You are so right about the transition!

I have personal knowledge of the relationship of the transition Board of Directors and what happened to the Villa owners at the time of transition.

Because of my personal involvement and because of my investigations into what happened to the Villa owners money that was in the possession of the developer (but was NOT turned over at the time of transition), I have been (and I am currently), being persecuted by RMI and by the current Board of Directors. In my opinion there is a conspiricy being conducted by certain members of the current Board of Directors and certain individuals employed by RMI.

The entire affair actually began in late 2006 when Sun City Anthem approached the transition from developer control to resident control. On August 28 2006, certain members of The Board of Directors of Sun City Anthem and RMI conspired to cover up a violation of NRS statutes.

On that date RMI submitted State Form No. 562 to the Nevada Real Estate Division that flagrantly misrepresented the truth. The association was in violation of NRS 116.31152 sec. 1(a) that mandates the executive board conduct a reserve study at LEAST every five years. Neither the developer nor the resident board had produced a viable and legal reserve study since the year 2000 (almost seven years prior). To hide the truth from the Ombudsman’s office, RMI and certain Board members conspired to list the developers reserve study (performed by Association Reserves), on the form and refer to it as “current” when in fact it had been unamously rejected by the board of directors. Not only did they list the developers rejected reserve study, they also listed financial data that was never used in any association budget for the years 2005, or 2006. The only reserve studies used in the budgets of Sun City Anthem at that point in time was the original developers 2000 reserve study and later a new 2006 reserve study performed by Diversifies Facilities Services in California.

Then when the new 2006 Reserve study was recieved, the association realized a shortage in the neighborhood reserves still exhisted and instead of requiring the developer to fund the neighborhood reserves as required by Nevada statutes they continued on a path of deception and cover up. They even went so far as to force the Villa owners to make up for the developers shortage by imposing a one year $500 “hike” in their annual dues. Ever since Aug. 28, 2006 I have been engaged in fact finding and digging up information that has put the Board of Directors and RMI in a very bad light, and I have paid the price. This current Board of Directors and RMI can be a most vicious and vindictive opponent when a resident digs up damming information. And thats a fact – Jack (sorry – I couldn’t resist).

Carl Weinstein said:

“A week or two ago our attorney, John Leach was the main speaker at the monthly CAI meeting. He mentioned quite a bit about board presidents. For one thing, he said that the President has only one vote and that that vote is no more significant than the votes of other board members. In fact, he clearly stated that the function of the President is to set the board agendas and conduct the board meetings. AND THATS ABOUT IT!

He also stated that ALL information that is available or made available to the President must be made available to ALL board members. The President cannot keep secrets from Board members. When a board member asks for information, IT MUST BE PROVIDED.

Recent Presidents at SCA have been suffering from “Secrecy sickness” and have not shared information at all times. The discussions with our new restaurant owner were kept secret from other board members with the excuse that the data was “confidential”. Our new owner told me directly that there was nothing confidential about the negotiations.

Our president refused to let other Board members have direct contact with RMI staff when the new contract was negotiated.

Our president does not allow board members to contact our attorney without his permission.

And worst of all, our present/past Presidents have conducted business on their own, often without receiving the necessary vote from the rest of the Board.

All residents have access to Robert’s Rules of Order on the Internet. It is quite clear that our president(s) have not familiarized themselves with its content. There is a major section dealing with the President’s responsibility for being “kind” to residents and to other board members. Come to a Board meeting and see how “kind” they can be!

There is no doubt in my mind that we DO NOT need a CPA or former big executive to run this association. An intelligent individual who is able to sort out facts, run a meeting, produce an agenda is all we need when supported by 6 intelligent Board members. In addition, it would be nice if we just had someone who is kind, understanding, and tolerant of the whims and fancies of an aging group of retirees!”

Carl Weinstein,
2008-2010 SCA Director

———————————–

MY RESPONSE:

Carl is right–there are no excuses for the behavior of the current SCA board president.

To some, this situation might sound like sour grapes on Carl’s part–or maybe just a personality conflict. But, if you had served on the board with both individuals as I have, you would know that Carl is stating the truth.

But, this is a much deeper problem than it seems. After 2 years on the board, I know that Mr. Leach does not practice what he preaches in public. Regardless of what he says is the “proper way” for board presidents to conduct business, his private advice produces totally different behavior by the board presidents he mentors.

As proof, consider the entire string of SCA Board Presidents since 2005–David Weil, Favil West, Mike Dixon, Roz Berman and Jack Troia. They all appeared to be resident-oriented candidates during their board campaigns. But, after becoming board president, they reversed themselves. They assumed much different, aggressive leadership styles characterized by secrecy and biased support of developer interests. In my opinion, the association attorney coached them to ignore/reject all director and unit owner complaints, and to feel safe doing what ever they wanted to do. Is that not what has happened since 2005?

Looking back to transition, I can argue that if this association had stayed under developer control to this date, the board results would probably have been almost the same. While SCA unit owner directors made the final decisions on policy matters, the association attorney served a key role in discouraging/opposing attempts by directors to challenge the developers in any way. Meanwhile, SCA has done nothing of substance to attempt to collect the millions due from the developer since 2005. Does that not point directly at the (secret) content of the legal advice being received on such major receivables?

So, while I am not an admirer of the current board president’s behavior, I submit the facts show the common denominator in SCA’s history of apparent board president misconduct has been the secret, attorney advice provided by the Del Webb/Pulte-selected attorney, John Leach. My opinion is that every one of the SCA directors would have behaved much more honorably if they had been advised by an attorney who was rigorously advocating honorable enforcement of statutes and rules–rather than finding ways around them.

Bob Frank
2007-2009 SCA Director