June 30, 2009 by bobfrank.

Contrary to the blatantly false information on D. Berman’s blog stating his opinion on the supposed confidentiality of complaints against the board, I know the following to be true:

1. NRS 116.757.1 says: “1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 239.0115, a written affidavit filed with the Division pursuant to NRS 116.760, all documents and other information filed with the written affidavit and all documents and other information compiled as a result of an investigation conducted to determine whether to file a formal complaint with the Commission are confidential.”

2. This statute section was proven to only prohibit the Real Estate Division from releasing any information provided to it during mediation and investigation phases to third parties. The NV Legislature never intended for the Real Estate Division to block any US or NV Constitutional due process rights of the parties. Any competent attorney would know that to be true; but, there have been times in the past few years where a “cone of silence” was wrongly placed over all parties of some cases. Those actions by the Division clearly violated the respondent’s fundamental constitutional rights.

3. The accusing party is required by law to (a) sign its complaint under oath, (b) release everything in its allegations to the respondent/accused, and allow a reasonable time for the accused to respond BEFORE an affidavit is filed with the State. Nothing in the complaint filed with the Division can be held from the respondent. In addition, the statute prohibits the Division from accepting an Intervention Affidavit that has not been fully disclosed to the respondent and time allowed for a response.

4. Both the accusing party and the respondent can release anything they wish to anyone, at anytime.

In conclusion, since David Berman appears to be speaking for both himself and his Board President spouse, our community should demand that Roz Berman seek assistance from her fellow directors–especially current member of the NV Bar/former judge, Ann Small.

What does it say about the directors if they remain silent while such flagrant deceptions are being distributed by a former board VP?

Posted in Veterans Affairs, Special Events, News!, Other | Print | No Comments »

June 30, 2009 by bobfrank.

Contrary to David Berman’s vain attempts to try to stem Roz Berman’s rapidly sinking reputation due to sustained misconduct, “Letters of Instruction (LOI)” from the Nevada Real Estate Division to the SCA Board are serious SANCTIONS.  Such LOI are issued after one or more directors have been found guilty of serious law violations.

No matter how hard DB tries to spin the facts, LOIs are definitely NOT slaps on the wrists of directors determined to have broken the law!  If you have any doubts, read the LOIs and see what they say will happen if the LOIs are not followed.  There are very serious consequences for repeated violations.

When a director or board is found guilty of violating NRS 116 or NAC 116 provisions, the first level of sanctions is for the State to issue formal Letters Of Instruction demanding “don’t do it again, or else”. These actions can NOT be considered “slaps on the wrist”. Additional law violations will lead to formal, public hearings (very similar to a trial) against the offending directors. Those hearings are conducted in public by the Governor-appointed CIC Commission.  An Attorney General staff attorney serves as prosecutor for the CIC Commission.

Since Roz Berman and other directors have already received a number of such LOIs concerning a variety of flagrant law violations, David Berman and his friends might be wise to not call so much attention to the facts of the violations.  Loudly complaining about SCA members who have proven to the State that our directors, and particularly our Board President and CAM, are flagrantly violating the laws is not a good strategy for the entire unity party group.

In the next few months, large numbers of SCA members may finally discover that all is NOT well with the board–as has been so frequently claimed.  SCA Directors would be wise to pay close attention to the LOI process, and to ensure no new statute violations are discovered.  In addition, unity party associates might find it increasingly more uncomfortable when asked to explain about why they have been tolerating such serious board misconduct–for so many years.

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

June 29, 2009 by sonny.

The board of directors does it again! Wastes $113,662. Awards a contract for Solar Heating of pools at the Anthem Center for $189,900 when it has a legitimate bid of $76,328

To make matters even worse, the board never should have awarded any company a contract. The board had a packet of information provided to it by RMI that included the following statements;

“The chart above is based on many assumptions and cannot be used with any great degree of confidence in making a serious financial decision. More information, in the form of detailed engineering is needed to be certain of system performance.”

“There is one more potential option that warrants consideration, if the current budget allocation can be shifted to a future year. There is a new pool heating system already being built for the third recreation center. Green Power Systems is the contractor and they will be installing a similar system to the one they’ve proposed for Anthem Center. Once that system is running, you will be able to collect accurate performance data, as well as maintenance and operational experience, on which to base a decision.”

“In addition, a small part of the existing budget could provide for the installation of separate sub-meters for the existing pool heating systems. At the end of a year of operation of operation in the new center, you will have a very clear picture of system performance (both old and new) and should be able to make a more informed decision.”

“In reality, the project should start with engineering and then a request for bids based on the engineering design.”

Disclaimer: the chart provided showing estimated gas usage. This is NOT based on any factual data other than 13 months of gas bills provided for the fitness area. It is strictly a rough approximation based on very limited information and some logic. (Not in RMI packet. Added by writer.)

Additionally: Added to the cost of any system is the cost for re-enforcing the building structure to absorb the added weight of the solar heating system. No contracts should be awarded to any company (other than a structural engineering firm) until that cost has been established.

The cost for the strengthening of the structure may make the whole project unfeasible. The board has a price for this engineering study of $4,700 from H.D.Rueb Structural engineer. That contract should be awarded and costs should be obtained before any other contracts are awarded.

Also; In the cost studies, I could not find any amounts for the added cost of electricity for operating the system. Motors and pumps are needed to circulate the water. In the systems cost study I find a total saving in the 12 month warranty period does not include the savings of $113,662 that the lower cost system will save.

In listing the pro’s and con’s there is mention that a pro includes the ability to at some later date add the ability to spend more money to include heating of the domestic water system. If that is a viable consideration, why not provide it now?

I have been told that that would never be a viable cost/benefit expenditure. If, as the Bruno Panek letter to Caren Carrero of 5/14/2009 all the bidders included in their bids the provision to provide engineering studies regarding the added weight, are we not entitled to a reduced price, if SCACAI pays for the study (which I think we should do)?

I have suggested to all of the board of directors that they direct RMI not to place the order now.  I also suggested that the board engage the services of a professional consulting firm to develop a complete set of plans and specifications, then re-bid the project.

Sonny Sonnenfeld

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

June 26, 2009 by bobfrank.

In the past, some board members and I and a few other members have looked closely at the feasibility of installing gaming in the restaurant area. It is a really bad/impractical idea that should never have been slipped into the new lease!While some members (and the lessee) might like to put video poker machines in the bar area and share in the hoped for “profits”, if you look closely at the facility you can see that such a move would lead to a disaster–instead of profits. Installing 24-hour/7-day gaming with PUBLIC access in that major part of the facility next to our main entrance would not only RUIN the bar and the restaurant environment, it would corrupt the atmosphere of the entire Anthem Center and make it feel like just another pub!

So which board members could honestly justify such an outrageous decision that we have just discovered buried in the new Trumpets lease? Were they like The Congress and failed to read it before voting? Would that be an acceptable excuse for any director?

To review the situation let’s ask, how would the gaming machines be installed and operated and would there be 5 or 10 gaming machines, and would there be at least 4 of the large-screen TV monitors showing sports programs?

Would we have to have the entire Center open and guarded for just a few machines being used by the public, or could 24-hour/7-day outside access be constructed? If someone could design a new outside access to a bar/gaming area within reasonable costs, that might be an interesting paper. But, so far, unconstrained outside access to Trumpets (within all levels of practical investment) has been shown to be unfeasible.

Expensive, raised floor furnishings, or embedded floor channels, must be provided for power, security and other types of cables for gaming machines. Significant reductions of normal bar space and dining space would be required. The gaming noise would dominate/corrupt the whole restaurant–as it does in pubs and casinos. It is perfectly clear that our unique Trumpets facility is far too small to tolerate the noise and disruption that normally goes with 5 or 10 (active) gaming units, and the associated sports TV programs.

In short, I believe it can be proven that putting gaming into Trumpets would destroy the gentile and luxurious atmosphere of the entire restaurant as well as the whole Anthem Center. And, please do not waste anyone’s time pointing out that MacDonald Ranch has gaming in its Willows cafe! SCA members do not want to convert Trumpets into a Willows-like sandwich joint! Such a poor move would lead to quick failure of the restaurant lease.

If the statute-required vote among members was conducted, I believe the SCA membership would massively reject a pub/small cafe-like environment dominated by gaming and sports TV viewing. So, why does the new lease allow it to happen? Who is responsible for such a huge and unjustified mistake?

If you disagree, let’s see some specific designs and ideas on how the problems mentioned above could be overcome. Meanwhile, I am putting together a member group to require the removal of that gaming clause.

Send email to bobfrank@cox.net if you would like to participate.

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

June 23, 2009 by sonny.

Sonny Sonnenfeld sent the following 2 messages to the SCA board for action:

Msg. #1.  (Topics: Isn’t gaming in SCA facilities prohibited by SCA CC&Rs?  And, since the lessee did not sign the lease as shown online, is it legal?)

To all board of directors;  I have a few questions and/or comments about the Trumpets lease.
1 - I and some people that I spoke to, thought that we all at SCACAI agreed that gaming would not be permitted in Trumpets.  However Section : 22  states; “Specific uses prohibited. ( b ) The installation of any gaming device on or about the Premises is prohibited, without the prior written consent of Landlord, which may not be unreasonably with held.”  That paragraph should be amended to; The installation of any gaming device on or about the Premises is prohibited. . The way it reads now the Tenant can request permission to install gaming devices, and we must agree.  If it cannot be changed, the lease negotiating committee and our attorney should all quit or be fired.

To all board members;

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

June 22, 2009 by bobfrank.

Headline in the Review Journal: “State Supreme Court will decide whether homeowners associations can sue on behalf of individual owners”

http://www.lvrj.com/business/47510092.html

This article is an example of what our board and association attorneys are withholding from members concerning highly relevant issues affecting our property values and lifestyles.  The case is also an example of how NV homeowners are under massive financial attacks from all sides by the developers, aligned attorneys, construction partners and cooperating board members.  At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars due to Nevada homeowners from developers for willfully defective construction practices.  Homeowners are clearly at a huge disadvantage, and the developers can afford to spend big money to win their agenda.  Our only weapon is our votes for board members and members of the NV legislature, district courts, and the supreme court during the next election.

Under attack are the past construction benefits granted under NRS Chapter 40 to help homeowners get repairs or just compensation due to willful misconduct by builders. One recent example is the tens of thousands of Southern Nevada Del Webb/Pulte homeowners who received the defective Kitec, Rehau and Wirsbo yellow brass plumbing systems.  Another example is that Del Webb willfully installed defective slabs in thousands of SCA phase one homes.  The lack of rebar in the slabs has led to large-scale slab cracking, wall cracks, and tile replacement programs.  No one yet knows how many thousands of SCA homes will have to be repaired, and our SCA board is doing nothing to help those homeowners receive justice.

Many SCA members and I have long argued that the SCA Board should be aggressively taking the construction defects lead on such matters in support of our homeowner/neighbors. But, starting with the Favil West board in 2006, continued by the Mike Dixon board in 2007, and now fully supported by both of the Roz Berman boards, the SCA Board position is to defer to whatever the developer, Pulte, is willing to do.  I consider that to be a shameful sell-out and clear examples of gross failures of their fiduciary duties.  We should demand better leadership.

The past negative attitudes by the SCA boards has been a sad reflection of the true lack of compassion for our SCA members, and a flagrant disregard for the long-term values of our properties.  Imagine if you were an elderly widow or widower and unable to understand how to deal with such complex construction defects!  When the developer can keep us ignorant and divided, it wins, and all of our property values and lifestyles suffer.

Obviously, the board should not get involved in most homeowner construction disputes.  But, there are some cases where the SCA Directors are negligent when they do not use their leverage to assist SCA homeowners in gaining just resolution of large-scale construction defects.  Board actions must not be limited to community property alone, and we should not stand idly by and remain uncaring about the plight of our neighbors.  We deserve better leadership.

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

June 19, 2009 by admin.

Friends have advised me that a few Sun City Anthem residents are upset that I filed a complaint with the Nevada Ombudsman concerning the lease of Trumpets restaurant.  Further it has been reported at least some of these residents have used defamatory language in an apparent attempt to damage my character.  That is indeed unfortunate. 

Please be very clear that the complaint to the Ombudsman was not filed frivolously.  This action was taken only after extensive consultation with several highly qualified experts in Nevada law including State officials. 

The basic issue concerns who has the authority to approve a lease committing thousands of square feet of space in our common element recreational facilities to an outside third party business entity for use as a public commercial enterprise. 

It is my position, and that of my advisors, only a majority of Sun City Anthem homeowners can make such a commitment.  This is a right as well as a protection guaranteed by Nevada law.    

I am a passionate advocate of homeowner rights.  These rights are very important to me and I believe must be rigorously protected from those who would deny them or abuse them. 

It has been said, but never documented as far as I know, the Association attorney does not agree with my position.  If that is true, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it.  But that does not make him correct.   

I believe it is in the best interests of all concerned - Sun City Anthem homeowners, the executive board and the lessee - for this matter to be clearly resolved as promptly as possible.  Under Nevada law the Ombudsman is the first step in this process. 

The remedy is quite simple.  Provide all qualified Sun City Anthem homeowners the opportunity to vote to approve or vote to disapprove the specific lease now on the table.  This could be done immediately and the whole issue would go away. 

Tim Stebbins

Posted in Truth Squad, Community Affairs, Lifestyle, News! | Print | No Comments »

June 10, 2009 by THE VOICE.

For those members who have better things to do with their lives instead of read David A. Berman’s blog, you may have
missed hearing that he has focused all of his nasty personality on the SCA Woodchips Club.

See this link to read the abuse: 
http://anthemjournal.typepad.com/davids_anthem_journal/2009/06/board-approves-several-major-expenditures.html

If it has been taken down or cleaned up, here is a file capture of that topic as of Jun 11.)  DAB’s blog as of 11jun09

So, what do you think?  Do the honest and loyal and compassionate members of the SCA Woodchips Club deserve such
public criticism?  Do you think there is any chance that Board President Roz Berman disagrees with her spouse on this
unjustified political attack?

What about the other board members and CAM?  Are they afraid of dressing down DAB for his unfair and unjustified
attacks?  After all of the great things Woodchips has done for this community, will anyone among the unity party stand
up for the outstanding members of Woodchips and openly tell DAB what a stupid and unfair mistake he has made?
Or, is he still above reproach?

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