Part of the core of my training was to recognize that “nothing, absolutely nothing, is as it appears to be”.

Working from that premise…it’s possible there are other goals and agendas in motion….which have not yet surfaced….such as the complete disbanding of the current Security Patrol, with the idea that they would be replaced by an outside provider…..”to limit our liabilties”. The additional cost to a “rooftop” would be in the $11 to $13 range….PER MONTH. What’s that you say? You think that sort of thought process is too wild a notion…even for the SCA BOD. Each of us is entitled to our own opinion!

Of course, we could talk about the role that our insurance broker should be playing…..we hire him and he reports to us! We should and may frequently seek his advice…BUT, WE DO NOT NEED HIS CONSENT! Our business decisions cannot be made by our insurance broker. He should and must respond to the Board’s directives or we should dismiss him, summarily.

We could also talk about the fact that the role of our “out of house counsel” is to advise on legal matters….but, the business decisions are made by the HOA’s Board….yes, the Board………and not the President of the Board. Counsel should report to the Board and not solely to the President of the Board. We should and may frequently seek the legal advice….BUT, WE DO NOT NEED HIS CONSENT! Our business decisions cannot be made by our attorney. He should and must respond to the Board’s directives or we should dismiss him, summarily.

Please remember…Nothing, absolutely nothing, is as it appears to be!

Have a good day!

On SCA-HOA message board, David Berman commented as follows:

“With respect to folks writing that the discussion of this topic is ‘getting old,’ the irony is that everyone is reaching conclusions without knowing what will be presented at the August 12 meeting, and without even waiting to see what IS presented. Yes, questions should be asked of the Board, the broker, the attorney, etc., but isn’t that why the meeting has been scheduled?”

“With respect to Chief Mihalich’s response to my quoting of his Security Patrol comment on my blog, I invited him, in writing, to post the full text of his emailed response to me as a comment on my blog, without any editing by me. As of now, he has not accepted that invitation, but he is more than welcome to do so at any time.”

Bob Frank responded on SCA-HOA message board as follows

“Is it reasonable to try to force all interested members to wait and attend an arbitrary August workshop date to finally (supposedly) get the whole story?

August is one of the highest travel months for our members. Since 10 or 20 times more members are monitoring their email and web sites than will ever be able or motivated to attend an August workshop, why the secrecy and delays on releasing the facts?

Why can’t a board member tell our members exactly why the name change is important–at this particular time–and not treat everyone like inferior subjects.

The main problem with making things so mysterious is that it stimulates conspiracy theories. A good example is the recent member posting on the Anthem Voice Blog that says in part:

‘it’s possible there are other goals and agendas in motion….which have not yet surfaced….such as the complete disbanding of the current Security Patrol, with the idea that they would be replaced by an outside provider…..’to limit our liabilities’. The additional cost to a ‘rooftop’ would be in the $11 to $13 range….PER MONTH. What’s that you say? You think that sort of thought process is too wild a notion…even for the SCA BOD?’ See [1] www.blog.anthemvoice.org for the full posting.

It is no secret that current and past boards have had difficulty ‘controlling’ the behavior of some Security Patrol Chiefs. And, no doubt a contractor would be much easier to control than such a very large Security Patrol membership. So, perhaps there really are directors who might prefer to contract out our volunteer SP mission–no matter the cost. We can not know if the board tells us nothing of substance.

However, I am not suggesting that any of the rumors are true. I am just pointing out the obvious it is wrong-headed to hide the truth.

Publish the facts now, and let the members mull over the facts before the workshop. It will improve attendance at the workshop and improve member confidence in the board.

And, be respectful to members by not forcing everything into an arbitrary, one-day only, August workshop meeting. Such a major decision will take many months to debate and come to a consensus.

Hiding the facts and not allowing the full membership to feel comfortable with the truth is certain to back-fire.”

Mary Lee Duley has asked the following to be posted on her behalf:

From: Mary Lee Duley [mailto:mlduley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:27 PM
To: ‘Board President’; ‘Roz Berman’; ‘dforgeron@cox.net’; ‘annieksmall@gmail.com’; ‘gardberg@gmail.com’; ‘celeste.bove.sca@gmail.com’; ‘John Waterhouse’
Subject: FW: Security Patrol name change

Dear Sun City Anthem Residents:

I am forwarding Phil Brown’s email regarding the Sun City Anthem Security Patrol as it’s EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the entire community to support them and this provides specific information as to concerns.

Let me be very clear about one thing, I do NOT blog, nor do I approve of the ongoing finger-pointing, name calling, and distortion of facts on web sites available to SCA residents. This community has been divided since I moved here in 2006 and it saddens me to say that it seems to be getting worse, rather than better.

I would like you take a moment, when driving throughout SCA, to notice the “NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH” signs. The Security Patrol, through Phil Brown’s tireless efforts, has initiated a neighborhood watch, organized and coordinated efforts, established an effective neighborhood watch, and ALL residents of SCA benefit.

July, August, and part of September are months where, traditionally, many residents go on holiday to cooler climates. The attendance at most meetings will be minimal, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know this fact. To have the Security Patrol ASK for an EXTENTION of time before the Board of Directors makes a NAME CHANGE (that the majority of Security Volunteers do NOT want), was professional and not unreasonable. To have the Security Patrol’s request for more time in order to obtain what the majority of RESIDENTS desires are REJECTED by the Board of Directors is disrespectful to ALL of the SCA Security Patrol Volunteers that have put in countless hours for the benefit for ALL of us.

Food for thought: It’s my understanding that a name change would require new uniforms, paperwork changes, vehicle changes, and that’s just the beginning. The estimated cost would be $25,000+.

Additional food for thought: The SCA Security Patrol consists of VOLUNTEERS who give tirelessly to this community. You see the roving vehicles but may not be aware of everything that is done by the Security Patrol. Give the Chief’s a call and allow them to elaborate on their VOLUNTEER responsibilities. IF the VOLUNTEERS decided to QUIT, the estimates that I’ve received to OUTSOURCE this service would cost the Association about $800,000 per year. The Volunteers do NOT want a name change, it has been successful since Sun City Anthem established the community, from what I understand, so WHY is the Board considering this change?

The Sun City Anthem Security Patrol NEEDS your support. PLEASE take the time to attend the meeting on August 12th and express your concerns about this change. As you can see from Phil Brown’s email, even though he is on holiday, he is willing to return your call and answer any questions you may have. PLEASE RESPECT AND SUPPORT OUR VOLUNTEERS.

I DO not consider this email a “political” one and have assured participants in the Desert Sky Village Directory that I would not email political agendas BUT I consider this one a NEEDED SUPPORT FOR OUR SUN CITY ANTHEM SECURITY PATROL!

AGAIN, the MEETING is August 12, 2010 at 5:30pm in the Theatre (Independence Hall). If there are any changes, emails will be forwarded immediately. PLEASE BLOCK YOUR CALENDAR FOR THIS IMPORTANT MEETING.

I am listing the Board of Director’s email addresses, in the event you desire to email them and inquire as to WHY an extension of time could not be given to the Security Patrol for a decision of this magnitude. As you can see, I am forwarding a copy of this email to the board of directors, however the Desert Sky Village Directory participants email address will not be reflected, nor will my data base addresses. This email will be sent using Bcc for your privacy.

Jack Troia, President [2] BoardPres@scacai.com
Roz Berman , Vice President & Co- Treasurer ^ [3] rozberman@cox.net
Dan Forgeron, Treasurer [4] dforgeron@cox.net
Ann Small, Secretary [5] annieksmall@gmail.com
Jerry Gardberg jerry [6] gardberg@gmail.com
Celeste Bove [7] celeste.bove.sca@gmail.com
John Waterhouse [8] johnwaterhouse@cox.net

Again, I do NOT BLOG, however I am giving consent to ALL web owners to POST this email exactly “as it is written” (without their interpretation of my concerns) in order to garner support for the SCA Security Patrol Volunteers. They have done an outstanding job and I, for one, am GREATEFUL for their ongoing services!

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Mary Lee Duley
Desert Sky Village

In case you have not been reading all of the web sites on this topic, some very interesting facts are coming out of the smoke and mirrors treatment on this critical matter. For example:

1. The CAM has reported that nothing in writing has been received from the association attorney, insurance broker or the insurance underwriter about this topic. Nothing.

2. Director/Attorney Ann Small and Director Celeste Bove’ refuse to provide any facts, but insist that members must come to the August workshop to find out what is going on.

3. Director John Waterhouse responded to someone pointing out that SC Summerlin and SC McDonald Ranch both use Security Patrol and seem to be satisfied doing so said:

‘I think to find out what Summerlin and McDonald Ranch have done is a good idea. However, to assume this can then be ‘handled very easily’ is an over exaggeration. By keeping the word ‘Security’ in their name, they are indeed taking on more liability than had they used a name not using that word.’

Conclusion: This matter is of a MUCH bigger concern than anticipated last month. Nothing is in writing, but an action item for the board is pending?

Who can make any sense of that? How can a director (or all of the directors) believe that major liabilities exist if there is nothing in writing to justify whomever is pushing this major change in policy?

This is crazy! The board has done some really outrageous things in the last few years, but this one is likely to become its Waterloo. Probably over half of our SCA members have volunteered to serve on the Security Patrol in the past decade and/or have significantly benefited from its services.

If there are compelling reasons to change the name, it is outrageous to demand that 7,144 members come to an August workshop to find out the reasons.

It seems that the current directors and a certain former board member have a hearing and language deficiency, so maybe a few of us need to speak more directly, and to the point.

1. This re-naming and subsequent re-organizing of the Security Patrol is a vital issue affecting all 7,144 rooftops. Downgrading the name and subsequent mission is a major policy matter affecting all unit owners. All members must have access to all of the facts, all of the arguments–pro and con, and to participate in making the final decision for this community.

2. The members pay the bills and elect the directors. In the end, it will be the members who decide if they want a change in the Security Patrol. Unlike the restaurant lease matter, every single SCA owner is likely to care about board actions to damage Security Patrol. Make SP more useful and more effective? You bet! Make it less effective? No chance! It is impossible to force even a third of 7,144 unit owners to come to a ‘workshop’ in August in Southern Nevada. So, why is the board trying to do something so outrageous? Even if 200 showed up in Hanneman Hall, so what? That is only a small percentage of the total who must be included in the final decision.

3. Our CC&Rs and other governing documents spell out the Security Patrol as a major segment of our ‘community property’. I argue that nothing substantial concerning ‘community property’ can be changed about the Security Patrol (including the name and mission) without a membership vote. So, trying to bully people into accepting a unilateral board decision coming from an inadequate August workshop is not possible. Even if something is done against the majority of the member’s wishes, it can be reversed by a new board.

4. And, please don’t any of the guardhouse lawyers try to waste our time claiming that the ‘business judgment rule’ grants the board the power to do anything is wants on anything it wishes! NRS 116 and NRS 82 shows there are many times when members MUST be allowed to vote on major business and property matters. This is one of those times. It does not matter if it takes a whole year to study the issues and assess the trade-offs before making a final decision. All the true facts must known, and all the members must be allowed to be involved.

5. Members can also publish their opinions in the Spirit and other SCA media channels because the new provisions of NRS 116.31175.6 & .7 say:

‘6. If an official publication contains or will contain any mention of a candidate or ballot question, the official publication must, upon request and without charge, provide equal space to the candidate or a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of the ballot question.

7. If an official publication contains or will contain the views or opinions of the association, the executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association concerning an issue of official interest, the official publication must, upon request and without charge, provide equal space to opposing views and opinions of a unit’s owner, tenant or resident of the common-interest community.’

I hope that current and past leaders of the Security Patrol, and many others in our community will take advantage of the new statute provisions and express their opinions in the Spirit, Ch. 99, email notices to SCA clubs and SIGs, and elsewhere–before there is a final board vote scheduled on this matter. There should be no rush to judgment on such a vital issue.