Archive for December 2008
Unanswered Questions On SCA Reserves
December 31, 2008 by bobfrank.
D. Berman is skilled at trying to change the subject to other unrelated matters to try to avoid having to answer hard questions and accept personal responsibility for his own misconduct. But, the facts remain that he, and his spouse Roz, were key players among those directly involved in the 2005 Reserve Study disaster, and they have steadfastly refused to answer such questions as:
1. Why did it take half a year to reject something so obviously flawed as the 2005 reserve study by Association Reserves, Inc., and why did it take another whole year to get a replacement (that was additionally flawed from being calculated using the wrong as-of date)?
2. Why was the 2005 Reserves Study not simply revised with better data instead of totally rejecting it half a year later?
3. How many millions (plus interest) has DW/Pulte saved since May 2005 because the SCA Boards and (Del Webb and RMI) CAMs have failed to have an accurate and independent reserve study produced that can be used for negotiating a settlement of the developer’s shortages?
4. Since some members of the Board, the CAM, and some standing committee members had to submit data and otherwise participate in the formulation of the initial 2005 reserve study, why was the exceptionally poor quality of the 2005 reserves study product claimed to be such a BIG surprise?
5. What happened during those 6 months of delays–except that Del Webb was relieved of having to pay millions more into the SCA reserve fund
6. Since the CAM was required by law and by SCA contract to verify/ensure the accuracy and integrity of the reserves study (even if individuals like Terry DaSilva and Windy Linow were employed by Del Webb and had obvious conflicts of interests) why did the Board fail to require the CAM to immediately get a fully acceptable reserve study submitted–as required by law? Was the CAM unable to do its job, or was there some other more basic reason?
7. Why did the CAM (as authorized by the Board) not call the reserves study contractor in within days of receipt of the bogus study and demand replacement with a quality product or recommend immediate rejection? What have the Del Webb CAM and the RMI CAM done to protect SCA’s interests in this whole sordid affair?
8. Why did it take until November 2006 to replace the fake reserves study with yet another reserve study by another company that was also fatally flawed because it was calculated using the wrong date?
9. Who (by name) signed the direction on the replacement reserve study requiring the calculation use the wrong date?
10. Why have the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 SCA Board majorities seemingly conspired to allow Del Webb/Pulte to get away with seriously underfunding millions of dollars for our SCA reserve accounts for the past few years?
11. Why have large SURPLUS homeowner dues been knowingly used since 2006 to fund the developer shortages in our reserve accounts INSTEAD of requiring the developer to fully pay its legal obligations into the association reserves? Does that not seriously jeopardize the community’s chances of collecting what the developer owes for the reserves?
12. And, of course, why has it been so hard to get answers to the above questions? All of the answers should be above board and a matter of record? Why the cover ups? Who (besides the developer’s companies and employees) have benefited from the gross mismanagement of SCA reserves?
Bob Frank
SCA Director
Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Clubs & SIGs, News! | Print | 5 Comments »
Who Was Responsible For 2005 Bogus Reserve Study?
December 29, 2008 by admin.
The following has been quoted from Ron Johnson’s OP_ED Blog for the convenience of AV readers.
It reveals some of the secrets held by previous board and committee members involved in the history on the SCA Reserves, and why Del Webb/Pulte has still not been required to fully pay up on it reserve fund obligations–as required by law to be completed at time of “transition”.
In the near future, a white paper on SCA Reserves will be published by AV for the convenience of SCA members.
——quote——-
Bob Frank said:
Rich Pendleton: Why did you ask Norm to post the name of the failed reserves study company? You know it well and you were quite involved in the rejection process. I believe I heard that the company founder and president was a colleague of yours from the Rockwell International Space Division. Did you happen to know the company president before he received the DW/Pulte contract for the 2005 reserve study?
And, by the way, why do you think the 2005 reserve study was judged to be so bad that it had to be totally “rejected” INSTEAD of just being updated with better data? Since the reserve study process is mostly a garbage in–garbage out situation with computer models, it is highly dependent on the quality of the data provided to the reserve company.
From your experience, who gave the false/bogus data to the contractor for use in its computer model, and who guided the 2005 reserve study so that it turned out to be completely unacceptable? Such a seemingly valid company could not come out with such a flawed product without guidance from someone from the SCA CAM (operated by Del Webb and reporting to Pulte), Board or committees.
If it was not you, would it have been Dea McDonald, Favil West, David Weil, Terry DaSilva or Jack Troia (all of whom were involved in the CAM, finance committee and board management of the reserves)? (Dea McDonald also had the serious conflict of interest by being the senior Pulte Corporate Excutive for this region while serving as SCA Board President in 2004-2005–just prior to transition.)
And, since you were personally involved in validating the 2005 reserve study (as a member or Chair of the Property and Grounds Committee) that turned out to be bogus, why do you think it took so many (seemingly competent) directors and committee members so long to get a valid reserve study completed? It should have been easy to produce by May of 2005, but until the look-back study was completed in late 2007, we went almost 2 years without a valid reserve study.
Doesn’t it trouble you even a little bit when we recognize how much money was lost to the association due to that long set of delays? A competent board of directors should have been able to validate the bogus reserve study and get it re-accomplished with better data within a 60-day period. Why did it take almost two years to finally complete the process? And, is it not true that even last year’s “reserves look back study” showed Pulte owes SCA close to a million dollars, and no demand for payment has been made for even that modest amount? How is the finance committee reporting on that Pulte obligation?
Bob Frank
SCA Director
———————————–
Richard Pendleton said:
Norman,
Did the form you mentioned contain the name of the company that performed the Reserve Stuty? If so, could you post it?
————————————
Norman McCullough said:
I am not going to address this to David Berman because we had a gentleman’s agreement to not attack each other. We both agreed because his wife Roz was concerned about the hateful remarks between us both. Obviously David is not concerned what his wife thinks.
——————————–
To all members;
The 2005 reserve study is labeled “Bogus”, for one simple reason. It was unanimously rejected by the board of directors.
This same reserve study was submitted to The State of Nevada on August 28, 2006 (date stamped). The signature of the individual who signed the form is LeeAnn Withers who was at the time an Agent of RMI. She signed on August 25, 2006.
I obtained my copy of this form from the Ombudsman’s office. Any one who wishes to can also get a copy. If you do not have the time or the inclination, let me know, I will furnish you a copy at the going rate of $0.25 per page.
As to David’s reasoning for his lapse of memory on the subject, you will have to ask him.
Norman McCullough said:
Bob Frank;
You also might (or might not), be surprised to learn these facts.
Mike Dixon was fully aware that RMI submitted the bogus 2005 reserve study to the State of Nevada! Mr. Dixon is also a member of the Nevada Legislative Action Committee!
Another member of the NLAC is none other than Kay Dwyer. You remember her don’t you? She refuses to this day to name the legal council she says she consulted (along with Favil West), before signing the infamous Villa Agreement.
Yet another member is John Leach, our association attorney, who said he was never aware of the terms of the infamous Villa Agreement.
It certainly makes one wonder what are the prerequisites for persons serving on the Nevada Legislative Action Committee doesn’t it?
Do you suppose that the Chairperson (Donna Erwin), and the Vice Chairperson (Pamela Scott) of NLAC are aware of this little escapades?
—————————
David Berman said:
Norman McCullough writes:
“All the previous board members knew that RMI intended to submit the bogus reserve study to the State of Nevada. All the members of the finance committee knew that RMI intended to submit the bogus reserve study to the State of Nevada. If that’s not an example of RMI, the previous board members, and the previous finance committe members, willfully deceiving the State of Nevada, what is?”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The superficial -not “bogus”- reserve study Mr. McCullough refers to was submitted to the Board in June, 2005, one month after I joined the Board. After reviewing it, we voted in November, 2005 to reject it.
RMI came aboard in February/March, 2006.
I’d love to see a complaint of some sort filed using Mr. McCullough’s time line. Chances of success since RMI was not even around at the time? Try “zero.”
Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | 3 Comments »
Developer’s Political Machine Attacks Via V-J Blog
December 23, 2008 by admin.
The following recent clips from Ron Johnson’s SCA View-Journal are posted for our reader convenience:
Bob Frank said on SCA View-Journal:
Mr. Weinstein has once again proven my case. Can anyone take his kind of abusive behavior seriously? He claims to be an HR professional, but he has proven he is unqualified when it comes to leadership, management and compassionate behavior.
Is this man who calls people who disagree with him “liars” and “desert roaches” the kind of leader you thought you were electing last year as part of the so-called “unity party” ticket? Is he the kind of leader you want to make decisions on our $8 Million-dollar budget in the future?
Perhaps now many more members understand why it took Mr. Weinstein 4 attempts to get elected to the board, and then only squeaked in on the coattails of David Berman’s political machine.
We clearly need much better leadership on the board next year. Carl has failed us so many times in the past. What a disappointment!
Bob Frank
SCA Director
Carl Weinstein said on SCA View-Journal:
As a member of the current Board of Directors, the proper thing for me to do would be to ignore the rantings of madman Frank but I just cannot sit quietly when this know-nothing moron spouts off.
Of course the BOD made mistakes with Trumpets. When I first ran for office several years ago my platform was “Get S and D to pay up or get them out” But what has that got to do with life in Sun City since transition? Retired Colonel Frank is a disaster for this community. His hatred for all of us show thru his phoney dewsire to “fix things” in Anthem. Following is a multiple choice quiz on Mr. Frank for you to answer:
Bob Frank is:
1) an idiot
2) stupid
3) a chronic liar
4) all of the above
Bob Frank said on SCA View-Journal:
Members should take notes on who is making the most noise when the old machine politics (sponsored by the developer’s best friends) are criticized. Note that a consistent theme of the developer’s team is that they never admit to making any mistakes. Not one. That alone is a sign of significant mismanagement.
Even the best managers occasionally make mistakes. Good managers know how to react when errors become known. They admit to their mistakes, make the necessary corrections, and try hard to avoid a repeat. We have not seen such honest behavior by the majority of our board members in the past few years. That signal alone is enough to create some suspicions.
Take for example the case of the disastrous Trumpets Lease with S&D Cafe V. NRS 116.3105 provides for “Termination of contracts and leases of Declarant”. Nevada statutes clearly allows a resident board to terminate (within the first year) any of the developer’s contracts–for the convenience of the association.
The 2005 Board of David Weil, David Berman, Bob Berman, Favil West, Dea McDonald, Bob Sansing and Lyndal Ruiz Board could have notified the Trumpets Lessee anytime during that first year of resident control that the lease was being terminated as authorized by NRS 116.3105. With two trained attorneys on the board, and with the guidance by a so-called Community Management Company, the board had no excuses for not knowing the statutes and for not knowing the importance of gaining full resident control over the lessee’s unsatisfactory performance. But, the board failed to act properly. Why?
During the weeks between notification of lease termination and actual date of vacancy the board could have completed the termination as notified or negotiated revised terms more favorable to SCA and forced the lessee to pay 100% of rent and catering revenue shares. But, the board did neither. It failed to act and the community has suffered over a million-dollar loss and our premises has stayed vacant for over a year.
If the lessee had threatened in 2005 to sue over past misconduct by DW/Pulte and/or the CAM, the board would have simply told them fine; but, meanwhile, the lease was terminated, and the lessee’s multi-million-dollar catering revenue steam was over. I have little doubt that the lessee would have paid all rent and all revenue shares in lieu of having to lose its very profitable lease. Does that look like exceptionally poor business judgment, and/or possible fraudulent behavior, by the board and its Del Webb Community Management Company? It certainly does!
Meanshile, the fact remains that the 2005 and 2006 boards did nothing but aid and abet the lesse’s misconduct. Why? David Berman and Bob Sansing have claimed that they tried for a whole year in 2005-2006 to do something, but they failed. And, if they are not to blame for our losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Trumpets lease since 2005, who is?
Favil West, Bob Berman and Dea McDonald were the “trumpets negotiating team”. Are they personally responsible for such a disaster? What what about the other 4 board members? David Weil, David Berman, Bob Sansing and Lyndal Ruiz could have acted in 2005? And, what about the other four board members including Kay Dwyer, Lanie Berg, David Berman and David Weil in 2006? Did they not have a controlling vote in both years to over-ride such gross misconduct and financial waste and abuse? Why is this story such a big secret, and why is it still being covered up?
Conclusion? Stay tuned for the real facts and ignore the blustering. Public protests and unsubstantiated defensive claims to the contrary, the machine politics sponsored by our developer and friends seem unable to admit their failures and to correct their problems.
This year, SCA Members have no choice but to vote the old guard out and keep them out of office in the future.
Bob Frank
SCA Director
David Berman said on SCA View-Journal:
Lowell:
Please take note that Mr. McCullough seems to have a distinction that no one else holding any position in SCA can claim: a lifetime appointment.
Lowell Benjamin said on SCA View-Journal:
Friends of SCA,
The financial wiz of the dynamic duo Batman and (everyone is Robbin’) otherwise known as the Prince of accusations and name calling continues with no let up in sight. What an embarrassment to the many Villa homeowners who are punished as their properties values continue to sink. A lot of potential buyers probably have been turned off and turned away. How many more thousands in property values have to be lost by bad press and hate in his quest of chasing windmills?
This home schooled auditor, bookkeeper, accountant and CPA has accused every volunteer board member, finance committee member, RMI and fellow homeowners that don’t agree with him, of corruption wrong doing, embezzlement, mismanagement and stupidity. Doesn’t he have any mirrors in his home? I’m afraid he is missing something.
Whenever a compelling argument on a Villa reserve issue is brought forward by qualified people he always reverts back to his comfort zone which is a torrid attack of belittling a person, put downs or denigrating ones hard earned reputation. Any normal person would flinch in disgust at his writings.
The only thing that he hasn’t accused anyone as of late was shooting President Jack Kennedy. Stay tuned his dog may enlighten us shortly. When will the good Villa owners and the rest of SCA residents say enough is enough? There is one male in that household that needs a muzzle and it’s not Dexter.
Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 5 Comments »
A Few Have Served Us Poorly…
December 21, 2008 by bobfrank.
This is a short reminder to those who have blindly supported and promoted the agenda of the previous Unity party political machine that favored the developer’s interests for maximizing its profits at the expense of homeowners.
During the past decade, the controlling individuals in the US Congress and the Executive Branch have favored the developers, mortgage, real estate, banking and Wall Street financial industries to the serious disadvantages of American citizens. The majority in power have ruled, and we all will be suffering heavily for decades for allowing those in power to squelch those who tried hard to warn us of the impending financial systems collapse.
So it has been also in Sun City Anthem. Most of the community members in power during and after the transition have favored the developer’s interests with the misguided and wrong-headed opinion that covering up major losses in homeowner funds would protect property values. But, just the opposite is the case.
Major losses due to mismanagement or fraud must be exposed and responsible individuals held accountable. The combination of great real estate values backed up by outstanding community management is how we will achieve our maximum total community values–over the long-run.
Loud protests and vicious attacks to the contrary, our community has not been well-served by ALL those who volunteered to manage our money since 2004. Many have worked hard, and served well, but a few have served us poorly. And, just as in the case of those who have brought us the national financial meltdown, if we do nothing about the problems caused by the majority who have exhibited poor judgment and prefer to cover up the problems, we all will suffer in the future.
We must have a limited, reasonably-focused, investigative audit on specific areas to get our SCA financial house in order for the long-run. No amount of attacks on those of us who are truly trying to serve our homeowner’s interest will make the problems fade away. Note that those who complain the loudest about the audit are the ones who worry the most about what might be found. What this community needs is a real change in leadership in 2009. Our members are tired of the old empty, Unit Party promises of peace, harmony and teamwork to cover up the past misconduct that actually ends up in deception, dishonor, dirty tricks and strife.
Bob Frank
SCA Director
Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »
Embezzlement, mismanagement or stupidity? - You Decide 2’nd Article
December 18, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
There are 58 Villa owners in High Mountain. Those 58 Villa home owners contributed a minimum of $132,267 to the neighborhood reserve accounts (managed by Del Webb management company), during a six year period ending on May 31, 2005. The two properties located at 2553 and 2573 Springville Way for example both contributed $2,029 ( $33.80 per mo. X 60 mo.).
According to association records, on May 31, 2005, Del Webb turned over only $85,166.
That means $47,101 was missing from those reserve funds ($132,267 - $85,166). What happened to the money?
This would be a good question for some one to answer, but who?
Shirley Cheri” - Nope
Don Manning? - Nope
Jack Troia? - Nope
Joe De Meo and the finance committee? - Nope.
Richard Pendleton? - Nope
Mike Dixon? - Nope
Roz Berman? - Nope
I think I’ll ask Dexter, he’s not a CPA or a rocket scientist, but maybe he knows.
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »
Embezzlement, mismanagement or stupidity? - You Decide
December 18, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
There are 52 Villa owners in High Mesa. Those 52 Villa home owners contributed a minimum of $113,490 to the neighborhood reserve accounts (managed by Del Webb management company), during a six year period ending on May 31, 2005. My wife (who was widowed at the time) contributed a little over $2,366 ($33.80 per mo. X 70 mo.)
According to association records, on May 31, 2005, Del Webb turned over only $81,035.
That means $32,455 was (and still is), missing from those reserve funds ($113,490 - $81,035). What happened to the money?
This would be a good question for some one to answer, but who?
Shirley Cheri” - Nope
Don Manning? - Nope
Jack Troia? - Nope
Joe De Meo and the finance committee? - Nope.
Richard Pendleton? - Nope
Mike Dixon? - Nope
Roz Berman? - Nope
I think I’ll ask Dexter, he’s not a CPA or a rocket scientist, but maybe he knows.
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »
Trailhead Issue–City Council–Dec 16–6:30 PM
December 15, 2008 by Forrest Fetherolf.
By Forrest Fetherolf:
We have been busy talking to SCA Board members and contacting Councilman Andy Hafen regarding the proposed trailhead on Shadow Canyon Drive.
As per our Board President’s request, we submitted a summary of our understanding, concerns, and recommendations listing our community concerns for the safety and security of our residents. We have attached a copy of our summary for your information.
th_working-papers_12-14-08.pd
A City Council Meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, December 16th, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers located at 240 Water Street. Please be there by 6:45 PM.
The Board was unable to respond soon enough and show their support by attending this meeting. Karen and I will attend and hope that we get the opportunity to voice our community concerns during the “Public Comment” segment of the meeting.
Any support you can lend by attending the meeting with us would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Forrest
forrest@fetherolfdev.com
Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »
Can Anybody/Everybody Be Fooled?
December 15, 2008 by bobfrank.
How many thousands of years of expertise were deceived by the complicit CPAs, MBAs and lawyers involved in the national mortgage frauds and the NASDAQ frauds? The following link and quote from Fortune magazine about the current NASDAQ fraud case causes us to pause and reflect on Sun City Anthem’s current financial issues.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/magazines/fortune/madoff.fortune/
“What’s truly scary about Madoff is that when you talk to people who were ripped off you think, there but for the grace of God goes me. Professionals feel the same way. This from the president of a fund of fund business:
‘Every time one of these frauds is discovered I get scared to death it could happen to us. We do lots of things to try to ensure it doesn’t, such as checking and confirming auditors and auditor changes, using a private investigator to check on managers when we first invest, and the having the PI annually update the file, trying to find references which are not on someone’s reference list, etc.’
Bob Frank
SCA Director
This article: Can Anybody/Everybody Be Fooled?
Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 2 Comments »
Some tough questions for Joe De Meo and friends?
December 15, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
1. The official Hilburn & Lein audit document for the fiscal year ending on Dec. 31, 2005 was signed on September 19, 2006 (9 months and 19 days AFTER the fiscal year ended). RMI’s contract officially began on February 1, of 2006.
Question 1. : Considering the fact that the association is required to produce a budget every year, is it common practice for common interest communities to wait over nine months for information that is crucial for the development of a budget that will adequately fund the operating and the reserve accounts?
—————————————-
2. Regarding the reserves of the association and the neighborhoods, the letter that was signed on September 19, 2006 by Hilburn & Lein states as follows;
“The schedule of Reserve Analysis on page 20 is not a required part of the basic financial statements of Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc. but is supplementary information required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it.”
This would seem to indicate that $2,455,505 of association reserve funds, and $230,802 of neighborhood reserve funds were NEVER audited by Hilburn & Lein. The information was instead obtained from “inquiries of management.”
Question 2. : Can you tell us who were the “management officials” that furnished the information to Hilburn & Lein, and if the information was ever audited by any other audit firm? Can you further tell us what “methods of measurement and presentation” represent?
——————————————
3. The 2006 budgets for SCA are referenced to the 2000 reserve study fully funded amounts.
The 2oo7 budgets for SCA are referenced to the 2006 reserve study fully funded amounts.
Question 3. : Why did the finance committee recommend that the Board of Directors adopt the 2006 budget using the outdated fully funded numbers provided from the 2000 reserve study when there was a 2005 reserve study done by the developer?
———————————————-
4. I have asked to see bank records of the four individual Villa neighborhood reserve funds for the transition date of May 31, 2005, but I was informed by Terry DaSilva that only a co-mingled “summary” of those reserve funds exists. She further told me that it was the ONLY record the association has.
Question 4. : Does a co-mingled “summary” of the reserve funds of different Villa neighborhoods, that has never been audited satisfy the “generally accepted auditing standards” that you referred to in your statements made at the membership meeting?
———————————–
I have more questions, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll wait for your answers to these.
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »
Here is a very obvious error/omission in the Draft version of the minutes of our Annual membership meeting held on December 5, 2008.
December 14, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
1. Item IV - 2009 Budget Presentation.
The draft minutes erroneously state that;
“Joe DeMeo, Vice Chair of the Finance Committee, conducted a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed 2009 Budget for ratification by the membership.”
The FACTS are;
Joe DeMeo, Vice Chair of the Finance Committee, conducted a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed 2009 Budget for the association members (7,144 home owners). It was followed by questions from the membership as well as discussion period of that portion of the 2009 budget. During that discussion period Mr. Norman McCullough (and Mr. Joe DeMeo agreed), that the fully funded numbers represented in the slide presentation were based on a draft version of the 2008 revision of the 2006 reserve study, and are subject to change when the draft version is finalized.
AFTER Mr. DeMeo’s presentation, Mr. Richard Pendleton (a finance committee member), conducted a Power Point presentation of the proposed 2009 Budget for the neighborhood members (Villa home owners and Pinnacle). It was followed by questions from the neighborhood members as well as a discussion period of that portion of the 2009 budget. Mr. McCullough presented a letter into the record of the meeting concerning that portion of the 2009 budget.
It was at this time (during the discussion period of the neighborhood budgets), that Joe DeMeo returned to the microphone and read his totally political and off topic remarks about director Bob Frank.
It is noted here that Roz Berman did not admonish or otherwise advise Mr. De Meo that his remarks were off topic, and not allowed. These politically motivated remarks are another example of how the association can manipulate the coming election for board officers by allowing politically biased committee members to use the bully pulpit of membership meetings, when the meeting time and discussion should be confined to community interests AND NOT POLITICS.
This whole disgusting episode of Mike Dixon vs. Bob Frank continues to poison every meeting and should not be allowed to continue.
Mike Dixon should resign, and the finance committee members who continue to conduct a political war on time that should be devoted to the business of the community should be reprimanded in my opinion (as well as Dexter’s).
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »
UPDATE: BoD & City Say NO to a Trailhead Compromise!
December 11, 2008 by bobfrank.
(Note: See the comments below this posting to understand the revised headline .)
I attended the BLM/Henderson presentation–towards the end of the day when all of the info and opinions had been collected, and alternate ideas could be considered. I feel it is very important to find a compromise with the City and BLM that effectively deals with the issues.
During my end-of-day discussions with BLM and City staff members, I proposed an alternative site for the Trailhead Rest Stop facilities that had been originally suggested last year, but had not been seriously considered at that time.
It is a simple, but effective option. A very rough drawing is attached for your review and comment. Both groups of staff members seemed to be highly attracted to the proposal to place the rest facilities on BLM land near the convergence of 3 trail segments. Alternative Site For Trailhead Rest Stop Facilities
This site puts the rest stop far away from the SCA homeowners properties and provides better service to hikers who are actually using the trails. It could essentially eliminate many, if not most, of the major problems associated with the current TH rest stop site plan. One of the City staff members is actively researching the feasibility of this alternative, and the possible cost impacts–if any. Initial feedback is quite favorable.
If you agree this is a viable proposal for your SCA Board to recommend to the City and BLM, please advise accordingly by posting on this blog and/or sending an eForm to the Board.
It is unfortunate this idea could not get seriously considered last year, but if action is taken quickly, before major construction has been started, it could be possible to implement such a win-win-win change in plans.
Sincerely,
Bob Frank
SCA Director
Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 3 Comments »
Some Questions for The Election Committee
December 9, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
On Tuesday December 9, the Election Committee meets in Anthem Center at 9:00 AM.
I would like to pose a few questions for the members of the election committee.
1. Do you think it is appropriate for Jack Troia (or any other finance committee member), to use the time allotted for a committee meeting to make political comment and criticize persons who are running for a position on the board of directors of Sun City Anthem?
Jack Troia did exactly that last year. I do not believe that members of the community who attend the finance committee meetings to be informed of the financial matters of this community, should be subjected to a personal opinion of a committee member. Especially in view of the fact Mr. Troia’s wife (Pamela), is a member of the election committee.
2. Do you think it is appropriate for members of the finance committee to corrupt the once a year meeting of the members of this community (The Annual Membership and Budget Ratification Meeting), to make politically motivated statements and criticism of a current board member, who also may be a candidate for the board in the coming election?
As you know, there are a great many committee’s that serve the community under the boards direction. Every board member has the right and the obligation to question and yes to criticize the committee if he/she believes the committee needs further direction from the boards point of view.
3. Do you think it is appropriate for members of ANY committee who make recommendations to the board of directors that affect every members interests, to also make public political statements that may possibly influence the voting decisions of the very members who will be affected by the recommendations made by those committee members?
Just as an example, IF a contract were to be awarded to the highest bidder for a service, and that action was criticized by one lone board member who criticized the committee members for making that recommendation, is it appropriate for those committee members to publicly criticize the lone dissenter?
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »
Election Issue No. 2 - The Issue of Dirty Politics
December 8, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
Roz Berman, Barry Friedman, Mike Dixon, Shirley Cheri, Roger Cooper, Carl Weinstein and nine members of the Finance Committee, perverted the rules and regulations that govern the The Annual Membership meeting that was held last Friday.
Joe De Meo (Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee), read into the minutes “on behalf of all members of the Finance Committee” a politically inspired statement that had nothing to do with the subject under discussion which was the proposed 2009 Budget. Roz Berman claimed “the board” had approved his conduct. There was no topic on the agenda of that meeting that allowed this blatant politically motivated event. To quote David Berman from his own BLOG;
“ The previously postponed Annual Members Meeting will be at 9:00 AM in Hanneman Hall at Anthem Center. The primary agenda item for the meeting is ratification of the 2009 Association budgets.”
While I was quite happy to see that Joe De Meo has apparently calmed down and is no longer banging his fists on the table as he did during the last election campaign, I was quite disappointed in the conduct of all the people mentioned above. The Annual Membership Meeting is NOT to used as a tool for any of these people to express their political or personal vendettas.
I would sincerely hope that something could be done to prevent this from ever happening again. I personally think its time for some resignations. How much of our money is going to be wasted just because Mike Dixon and his friends decided to wrongly file a complaint against Bob Frank? How much of our money is going to be wasted by giving it to John Leach to defend these children who continue to fight like school yard bullies? When is this current board of directors going to realize they CAN NOT continue to have secret meetings to plot against Bob Frank who has been completely vindicated by the State of Nevada?
If this is what “Unity” is, — it STINKS!
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »
Election issue No.1 — The Issue of Fairness
December 5, 2008 by Norman McCullough.
Reference: Las Vegas Review Journal - Page 4D titled ;
“Seeking to protect homeowners” written by Ian Dixon and Jonathan Friedrich.”
The authors have revealed in that article that a landmark decision was reached by the Real Estate Division of The State of Nevada. In effect the decision says a board of directors CAN NOT impose a special assessment on home owners without a vote of the residents.
As you know our board of directors in the year 2007 did exactly that when they raised The Villa home owners annual neighborhood assessment from $1,500 to $2,000 per yr. (a 33 1/3 % increase). In view of this legal precedent, the actions taken by the board were illegal, and the $500 increase (plus interest) should be returned to us.
The board of directors (in 2007), failed to protect The Villa owners interests by not allowing them to vote on the increase that took $81,000 from them. The board also failed to protect their interests when they made the decision to force the Villa residents to fund the neighborhood reserve shortages instead of requiring the developer to obey the Nevada Statutes.
————————————————-
Question for the candidates (Who ever they may be).
————————————————
Do you favor returning this $500 to the Villa home owners that was taken from them without a vote, and resulted in the extreme over funding of the Villa reserve funds?
Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »