January 29, 2009 by bobfrank.

Someone recently complained because they thought I was one of those SCA members who wanted the parkway/loop speed limit be reduced to 35 mph–no matter what. That is not true.

I have consistently advocated that 45 mph COULD be a safe speed limit on the loop–IF (1) it was strictly enforced, and IF (2) the dangerous intersections were made safe by removing line-of-sight blockages, AND IF (3) traffic lights were installed at the most dangerous intersections. Phil Hight and Dan McClintock deserve great credit for their selfless efforts while serving on the Property & Grounds Committee before passing away, and a good way to honor their work would be to insist that the full project gets completed in 2009.

As a matter of background, we need to accept that Del Webb intended to have the loop speed controlled at 35 mph to allow this to be a golf-cart-permissible community–WHEN there were 3 golf courses planned. But, that goal has since become impractical due to the 2002 changes to the Master Plan, and the resulting major changes in parkway/loop use. We need to insist that the loop traffic controls be upgraded if we are going to continue to have a 45 mph posted speed limit.

We should not accept some Henderson proposals to wait for installing traffic lights until the accident rate increases significantly, i.e., until more SCA members are killed or become maimed from accidents at the intersections. It is clear the most dangerous loop Intersections need to have traffic lights. And, to provide the most efficient results, those traffic lights should be installed with access switches activated by vehicles and pedestrians entering, exiting, and/or crossing the loop.

Let’s pull together and ask the City to install traffic lights at the 4 or 5 most dangerous intersections before the end of 2009. Please help me to help you on this vital lifestyle safety issue for our community! The lives and health we save may be our own.

Bob Frank
SCA Director
bobfrank@cox.net

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Safety | Print | 1 Comment »

January 23, 2009 by admin.

Here are Director Frank’s Responses to the Political Statements by Finance Committee Chair Joe DeMao at the 2008 Annual Meeting and planned to be mailed at community expense by the BoD. 

 The Board has unfairly refused Director Frank’s request to have his rebuttals to the FC allegations included in the Board’s mailing–which will occur during the campaign.

The article can be reviewed online at this link: http://www.lvrj.com/business/34543364.html?numComments=21# or in this file: R-J Article

Finance Committee Made 5 Allegations (they are only summarized here since the full complaint is available from the Board’s mailing and since most of the FC words are political attacks or unrelated to the Review Journal article.)

1. FC Complaint:  Focused on defending the financial management before, during and since the transition in May 2005, and claimed there was no evidence of misconduct or mismanagement by anyone.

My response:  The statement is not correct.  The time frame I was referring to was May 2005 until the end of 2006.  Because of the many changes in management and companies, there is some ambiguity on exactly which individuals were responsible for the association’s accounting and financial management in 2005 and 2006.  The official file records from Del Webb prior to March 2006 were not even made available to the members for open review until mid 2007.  I was told that RMI manually transferred the records and developed a new chart of accounts and other key accounting records when they took over in 2006.  That provided many opportunities for errors and/or financial misconduct.

RMI replaced its own accounting system again–during the following year.  So, the SCA accounting system was rebuilt—again—with a new chart of accounts and extensive re-keying of records.  The conversion in 2007 was supposed to be handled electronically between the old RMI systems to the new RMI system.  But, the conversion failed and the transfer processes had to be manually accomplished during the summer months.  Meanwhile, there were many problems reported while trying to manage the SCA finances and develop the annual budget.  At one point, the SCA member account data was so corrupted by RMI during the conversion that a manual spreadsheet had to be keyed in for the 7,000+ members in order to accomplish the monthly mailing of SCA’s magazine.  The amount of overtime hours required due to the conversion failure was not reported.

So, SCA’s multi-million-dollar accounts had to suffer two complete overhauls of its accounting systems in less than 2 years.  And, since only one member of the current Finance Committee was serving on the committee at transition time, and none of the FC members were ever SCA Directors, the current Finance Committee members do not have the first-hand knowledge to make group allegations against a director.  

2. FC Complaint:  Although he was not involved at that time, Mr. DeMeo insisted that nothing happened during and after transition that would justify an investigative/forensic audit.  The FC has pretended that in spite of the transition activities, nothing could have been missing while millions of dollars of bank accounts were transferred between Del Webb management company’s bank accounts and SCA’s bank accounts with RMI.  FC claimed that during such a multi-million-dollar transfer of assets and management companies, no one should be concerned that only routine audits were performed and the auditor (inherited from Del Webb) reported no significant issues in 2005 or 2006.

My response:  A forensic audit was clearly called for in November 2006 because of the simultaneous transitions of both the Board of Directors and the Community Managers.  The Finance Committee’s use of the term “outside auditor” is deceptive.  The same auditor, Mr. Gary Lein, has performed every audit since Sun City Anthem was initiated.  Of course, he is not an employee of SCA or Pulte or RMI.  But, no one is an employee of SCA.  SCA has no employees.  We only operate with sub-contractors.

In my opinion, the auditing company should have been changed at transition time from the developer’s choice to the community’s choice.  And, the auditor should be changed again every three to five years.  This policy would just be following common sense.  And, since there were some poor financial decisions made during 2005 to 2007 that cost the association hundreds of thousands of dollars, and since the two accounting system conversions and transitions between community managers and boards were so irregular, there is more than sufficient cause to look into the potential for financial misconduct and/or fraud.  If the records and accounting procedures were as clean and complete as the Finance Committee members claim, it would not take a qualified forensic auditor long to verify the results. Everyone would benefit from having such a validation of the associations funds and financial records.

3. FC Complaint:  Because the Del Webb-appointed auditor worked for his own company, members of the FC believe it could be unfair to claim Mr. Lein might have had conflicts of interest with the SCA community’s interests at transition and since.  And, because Mr. Lein is a very nice fellow, has earned high credentials within the auditing community, and because he was endorsed by previous developer-controlled and other SCA Boards, he is above being questioned about possible conflicts of interest.

My response:  It is deceptive and improper for the committee to claim that because Mr. Lein is a named partner in his own firm that he was not retained/did not “work for” the Del Webb Community Management Company—a Pulte Corp. company.  Mr. Lein has admitted he has been the auditor for the SCA since he was originally retained by Del Webb before the year 2000.  And, Mr. Lein’s firm can receive new business from developer referrals when Pulte opens up new communities. 

There is nothing factually wrong with what I said in the paper, or above.  As a Director with relevant business experience in this auditing area, I have the obligation to question Mr. Lein about potential conflicts of interests related to his Del Webb/Pulte business, and he should not feel uncomfortable with such questions.  Nothing untoward or improper was suggested or inferred.

4. FC Complaint:  Because Mr. Lein has always followed normal auditing practices, and because there are 4 CPAs on the FC, no one should question the results of the past audits.  Also, because a forensic audit would cost more money to validate some of Mr. Lein’s work, it would be a waste of time and money.

My Response:   My statement is factual, and the FC’s recommendations have been noted.  As an elected Director I have legal fiduciary duties and responsibilities that appointed FC members do not have.  The FC advises and the Board makes the decisions.  In the case of potential misconduct or fraud, a Director is required to consider and advocate the matter of an investigative audit until being satisfied–even if the majority of the board does not wish to do so. 

We have many examples in this State and Nation where large numbers of highly experienced CPAs have hundreds of years of cumulative experience, but they still failed to identify and act on findings pointing to significant fraud in companies and government agencies.  But, under Nevada law, the boards of directors can be held accountable for failing to use their own business judgment to detect and correct financial problems.  My objections are fully within my authority and duty.  The Finance Committee serves at the pleasure of the Board.  Its charter does not provide it the authority to politically attack a Director.  Only the SCA Board members have such authority.  If a Directors want to challenge another Director, he/she must sign their name to the statements and not use a committee to speak for them.

5. FC Complaint:  The FC continues to categorically deny that there has been any past problems with SCA’s income tax filings.  The FC insists that it was proper for SCA to pay zero income taxes in 2004 to 2006 while we were accumulating over $3 million in “profits” from charging more dues/assessments than could be justified for operating expenses and reserve funds.  The FC and Mr. Lein also claim that the SCA Boards used good business judgment to fail to refund or credit the surplus dues to members and also failed to report the surplus dues as corporate profits—as required by Revenue Ruling 70-604.

My response:  The FC comments are deceptive and incorrect.  This is just a political statement carried over from last year’s board campaign.  It is designed to try to negatively influence the upcoming board campaign against me.  The facts do not support the FC claims.

My retired IRS agent advisers (who are also SCA members) have frequently made themselves available to meet with the FC members, SCA Treasurer and Board President.  But, the Board officers and FC members have refused to meet and discuss our well-documented and precisely explained concerns.  This fact is well-documented. 

The past rationale used to circumvent Revenue Ruling 70-604 has not been proven to be valid.  Until the IRS has provided written confirmation that our tax returns for 2004-2007 were correctly done, I will remain unconvinced of the legality of way our returns were prepared and submitted.  And, I will remain concerned over SCA’s back income tax liabilities that could exceed $1.5 million.  As a Director, I have the fiduciary duty to pursue the matter until it is settled.  The FC can advise, but it can not decide the matter.  And, the FC must not be used as a tool of other board members to try to bully me into agreement by using SCA funds to mail out politically-charged materials to influence the SCA membership.

In addition, the FC and auditor Gary Lein refused to state categorically that there is zero risk to SCA for owing back taxes.  They know that I am right in stating there is a reasonable chance they made mistakes on past income tax returns for this community.  They know there is a chance that our returns that reported zero tax due for 3 consecutive years are wrong.  And, they have refused to join me and my IRS retired tax advisers to consult a qualified, national IRS Agent to settle this dispute.   Instead, they insist on rolling the dice and taking chances while waiting until an IRS audit is conducted in the future.

In summary:  my tax concerns have been clearly stated.  Upon advice of highly competent professionals, I am convinced that SCA’s income taxes have been wrongly submitted in the past few years; and, I am quite worried that significant tax filing errors have been made on our $3+ million of accumulated surplus assessments (profits) have been made in the past.  There appears to have been a cover-up of those errors in hopes that the IRS will not notice.  As a Director, I can not condone that kind of misbehavior.  If our tax preparers (Mr. Lein and Jack Troia) and past SCA Treasurers (West, Dwyer, Roz Berman and Cheri) have made some mistakes or errors in judgment in filing our tax returns, then we have to make the corrections and ask the IRS for permission to make the necessary corrections. 

In the meantime, I am compelled to insist that SCA asks the IRS to confirm that we previously filed our returns correctly.  We can not afford to take the risk of waiting until we are audited to learn we have done our returns wrong.  Such a mistake could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties. 

Bob Frank
SCA Director
January 22, 2009

Posted in Truth Squad, 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Lifestyle, News! | Print | 3 Comments »

January 20, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

If elected, do you swear to finally put an end to A BLOG owners incessant desire to control and manipulate every election conducted in Sun City Anthem?

Only one BLOG owner has the following preamble for the viewers of his website.

————————————

“Note: By subscribing to the Anthem Journal, you are agreeing to receive political content and understand that the blog will be used by its owner to express SCA-related political opinions from time to time.”

———————————

Not only does he use his own website to promote his own political views and smother the voices of those who disagree, he enters other BLOGS  to troll for even more lemmings to promote only his views while denigrating and insulting any one who has a differing opinion. If your want to represent all the people who may vote to elect you, you should listen to ALL the residents voices, not just a select few.

Posted in Other | Print | 2 Comments »

January 20, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Mr. Lowell Benjamin has made an excellent proposal Ron Johnson’s BLOG site. Mr. Benjamin’s proposal follows;

“11)Develop a communications group and point person to interface with local newspapers and TV to show SCA in a positive light and defuse all the negativity that is detrimental to the well being and growth of the SCA community”

————————————–

If elected, do you swear to implement this proposal AND allow the voices of the ALL the residents of Sun City Anthem to be heard loud and clear when reporting or otherwise “interfacing” with the newspaper or TV media.

It is patently unfair for members of the board of directors, or members of the finance committee (or any other committee), to address the newspaper and TV media and NOT represent the views of minority people who are directly affected by the deliberations and the decisions made by a select few individuals.

For example the current board of directors is considering a proposal from the finance committee to use our funds to mail a politically motivated statement made by the members of the finance committee to all residents.

The finance committee does not represent the political views of 100% of the population of Sun City Anthem. If they (or any other committee of Sun City Anthem), have differing political views or prefer certain political candidates over another they do not have the right to use committee meetings and the residents money to promote their political views to the population of Sun City Anthem. That’s how elections are “fixed”, and the practice must stop HERE AND NOW. Negativity is a natural result of smothering the voices of some of our citizens, and listening only to a few who wish to put a muzzle on the people who are affected.

The finance committee should be admonished for ignoring the voices of any who may disagree with their intentions.

I think a communications group made of representatives from EVERY community of Sun City Anthem is a good and sensible solution as long as ALL voices are represented and not just the voices of a few select individuals.

———————————————

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

January 20, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

————————-
Mr. Lowell Benjamin has made an excellent proposal on Ron Johnson’s BLOG site. Mr. Benjamin’s proposal follows;

“3)Bring to a conclusion past 2005 transition issues, calls for a forensic audit, line of sight, by taking a final position so the BOD and SCA community can move forward and focus on the future. Take into account probability of success (POS) and payback.”

————————————–

If elected, do you swear to put an end to the deceptive policies of this current Board of Directors, RMI, and the finance committee that allows RMI employees to set policy and/or prices used by a reserve specialist by using bid/estimates that are only good for a 90 day period. This policy was directly responsible for a deceptive and inaccurate neighborhood budget for the year 2007, that produced an unnecessary $500 increase in the annual neighborhood assessments that has now resulted in excessive reserve funds in the Villa neighborhoods. The following year it was rescinded.

The finance committee should be admonished for establishing a president using bid/estimates that can not be relied on as factual. This alone is cause enough for requesting a forensic audit.

————————————–

If elected, do you swear to put an end to the deceptive policies of this current Board of Directors, RMI, and the finance committee that allows RMI employees to arbitrarily change the quantities that were previously established by a reserve specialist. Changing the measured and calculated quantities of a reserve specialist should only be done by a person who possesses the necessary qualifications and is licensed to do so. Any changes that are proposed and accepted by the reserve specialist should be fully explained and documented by the reserve specialist in his report to the Board of Directors, and that report should be made available to the residents of this community.

For example - an RMI employee changed the measured quantities established and published by the reserve specialist for eight years (from 2000 to 2008). By changing the required square foot of stucco surface of a typical Villa, the RMI employee affected the estimated dollar amount that was due and payable from the developer to the neighborhood Villa owners on May 31, 2005.

This RMI employee claims that there is 1,016 square feet of glass surface in a typical Villa home, and he further claims protecting and masking the glass area is not a cost factor when a Villa is painted. I did something very unconventional and “off the wall”. I measured the glass area of my own Villa. It’s more like 425 square feet, not even close to 1,016 square feet.

The finance committee should be admonished for establishing a president that can not be relied on as factual. This alone is cause enough for requesting a forensic audit.

————————————–

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

January 20, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Mr. Lowell Benjamin has made an excellent proposal on Ron Johnson’s BLOG site. Mr. Benjamin proposals were as follows;

1)Utilize the significant RMI management & administrative personnel along with the dedicated volunteer force to work contracts and processes in-order to reduce operational costs by 10-20%. Use metrics to track results and savings to enhance community i.e.; new amenities and activities.

2)Establish a contracts committee to Improve RFPs, contracts, guarantees and warrantees to/from all vendors and subcontractors
————————————–

If elected, do you swear to put an end to the policies of this current Board of Directors and RMI to hire a vendor and pay that vendor over $94,000 of Villa residents reserve funds WITHOUT A CONTRACT that guarantees the full performance of the work?

————————————–

If elected, do you swear to put an end to the policies of this current Board of Directors and RMI to enter into contracts and/or agreements without the approval of the associations attorney?

————————————–

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

January 18, 2009 by bobfrank.

Let’s try to focus on the REAL issues concerning safety and convenience for the Anthem Parkway loop. Like many other residents, I like to drive fast along the loop. But, I worry about the dangers to me, my wife, and our fellow residents caused by the very serious design deficiencies in this roadway. For example:

1. All of the INTERSECTIONS are dangerous, and some are reported as EXTREMELY dangerous. That means that if the most dangerous intersections are not corrected first, our people can be killed and/or seriously injured when loop traffic exceeds 35 to 45 mph. Both the loop drivers and the cross traffic are equally at high risk to collisions, and everyone loses when collisions occur.

2. Setting and enforcing a speed limit of 35 mph means that loop traffic will be ticketed when going over 45 mph. That would be a good thing to do unless or until the dangerous intersections are modified to be safe for enforced speeds of 45 to 55 mph.

3. Speeds over 55 mph will ALWAYS BE UNSAFE due to the curves, hills and parkway landscaping. But, since speeders over 55 mph can not be prevented, the best way to cope with that situation is to put in traffic lights at spaced intervals at the most dangerous intersections. These new lights should be of short duration and activated by cross traffic. This way the loop traffic will not be interrupted unless cross traffic needs to make a safe entrance or exit. Those who prefer to drive very fast will know far enough in advance that a red light truly means “stop for slow-moving cross traffic and/or pedestrians”

4. Everyone has a right to an opinion; but, as a Director, I am compelled to advocate what is clearly the safest solutions to protect the entire SCA community while sustaining our unique lifestyle. Whether that earns me votes for re-election or not, my primary duty is to serve the whole community. Please support me in this important community safety matter, or show me a better way to achieve the objective.

Bob Frank
SCA Director
bobfrank@cox.net

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

January 17, 2009 by admin.

AV sometimes complains about the political spinning done by David Berman, but the following (supposedly true example) by Senator Reid’s staff sets the standard:

 ———–

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry (senator (D) from Nevada ) Reid’s great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.  Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory.  

On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 

‘Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to  Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six  times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.’

So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their mutual great-great uncle.

Believe it or not, Harry Reid’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

‘Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include  acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.  In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.’

That’s real  POLITICAL SPIN!     THAT is how it’s done folks! .

Posted in Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »

January 16, 2009 by bobfrank.

Whatever is said about the safety of the Anthem Parkway/Drive loop, we need to stay focused on the real traffic control and safety issues.  Those few who attended the Henderson Citizens Traffic Advisory Board meeting in City Hall last evening learned that Sun City Anthem’s traffic safety issues are being influenced by individuals who obviously have already decided to recommend that the City Council retain the high speed limits on the road that circumnavigates our senior community.

I apologize in advance for the need for such a long posting.  But, there is so much misinformation and confusion, I am obligated to try to explain the facts.  If you do not want this much info, just ignore it, and accept that many others may benefit from it.

One thing that was made very clear last evening was that many community members (including myself) put “member safety” and “retaining the beautiful and scenic parkway through our community” as our TOP priorities for the future of the “Anthem Parkway/Drive Loop”.  However, the meeting also showed that the long struggle to defend those priorities is at high risk of being lost.

The City, aided and abetted by David Berman’s and Chuck Davis’ sustained aggressive advocacy, is clearly intending to seriously modify the landscaping along the parkway to make the 45-55 mph speed on the Anthem loop a permanent decision.  That would probably eliminate the possibility of this becoming the “golf cart permissible community” that was promised to most homeowners, and has been declared on the Del Webb-erected monument at the entrance to Sun City Anthem.

However, this decision may not yet be over.  There are still many nagging issues flying in the face of making such a major change without more facts.  Moreover, few individuals among the tens of thousands residents of the full Anthem Community have been consulted on this critical safety policy issue.

To illustrate some of these issues, here are just a few of the important items discussed last evening:

- The City’s traffic survey team reported that when no speed limits are enforced, “most drivers” find it “COMFORTABLE” to drive at 45 to 55 mph.  That was no surprise since there is almost no speed enforcement and little knowledge of the high risks involved traversing the blind intersections along the parkway.  This is particularly true for those living in such communities as Anthem Highlands since they problem never use the interchanges between SCA villages and the parkway.  In addition, mechanically measuring vehicle speeds at selected parkway points does not reveal what SCA residents think about the serous dangers of entering, exiting and crossing the parkway (both in vehicles and on foot).

- The survey team declared it will NOT recommend reducing the current 45-55 mph speed limits on any portion of the 7+ miles of the Anthem Parkway/Drive “loop”.. (Note: 55 mph is mentioned because everyone knows that speeding tickets are not issued unless a person exceeds a speed limit by more than 10 mph.)  The rationale to stay at 45-55 is for the “public benefit” and not intended to be for the “Anthem Community benefit”.  As shown below, that may be a seriously misplaced objective as those who are “more comfortable” at the higher speeds are just as likely to be seriously injured from a collision at a blind corner as a slow-moving senior. Such  “comfort” at the higher speed is not based on the facts of the roadway hazzards.

- The team/board admits that the way the “parkway” has been built and maintained it does not safely support more than 35 mph speed.  It was reported that it is very dangerous to drive faster than 35 to 45 mph because cross traffic at almost all intersections is not safe when parkway traffic exceeds 35 mph.

- There was great confusion on whether the “Anthem Parkway/Loop” was designed and approved in the master plan as being intended to be restricted to 35 mph.  The confusion was due in large part to the many steep hills, very sharp curves, massive landscaping in the medians and along the sides of the “parkway”.  These items of designed natural beauty for the parkway also provide clear evidence that Del Webb was not intending for this loop to be a high speed (45 to 55 mph) artery for general commuting.  This beautifully-designed and landscaped “Anthem parkway/drive” was obviously intended to be a “SCA amenity” to support the Anthem “golf-cart-permissible” community lifestyle.  Anthem was designed to FEEL LIKE a special, gated community without requiring the burdens of maintaining gated controls.

- Further evidence that the Anthem loop was not intended to be a general purpose 4-lane “public traffic artery” was revealed when it was reported that the Anthem “loop” was the ONLY “4-lane, divided, public road” in Henderson where the median and side properties were owned/maintained by the community.  WOW!  That would seem to be a BIG deal!  The traffic board/survey members said that all other 45 mph divided roads in Henderson were specifically designed for the higher speeds, and they were owned and maintained by the City.  Further confusion was due to the fact that Del Webb had to have received Henderson City approval before it could declare SCA to be a “golf cart permissible community”.  That designation requires parkway speeds to be set at 35 mph or lower.  Perhaps setting the speed limit to 45 mph for the long-run may even require a master plan change with public comments by all those affected in Anthem–before it is final?

- Evidence was also presented suggesting that much of the traffic increases in the past two years and the current speed-related problems were related to new residents in Anthem Highlands, and adjoining communities to the South and West.  Most of these individuals have to use the parkway to connect to Eastern for their commute to work.  These major community increases were not anticipated in the original design and construction of the Anthem Parkway loop in the late 1990’s.  And, the roads required to support the new communities to allow exit/access to the North and West have not been completed.  Some believe THAT very critical issue needs to be addressed before a permanent conversion of the Anthem loop into a high speed artery is considered.  In the meantime, most (if not all) of the former law enforcement professionals living in SCA believe that a posted 35 mph speed limit and traffic lights at the most dangerous intersections will provide the needed traffic/speed controls–without having to butcher our parkway landscaping and ruin our community style.

- Also confirmed was that the intersections at such places as Thunder Bay, Scotts Valley, Williamsport, and Atchley were examples of VERY dangerous intersections and worthy of high consideration for future traffic light controls.  It was also reported that the DW/Pulte master plan agreement required the company to pay for any future traffic lights.  That might be a good reason why there is so much invisible resistance to the ideas of traffic lights at key intersections. Proposing some cost savings through a slower speed limit may also be a way to motivate Pulte to support our desire to retain Anthem Parkway/Loop as a golf-cart-permissible roadway.  Worthy of consideration?

- It was reported that improving line-of-sight abilities at most intersections may make it safer for those who are “comfortable” driving at high speeds and for those entering and exiting SCA villages along the parkway.  But, no conclusive evidence was presented to show that massive changes to improving line-of-sight barriers will finally solve the dangerous blind intersections problems.  There are just too many steep hills, sharp curves, utility boxes, walls, monument signs, etc. to be able to make it function like the flat terrain of the typical 45 mph roadway.

- The City intends for landscape removal actions to be just a first step, but it was clear that most of the expenses for improving the Anthem loop safety would be BILLED to Anthem residents.  In the meantime, it appeared that a much higher accident and injury rate at the intersections may have to be experienced in order for the City to justify installing new traffic signals at the blind crossings.

- The traffic board/survey team is proposing to City Council that Pulte (that means Anthem residents) pay the high costs of major landscape reductions near the intersections since the Anthem residents own or will eventually own the medians and side landscaping. While some line-of-sight landscape work in the intersection areas has already been done, and more needs to be done, the proposed plan is to wait to consider adding traffic lights ONLY if parkway accidents continued to increase to MUCH higher levels.

David and Roz Berman appeared to be the only ones present from SCA that supported the City’s plans.  Roz said nothing. But, since she does not drive, and she does not believe that SCA Directors should get involved in public policy matters, her lack of action was typical.  Meanwhile, David deceived those in attendance by issuing a prepared statement claiming that “70% of surveyed SCA members” preferred the higher speeds.  That was just plain wrong and totally deceptive. For example, during his statement, David did not report that:

(1) No community-wide, or Anthem-wide survey (affecting tens of thousands of people) has ever been taken on this vital matter.

(2) At least 3,000 new SCA homeowners have moved in since the previous (limited) survey was conducted in 2005.  In other words, David Berman’s survey results contain no representative or statistically significant data in the year 2009.

(3) Many thousands more (of all ages) live in new homes built/occupied in Anthem Solara, Anthem Highlands and in the many other adjacent communities to the West and South. None of those thousands of potentially concerned residents have been informed on the key safety issues involved by driving at high speed across the extremely dangerous intersections along the parkway.  They do not know that it is next to impossible for cross traffic at many blind intersection to see fast, oncoming traffic in time to avoid a collision.

In other words, thousands of Anthem residents are not aware of the very high risks to their lives and property from the slow-moving, slow-reacting senior residents trying to cross the parkway at the blind intersections–without the protections of traffic signals.  And, SCA homeowners are not aware of their potential liability risks if our SCA insurance is insufficient to settle a suit from an unusually serious accident involving the combination of high speeds and blind intersections.  Where the the board has prior knowledge that SCA community property features can increase the risks of accidents, and where the board has failed to act to mitigate those risks, our liabilities could be greatly increased.  We need to act to help reduce the accident risks along our Anthem Parkway through reduced speed limits and new traffic signals at blind intersections.

Conclusion: it was clear at the meeting that David Berman’s obsolete community survey, and his personal opinions, are dangerous paths to follow.  I am one of those who were deceived by his arguments in the past.  But, we have now learned that Mr. Berman’s arguments are not useful for making decisions in 2009. His flawed positions must be soundly rejected in the future.

In the meantime, our community must become better informed and prepared to defend our rights and lifestyles for the future.  Our Board must become far more involved in protecting our community lifestyle.  Traffic safety and community security must be recognized as being far more important to our senior homeowners than being able to drive up to 55 mph on the parkway before being ticketed for speeding.  Even if you prefer to drive 45 mph, a posted 35 mph does not automatically force you to slow down.  I believe that reasonable people can agree that 55 is NOT an acceptable speed on the parkway.

But, regardless of the speed limit solution, we urgently need some type of traffic signals at the most dangerous/blind intersections. I can not accept that just removing landscaping is a viable solution, and I refuse to wait for more of our members get killed or injured before being mobilized to demand approval of the necessary traffic signals.  I hope you will join me in this effort.  It is clear that if more SCA residents do not get engaged in this issue, the original intent and beauty of the Anthem Parkway will be lost, and the traffic dangers to our residents will steadily increase until many more parkway deaths and injuries are experienced.

How about all of you past and present Security Patrol members?  What do you think?  I welcome statements on both sides of this issue–so we can continue to learn and sort out the truth!  <bobfrank@cox.net>

Bob Frank
SCA Director

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Lifestyle | Print | 5 Comments »

January 9, 2009 by bobfrank.

On Ron Johnson’s OP-ED blog, David Berman commented, and I responded, as follows:

Mr. Berman said: “…my question about the illegal advice Kay gave to Briggs…

My Response: You have attempted for over a year to defame and further harass Kay in your current and previous comments about this simple (supposedly private) email, but as a former attorney, you know that Kay did absolutely NOTHING improper, and nothing improper resulted from her innocent email.

Some mistaken technical info was hurriedly stated in an email response to a simple question from John Briggs. That info was quickly corrected–long before you inserted yourself and tried to make something out of nothing. This matter does not reflect well on your claimed honorable intentions.

Mr. Berman said: “…the developer’s chosen reserve-study company submitted a study that was first reviewed by the Finance Committee, which determined that the study was insufficient. It was not “bogus,” which implies falsity or an attempt to deceive, but was simply too superficial. Historically, reserve studies commissioned by developers at transition tend to fall short in one or more areas, in the eyes of a newly resident-controlled HOA.”

My response: Thank you! You have confirmed my points!! The SCA Board was aware that developers routinely attempt to underfund reserve studies at transition time. So, everyone on the board and finance committee should not have been surprised at Pulte’s “insufficient” submission.

If the study was totally flawed, it should have been immediately rejected. Unless there was undue influence by Pulte or DW, there is no way a 6-month delay could be explained. You apparently agree since you did not offer a plausible rationale for such an inordinate delay. You also made no attempt to explain why it took another year to get a “replacement/updated” study from the company that did the original, 2001 reserve study. That company only needed a few weeks to make the computer model updates. In the meantime, Pulte was not obligated to pay SCA any more money into our reserve fund. Most SCA members will agree that the history on this reserve funds matter appears to reflect very expensive mistakes or gross misconduct by the 2005 and 2006 Directors and the CAMs.

An even more important problem is that the 2005 (rejected) reserve study came from a duly licensed Reserves Study company (still in business and highly successful), and that it was ordered, prepared, and approved by the Pulte Executive, Dea McDonald, who was SCA Board President before the transition. Moreover, the reserve study was submitted at Pulte’s direction through its own subsidiary, Del Webb Community Management Company (under contract as the SCA Community Manager) for approval by the SCA Board. WOW! How could so many Del Webb/Pulte managers make so many mistakes involving so much money? Simple errors or failure of oversight? Not likely….

The truth is that everyone involved in that sequence of actions to order, prepare and submit that 2005 reserve study had to be aware (to some degree) it was superficial, insufficient, false or bogus. A totally unacceptable financial report on reserves involving millions of dollars owed by the developer that was judged “unacceptable” is what most business people would call false, bogus or fraudulent. Most would not call that result “superficial”.

The public documentation reflects the above facts, and you have confirmed it to be true. So, no more “documentation” is possible or necessary to prove this case of SCA Board mismanagement and/or misconduct.

The remaning open question is, who, by name, should be held accountable for this major misconduct or possible attempted fraud?

One of the many reasons for wanting to know who in Pulte and Del Webb were responsible (in addition to Dea McDonald) is because as the community moves now to collect some hundreds of thousands of additional reserve funds from Pulte Corp., it may be found that one or more Pulte/Del Webb executives/managers may have violated Pulte corporate ethical policies, and our negotiation team would need to know all of the relevant facts to best serve our member’s interests in a law suit or in the negotiation of a settlement.

Thanks again for your assistance.

Bob Frank
SCA Director

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

January 7, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Well hooooraaay!!

We finally have the results from the “look back” committee that was chaired by Jack Troia. You remember him don’t you? He was the guy working with Favil West on the “Transition Team” that took a year and eight months to figure out how much Del Webb owed to the neighborhoods and put it in a “Villa Agreement”. They never did get around to putting a figure on what Del Webb owed the association. I wonder why?

They didn’t bother to consult John Leach either , because John Leach says he never knew anything about the Villa agreement. You might think that a agreement that concerns $300,000 of residents funds would be scrutinized by some legal authority, but you know how that goes. (What the hell, it looks OK to me - lets give it to the board of directors, they’ll never understand it any way. They’ll pass anything just as long as they’re not late for dinner.)

Lets see, the “look back” says that for High Mesa on May 31, 2005 there was $81,035 in the bank. Then it says Del Webb didn’t make another payment until “On or about 5/1/2007” just shy of two years later!

I wonder what would happen if I was two years late paying my dues?

In fact I wonder where they got the $81,035 bank figure. I asked Terry DaSilva but she said there were no separate bank accounts - only a single “summary” bank account. I wonder who split the money into the separate bank accounts and when did they do it?

Then you have to wonder - if they knew there was a shortage way back in 2005, why didn’t Favil and Jack Troia recommend to the Board that they ask Del Webb to pay up THEN instead of waiting until April 27, 2007 to sign a Villa Agreement? Did they have something to gain by waiting almost two years? The Villa owners began to ask a lot of questions then but we still don’t have answers (I’m gonna have to call out my boys from Chicago).

Jack Troia sure had a lot of help with his “reserve look back” Even RMI did their part. Did you know our Villa’s shrunk during the “reserve look back”? Yea, I’m not kidding - they shrunk according to Bruno Panek. From 2000 until 2008 a Villa required 5,715 sf of painted stucco. Bruno shrunk it down to 3,685 sf last year just for “the reserve look back“.

David Copperfield better watch out, there’s a new magician in Town!!

This “look back” is so full of holes it’s pathetic. The only reason it was done was to validate Jack Troia’s and Favils numbers that were used for the Villa agreement. Favil West and Kay Dwyer to this day swear they consulted with a legal authority before they signed the Villa agreement, but they won’t say who it was (we know it wasn’t John Leach).

Well folks, we got skinned, now it’s your turn. The “look back” also says that Del Webb owed $677,646 to the association (that’s YOU), on May 31, 2005.

I’m betting you’ll never see it. Any takers??

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

January 1, 2009 by admin.

The follow letter was sent from the Women’s Club President to the SCA Board Today.  It updates and restates the club’s deep and continuing concerns over the outcome of the Trumpets Lease decision.

To The Board of Directors:

A Happy and Prosperous New Year to each of you.

As President of the Sun City Anthem Women’s Club, I am writing to you with a request that you include some matters of importance to our Club in your negotiations with the applicants you are interviewing for the management of Trumpets.

At the end of 2008  we had over 630 members.  A review of the number of meals served at our 10 monthly luncheons indicates that there were over 2,600 meals purchased last year at our monthly luncheons.  This reason alone gives us significant interest in the operation of Trumpets.   We are the largest group in our community (and outside of our community as well) that uses this restaurant on a regular basis.  

Another reason we have a strong interest in the next caterer is because of our fee structure.  This year we had to raise the cost of our monthly luncheon from $20 to $25 to cover the additional costs incurred by using an outside caterer. This increase continues to be a matter of concern for our members. These additional charges came about because everything had to be brought in for us;  table cloths, napkins, china, etc.   My goal as President is to return to the $ 20 cost for a plated luncheon.  Our members have become accustomed to a salad, entre, dessert and beverages.  We want a caterer that can deliver approximately 2,600 meals a year at a cost that will allow us to charge a $20 fee, or less,  for the meal.

In addition, we need a caterer that can accommodate special meal requests not only for Holidays but most important, for dietary purposes.  We also need a caterer willing to  develop for us a list of creative menu options.  It is not an easy task to please 300 women all at the same time…

I am not asking for a role in the negotiations for our Club but only that you all will include these issues in your discussions with the applicants.  I hope that  how the applicants address the issues that affect the Women’s Club luncheons  will be important to you in your considerations  in selecting the next caterer for Trumpets. 

If I can provide any further information or be of further assistance, I am always available. 

On behalf of the Women’s Club, thank you for your consideration,

Bella Meese, President
Sun City Anthem Women’s Club
407-0970

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