May 27, 2009 by bobfrank.

Here are my comments concerning questions about the trumpets lease and its indemnification agenda
topic on this month’s board agenda:

Of course members are confused about what is going on concerning the trumpets lease–that is the
nature of the current lease process. Only one person knows all of the details of what is really going on.
Members are not being allowed to know all the facts until after a board decision is made.

Concerning some specific questions:

1. I doubt the lease has anything about vendor indemnification in it. That would be a really high risk
thing to do, and I do not expect the Board President to want to take that kind of high personal risk.

2. Unsubstantiated rumors say there may be a side agreement concerning lessee indemnification.
I believe that could be a red herring.  It too is not a likely prospect. The dangers of trying to implement
and sustain such an agreement are too risky for the board to seriously consider it. Such a move could
trigger a law suit demanding an injunction. That could set off a removal election to ensure the
agreement is never implemented. Of course, for a possibly better opinion, members could ask Director
Ann Small for her judgment. She is probably the least likely person to agree to such an indemnification
agreement.

3. Rumors about an unsigned, threatening letter to the potential lessee claiming to represent thousands
of residents could have been written by anyone–including the prospective lessee, or one of the 30 persons
aligned with the Unity Party that wrote and mailed the SCARFS attack piece. Why would anyone take
such a piece of anonymous trash seriously?

Responding to another posting: We would all be very foolish if we tolerated the board signing any such
indemnification agreement or clause. That would be the perfect justification to remove any director who
dared to agree to such an outrageous idea.

If the lessee refuses to agree to the lease without an indemnification clause or side agreement, so be it.
We simply ask the board to go out and find a better company to handle our lease. Having an empty
restaurant for another 6 months is a far better option for the 7,144 homeowners than accepting a
ridiculous lessee indemnification agreement that could almost certainly create a major increase in
dues/assessments.

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

May 25, 2009 by THE VOICE.

A long-time resident/member of Sun City Summerlin has published the following 4 observations
about how its board is operating and suggests these are standard procedures as intended by the
Legislature, Real Estate Board, CAI and participating attorneys.

“1. Board meetings. Keep tight control and discourage attendance. Have private meetings that skirt the rules.
Let the homeowner speak but pay no attention. Never let the Executive Director or any Director to be cross
examined. No debate, canned responses, little transparency and no accountability.”

“2. Committees. Control all groups by stuffing the Committees and Organizations with like minded residents
who do not ask and will not tell. Unofficially delegate all powers reserving only the right to rubber stamp what
the Board wants.”

“3. Communications. Board sponsored or controlled private chat line, Community Organization, newsletters,
Web Site and email completely sponsored and moderated to make sure elections and any information allowed
to go out of the inner circle is controlled and filtered.”

“4. Administration. Encourage and support the Executive Director to limit information to the homeowners.
Discourage any accountability for losing millions every year. Prevent any effort to allow open disclosure.
Make sure the Executive Director Operates and Administers the Association as a Country Club.”

See any parallels with how the SCA Board is ruling?

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

May 20, 2009 by admin.

For those who are wondering what Bob Frank and Ron Morse are now doing in their spare time, check out the following recent cover of Rolling Stone Magazine….

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

May 18, 2009 by admin.

SCA members Forest Fetherolf, Sonny Sonnenfeld, Norm McCullough and Tim Stebbins have reported on various SCA Board and RMI construction project waste and abuse in the past year.

Accumulated waste of SCA homeowner assessments has already added up to about one hundred thousand dollars–in just the past few months.

The latest report by Forest about waste on the Anthem Center shower tile repair and Anthem Center paver replacement project are summarized in the following document.  Rather shocking revelation of the facts?

paver+shower_project_waste.pdf

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

May 6, 2009 by THE VOICE.

Many opinions are floating around on why the SCA Town Halls failed to achieve their objectives.  A more detailed analysis will have to come later, but here is an initial list of possible causes:

1.  The goals, objectives and operating rules for Town Halls were never fully defined, written, and implemented.  Town Halls were originally intended to be a place where member concerns, questions and/or issues could be openly discussed and resolved with board members in friendly and cooperative ways.  While Town Halls started in that direction in 2007, the intended results were not achieved.
2. Things were going smoothly until September 2007 when the Board majority (led by Mike Dixon, Roz Berman and the association attorney) tried to force Director Frank off the board by filing 110 pages of false statute violations against him with the State of Nevada, and by arbitrarily removing him as Vice President without due process and without justification.  In both cases the board majority refused to allow Director Frank to defend himself against the (subsequently proven false) allegations.  That sequence of unfair and unethical actions by the 2007 board set the negative tone for the subsequent 18 months for both Town Halls and Board Meetings.
3. Long-standing disputes between board members and some residents over statute violations were not resolved to mutual satisfaction, and the frustrations spilled over into Town Hall and Board Member Meeting Comment periods.  Relationships became much worse when the 2009 Board had so many member complaints filed against Directors that the board majority voted to eliminate SCA Code of Conduct enforcement procedures.  Adding fuel to the fire, some directors began urging dissatisfied members to file complaints with the Nevada Real Estate Division.   This tactic began to backfire in 2008-2009 when the Division found the SCA board in violation of important laws.
4. The Nevada Real Estate Division added to the increasing levels of contentiousness in 2007 and 2008 by being extremely slow to respond to member complaints, and by allowing itself to be influenced by association attorney Leach against the member concerns.  Members found themselves with no effective channels to resolve disputes without paying personal cash for attorneys, and then see the association attorney being paid by member dues to represent the board against them.  It is no wonder that the environments in Town Halls and Board Meetings have turned really negative.  The 2007 and 2008 boards poisoned the atmospheres with their arrogant and dictatorial behavior.

So, what needs to be done?  The 2009 Board must resolve the long-standing, open disputes to mutual satisfaction.  To get to the facts, SCA needs to implement a fair dispute resolution process between members and the board that involves 3rd party facilitators and public hearings.  Members must be able to get open and fair resolutions to serious disagreements without having to go to outside agencies and/or retaining attorneys to achieve mutual satisfaction.  Without that fair and balanced approach, the disputes will simply continue to escalate through the public media.

While Directors must be allowed to do the jobs proscribed by statutes and governing rules, the board majority can not be granted absolute/dictatorial/unquestioned powers over SCA members and finances.

In our opinion, failing to recognize this problem, and failing to seek a balanced procedure that fairly recognizes member rights, will lead to more and more disputes.  Campaign promises for cooperation with members, not conflict, must become real in 2009, or the negative trends and public animosity will increase.

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

May 3, 2009 by bobfrank.

Al Glickman recently said to me on another blog: “On occasion, such as the dispute over your legal fees, what seems best for an individual resident may not also be best for the community as a whole. In such instances, the board should rely on its attorneys for proper guidance. Everyone may not agree with the attorney’s counsel, but isn’t that pretty much what the board has done so far in this case?”

Al, sorry to have to break the bad news, but you have been seriously tricked. Can you “handle the truth”?  I challenge you to concentrate on the following. I was not an “individual resident”. I was an “elected Director” who had only served 4 months before being illegally attacked by my fellow directors and the association attorney.

You must understand that the law provides that ALL directors have unlimited legal protections (indemnification) against all attacks. Without such comprehensive protection, no one would be foolish enough to volunteer to be on the board! If a director is found guilty of willful misconduct at the end of the legal process, the director may be required to reimburse some or all of the association’s expenses.

But, prior to the conclusion of legal actions, the association is required to pay and/or reimburse ALL of the director’s legal defense expenses. The law does not/can not limit a director in any way from getting the best defense possible.  The SCA board can not deny paying my well-justified and well-documented legal expenses while defending myself. Without such Nevada protections, no homeowner would be willing to serve as a director and subsidize the costs of defending themselves against unproven charges.

In this special case, full payment is particularly valid and indisputable because my defense costs were solely in response to the board’s bogus/false charges. After over a year of investigations by the Real Estate Division and the Attorney General, all charges were dropped.

I was never found guilty of anything. I WAS COMPLETELY EXONERATED. The other directors and the attorney were 100% wrong.

So, is it not a “banana republic” idea to try to claim that a group of fellow directors can formally charge another director with law violations, and then vote to deny reimbursing the costs of my defense?  Think about it…. Does that make any sense?  Is that “American justice”?  How would you respond if similarly attacked?  How would current board members react when becoming respondents, and they were not satisfied with the low-cost attorney selected by the D&O insurance company?

You should know that association attorney John Leach knew in August 2007 that I was doing everything in my power to get him replaced. It was an ACE campaign pledge that only I and Barry Friedman had honored.

You also should know there were hold-over/previous directors who were desperately trying to keep attorney John Leach to protect them. He was a key source of their protection against being charged with financial misconduct on the such issues as (1) the hundreds of thousands of dollars of reserves money owed by the developer since May 2005, (2) the restaurant lease mismanagement with hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncollected rent money over a 2 year period, and (3) the board’s handshake agreement to forgive collecting the $1.375 million Co-Gen money from Pulte due in May 2005.

So, Al, how about trying to be the honest and sincere person you claim to be and deal with the facts in this case?

And, 2009 board members:  Under your promised mantra of “cooperation–not confrontation” it is time to settle this major dispute.  The legal obligation to pay will not go away until it is resolved, and the cost is increasing due to normal late penalties and interest.  Would it not be wise to deal with this matter now, instead of going through months of disharmony and investigation by outside agencies?

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

May 1, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Board Members should lead the residents and not make demands or secret decisions that are to their detriment.

“Pulling” is a motivational technique that means creating conditions that the residents can be comfortable with the knowledge they themselves have contributed to the final product.

“Pushing” is a non productive technique often used by overbearing and uncaring directors who want to impose “their will” over the residents resident’s concerns regardless of the consequence or the legality of their decision.

“Pulling” means YOU deciding rather than The Board deciding. Example – 51% is a reasonable number to expect for the residents to reject a budget.

“Pushing” means The Board deciding rather than YOU deciding. Example – 90% is an unreasonable number to expect for the residents to reject a budget.

Most methods of persuasion are based on creating pull rather than push, which is generally coercive in nature. Pull creates desire. It is about making the other person want what you are offering. It is subtly changing how they perceive the world such that they see what you have and want it. Once you have created desire, then the internal tension set up in the other person will lead them in the right direction.

Push and pull are a matched pair: Pushing is the whip and the club. Pulling is fishing rather than shooting. Pulling is creating desire rather than creating fear. Pulling is creating attraction rather than repulsion.

In motivation, pushing is a business management method used by tyrants of industry, while pulling is used by leaders of society.

Pulling is more difficult than pushing, but is ultimately more effective. When you push, you do not know what direction the other person will take. It is like the sheepdog running into the flock of sheep: they all head off in different directions. Pulling has just one direction. It is like being the shepherd, towards whom the flock will move.

The new board members must learn from the mistakes of the past board members. They must learn to pull. Creating pull means creating desire. Creating desire means knowing not only what the residents want but how they decide what they want. Creating push will only cause more of the same divisiveness and discontent that we have witnessed. The choice is theirs to make. The residents all have a voice and they have rights they will not relinquish just because the board members happened to win an election. In the end the laws will govern, not men (or women). If the laws are disobeyed, and the rights of the citizens are diminished, we all lose.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »