Let me see, this latest, financial pig-in-a-poke, get-rich-off-our-SCA-property scheme, is brought to us by the same brilliant Finance Committee and Board Officer team that gave us the Tirzo Fiasco and the RMI sole-source contract?

All of their schemes have failed–miserably–and our homeowners have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. Why would anyone believe anything this bunch has to peddle? This apparently half-baked concept should have been DOA (dead on arrival) and never seriously considered by the finance committee.

Imagine that a new-start company of just 90 days ago (with a business address of a home in Black Mountain Village and only employing its 2 founders) wants to launch its venture using SCA as its first customer?

What kind of due diligence did our finance committee and the CAM accomplish before recommending it for board action? And, who on the finance committee and board pushed it to be fast-tracked and voted on by the board without publishing a detailed business case and financial analysis?

As a person who likes to promote new businesses, I know that it is possible for a new venture to offer surprisingly valuable services. But, there is absolutely no excuse in a case like this for the finance committee to elevate the proposal into an action item for the board–before allowing the community to participate in the vetting and analysis processes.

We need to follow the money and find out who (besides the company founders) are really going to benefit from this scheme. This whole affair smells rotten to the core!

During yesterday’s (April 22, 2010) board meeting, SCA Director and board candidate Dan Forgeron made the motion to approve the “rewards” program, and I believe I heard Board VP Roz Berman second it.

But, to the audience’s surprise (and also Dan Forgeron’s) the board quickly voted to soundly defeat the motion in what sounded like a thundering chorus of NO votes! It came up and was summarily dumped in just a matter of seconds. There was no discussion–except during the member comment period where many residents rose to speak in strong opposition.

It was impossible to count the NO votes, but they seemed to be from everyone except Forgeron. I believe even Roz Berman voted against her own second to the motion. What do you suppose was really going on in this bizarre situation? Why did this topic ever get placed on the board agenda in the first place? Why did Dan Forgeron seem to be shocked at the vote? This action appeared to be a very public rebuke and conscious embarrassment of Dan Forgeron. Why would the board majority have a secret agreement to do what they did? Very strange board behavior….

Meanwhile, I was told by someone who had previously attended the Finance Committee meeting (where the Rewards Program was submitted) that (other than the 2 SCA members who owned the SCA-home-based company) there were 3 SCA members who actively sponsored that proposal. The individuals were reportedly Board Member Dan Forgeron, Former Finance Committee Chair Don Manning, and former Communication Committee Leader, Jack Herlihy.

We should ask them to confirm or deny such a report. If it is true, it apparently reflects very poor judgment and potential conflicts of interest–particularly for Director/board candidate Forgeron and former Finance Committee Chair Manning. If not true, who were the insiders who fast-tracked/lobbied this program through the decision process?

Meanwhile, we still have to wonder how such a bad idea could get so far through the system without receiving professional due diligence and without thorough planning/staffing by the entire SCA governing system? Who is really looking out for our residents, our lifestyle, and our privacy? Why was the Lifestyle Committee by-passed in the process?

Finally, we find ourselves asking (once again), “Where was the CAM oversight and (both the on-site and headquarters staff) “exceptional wisdom and best-of-the-best expertise” in this process? Does the CAM just rubber-stamp everything that is routed through her desk? And, does the CAM ever submit issues to the RMI executive staff for comment–before routing them from committee to board agendas? If not, why not?

What are we getting in terms of “RMI executive management expertise” for our cost-plus-fixed fee, multi-million-dollar/multi-year/sole-sourced contract? And, who all really stood to profit/benefit from this scheme? It certainly was not clear that SCA was going to be the big benefactor!

To Stephen Shubitz
From Graham Pyle- A SCA Resident and RMS Partner
Re- Your comments of 4/21/10
Even though the board voted down the proposal yesterday, I believe your comments need responding to.
1. You make an assertion that we are some “Mom and Pop “operation based on the filling with the Secretary of State here in Nevada. Yes the LLC was only formed months ago but what it does not show nor are we required to show that RMS was a merger of individuals and companies in California, Utah and Georgia.
2. “Subject business uses a home in SCA” – Welcome to the 20th century. For the last 30 years I have worked from my home including 20 years with Pfizer, which the last I checked, is not a “ Mon and Pop operation”. In fact Pfizer closed all “regional non warehouse operations” 20 years ago.
3. “Subject Business may violate our CC&R’s.” Wrong. We are not advertising our homes as a place of business nor are we having “clients or vendors to our home”. As such we are not in violation of our CC&R’s or the city of Henderson Bylaws”
4. “Subject Business has no salaried employees”- All of our associates are paid as “Independent Contractors”- Again nothing illegal or improper.
5. “No third parties”- We are not required by law to list our investors. We are working with “Angel Investors” who included University Professors, Corporate Executives and a Former Bank President from Canada. Again nothing improper.
6. “Any resident may go DIRECTLY to EBATES…. “ Your are right… finally, but what you did not research properly as the “exclusive” marketing agency for EBATES we have been able to secure larger discounts for a group like SCA , Chamber of Commerce’s, 501(c) , University Alumni Associations and the MLB players Association. Like any business, E BATES is looking to expand its business and as such will give larger discounts to major organizations.
7. “Unaudited 1% revenue share”- All Financial statements were to be provided to the board. Given that revenue was to be generated by “sales” EBATES was to going to provide a list of all sales on a quarterly base to SCA and RMS. Before you jump the gun, the report was going to show the following: what was purchased and when. It was not going to included “ who purchased”
8. Henderson all ready has coupon books…. You are right but you what you fail to grasp is the cost and the Return on Investment are no longer working for the retailers. The future of the retail marketplace is going to be through “direct marketing to the consumer via the internet or e-mail”.
9. “Henderson Business would not want to engage a Mom and Pop operation…”You seem to have a fixation where we are located. The business community not only here in Henderson but across the United States is concerned about the following: What is the service, what will it cost and what will be the ROI.
10. The revenue projections are pie in the sky… Our projections where verified by a UNLV professor and an individuals who was involved in taking Tim Horton Donuts in Canada from a “ Mom and Pop” operation to 6.5 Billion yearly operation
11. “Our residents do not engage in the same level of purchasing as those individuals in their 30 and 40’s… Again you are right! If you were to Google, you will find numerous studies that show that the over 55 (baby boomers) are the “LARGEST SEGMENT OF ONLINE SHOPPERS”.
12. Point 5. – I believe I have already addressed all your point but I want to question you on one of your assertions. If you are correct and only 4% of our residents use SCA web site, which I believe would mean less than a 1, 000 individuals, why would any business redirect their advertising revenue to such a small group?