conclusion? All SCA homeowners are justified in demanding clear and complete answers during this week’s board meeting–and every day thereafter–until this retaliation activity is stopped. The board can no longer hide behind confidentiality. The involved board members must he held accountable for such obvious waste and abuse.

Bob Frank
SCA Director

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

May 19, 2008 by bobfrank.

David Berman, Roz Berman, Mike Dixon, committee members (past and present), and many others with past and present positions of SCA responsibility, have failed to respond to my previous comments as quoted below. Their silence about the core issue is deafening! What do you think that means?

I regret that the following is long and complicated. But, it is way past time to finally get the whole truth out for public discussion. The full range and scope of facts are just too complex to be covered in just a few lines. More details will be posted on Anthem Voice during the next few days.

Many of the key issues I have raised in previous comments have come from many residents who have tried to volunteer to assist committees, but then found themselves arbitrarily shut out of participating. Those who do get on (and manage to survive) are not found to be talking about the problems of serving on committees and the board. Perhaps this subject matter is too hot to handle?

“Some people seem to fail to recognize that even the newest member of this community has exactly the same authority as every other member. Quite possibly a new member has more relevant experience to a given committee that those currently serving? There can be NO “super-members” of this community. Not even board members have special rights–other than when they are performing duties as members of the Board of Directors and required by law to make decisions on behalf of the community.”

“Otherwise, we are all equals. And, no SCA member should be allowed to personally attempt to damage another member’s reputation simply because one does not agree with them, or does not always attend committee meetings, or because they can not volunteer to devote two whole years to serving on just any committee.”

“I also believe that evidence shows that home owner association (HOA) standing committees (as well as many other nonprofit/volunteer organizations) tend to evolve into social cliques that function something like high school, college and other social fraternities. (This is a common HOA problem.)”

“No matter how highly qualified a person might be who volunteers for a committee, if someone on the committee, or on the Board of Directors, personally dislikes the applicant, or the applicant’s friends, they can be blackballed/rejected without being given a valid reason.” (It is common for lessor-qualified volunteers to be selected to serve because they are associated with someone on the committee.)

What happens if an existing committee member (or board member) dares to challenge the authority of the chair, or of the board president? Intimidation, sanctions, termination, or sustained harassment and retaliation follows! Dissent or prolonged debate on policy matters is not tolerated by the current SCA governing system.

But, is this how our unique American style of justice and governance is supposed to work–even in an HOA? Is the current SCA governance system not more like how dissent is controlled by gang leaders, fascists and communists? Too strong a comparison? How would you describe it?

We are aware that the developer-established governing system does not tolerate public disagreement on committees or on the board. Developers consider member dissent and information about member problems to be bad for sales. Any “bad news” must be suppressed and heavily controlled. But, the developer is not required to solve member problems (except warranty items during the initial years of occupancy). Developers are empowered and motivated to keep a lid on member dissent while the sales are piling up. But, after transition, under the member-focused style of governance required by law, member-controlled boards are REQUIRED to make decisions based on the majority of homeowner opinions.

If we fail to implement such member-focused procedures in SCA, it is our fault. The law allows us to recall and elect better representatives whenever we are fed up with our previously-elected board members. Today, that situation exists in Anthem Country Club. ACC is in the final process of recalling 6 of 7 board members due to alleged financial mismanagement.

For an example of how “group-think” can be a big problem at SCA, there is the case a couple of years ago where a distinguished CPA member of the Finance Committee was “fired” (terminated against his will) because he dared to INSIST that the Trumpets Lease payments be handled according to commercial accounting and contracting rules! Imagine the case of such a valid dissent where his unjustified “firing” was also tolerated by the other committee and board members. What terrible signal did this send to all committee members?

But, do you wonder why the entire finance committee did not resign in mass in protest of such improper board action? And, what about the seven board members? Did anyone hear even one board member object to such a flagrant abuse of power by the finance committee? As a result of the quiet period after the firing, SCA lost another couple of years of lease payments. This amounted to SCA losing well over $500,000 in lost rent and operating expenses in just a few years. Does that not make you outraged as such mismanagement? Naturally, losses like that have to be made up through our dues in the future.

And, while we are at it, what about the $700,000 to $1 million in lost reserves? What about the $1.4 million lost from non-payment of the Co-Gen funds? And, what about the estimated $500,000 of lost trumpets catering revenues? And, what about the potential $1 million we may owe in back taxes for not properly distributing our excess dues collected since 2005? Do you not agree that those millions of dollars add up to some SERIOUS financial mismanagement? We might quibble about the exact amounts, but when the clearly established losses of reserves and co-gen easily add to well over $2 million, should the whole community not be QUITE alarmed?

So, who do YOU think should be held accountable for such major losses? Perhaps the entire fault was by the previous board members and finance committee members involved (such as Roz Berman, David Berman, Favil West, Kay Dwyer, Mike Dixon, Lanie Berg, Bob Berman, Jack Troia, Dea McDonald, etc.) who personally allowed those losses to occur and to become compounded? Or, was the fault much broader and involving many more than those individuals?

What about the CAM managers (Arnie Snow and Terry DaSilva) whose RMI contract and Nevada HOA licenses specifically assign responsibility and accountability for contract administration and payment collections to them? While they never missed one of their SCA-funded six-figure payrolls, our SCA members were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Should they not have company or personal liabilities for doing nothing (that is known) to stop the rent losses and in other areas?

What about all of the other board members and finance committee members serving since 2005 who have kept their mouths shut when they all knew the actions taken (or not taken) on the trumpets lease and the association reserves were illegal? Why do we not hear from such people? This case reminds us of the current Las Vegas fiasco where the nurses and doctors looked the other way for many years while thousands of people were being infected by clearly illegal medical procedures! Where is the outrage from our own members who know the details about how so much of our community funds were lost? How can they sleep easy at night?

Can you now see why I get treated so badly by such fearful and tightly-associated committee, board and CAM members? You all know that I did not run for the board to join a social clique. My campaign platform to “clean up the mess” was clear. I pledged to work hard to solving the obvious financial problems, and that is exactly what I have been trying to do! I have no tolerance for financial misbehavior, and you all knew that when you elected me to the board. Those individuals, especially former board members David and Roz Berman, Bob Sansing and Favil West, who have ridiculed and harassed and flagrantly disrespected me and my wife for having strong ethical standards, should have their motivations and past actions more closely examined by the whole community.

But, (besides my own case) what other examples of open disagreement on committees and the board do you know of? I know of only a couple from the Property and Ground Committee concerning security and inventory management during the past year. Can you not see that it is almost always the “president’s way or the highway” on every important decision? Should not all SCA presidents, treasurers and CAMs (past and present) be held up to high ethical standards and held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of dollars lost to our community?

Specifically, why should anyone on the past boards or finance committees oppose a FORENSIC audit? This would, once and for all, clear up all questions and mysteries about our lost funds. What valid reasons can there be to hide such information? We already know there are problems, and without such a detailed audit, we will never have the facts to pursue adequate payments from the developer and others who owe us.

Perhaps you think I am too harsh in my beliefs? Perhaps you do not expect much from such “free labor” from volunteers? Perhaps you are not aware how individuals in positions of authority can secretly receive significant personal benefits other than just cash payments? Maybe you even think that someone like Roz and David Berman, who invest thousands of hours into their volunteer efforts, should be above detailed evaluation and judgments? But, what about the highly-paid Community Managers? Do they need to have more than a friendly/pleasing personality when it comes to management performance? Do all such individuals get a pass?

Either way, please help me understand how past misbehavior by any or all of our prior responsible people should be handled? Is it not true that ignoring and covering up such financial misbehavior will certainly lead to more misbehavior in the future? Have you not seen in your own lifetime experience how lax financial management leads to fraud and embezzlement?

Have you not seen that by not requiring forensic/investigative audits at critical transition milestones in an organization’s history that financial losses always occur? Imagine a corporate merger without a forensic audit? This is exactly what happened to SCA in 2005! What about the costs? In my personal experience, a valid forensic/investigative audit ALWAYS pays for itself through recovered funds and improved financial management procedures. The returns on investment are always compelling. So, what are we waiting for? We are already 3 years late!

By now, everyone should be able to see from my behavior that I am someone who passionately believes we must hold people accountable for abusing their responsibilities while handling other people’s money and resources. I really don’t care how many good things they do. Nine (or nine hundred) good deeds can not compensate for one fraudulent one. Individuals on boards and committees with legal authority to act, and who fail to pursue corrections to important financial mistakes, are colluding parties to any subsequent corruption. It is a matter of PERSONAL responsibility by board, committee and CAM members.

Finally, how could anyone vote for someone like Roz Berman to be SCA president? She is the lifetime spouse of a self-acknowledged forger and suspended attorney. She has another cloud over her head because of very serious unanswered questions about how and why our SCA reserves were so mismanaged while she was in positions of authority since 2004. She should be the FIRST person to support my demand a forensic audit. How else to clear the air about any possible wrong doing by anyone while she and her husband were serving in so many critical board and finance committee positions over the past few years? Is it not just a matter of common sense?

However, strong resistance to revealing the whole truth by the Bermans and other board members is a sign of very poor judgment, if not much worse. Collusion by other past and present finance committee members to cover up the past problems is also a very disturbing situation. We have MUCH to worry about until we have a valid forensic audit.

And, in response to many questions, it really does not matter to Kay and I if some people unfairly attack us for being committed to doing the right thing. Truth, honesty and ethical behavior is what counts to Kay and I. Without a common board agreement to honest and ethical behavior, “peace, cooperation and teamwork” are impossible. As the old saying goes: “lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way”–while the hard work is being accomplished. Where do YOU stand on this whole affair?

Bob Frank
Director

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

May 16, 2008 by admin.

Director Bob Frank submitted the following email to fellow board members and received a response from Roz Berman.

“Roz,

This is a follow-up to our conversation yesterday.

I am volunteering to serve as the board member representative to either the ARC or Covenants Committees for this year. I also volunteered for these committees last year, but was told that the prior board members had priority choices, and those committees had been selected by Lanie and Kay. So, in accordance with past practice, I am expecting to be confirmed for one or both of these committees this year.

Your suggestion about forming a new ad hoc group is a good one for someone like one of the recent board candidates. Perhaps Rana or Nelson might agree to head it up? I encourage you to follow that path to see if something can get started this year. “

Response by Roz Berman:

“All,

FYI - I have considered and had discussions with each of you regarding any requests for Standing Committee assignments. The Standing Committee assignments, which have already been communicated to the respective Chairpersons of each Committee, are as follows:

ARC - Barry
Covenants - Barry
Editorial Content - Mike
Election - Carl
Finance - Shirley
Investments - Shirley
Lifestyle - Carl
Plans & Process - Roz
Properties & Grounds - Roger

Mike will team with Roger Cooper as liaisons to Pulte for the completion of Recreation Center 3.
Mike will continue to be a liaison to Jones Vargas regarding the S&D lawsuit.
Mike will continue to be a liaison with the Trumpets Negotiating group.
Roz and Mike will be exofficio members of the 2008 Reserves Update task group.”

Admin Note:  Additional comments Found on Ron Johnson’s OP-ED Site are in this file:   Additional Comments

Posted in SCA Board, Other | Print | 1 Comment »

May 16, 2008 by bobfrank.

Our community needs to encourage all SCA homeowners to read Mark Cook’s recent posting about flagrant and deliberate low-level airspace violations by “King Airelines” over SCA airspace. We must seriously consider the implications of this and a variety of other rapidly expanding aviation overflight problems in this area.

For example, other residents have previously reported on airline and helicopter violations of SCA airspace. Serious concern has also been expressed over the Sloan Heliport being built for about 300 helicopters–due west of SCA. The move to relocate and greatly expand Grand Canyon tours (involving both light aircraft and helicopters) from the McCarren Airport to the Henderson/Sloan area is already causing a rapid increase of flights across SCA airspace.

And, it has only just begun! Overflights (at any altitude) are guaranteed to destroy our “quiet enjoyment”. We are truly “old fools” if we wait any longer to demand that flight paths be routed way South over low populated areas instead of due East directly over SCA. While current promises are that future helicopter flight paths will go around the Anthem area, we can never be confident that ALL helicopter flights will go that way unless we closely monitor and stay involved in the activities. See this R-J article for the latest heliport info: Sloan Heliport

Concerning personal experience, I lived next to a large heliport in Vietnam in 1969; and, to this day the obnoxious operating sounds of helicopters coming and going overhead reminds me of hell on earth. The constant sleep disturbances and inability to get any quiet time from heavy helicopter operations will ruin our retirement lives. Even if you are hard of hearing, such noise and constantly interrupted environment produces high stress, constant irritability, and sustained anxiousnesses. Why would any senior community tolerate such added nonsense? This is a MAJOR change in our environment and we simply do not have to put with it.

While such a stressful environment is bad for any phase of life, it could be deadly for elders! Furthermore, we should not buy the argument that “modern helicopters” do not make as much noise as the old ones! So what! As we get older, the sounds of any kind of overhead helicopters during any hour will destroy our retirement environment. We simply MUST demand that ALL flying to and from the Grand Canyon and other areas to be routed to the South and far, far away from our senior communities. We already know that is not the case since we have serious violations by fixed wing and helicopters on a daily basis. Either way, we have to do something tangible to stop it.

But, let us not kid ourselves. It could be difficult to make all flights avoid overflying SCA since it will cost the companies a lot of money for the extra flying time. What will it take to wake up our fellow senior citizens to get engaged and to STAY engaged? The prevailing attitude in most senior communities is just “let board member Bob, or Mike, or Carl do it.” “I am retired, and I must reserve my time to enjoy my retirement”. But, that is fatally flawed. Since your fellow seniors are also unpaid and retired, who will do the work, if it is not worth your time? The good news is that SCA history shows that if thousands of our homeowners pull together, we can prevail!

So, if you share a deep concern for what massive overflights of aircraft and helicopters will do to this unique community’s future, please volunteer to help. The airport and FAA will ignore us if only a few residents complain. We need some long-run project leadership. And, in the short-run, Mark needs some SCA homeowners to volunteer to help identify airspace violations. The procedures for clearly identifying overflight violations, and for being able to accurately estimate the aircraft’s altitude can be explained by Mark. You might even find it fun to do! ;-)

Finally, flagrant airspace abuse over SCA is certain to increase and to seriously damage our lifestyles as well as our property values! Ignoring these obvious problems today will lead to very serious lifestyle degradation within a few years. Will you help?

Bob Frank
SCA Director, bobfrank@cox.net

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Safety, Lifestyle | Print | 12 Comments »

May 16, 2008 by bobfrank.

Many residents have been complaining about blowing dust at the dormant Rec. Center construction site. At the Town Hall meeting on May 15 I understood Henderson Councilman Steven Kirk to say that current code required contractors to control dust DAILY with water or fabric coverings–when they are involved in the construction process. But, when the site is not being developed, the contractor is required to perform dust control WEEKLY or MORE OFTEN–depending on wind and other climate factors.

Regardless of the fine details, I understood that contractors like Pulte are not permitted by City, County and other regulations to allow blowing dust. It is considered a serious health, safety and public nuisance matter. Since Shadow Canyon, Desert Sky, Black Mountain Village residents have the best observation points on this matter, as well as the highest likelihood of personal impacts, they have the first-line responsibilities to monitor the daily situation and to report when blowing dust is a problem at construction sites in their areas.

Of course, there are also current construction sites over in the Model and High Mesa Villages that need to be observed. Residents in the adjoining villages in the area of the old Sales Office and parking lot are also asked to monitor and report on dust control problems in their areas.

Councilman Kirk left his number: 702-267-2402 and his email: steve.kirk@cityofhenderson.com for further information. Residents downwind of the 3rd Rec. Center site (any direction) could call his office and get the proper City number or email to routinely contact when the site dust is not being effectively controlled.

Councilman Kirk also said to me that he would appreciate hearing if the proper City and contractor authorities fail to get this job done. So, it may be possible that SCA homeowners could find working with the City will provide the first (and perhaps best) channel for getting this kind of action accomplished on a routine basis.

However, if it turns out that the City, Pulte, and/or EPA fail to get this job done, please let me know, and I will make it a Board action item to consider other options.

Bob Frank
bobfrank@cox.net
SCA Director

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

May 16, 2008 by Mark Cook.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am concerned about the safety issue with so many low flying aircraft passing over our community on a daily basis. The noise is also a significant factor, and when the Sloan Heliport is constructed, the noise problem will be compounded by an order of magnitude.

I am attempting to alert the entire community to this problem and solicit your help if you agree that it is a problem. By way of background, I am a retired pilot. I hold the FAA’s highest pilot rating, an Airline Transport Pilot Multi-engine rating, and a commercial glider pilot rating. I’ve been involved in aviation since 1948. My experience includes 3 years of flying Cessna 402 aircraft (among others) in commercial operations out of McCarran, carrying tourists to the Grand Canyon, and 27 years in the US Air Force as an instructor pilot. I spend 12 years at Nellis AFB, during three different tours (they kept sending me back) as an instructor and test project manager in the Fighter Weapons School (USAF top gun). I have spent countless hours on the local air-to-ground gunnery ranges as an instructor pilot and range control officer, where altitude judgment was paramount for safety.

That is all relevant because I believe that I am a fairly good judge of aircraft altitude, and I am well versed in federal aviation regulations, FAA operations, and commercial flight operations. That is necessary to support the following article which I have written for the community:

If you are concerned about the safety hazard and the noise of low flying aircraft, this may be of concern to you. Many will not be able to read this, but perhaps the word will slowly spread anyway. Propeller driven single and twin-engine aircraft operating out of Henderson Executive airport are violating prescribed minimum FAA altitudes for flight over a densely populated area (ours) on a daily basis. The primary culprits are the pilots of the Cessna 402 twin-engine aircraft owned by King Aire Lines.

There is only one company operating that type of aircraft out of the Henderson airport…King Aire Lines, so that makes it pretty easy to identify the source. If you live in Shadow Canyon, Black Mountain village, and Desert Sky village, and others you have seen and heard them regularly. They approach from the mountain pass just East of our community, so low that when you first see or hear them they will appear below the mountain ridge. They are required to fly no less than 500 feet over our houses, by Federal Aviation Regulations–not that 500 feet is much of a safety factor. But a few of their ‘hot pilots’ seem to have no regard for our safety or peace and quiet, and I’ve frequently observed them at 200 feet, sometimes less. It’s not likely that you can get outside quickly enough to see them, for at that altitude, and at a speed of around 120 knots, they are gone in 20 seconds.

The King Aire Cessna 402s are all white in color with narrow stripes down the side of the fuselage. The aircraft is easily recognized by the characteristic fuel tanks on the wing tips. The fuel tanks give the wing tips an upswept and streamlined look.

The reason I’m presenting this is because if we can stop this safety hazard, and the noise, we will be one jump ahead of the game in stopping the helicopter noise problem which is sure to come when the Sloan heliport is developed. You ‘”ain’t heard nothing yet” if you haven’t had a hundred helicopters passing over your house at 300 feet on a daily basis! 300 feet is the minimum altitude allowed by the FAA for those helicopters carrying passengers to the canyon so there’s nothing you can do to stop the noise. It’s illegal to shoot them down, tempting perhaps, but still illegal. ;-)

If we start now, and all complain about the low flying King Aire Line airplanes, no one can say later that no one in our community has complained for years about low flying aircraft. Whenever you observe a low flying aircraft, or wish to complain about aircraft noise, you may call Mr. Anthony Roldan, at the FAA office in Las Vegas; his number is 269-1445 ext 323. Also call the local Aircraft Noise Hotline, at 261-3694.

There’s no use calling King Aire Lines to complain, I was told to do that by Mr. Roldan, but the chief pilot refused to speak with me or return my phone calls…such arrogance. You could also notify the airport manager at Henderson Executive airport, Mr. Tom Donaldson, at 261-4802. Don’t leave this up to someone else–get involved in supporting your community. Thanks.

Mark Cook
2211 Bensley St
afkernel@cox.net

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

May 15, 2008 by THE VOICE.

We have been provided a copy of Favil West’s 2002 email sent to residents who were strongly objecting to the proposed lease to S&D Cafe V. Favil West’s Aug’02 Email on Trumpets Lease

In that email you can see how Favil was playing the game at that time. And with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we can see how the community was grossly deceived–in every aspect of that deal. It is no wonder we wound up losing over $1 Million and failed to get the quality restaurant services that the community was promised. It is easy to see that “secret” deal was fatally flawed from the start. It never had a chance of delivering on the promises made to the community, and we are justified in not automatically trusting any new Board deals without verification.

By the way, in case you have not seen an overview of that past lease, here is the Business Development Club’s analysis as presented in two seminars conducted in July 2006. Overview of 2002 Trumpets Lease Agreement

So, what were the lessons learned from what happened 6 years ago, and is the current team leader (Mike Dixon) navigating the dangerous waters any better than last time? Since Mike has never done anything like this before, our confidence is low.

The key issue in 2002 and today is “Public Access“. How much, if any, public access is to be granted to a lessee? If zero public access is allowed in the SCA restaurant and other facilities, would it be possible to attract a high quality company as a lessee? Or, would the restaurant have to be sub-contracted (vs. leased) with the possibility of requiring some minimum quarterly patronage by members to avoid having to grant public access? Those questions are still unanswered–even as we are into negotiations.

A second question is, what would be the minimum amount of public access to be granted, and what affect would it have on SCA’s lifestyle as we grow and our clubs learn how to more effectively use our facilities to serve our future population of over 12,000 residents? In theory, clubs and activities supporting the over 12,000 residents should be keeping all 3 recreation centers fully booked. So, within the next few years, if members have the priority, there may be little calendar time left for large numbers of outside catered events by a lessee.

And what if, as some have suggested, that the lessee is likely to demand to have priority access to at least half of the Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays each year. Past experience shows it could be common for the lessee to want to book two, or even three, main events on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. During Spring and Fall good weather times when our members are wanting to get full use of our facilities, the lessee would also be demanding to have priority access. Imagine the saturation that could bring to the foyer, hallways, lawns, and parking lots!

In addition, the lessee is highly likely to not be satisfied with only half of the weekends for catering. An aggressive company wanting to maximize profits would want to maximize use of the premises with all kinds of catering events. Would that kind of heavy use be good for our retirement community’s lifestyle? Absolutely not!

Some have also suggested that if we happen to get a good company in as the lessee, we could both collect a rent and share in their profits, and that might help to reduce member dues. But, it is not clear that our net profit after deducting operating costs, facility refurbishments, and income taxes would yield enough to make it worthwhile. Instead, the most likely result is that SCA would wind up (yet again) losing money, wearing out our unique facilities, and seriously degrading our environment–way before their times.

So, what is the point of this posting? SCA members must not wait until it is too late to get engaged in the debate over whether there will be public access to our facilities associated with the restaurant operations. If you care about that policy matter, now is the time to weigh in. In a few weeks, it may be too late.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

May 13, 2008 by admin.

The Anthem Country Club (ACC) Community Association is having BoD problems somewhat similar to SCA:

• The ACC Board majority is accused of abusing its authority,
• The Board President has been accused of cutting secret financial deals with its restaurant manager,
• There were problems with the Community Management Company and it was recently replaced, and
• The community is circulating a petition for a removal election for 6 of 7 board members.

Here is a letter (acc_lawyer_letter.pdf) from the (recently replaced) ACC community association attorney that was copied from the Anthem Country Club HOA web site.

It appears that the ACC HOA membership is less willing to tolerate financial mismanagement by its board.

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

May 11, 2008 by bobfrank.

For some reason, Bob Sansing seems to enjoy launching personal attacks and being hateful.

Here is a recent example. Sansing’s Hatefulness

Other examples will be added to this blog when there is time to go back and consolidate the files.

This posting series is being offered because so many homeowners are asking “where is all of the nastiness coming from?” Two of the most visible sources of hateful postings are former board members Bob Sansing and David Berman.

Why are Sansing and Berman so viciously attacking Director Bob Frank and homeowners who disagree with them? Most likely because they have so much to keep hidden from public view (and a forensic audit) when they served on the Board in 2005-2006. If that were not the truth, they could just ignore all complaints because they would have the self-confidence they had nothing to fear….

Posted in Truth Squad | Print | No Comments »

May 10, 2008 by admin.

Ron Johnson has surfaced the first rumors about the pending SCA Board Officer elections. He said in a recent email: “Rumor is that Mike Dixon will be stepping aside as president as new association officers are voted for at their scheduled meeting on the 14th.” There is no word yet whether Mike Dixon is capable of staying on the board without needing to have special authority.

It is also heard around Anthem Center that Roz Berman (and the 8th board member) have brokered a deal for Roz to move up the ladder to replace Mike as supreme commander of SCA. That will allow Shirley Cheri to take over as Treasurer and Carl to claim VP. We have not heard rumors about Secretary, as yet.

Since we are probably stuck with Attorney John Leach for yet another year, past behavior suggests that we can anticipate that a board controlled by Roz Berman and abetted by John Leach will set new highs in secrecy, rude behavior, statute violations, and poor public relations. Unfortunately, in spite of her degree in Latin and her detailed knowledge gained from attending over a hundred SCA committee and board meetings, she has frequently demonstrated she is not capable of serving as president of such a large and complex association. There are just too many really difficult problems in this community.  We are split down the middle over major policy matters, and we urgently require highly trained and experienced leadership.

For example, under a Roz Berman reign, we will not see a forensic audit to find out what really happened to all of our association money from1998 to 2006. Without such information, there can be no real peace and harmony in the community. There are far too many secrets involving far too many previous board members concerning far too much money. We must get the whole truth from a forensic audit. Without it, the community uproar and serious public complaints will rapidly escalate.

For those who may not know it, from 1998 to 2006 the Del Webb Community Management Company (and Treasurer Favil West) were controlling our association accounts under the detailed directions of Del Webb/Pulte Development Company’s executives. Imagine the serious conflicts of interests and financial temptations they had! Talk about the foxes in the chicken house!

Even if there had been no past signals of financial misbehavior amounting to major community losses, prudent board members elected by our SCA members should have demanded a forensic audit in May 2005. Only through such a key financial technique could the community have established a clean baseline and protect the integrity of all the organizations and boards to follow.

Unfortunately, regardless of the board demands for payments by Pulte in the future, without an independent forensic audit as evidence, our Board will have serious difficulties explaining and defending our proposed settlement numbers. And, contrary to statements by some, the costs of a forensic audit will be quite cheap compared to the payments we could receive from future law suits against Pulte.

So, no matter who is elected to the officer positions, SCA members must require board members to be fully accountable for their behavior. We must DEMAND that the new board award a contract for a comprehensive forensic audit to provide input to the 2009 budget process. Otherwise, our members will have to make up for board failures to collect what is due.

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

May 7, 2008 by bobfrank.

The following is my response in support of Rana Goodman’s comments on the “other blog” about undue-emphasis on committee membership, and my long over-due (and probably way too long?) statement in opposition to those who frequently attempt to over-value attendance at and participation on SCA standing committees. So, here it is….

It is truly unfortunate that some SCA members seem to believe that the time spent in attending and participating in SCA standing committee activities earns them “super-member” status. If they elect to spend hundreds of hours of their time attending and working on such committees, that is their personal choice. No one pressured them to do so, and the community is not obligated to fawn over them for doing such work. Members should be volunteering out of a sense of shared duty to the community, and when their term is up, they should move on to doing other things with their lives. Within our thousands of retired residents, an effective volunteer program, backed by a resident-friendly board of directors, could get all the volunteers we need.

In my opinion, long-term volunteers in decision-making positions are highly undesirable. Individuals who volunteer for long periods often feel entitled to special favors, and they often expect/require the community to grant them special powers. Some compusive volunteers even seem to believe that such sustained volunteering earns them “special moral authority” over the opinions, rights and resources of other members. Many of us have often seen such misbehavior in other nonprofit organization–long before we came to Sun City Anthem.

For evidence that this type of problem exists in SCA I submit the “political rantings” and “politics of personal destruction” that are routinely practiced by our forger/former attorney and his blog associates. Do they not feel entitled to say and do whatever they wish? Have you seen the hundreds of pages of hateful, personal attacks against individuals on that blog? Has that former board member ever been effectively sanctioned for any of his misbehavior in SCA? Does he and his spouse not routinely demand to be the center of attention everywhere they go? Do they not demand to be recognized as the holders of all important knowledge in SCA because they claim to have served on and attended more SCA committees that anyone else? What functions do the committee members and their friends serve in guiding our community to aide, abet, and tolerate such hateful behavior? Are the standing committees not links to a relatively small clique of SCA “power brokers“? Does anyone doubt that the Berman blog is the source of 90% of the personal attacks and subsequent negative disruptions in this community?

But, back to the main point. Some people seem to fail to recognize that even the newest member of this community has exactly the same authority as every other member and possibly more relevant experience for a given committee than those currently serving. There can be NO “super-members“. Not even board members have special rights–other than when they are performing duties as members of the Board of Directors and required by law to make decisions on behalf of the community. Otherwise, we are all equals. And, no member should be allowed to personally attempt to damage another member’s reputation simply because one does not always agree with them, or does not always attend committee meetings, or can not volunteer to devote two years to serving on just any committee.

I also believe that evidence shows that HOA standing committees (as well as many other nonprofit/volunteer organizations) tend to evolve into social cliques that function something like high school, college and other social fraternities. (This is a common HOA problem.) No matter how highly qualified a person might be that volunteers for a committee, in the past, if someone on the committee or on the Board of Directors personally dislikes the applicant, or the applicant’s friends, they can be blackballed/rejected without being given a valid reason. (I know of a number of specific SCA examples.) So, having volunteered but NOT being selected to serve on a SCA committee might be considered by some to be a sign of “higher” qualifications? ;-)

Instead of being solely focused on the high-value business matters of this community, standing committees tend to be just another kind of “club”. And, we pay the RMI community manager well to serve as the source of continuity and knowledge, so any loss of expertise from committee turnover can be quickly replaced by qualified members of our community. For those who might disagree, it can be shown that there are viable procedures (developed and proven elsewhere in the world) for dealing with frequent committee membership changes.

Of course, we need to get ready for the 8th board member and his buddies to try to spin my comments into a grand excuse to viciously attack me once again for daring to speak out. They hate any questioning of how “it has always been in SCA” as if our community history is really that significant in regards to how we manage ourselves in the future. These people enjoy making nasty personal attacks at the same time they are claiming to prefer “peace, harmony and teamwork”. Such hypocrites!

We must be mindful that the developer has trained this small, power-craved minority group to build and sustain the committee social structure that they currently dominate. They have been trained to reject any suggestions for improvement on the way the developer has deemed that SCA will be run. They seem to believe that anyone who dares to question or disagree with them must be publicly ridiculed and destroyed.

But, as we have learned this year we just have to ignore their abject hatefulness, and to continue to press on with the core issues. Life is too short to allow such a small, controlling group to dominate the policies of our cherished community. There are hundreds, if not thousands of members who prefer the reasoned debate approach. Perhaps you are one of those members? If so, what do YOU say about standing committees? How should the membership selection process be improved to make them more responsive to the community interests? Do you have personal experience that relates to this matter?

Finally, what do you think about authorizing many more “Ad Hoc” and/or “advisory” committees with limited scopes and authorities, and “sunset” their charters in order to get many more specialized projects accomplished in far less time? Would not successfully leading such Ad Hoc committees help to pre-qualify individuals for future, larger responsibilities?

Would ad hoc committees also provide opportunities for those who have previously completed their terms on committees, but want to stay engaged in selected matters–without having to run the whole show? What do YOU say? Bob Frank

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 6 Comments »

May 6, 2008 by bobfrank.

Today’s email from ICCC Leaders Peter Tu and Clark Theirrien(scaiccc@cox.net and theirrienc@yahoo.com) is worthy of public comments since their proposal to change the ICCC by-laws may have important implications for all SCA clubs and community members.

The second of two proposed changes to ICCC by-laws reads as follows:
“…a provision to remove a ICCC member from the ICCC rolls if/when he/she has been identified by a SCA Board member, SCA committee member or ICCC Club member of an incident against the SCA standards of conduct/CC&R. Example, fighting club members, destruction of SCA property etc.”

Note the use of the terms: “identified…of an incident”.

Imagine how that could be abused! Are there any other charter clubs that allow the discharge of a member just by being “identified” by anyone as possibly accused, or even found guilty, of violating SCA governing rules and regulations? Is such information not protected under privacy rules?

Even if an ICCC member was directly observed by one or more other members at an ICCC event as being involved in a fight or as causing damage to SCA property, would not the proper action be to file a formal complaint against the member and let the system decide the punishment? Why would any (or all) chartered clubs or SIGs feel the need to modify their by-laws for this purpose? If such a change is appropriate, why not ask the Lifestyle Committee to change the charter club guidelines to apply to all clubs and SIGS?

This seems to me to be a very bad idea.  But, perhaps I am missing something that can be easily explained?

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

May 4, 2008 by bobfrank.

Many friends and neighbors have called since the election to wish me well and to inquire as to my future intentions. So, for the convenience of those who are interested, here is a short list of my current plans:

1. Continue to honor my SCA Board responsibilities with integrity. Work with the new board members to improve SCA compliance with Nevada Statutes and to achieve the results desired by the majority of homeowners. (I am leaving open the option to run for re-election next year if significant matters remain unresolved.)
2. Continue to look for the fastest way to get a forensic/investigative audit accomplished on all aspects of our community resources. All homeowners need the peace of mind and dues stability that such a financial baseline can provide. In addition, only an independent, professional forensic audit can produce the unambiguous financial data needed to make effective demands for the funds that Pulte and others owe this association.
3. Finalize my legal defense work to finally terminate the high-cost SCA-provided attorneys required to complete my defense against the massive false claims (18 allegations in 110 pages) of statute violations filed against me in September 2007 by the past Board of Directors, its president, and the SCA association attorney. (Since the campaign is over, this retaliation/bullying has reduced purposes, and the new board members are unlikely to want to get personally involved with continuing this grossly unfair action.)
4. Continue my work with other SCA members on the writing/publishing of a book about the problems and solutions faced by Sun City Anthem in its struggle to accomplish the transition from developer-controlled to resident-focused management. This new publication is planned to include case studies and become a board member survival guide/handbook for the thousands of Nevada homeowner associations. This is an unserved market segment as illustrated by the Nevada Real Estate Division’s executive summary. NV HOA Exec. Summary

Bob Frank, SCA Director

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