August 29, 2010 by admin.

(REVISED on August 31, 2010)

On August 28, Forrest Featherolf’s article on the Anthem Today Blog asked if the Board Hearing held during the August 26, 2010 Sun City Anthem (SCA) Board Meeting was a “Charade”?  Here is the link you can copy into your browser:
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2037&start=0

While the board did perform a “ridiculous pretense” of an honorable hearing, the board actions certainly were NOT entertaining. Instead of calling it a charade, pretense or fiasco, perhaps a better question might be, “Did the Board commit a “fraud” by holding (and proceeding to completion) the unjustified and unauthorized hearing? A partial definition of fraud that might apply to this case could be: “an intentional deception made to damage another individual”.

Board President Jack Troia read his opening statement for the hearing by accusing Norman McCullough of violations of the SCA Rules and Regulations Section IV, A. paragraphs 3, 5, and 8 and Article III, Section 3.6 of the Declaration (CC&Rs).  Click on following file name to hear Troia’s statement of violations:
Troia’s Charges

But, when reviewing the following files containing those cited sections, it is plain that they do not contain rules related to such member misconduct and/or assaults on SCA community property.  It should also be remembered that Board VP Roz Berman was the 2009 President, and Caren Carrero was 2009 Assistant CAM, when ALL of the member code of conduct rules were removed from our governing documents.  They can not deny knowing that there was no basis for the assault charges in the SCA governing documents.  This appears to be a possible case of “intentional deception” and willful abuse of association resources against Norman McCullough and SCA members.
Section 3.6 of Current Declaration
SCA 2009 Rules & Regulations, Section IV, A

At various times during the meeting, certain members and Norm McCullough’s attorney advised the Board (and the attending RMI/CAM, the Board’s Director-Attorneys, and the Association Attorney) that nothing could be found in the SCA governing documents to provide a legal basis for the charges and the hearing.

The following files contain (1) former Director Bob Frank’s written challenge to the board’s authority (during the first member comment period) to conduct a hearing and punishments on cases of “assault and battery”, and (2) Forrest Fetherolf’s reminder (during the final member comment period) to SCA’s director-attorneys (Ann Small and Jerry Gardberg) that “intent” was a critical element in the evaluation of assault cases by law enforcement. Forrest had pointed out during his statements that Ms. Carrero did not claim to have suffered any kind of injury, she did not claim to believe that Norman intended to assault her, and she did not file a police report.
Frank’s Statement
Featherolf’s Statement

Also, the two witnesses for Ms. Carrero (Assistant RMI/CAM Skyler Jewell and Director/Treasurer Dan Forgeron) did not report on, or suggest they observed any “intent” by Norman McCullough to assault or hurt Ms. Carrero. In other words, no one was alleging that Norman was truly intending to conduct an assault.

By the end of the hearing,
(1) there was significant doubt that Mr. McCullough ever touched Ms. Carrero,
(2) there was no perceived intent for Norman McCullough to assault Ms. Carrero,
(3) the board’s rationale for holding the hearing and charging Mr. McCullough was bogus, and
(4) the board appeared to be abusing its power, wasting SCA resources, and apparently retaliating against Norm McCullough for complaining for over 3 years about board mismanagement of the Villas contract and the SCA Reserves Funds. If confirmed, that would be a clear violation of NRS 116.31183.1 and would allow Norman to recover his legal expenses from the association under the authority of NRS 116.31183.2.

In summary, it appeared that the Board, RMI and the participating director-attorneys were willfully violating NRS 116 and SCA governing documents by conducting an illegal “hearing”. Because of the attorney time and efforts needed by both sides to prepare for the hearing, tens of thousands of dollars of member dues were wasted on an unjustified/unauthorized legal process.

Was this an example of fraudulent conduct, or just an old-fashioned case of gross negligence? Either way, it appears that board misconduct on this matter may have created potential liabilities for all those involved, and for those who failed to object when they knew better.

We believe the community should consider this affair to be a very significant ethical failure by the Board President, fellow directors, RMI, and the association law firm. Certain individuals should be held accountable–so that it never happens again.

Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations, Other | Print | No Comments »

August 26, 2010 by bobfrank.

Former Director Bob Sansing throws more gas on his self-destruction with yet another repeat of his bogus claims about the infamous SCARFS mailing of 2 years ago.  He said on Berman Bog:

“If memory serves me, didn’t the same Richard Arendt at one time or another accuse me and others of being cowards and hiding behind anonymity in creating and mailing the so called SCARFS trifold by not revealing our names or a legitimate address? I admitted that I may have, along with more than 30 other people, helped to pay for the mailing of the quotations of Mr. Frank over the years. I also suggested that the reason for staying anonymous was out of fear of retribution, even though everything in the mailer was and is still TRUE and has never been disproven!”

Facts are troubling things for individuals with such ethical challenges.

The anonymous Unity Party-backed “SCARFS”mailer contained few facts and out-of-context quotations.  Some of the facts I stand behind.  Here are the files containing the original mailing and some of my responses to Sansing and his disgusting SCARFS cohorts:

scarfs.pdf   SCARFS Response
2nd_scarfs_response.pdf

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

August 26, 2010 by bobfrank.

 For AV Blog reader convenience, here is the basic text of what the SCA-HOA Message Board contains concerning today’s “board hearing”:

QUOTE:
Author  Topic: Board Hearing Against Norm McCullough Aug 26
By ROBERT E FRANK, Topic Creator

Message posted Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:16:29 PM
This week’s Board meeting agenda failed to include the required into that Norman McCullough was the defendant for the public Board Hearing scheduled for 6 PM, Thursday, August 26.

More info on this matter can be found on all of the private blogs. Details on the allegations and apparent problems with the hearing process can be found at http://blog.anthemvoice.org/
——————–

DAVID A BERMAN
Jack Troia confirmed at this week’s Board Book Review that the public hearing for Norman McCullough was requested by Mr. McCullough. Though homeowners can comment on any matter on the agenda during the first Member Comment Period, I can safely say from my own experience on the Board that there will be no member participation of any kind, other than from the parties, during the hearing itself. I can’t find in statute that when a resident requests a public hearing and it is noted on the agenda, that thre is a requirement to disclose the details of the hearing in advance. Because it is a direct matter between Mr. McCullough and the Board, one would assume that Mr. McCullough, the party affected, has all the details. To provide any additional information to residents in advance of the hearing would be to violate the respondent’s pre-hearing privacy, though I understand Mr. McCullough has provided details to some community sources. It was strictly his choice to do so. This process of not putting the public hearing details on the agenda in advance would seem to be proper because it is not a matter with a direct effect on any homeowner other than the respondent himself. If the hearing were held in executive session as is normally done, the only person aligible to release details would be the respondent himself. The only thing that makes this different is that the respondent asked for the hearing to be conducted in public, but that does not give the Board the right or authority to release any information about the hearing in advance. It is strictly the decision of the respondent, and he appears to have exercised that option.

Based on resident ‘participation’ at some Board meetings, there is the potential for supporters of the respodnent to be disruptive during the hearing. While Jack Troia has been criticized for being abrupt and impatient in his handling of some meetings, he would be justified in doing what he can to assure that the audience plays no more of a role than to observe what transpires. Just because a resident requests a public hearing, that does not translate into a license to make it into a circus. It should be a respectful and dignified process, in keeping with what one must assume is a matter of some gravity to the respondent. He is not a ‘defendant’ as some have labeled him, because this matter presumably involves a violation of SCA governing documents -an educated guess only- and not the commission of a crime. In any event, it should add some drama to the Board meeting.

————————-
RANA GOODMAN
Message posted Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:53:24 AM
Sorry to inform you Mr. Berman, (you were a lawyer so you should know) the charges against Norman DO involve him being accused of a crime and there in lies the problem. It should not have been an issue for this board. There is NOTHING in our by-laws, CC&Rs or NRS 116 that deals with assault either. This was nothing more than a ploy by the board to attempt to get Norman out of their hair, they are fooling no one. We have two legal minds sitting on the board, one who speaks so often of her ethics. She should have used those ethics before she allowed her board mates to follow through with this rubbish.

—————————
DAVID A BERMAN
Message posted Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:00:11 AM
Ms. Goodman: It is sad that you want to use the message board to communicate directly with me but you are unwilling to do so directly. That is called grandstanding.

YOU may know the substance of Mr. McCullough’s issue, probably because he has chosen to share it with you, but I do not. Even if I did, I would not seek to try the issue on public blogs or on a message board, but would let it happen at the Board meeting.

My comments were strictly related to why I believe no additional details about the matter were warranted on the agenda. THAT and nothing more! I can not possibly have an opinion on an issue whose details I am not presently aware of. You have not seen me talk about Mr. McCullough’s case, nor will you.

————————-
ROBERT E FRANK
Message posted Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:53:58 AM
The reason why a member would ask for a public hearing is because of mistrust of the board motivations. Unlike a member in the past who had good reasons to prefer a secret hearing, the McCullough’s have nothing to hide.

Since no evidence is available to the McCulloughs, or anyone but the board and Ms. Carrero on this prosecution, the mystery of why a board hearing is justified is in serious question. How could anyone believe it is fair or just to force someone to come to a hearing without knowing any specifics on the charges?

Meanwhile, the McCulloughs welcome attempts by Rana and all others to help educate our community about the truth of this situation and about the board’s apparent lack of evidence and jurisdiction.

It is also appropriate to respectfully ask the two directors who have law degrees to comment on why they have not used their expertise to avoid public embarrassment for the community. This has the potential for bringing public shame and ridicule to SCA.

It really does not matter what the so-called association attorneys advise, the board makes the decisions. And, it is the directors who must be held accountable for misguided or wrong decisions.

It is not grandstanding when compassionate SCA members are appalled at how a neighbor is being mistreated and retaliated against for simply refusing to be intimidated. Rana’s comments were for the benefit of all–not limited to just one person.

All of our SCA members should be working to ensure that more people know more of the facts of this vital issue. The outcome could adversely affect the enforcement of the rule of law for all members within Sun City Anthem.

————————
DAVID A BERMAN
Message posted Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:18:52 AM
Mr. Frank, you have twisted what I said about ‘grandstanding.’ It has nothing to do with the matter of the hearing at all.

If something is a ‘mystery’ to you, shouldn’t the hearing result in the unraveling of this mystery? And if, as you say, evidence was available to no one but the Board and Ms. Carrero, how can you or Rana or anyone else say that you know what the facts are? Doesn’t this mean you may know one side but not the other? Won’t you be listening attentively, along with me and everyone else, to this potentially fascinating exercise in HOA democracy?

————————–
ROBERT E FRANK
Message posted Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:54:55 PM
This board process is not ‘democracy’ in action, and it is not ‘fascinating’ to those who value American principles of justice.  An accused person should NEVER be forced to wait until a hearing where a final judgment is to be determined to learn the details of a serious allegation. Such a procedure is as far away from American Justice as the board can get.

Such basic American Citizen rights as ‘innocent until proven guilty’, due process (prior to, during and after the judgment process including receiving detailed descriptions of the charges before having to respond in court), have not been followed.

Considering the actions of prior board ‘hearings’ on non-ARC matters, the defendant will not even be allowed to cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses, nor challenge the accuracy and potential conflicts of interest of the director serving as the ‘prosecutor’.  In theory, only the ‘prosecutor’ should have access to the ‘evidence’; but, in the past, the process allowed many, if not all, of the board members) to have access to much of the evidence before the hearing began.

The accused in such ‘hearings’ is kept in the dark. Unless the accused has a friend on the court/board, he/she is surprised at what is actually alleged during the court/hearing. This process is so wrong/unfair that it is hard to imagine that experienced attorneys can tolerate it.

Of course, since in this case, it is the CAM making the (secret) allegations, no one except the Board President (or an appointed director) could serve as the ‘prosecutor’.  And, that director/prosecutor would have an obvious bias with serious conflicts of interest. So, he/she should be barred from the confidential deliberations and not be allowed to vote. How else could a ‘fair’ deliberation and decision occur?

Concerning Nevada HOA ‘due process’, association members accused of statute violations are required by NRS 116.760 to receive advanced notice of allegations as follows:

‘2. An aggrieved person may not file such an affidavit unless the aggrieved person has provided the respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, with written notice of the alleged violation set forth in the affidavit. The notice must:

(a) Be mailed to the respondent’s last known address.

(b) Specify, in reasonable detail, the alleged violation, any actual damages suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the alleged violation, and any corrective action proposed by the aggrieved person.’

While the above is focused on members filing complaints with the Nevada Real Estate Division, it should be considered unacceptable for the board to fail to grant at least those minimum protections to SCA members accused of any violations.

UNQUOTE

Posted in Ann_Small, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | No Comments »

August 25, 2010 by admin.

According to the Board Meeting Agenda item VII. for 6 PM on Thursday, August 26, there will be a “Public Hearing”.  That is all it says.  No mention of who, what, or why.

Such a notice is a flagrant violation of NRS 116.31083.5 which says “5.  The agenda of the meeting of the executive board must comply with the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 116.3108.”  NRS 116.3108.4 says:

“4.  The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of:

      (a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, including, without limitation, any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any fees or assessments to be imposed or increased by the association, any budgetary changes and any proposal to remove an officer of the association or member of the executive board.

      (b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.”

After investigation, it was discovered that the target of this secret “hearing” is SCA member, Norman McCullough.  He was previously notified by the former Community Manager, Caren Carrero, of her allegation that he had “physically assaulted” her on May 27, 2010.  See this letter for the details.
Carrero Allegation

After reading the above letter and interviewing Norman McCullough, we have learned the following:

1.  Ms. Carrero claims to be writing on behalf of the SCA Board of Directors about her personal (criminal?) complaint that a hearing would be held by the Board and that action would be taken by the board “based solely upon the information before it on the day of the hearing.”  But, such a letter exhibits a clear conflict of interest and should never have been sent.
2. Norman McCullough denies that any kind of physical assault or confrontation occurred.
3. The letter requires Norman McCullough to submit his defense in advance of the hearing, but does not require the complaining person to submit detailed allegations in advance of the hearing.  How could anyone prepare for a prosecution by the Board if the allegation details are not provided prior to the court hearing?
4. As a result, Ms. Carrero’s allegation failed to cite any specific details of the alleged “physical assault”, failed to cite any statute or SCA governing document paragraphs that Mr. McCullough is alleged to have violated, and failed to cite any witness statements to substantiate her allegation.
5. To schedule a hearing without allowing the accused to know the details of the allegation, and without allowing the accused to  review the witness statements, without allowing the accused to submit rebuttals to the allegations prior to the hearing,  is a gross violation of basic due process by the Board and the Community Manager.
6. It is doubtful that the SCA Board of Directors has any jurisdiction over a criminal complaint of “physical assault” on SCA property.  And, since the Board did not require Ms. Carrero to file her complaint with the Henderson Police Department, the hearing process appears to be bogus.
7. After extensive searching, no member of the community can be been found who observed any kind of physical confrontation during that day, or any other day, between Norman McCullough and any other human being.  Norman has a reputation of being a deeply religious man who never gets involved in any kind of physical confrontations with men or women.
8. Norman has a digital recording of the board meeting that did not get shut off until after the alleged assault period of time.  If someone had been physically assaulted, one would expect loud yelling, complaints, and much commotion to be heard.  But, it is claimed that nothing of the sort can be detected.
9. The letter notifies the board will deliberate in secret after the hearing and announce its judgment afterwords.  The letter also threatens that if the board determines “a violation occurred“, the board would notify him in writing and that for “this type of violation (of the unstated rules or statutes) there may be monetary or other sanctions.”
10. The notice concludes with “IF YOU FAIL TO PAY ANY MONETARY PENALTY IMPOSED AGAINST YOU, THE ASSOCIATION MAY ELECT TO COMPEL YOUR COMPLIANCE BY RECORDING A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY OR BY TAKING OTHER LEGAL MEASURE TO COLLECT THE MONETARY PENALTY.”

So, we have to ask, is this not a classic case of a KANGAROO COURT?  Who would Norman McCullough appeal to if the judgment is unfair or illegal?  (Answer: no one.)

Is this another example of the failures by attorney Ann Small and former attorney Jerry Gardberg?  Have they forgotten their legal educations?   Do they have no sense of justice, fairness or due process?  Could Norman McCullough or some other member consider this to be a candidate for a Nevada Bar Ethics complaint against Director/Attorney/Former Judge Pro Tem Small?

A definition of the term “kangaroo court”is found on the Internet under wikipedia.org:

“A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial, refers to a sham legal proceeding or court. The colloquial phrase “kangaroo court” is used to describe judicial proceedings that deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one’s own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. The outcome of a trial by “kangaroo court” is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. “

Posted in Ann_Small, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | No Comments »

August 23, 2010 by admin.

The most recent version of the Removal Election and Special Members Meeting Petition can be downloaded by clicking on this file name:

scaremovalpetition1.pdf

Posted in Removal Election, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | No Comments »

August 22, 2010 by admin.

Members have asked us, why did the board behave is such dictatorial, uncompassionate and unbusinesslike ways on the Security Patrol name change fiasco? It has not made any sense. As the old saying goes, if something does not seem to make sense, follow the money…. Who benefits, and who loses the cash? The losers are obviously the current and future SCA members. Arguments have been made by a lone attorney that if we don’t remove the term “security” from the patrol’s name, immediately, we have a greatly increased liability for being sued. Really! How much greater risk would we have if nothing is changed? No one will say.

But, it is claimed that if we DO immediately purge the word “security”, we “might” have a lesser risk of being sued in the long-term. No one has ever been sued for this type of risk before in NV, and no one will explain why SCA (who is just one of 3,000+ HOAs in NV) would be the first to be sued in this category.

Meanwhile, the real/guaranteed costs of change to members for the short-term were estimated to be between $50,000 and $800,000+ next year. The lower cost was if all of the volunteers would keep on doing what they have been doing without degradation, and only uniform changes and vehicle painting would be needed. The higher, $800,000+ cost could be the minimum estimated annual costs to replace the Security Patrol with a commercial company. No one had computed the Net Present Value of each alternative; but, it seemed clear that doing nothing at this time would be the smart choice.

The attorney speaking for the association law firm admitted he was a construction defects specialist. He did not claim to be highly experienced in making professional risk assessments. It was just his personal opinion. So, why would the board use his sole, personal opinion to make such an important decision involving the potential unnecessary spending of millions of dollars for contracted security services over the next decade? Why would there be such a rush (under such secrecy) to do this apparently outrageous act?

Under the circumstances, this decision could cause cash to flow towards (1) a preferred uniform provider or (2) a preferred commercial security services company. It is also possible that the Community Associations Institute (CAI) could benefit from SCA converting to contract security services. CAI is the trade association for companies selling to HOA boards (i.e., law firms, property managers, painting contractors, landscapers, security firms, etc.) SCA’s lead attorney has been a founder, director, and highly influential member of Nevada CAI for over 20 years. And, most of the current and previous SCA directors are influential and strong advocates of CAI

Our Community Management Company (RMI) has been deeply involved in CAI for well over a decade. RMI might be working on a business expansion into security services much like it did a few years ago when it acquired the Red Rock Collection Services. Since RMI has over 200 HOA clients, and the law firm has over 700 clients, either one or both might have financial interests in a security services company. If SCA can be bullied into converting without having to produce compelling rationale, many of the smaller HOAs might be easy to convince they have to go along with the “trends”.

There are a wide variety of ways certain individuals, or a group of individuals, could financially benefit from pushing to convert SCA to high-cost commercial security services. So, while the change in name does not have a compelling argument, the above suggests some possible ways to explain some possible hidden financial motivation behind the inexplicable board decision. Just follow the money, and see what you can see….

Posted in Ann_Small, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Operations, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

August 16, 2010 by admin.

We learned from the SCA Board last week that some “pirated software” was placed on SCA PCs used by the Security Patrol–maybe as long ago as 2006. They did not say what the software was, or who did the deed.  And, no one has a clue on what that has to do with the Board justifying removing the “security” from our patrol’s name.

Director’s Small and Troia made a number of huge public demonstrations pointing their fingers at the entire Security Patrol leadership (past and present) as being guilty of “criminal acts”.  Listen to this clip from the last board meeting.   Software Piracy or Theft?

But, is that the truth, or was it public slander and/or defamation of past and current Security Patrol Board Members?

Let’s consider the following facts:

1. The PCs are owned by SCA–not the Security Patrol members.  All software running on those community property are the sole responsibility of the board of directors.
2.  The board contracts with RMI to manage SCA property.  RMI’s contract makes it solely responsible for knowing what property SCA has, what it is being used for, and for ensuring that all such community property is secured and maintained.
3. It is alleged that a previous Security Patrol Chief placed “pirated copies” of his own software on the SCA PCs a few years ago, and the Patrol has been using it without permission since then.
4. RMI has known of this violation for years, but apparently did nothing to correct it.

So, given the facts, Directors Small and Troia were dead wrong (and apparently guilty of defamation) in their public claims that current leaders of the Security Patrol was guilty of “theft” and “software piracy”.

1. The Board owners of the PCs, and the RMI managers of the PCs were apparently guilty of a number of law violations–if in fact there were any wrongful acts done.
2. This sort of thing happens in the real world of business frequently.  The remedies are to (1) remove the unlicensed software, or (2) pay for a current license.
3. In each case, management warns the offending users to not do it again or suffer some kinds of penalties.

In summary, it appears that we have once again seen the SCA Board of Directors make fools of themselves by exposing how poorly they manage our community property.  And, when their errors are discovered, they attempt to blame others for their failings.

In the case of Nevada-licensed Attorney Ann Small, we know that she knows what she did was wrong.  She has been trained in law school and on the job while working for many years in the Henderson City Attorney’s Office.  She knows what she said was wrong.

So, why do we have such abject disregard to do the right thing?  Why were the honorable, volunteer leaders of the Security Patrol harassed, insulted and slandered/defamed at that last board meeting?  Why did the topic come up at all, and why was RMI not correctly identified as the culprit?

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

August 15, 2010 by admin.

At the August 12, 2010 Board Meeting, Board Secretary/Attorney/Former Judge Ann Small and Board President Jack Troia accused the Security Patrol Chiefs and SP Board Members of criminal violations and of theft of PC software.   They claimed that knowledge of the illegal software usage had existed for many years, but did not explain why it had been tolerated until just now.

They also accused the Security Patrol leadership (past and present) of lying when they denied knowing about the alleged “theft” and “software “piracy”.  According to Troia and Small, the Association is forced to negotiate $37,000 settlement with the software owners in order to avoid paying multiple counts of up to  $250,000 for “software piracy”.

Not explained by Small or Troia was why this stunning disclosure on alleged “software piracy” was bundled into the debate over removing “security” from the Patrol’s name.  The comments made by the directors appeared to threaten the Patrol leadership with criminal charges on the software “piracy” allegations if the Security Patrol Board failed to cooperate on the name change.

Former Security Patrol Chiefs Dave Servello and Phil Brown were stunned at the criminal allegations, and refused to accept that the Patrol had done anything wrong.  Directors Troia and Small insisted that “Security Patrol management” was fully aware of the alleged criminal violations, but refused to give specifics on who knew and/or when.

No one can imagine why a simple order for the latest version of the PC software in question was not placed to solve the problem for (worst case) a thousand dollars or so?  Why would the Board report on itself to a software vendor that it had “pirated software” on a PC or two and volunteer to pay $37,000?  It is a big mystery that the board was unwilling to discuss at the meeting.

Missing in the very heated exchanges were details of why the RMI/CAMs (since 2006) were not being held accountable for the Board’s dissatisfaction with SCA property used by the Patrol?  RMI is specifically charged by the contract to oversee/manage the Security Patrol property and financial management.  Nothing was said about RMI’s failure to comply with its contract and potential liabilities.  Why would that be?

Probably the most stunning statement made during the evening was by Director/Former Assistant Henderson City Attorney/Former Judge Pro-tem Ann Small during her rambling (and often incoherent) statements about the alleged “software piracy” situation.  She loudly threatened her fellow directors that she would resign from the Board if her motion to remove “security” from the Patrol’s name was not passed.  But, the crowd thought that was a great idea and offered loud applause.

The following windows (*.mp3) sound clips are the first to be made available from the 4-hour meeting recording to provide SCA members with some specific examples of director comments and misconduct.

Other revealing clips will be mounted on Anthem VOICE–as time permits.  Recordings of the full meeting can be obtained from the SCA Board/CAM for $2.

Ann Small Criminal Charge

Small Accuses Software Piracy

Small Confused On Motion

Posted in Ann_Small, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »

August 13, 2010 by admin.

If you have not been following, or did not understand, the 3-year dispute over the board’s refusing to comply with the IRS requirement to return millions of SCA excess/surplus assessments at the end of each year, you may find Ron Johnson’s recent editorial to be quite informative and up-to-date.

Tax-qualified people have read Ron’s article and confirmed it is highly accurate.

http://www.scaview.org/The%20IRSTaxAuditII.html

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

August 13, 2010 by bobfrank.

(Revised) All the posturing is over, and those of us (estimated to be over 400 members) who attended last night’s 4+ hour board meeting found our worst fears realized. This appeared to have been the largest-attended and longest board meeting of all time. Clearly, a very high number of SCA members care a great deal about their Security Patrol.

A number of SCA members spoke who were career professionals from the insurance underwriting and security services professions.  They provided very compelling arguments that changing the name would not avoid any litigation risks or reduce our insurance rates. But, their excellent expertise was summarily dismissed and disregarded in the final vote.  The board was not listening.

After over 4 hours of discussion, at least 98% found NO compelling evidence provided by the board, attorney or insurance broker to justify forcing a name change at this time. It was alleged that there might be one or two cases at the national level that might have some relevance to the issue, but none in Nevada.  Not mentioned was that there are tens of thousands of HOAs in the USA, and many, if not most, include some kind of security services.

Not provided was any really relevant data on the alleged risks for SCA. For example, it might be possible that there could be over 10,000 HOAs in the US using the term security in their names or service descriptions–without having any problems. There are over 3,000 HOAs in Nevada and none of them has ever had a law suit filed (or lost) over the word “security“.

So, exactly why was the SCA Board demanding the change–now?   They claimed they were forced to act because of their “fiduciary duty” to avoid the possible risks–however exceedingly remote they might be. But, the directors did not mention their “business judgment” responsibility to avoid making bad business decisions. They are required by statute to balance these responsibilities, but failed to do so.  At the end, the board proceeded to vote 5 in favor and 0 against (with 2 undecided/abstaining) to remove ’security’ from the Patrol’s name.

The long-term cost risks of implementing this decision appeared to be much higher than the extremely remote risks of SCA losing a law suit due to a misunderstanding over the intent of the Security Patrol name in our mostly open/non-gated neighborhoods.

Note that the Board has never done anything to educate all of the members about the limited purposes of the Security Patrol.  The logos on the patrol cars and uniforms do not make the mission clear.  And, there have been no requirements for members to sign disclaimers acknowledging their understanding of the limited “observe and report” mission.  Such a disclaimer could easily be included to be signed at near zero cost along with the periodic certification of age-restricted residents.  Many members demanded to know why not initiate those kinds of practical actions instead of arbitrarily changing the name and risk destroying most of the morale within the volunteer SP force?

Sadly, all the members got was insulting lip service about how such actions “might” help, but how they could not “prevent” a law suit.  Really.  As if we, not the board, were senile.  In general, the members were treated like ignorant children–instead of the accomplished, retired professionals that they proved to be.  And, the directors behaved like they were being bullied into making a very bad business decision by the association attorneys.

One of the biggest surprises of the evening was when Director/Attorney Ann Small went ballistic and threaten to resign from the board if the security patrol name was not removed.  She also claimed to be considering filing criminal charges against the past and current Security Patrol leadership for using some unregistered software on the SP computers.  Most of the audience never understood why Ann Small was so outraged about PC software in use by the SP when the issue for the evening was risk assessment over the name “Security Patrol”. 

At a couple of points, some directors even accused the SP leadership of lying about not knowing there were major PC software registration problems.  Imagine that kind of disrespectful attack against the SP leadership in an open board meeting! 

Since RMI is required to provide oversight to the groups receiving SCA funding, the members had to wonder why the directors were openly yelling at the SP–instead of RMI?  If there had been some kind of PC software problem, RMI would have been required under its contract to have resolved it. RMI’s failure was no cause to insult the SP volunteers.

It made us wonder if this whole mess was just some kind of hidden board retaliation against some SP leaders?  Many of them are retired law enforcement officers who are naturally intolerant of incompetent leadership.  Some members now believe that the board is acting like it wants to eventually implement a high-cost contracted patrol that never questions anything they are told.  Early estimates are that such a contracted patrol might cause assessments to increase between $150 to $300 per resident per year.

So, at the end of 4+ hours, it was seen that the issue about changing the Security Patrol name had been decided months before the meeting.  It seemed clear the issue had been precipitated by a few prior and current directors, the association attorney, and the “CAI”.  The insurance broker and underwriter were not pressing for any changes or asking for more money.  It was all the board’s doing.

It was a very sad night.  Even the so-called “unity party” people were heard complaining that the whole affair was handled (by their party member directors) about as poorly as it could have been….

PS: Those who remembered that the association law firm was just incorporated in 2007 (and that SCA was one the first clients) were stunned to hear Attorney Ed Song say that they now have over 700 HOA clients!  Wow! One to seven hundred in just 3 years!  One has to wonder how they are able to fairly balance their time and travel among those 700 associations?  And, which developers, HOA management companies, security companies, and other members of CAI were instrumental in helping the law firm expand so quickly?  And, what level of “quality” products do you suppose SCA is receiving from a firm with so many conflicts of interest?  After last night’s fiasco, it would not surprise many to discover that recruiting security companies is an important CAI sales objective for the future.

See this link for more info on the CAI:
http://www.cai-nevada.org/sub_category_list.asp?category=49&title=2010+Chapter+Sponsors

Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Clubs & SIGs, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

August 5, 2010 by admin.

Rumors have it that the board, its attorney and its insurance broker want to remove or replace “security” in the Security Patrol name.  But, due to typical board secrecy, no facts have been released.  See the previous AV blog article and the Anthem Today blog site for extensive background details.

Meanwhile, questions about the insurance broker are being heavily debated.  For example, an active insurance broker/agent posted on Anthem Today that we should be using two brokers to get bids and more opinions for SCA coverage of such a huge account. That kind of competition is normal and it would open up other underwriters and probably get us access to significant savings. Since our annual insurance expense is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if we continue to use the current broker for most policies, the quotes received should be significantly lower.

This is particularly valuable advice when one recalls that our current broker used to be employed by Del Webb to handle insurance matters. Of course, we are not suggesting there might be some conflicts of interest, but due to the nature of the insurance business, following the advice to have access to two insurance brokers sounds like a good idea.

Also, some are wondering if the CAI (Community Association Institute–trade association supporting Board Members, HOA attorneys, auditors, landscapers, developers, real estate companies, etc.) has taken a position concerning the use of the term ‘Security’ in volunteer Security Patrol groups?

If so, is CAI for or against the use of ’security patrol’, and what relevant documentation is available from CAI? If there is no CAI position or research information, why are we bothering to debate the issue? It clearly is not an industry ‘problem’–if CAI has not taken a public position.

The rumor suggests that because SCA’s current and former directors (and some committee chairs) are strong proponents of CAI, perhaps there could be some hidden business influence coming from that source? No doubt there are commercial security companies who would like to convert volunteer groups into contract operations.

Has anyone heard any of the many former directors/CAI proponents (besides Bob Berman) strongly oppose changing the name?

———-Updated Info Added Below————-

One of the board members confirmed in this afternoon’s (Aug 5) Current Events Club meeting that some SCA CAI active members and the association attorney are the prime advocates to change the Security Patrol’s name. It is not yet clear whether our insurance broker is also a collaborating member.

Apparently, this change has been pushed by CAI for many months, and it is just now coming to light.

It was also reported that the board had access to 3 reports and/or case studies to support its opinions. They are not confidential, but it seems the board president has refused to release them. Perhaps they will be released after the workshop, but that has not been promised.

There was one case in a Florida HOA where a member successfully sued its board over the failure of a ’security’ fence or wall that failed to keep out criminals. It is not clear why someone would consider a Florida fence matter to have anything to do with changing our Security Patrol name.

After the reports are released, a number of people would have to analyze them in detail to find out if there is any relevance to our situation.

But, for now, it seems the board intends to keep us in the dark.

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

August 4, 2010 by admin.

We were informed that the City received many complaints about the ugly, non-code-compliant Anthem View restaurant signs along the parkway.

After being delayed and deceived for many days, the City notified the restaurant lessee to either remove the signs by COB Tuesday, or the City would do it.  The parkway signs are gone.  We have not yet learned who  removed them.

Posted in SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Operations, News! | Print | No Comments »