November 4, 2008 by sonny.

Mr. and Mrs. Berman:

I have harassed no one.  I have asked the Board of directors ( individually and collectively), Board President Ms. Berman, and the CAM, Terry DaSilva, for information regarding the purchase order given to Valley Crest for Rock replenishment.  And, I have requested copies of all records of the transaction that I am entitled to by law, CC&R’s and by-laws.

These document requests include (1) requests for quotation to each of the three suppliers, (2) copies of quotations (which I have received), (3) copies of all communication between RMI and the three suppliers, (4) copies of the minutes where the P&G and Finance committees approved the expenditure, and (5) all other documents regarding this project/expenditure.

Terry DaSilva has only given to me copies of selected material that she and Board President Berman want me to have. They have not given me all of the information that I, and you (as homeowners) are entitled to have–by law.

Landscaping Company Valley Crest’s price was over two and a half times more them the other two  qualified bidders.  One price was under $29,000, and the other price was under $25,000.  Bruno Panek and others in RMI have tried to explain the wide differences in prices by pointing out the differences in the quantities of rock quoted on.

But, that bid failure would not have happened if the request for quotation had been properly written and distributed.  RMI was guilty of gross mismanagement by not preparing a request for quotation that all bidders understood and were able to bid on.  Good business dictates that kind of process. Bruno Panek in his letter to the P&G Committee states ” I am sure that the two other landscape companies did not go out and inspect every area on the maps provided to them “  How could Mr Panek know that two bidders did not go out and inspect the areas, and that Valley Crest did? (Incidentally there are only four landscape areas involved.)

RMI’s RFQ was flawed.  It was just plain wrong.  The request should have been so clear so that all bidders were clearly bidding on the same thing.  Obviously this was not the case.

The fact that the two low bidders were within 20% of each other and Valley Crest was more then two and a half times more the low bidders should have been a signal to prepare new RFQ documents.  The bids should have been thrown out, and the job re-bid. I  have asked for copies of each of the RFQs that went to the bidders.  I wonder why I cannot get this information?

Dave Berman states that the expenditure for hardscape was budgeted for $121,946 in the reserve fund.  He states that Valley Crest’s price was only $71,706 and that price is under the reserve forecast amount.  What Dave does not say is that the reserve requirement was for seven years.  So, maybe the expenditure should have been limited to $17,944?

While I have not threatened to take my concerns to the Division of Real Estate, I did state that ” I intend to take this matter up with the Ombudsman “, and I have done so.  I did not say that I would take legal action.   However, it might be necessary to do that to protect homeowners funds.

I have not reached out to vendors, filled complaints against them, nor have I threatened them with legal action or filed any complaints against them.  I did contact one vendor on a different matter.  Roz Berman (Board President) wrote to me:  ” You are free to avail yourself of the opportunity to make inquires of (then continued with the name of the company and the phone number).  I did not harass or threaten this vendor.  I wonder how Dave knew about that private letter?

I have also asked to see evidence of the rigorous process, the close reviews, the detailed questions, and the full clarification of  this project by the P&G and Finance Committees.  Saying such business processes have been done do not make it so.  I have asked for this information, and so far, it has been withheld.

At the Board meeting when the expenditure was approved there was no discussion of this project/expenditure.  David says that because I did not attend the P&G and Finance committee meetings (where this expenditure was discussed) I should not be challenging this matter.  Mr. Berman is ridiculous and dead wrong.  The board agenda item and its supporting rationale should stand on its own.  One does not have to attend committee meetings to understand such matters.  And, because something was discussed at a meeting, and agreed, does not mean it was done correctly.  All homeowners have a right to know everything about such a large expenditure.

On another point, readers might like to know that I previously volunteered for the P&G Committee, and I am obligated to continue to try to serve our community.

Since Mr Berman has such complete knowledge of what is happening in SCA perhaps he can tell us exactly how many non-members of the P&G and Finance committees attended the committee meetings where this matter was so thoroughly discussed ? David, can you tell us ?

David Berman also has referred to my age in a highly derogatory way.  I can only say that it appears I have gained more wisdom in my years then he has in his.

In conclusion, I have the right and the obligation to question RMI and the Board of Directors whenever I believe they are wrong.  And, they are obligated by law to provide accurate, timely and respectful responses–even if it requires them to admit they made a mistake.  In the meantime, David Berman has no special rights to condemn, ridicule or denigrate any other member’s honest and sincere behavior.

Sonny Sonnenfeld
Concerned SCA Member
Pinnacle Village

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

November 4, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Using his familiar spinning, deceptive writing style, David Berman has said the following on his bog:

“…a very small number of residents, who often have not participated in the process, have decided that it is appropriate for them to harass the Association with demands to cancel contracts that have been awarded, and in some cases they threaten to take their concerns forward in the form of complaints to the Division of Real Estate and promises of legal action. In addition, they have reached out to some of our vendors, filing complaints against them and threatening them with legal action, despite the fact that these vendors are acting in a completely proper manner.”

“Though I don’t like to single out individual residents for criticism, I must in this case, for a homeowner named Nathan Sonnenfeld, who has issued complaints over several actions taken by the Board and committees, has gone public on a blog administered by Board member Bob Frank with his complaints about the recent selection of a contractor to replace the decorative rock in certain common areas of Sun City Anthem.”

It is interesting that David Berman (as surrogate spokesperson for his blog-silent, board president spouse) considers resident complaints about financial mismanagement to be “harassment”, but the laws specifically encourage challenges to financial management by association members. Member challenges through the State are one of the few available checks against gross misbehavior by board directors and CAM managers involved with our millions of dollars of community resources.

Please note that the Bermans have failed to mention the fact that the law prohibits adverse actions against community members for such challenges. No matter if it is annoying to them to have to provide coherent, detailed answers to member questions, it is part of the responsibilities of the association management.  The Board and CAM are required to provide factual, open, and complete answers to member questions.

But, adverse reactions initiated by directors and CAM managers against homeowners is prohibited.  Such can be punished as being considered “retaliatory” behavior.  Directors can also be severely punished for “acting for reasons of self-interest, gain, prejudice or revenge.”  If found guilty of willful misbehavior, directors and CAM managers can lose their Directors & Officers insurance coverage, and they can be held personally liable.  While this rarely happens, it is possible.

Here is what the law says in NRS 116.31183:

“Retaliatory action prohibited. An executive board, a member of an executive board or an officer, employee or agent of an association shall not take, or direct or encourage another person to take, any retaliatory action against a unit’s owner because the unit’s owner has:

1. Complained in good faith about any alleged violation of any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of the association; or

2. Requested in good faith to review the books, records or other papers of the association.”

And, here is what the law says in NAC 116.405:

“Members of executive board: Prohibited acts. (NRS 116.3103, 116.615) In performing the duties set forth in NRS 116.3103, a member of an executive board shall not:

1. …

2. Act for reasons of self-interest, gain, prejudice or revenge;

3. Commit an act or omission which amounts to incompetence, negligence or gross negligence;”

So, you might now understand why certain board members, and CAM supervisors, are beginning to get very worried over the many well-documented charges of mismanagement (and worse) by Norm McCullough, Sonny Sonnenfeld, Tim Stebbins, Ron Johnson, Dick Arendt, Bob Frank, etc. through the Nevada Real Estate Division. You might also understand why certain past and current directors and finance committee members are so strongly opposing a detailed, investigative/forensic audit. The results from such an audit are highly likely to expose some very embarrassing facts about past mismanagement.  And, the recent financial meltdown by Wall Street and Washington shows that being trained to be a CPA does not say anything about a person’s business judgment.

Naturally, if none of the allegations are valid, the certain individuals could dismiss them as just so much flailing about by ignorant, senile residents. But, if any of the individuals are found guilty of the charges, certain individuals could be dismissed from their positions, and the association may have to pay fines to the State.  In addition, any directors who have knowingly participated in cover ups of mismanagement could also be sanctioned.

So, you might consider the outrageous counter-charges of “harassment” by the board and CAM as being illegal threats by a few desperate individuals who are worried about what an investigative audit will disclose.

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