September 23, 2010 by admin.

The following has been posted verbatim at Yun Lee’s request:

QUOTE:

This is a very busy time of year for me as I haven’t completely retired and do a lot of consulting in Hong Kong and Hawaii. There seems to always be a surprise in store for residents at each SCA board meeting as well as disrespect for anyone that disagrees with the FEW that control our lives and Association. Decisions seem to be made BEFORE the meetings are held and issues are presented to residents. This is not typical for a professionally run Home Owner’s Association and what has to be done to change this? Discussions and suggestions appears to be ignored, as opposed to being honored.

I am not happy with the Security Patrol name change as it will not deter potential vandalism or thieves and the attorney clearly stated that it’s WHAT the volunteers do, NOT the NAME that would be a problem. It appeared obvious to me and the two residents that I sat with that it was a “done deal” and the board had already made a decision. The disrespect shown by a board member who was a judge/attorney and the president was inexcusable. I would call their actions verbal abuse!

Mr. & Mrs. McCullough were introduced to me about two years ago and I was absolutely shocked that the Board of Directors would even think about placing a BAN on ANY resident.When one ages, one’s health issues magnify. At 78 years old, a six month BAN is a LIFETIME. Shame on the President of SCA and shame on EVERY member of the board of directors for NOT objecting to this unreasonable decision! The SCA attorney is present for every meeting, regardless of issues, yet the board FINED Mr. McCullough $564….why?

We voted on NOT having gaming in Anthem Center when another president of SCA was in place and is it necessary to repeat this issue? I would like to know, WHO benefits, other than the restaurant Tenant and it’s financial backers. Who are the financial backers? There is one gentleman that resides in Anthem Country Club that has bragged, at the bar area, that he provides financial assistance and while not a SCA resident, is friends of the board of directors. No doubt he will be there on a regular basis and I’ll be able to find out his name. The backers WILL benefit, and the SCA residents will NOT, but WE will continue to pay for everything that the restaurant (now foolishly listed as an amenity, while still a profit making BUSINESS) needs on a ongoing basis. Whoever put this restaurant contract together knew NOTHING about business or commercial real estate, it is a disgrace and in no way benefits the Residents of Sun City Anthem. I am tired of Mr.Berman constantly pointing the finger and specifically NAME CALLING, that in itself is disgraceful and how anyone could have respect for someone that needs to constantly bring negatives to a community is beyond me. I would like to think that he is capable of refraining from this apparent hatefulness as it hinders, not helps our community. I fully expect to be named specifically in the next editorial of Anthem Journal as ANYONE that disagrees and elaborates on how they really feel about the PROBLEMS in this community (and there are MANY) and are not supposed to elaborate. I read ALL of the editorials and while I do not agree with some of the issues or ways they are written, this ongoing “resident bashing” and criticism will destroy the reputation of this community even more.

Mr. Johnson continues to do research that will benefit the residents of Sun City Anthem and I am grateful for the plumbing editorials and suggestions as we ALL benefit. WHEN will this ongoing criticism and lack of respect for our fellow men and women stop?

Monies seem to be foolishly spent on things, take a minute and read the agendas, financial documents, and attend committee meetings. The Bocce courts at Liberty Center were built incorrectly, yet this problem remains and it’s not possible to stand in the rocks to throw from the far end close to the tennis courts. The tennis courts are being occupied by pickle ball and paddle tennis players and I overheard a staggering dollar amount that would be needed to make changes. There is a large list of DISCREPANCIES with Liberty Center and I’m at a loss to understand why the developer doesn’t have to repair these items. I understand that SCA will pay for “modifications” but the basic a/c/heating/solars etc ? Why do WE have to pay? Perhaps someone on the Lifestyle Committee or Property and Grounds or Finance Committee can address these resident concerns.

Lastly, no one wants open pit mining close to Sun City Anthem. Mixing politics with the mining issue takes away from what has been accomplished thus far by our volunteers who have kept us apprised, created petitions, and are attempting to protect our values and health. I do not care who you prefer to vote for in the upcoming election but we have enough “dirty politics” in the Review Journal and television. WHY bring it into the local venues when we are concerned about THIS community and the problems we are having in SCA?

I have posted on Anthem Today, but have no objection if my email is placed on Anthem Voice, and/or SCAView, but I do not want it on Anthem Journal as the content would be distorted. . . My consent is for it to be printed “AS IS” or not at all.

Sincerely,
Yun Lee

UNQUOTE

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

September 21, 2010 by admin.

Angle’s reform ideas would give ownership to retirees

Geoffrey Lawrence

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

“Imagine for a second that your dreams of financial security in retirement are entirely within your reach. Now imagine that the government forces you to participate in its poorly designed retirement system, depriving you of those dreams.

Now you’re beginning to understand how the Social Security system works.

Regardless of any altruistic motives that may have existed when the Social Security Act became law in 1935, it’s hard to imagine a less effective means of providing for seniors during retirement than through the current Social Security system.

This goes far beyond concerns over the system’s pending insolvency. Sure, the Social Security system will experience a negative cash flow this year and will do so permanently after 2014. Under optimistic assumptions, the system will be insolvent by 2037.

Even aside from that, and even at full solvency, the system yields an inordinately small rate of return for beneficiaries. Social security payments are calculated based on wages. As the Cato Institute’s William Shipman points out, wages increase by only about 1.5 percent per annum, on average, and so Social Security benefits increase at a roughly similar rate.

At such low rates of return, workers are deprived of the quality of retirement that they otherwise could enjoy if permitted to invest their retirement savings in the capital markets. If Social Security administrators were the financial planners for your personal retirement account and earned only a 1.5 percent rate of return, you would fire them!

The bigger problem with Social Security, however, is that your claim to retirement benefits is not a right. For all the contributions you pay into the system, you own nothing. Should you die before receiving any benefits, you have no heritable assets to pass on to your loved ones. The Supreme Court has declared that Congress can arbitrarily downgrade your benefits payments at will — meaning you have no enforceable property rights over your claim to retirement income.

Recognition of this problem has led to calls for partial privatization, which would divert a portion of the 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax into individual accounts. Out of those accounts, workers could invest in tangible assets such as stocks or bonds. Chile instituted such a reform to its national pension system in 1981 that has since become an international model for pension reform. In addition to producing higher living standards for retirees, Chile’s pension reform also led to increases in capital formation — particularly among lower- and middle-income workers. As a result, total economic productivity increased as personal savings were channeled toward investments yielding market-driven interest rates.

Without a doubt, Chilean-style pension reform in the United States could lead to higher living standards for seniors and faster overall economic growth. It would also provide workers with the security of owning tangible, heritable assets that are not subject to political winds in Washington.

Opponents of Social Security reform, such as Senator Harry Reid, have little intellectual ground to stand upon and so have resorted to scaremongering.

“I believe that retirement security for Main Street should be guaranteed, not trusted to Wall Street,” Reid said recently. The pending insolvency of the Social Security system means those benefits are anything but guaranteed. However, it is reasonable to have concerns about temporary fluctuations in the stock market — at least until one considers the dismal rates of return offered by the Social Security system itself.

Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute has shown that, if a worker had been allowed to divert only 4 percent out of the 12.4 percent payroll tax into an individual account earning a market interest rate from 1965 to 2008 — retiring immediately after the 2008 stock market crash — that worker would have received benefits payments 15 percent higher than a worker with a traditional Social Security account.

Social Security is simply a bad deal, independent of one’s political persuasion. Almost no one would participate in the system if he or she had a choice. In fact, it’s telling that state and local government workers in Nevada and most other states opt out of the system in favor of the state’s Public Employees’ Retirement System. Social Security is a government program so good that government workers won’t even participate in it!

In Nevada, Harry Reid has ruthlessly attacked his opponent, Sharron Angle, for supporting Chilean-style pension reform. Yet Angle’s plan would move Social Security toward sound footing while allowing workers to acquire assets and realize higher rates of return.

Reid is defending an insolvent status quo that will inexorably lead to benefits reductions, massive tax increases — or both.

Geoffrey Lawrence is a fiscal policy analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute. For more information visit http://npri.org.”

Here is what Senator Reid’s deceptive ad says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBuI655UzRc

Here is the truth about what Sharron Angle wants to do about Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZBkHSnE1B4

Posted in Outside Politics | Print | 2 Comments »

September 19, 2010 by admin.

Since there are so many unit owners in Sun City Anthem from other parts of the United States and other countries, it is natural to discover great confusion over the Nevada Congressional District boundaries and the various candidates.

In response to many questions, the following links are provided to help clear up the confusion.  Even long-term residents of Nevada can be stunned by the bizarre boundaries of the three NV Congressional Districts and the need for updated info on the candidates.

District 1:  Incumbent: Shelly Berkley (D)
Challenger:  Ken Wegner (R)
Area Map:   District 1

District 2:  Incumbent:  Dean Heller (R)
Challenger:  Nancy Price (D)
Area Map:   District 2

District 3:  Incumbent:  Dina Titus (D)
Challenger:  Dr. Joe Heck (R)
Area Map:   District 3

Posted in Outside Politics, Operations | Print | No Comments »

September 18, 2010 by bobfrank.

For 3 straight years, the SCA Boards have declared “dues holidays” during the 4th quarters. However,that term is traditionally used with regard to “union dues”.   But, there is no such thing as a “dues holiday” in a homeowner association.

The Directors and Community Mangers have known it was a bogus term, but they use it to deceive our members into thinking it is some sort of “gift” from the board.  Hogwash!

Nevada Statutes and IRS rules call such reductions in annual assessments for homeowner associations “returns” of surplus assessments.  The returns are to be accomplished by credits to the unit owner accounts in the current year, or in the first quarter of the next year. The reason why such “returns” must be made to members is because the alternative is to pay income taxes on those surpluses.

“Returns” are required when the board significantly over-charges the annual assessments.  It is standard budgeting practice to routinely charge slightly more annual assessments than expected.  Members usually dislike being told towards the end of a year that an additional, special assessment was needed.

Standard practice in a non-profit homeowner association is to promptly return the end-of-year surplus–all of it–not just a small percentage.

The current plan for only returning $240 is not even close to what the board owes our members!  Again, such returns are NOT ‘dues holidays”

Your question should be, when do we get the rest of the hundreds of dollars owed to members?

For the record, below is a table of data extracted from the Board’s annual financial reports where they openly admit they have been grossly over-charging annual assessments, and routinely failing to return the surpluses at the end of each year.

Such failures to return all surpluses are likely key reasons why the IRS is currently conducting its corporate audit of the Board.  If HOA Boards fail to return the assessment surpluses, they MUST report them as corporate income, and pay taxes at the 30% rate.  Otherwise, it could be considered a violation of Federal Income Tax Laws.

In case you are not aware of it, the data below is what the SCA board have reported concerning annual assessment rates, accumulated surplus assessments, refunds, and resulting “effective assessment amounts”.  It is obvious the board has been systematically over-charging on assessments for many years.

From the available data, the annual assessment rate should be cut to around $800–instead of being increased to $1,200 per unit by 2014!

Year      Standard     Accumulated     Refund     Effective
_____Assessment       Surplus                             Assessment
2005       $    940         $     909,000               -0-           $    940
2006       $    940         $  2,348,000               -0-           $    940
2007       $    940         $  3,179,000                -0-           $    940
2008       $ 1,100         $  3,845,000             $100          $ 1,000
2009       $    960         $  4,755,000              $240          $     720
2010       $    960         $   3,371,500              $240          $     720
2011        $ 1,050
2012        $ 1,100
2013        $ 1,120
2014        $ 1,120

WOW!  What a difference honest assessment rate settings could make for many senior SCA homeowners during the next decade!   And, what about those millions of dollars of accumulated surplus assessments owed to the members?  When will they be coming?

You may be wondering why the assessments have been routinely over-charged for so many years?  The board’s lame excuse is that because it is “about average” for the Las Vegas area.   But, that is a bogus reason!  That is a for-profit corporate concept that does not apply to this HOA.

The laws allow the board to collect from members what is actually needed to operate and maintain the community properties.  The laws do not allow HOA boards to get away with grossly over-charging and “profiting” by keeping the surplus assessments for the board to spend.

Due to the unique designs and features of SCA’s community properties, the Board has actual experience that they only need to charge about $800 per year.  So, why don’t they cut the rate instead of plan to increase it?

When you dig into the details, you won’t like the rationale!   In addition, the board is required by State and Federal laws to “return” the millions of accumulated surplus assessments or pay income taxes at the 30% rate.  In spite of having so many CPAs on the board and finance committee, I think you might see why so many members have not been impressed with their performances since 2005.

In addition, imagine how much easier it would be for those who need to sell their SCA units if the board did its duty and cut assessments and maintained them at the proper level of around $800 per year!

SCA could then be viewed as BOTH the best designed senior community, AND the lowest cost/best value age-restricted community in Nevada!  That would come much closer to the “paradise” that certain board members love to claim!

So, tell the Directors you know the truth!   Don’t let them get away with such a flagrant budget deception again.  Demand they return all of the “surplus assessments” as required by law and cut 2011 assessments to $800!

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

September 17, 2010 by admin.

Unfortunately, the suspended attorney operating the Berman blog has posted more hateful distortions that need to be corrected.  Otherwise, he and his buddies will claim he is right because we did not refute his distortions and false statements.

For example, he said during a typically vicious, personal attack on Rana Goodman:

“She also states that she admires Frank and Stebbins for standing up to file their criminal complaints against Roz Berman and Roger Cooper. And although she correctly notes that they have yet to be found guilty of anything, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be given, she said NOT A SINGLE WORD when the police exonerated both Berman and Cooper. So apparently Berman and Cooper are still guilty, even though the police investigation ended and the current case is not about Berman and Cooper.” …

“It’s laughable that some on the Goodman/Arendt blog have expressed umbrage that I referenced Kay Frank’s own unethical past action regarding our website members list around the same time that Kay’s fahter passed away …as if I received a phone call with that news before I posted my comments? Yet neither the Franks or Ms. Goodman ever expressed any empathy for the hundreds of hours of grief Frank and Stebbins put Roz through while their phony complaints were being investigated.”

The following is the truth, and nothing but the truth:

1. It is true that Roz Berman and Roger Cooper, as well as Stebbins and Frank, are all innocent unless  proven guilty in a court of law.  But, if or when Stebbins and Frank are found NOT guilty, a more rigorous investigation of the original report at a higher level may need to finally settle the matter.
2. HPD’s investigation officer (self-acknowledged as insufficiently trained and inexperienced in white collar crime and accounting matters)  reported he was unable to confirm the suspicions reported on by Stebbins and Frank.  So, without using any independent, professional consultant, he chose to believe the board’s story, and concluded the allegations were “unfounded”.  And, by charging Stebbins and Frank with filing a false police report, HPD and the Board blocked them from going to the District Attorney to seek a second opinion on the suspected violations.Here is an independent legal opinion by local attorney, Robert Sullivan, about HPD’s arrest for filing a false police report:
   http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/02/22/independent-legal-analysis-of-arrest/
3. Meanwhile, we know the IRS would not be auditing the corporation’s tax returns if there were not some serious questions involving large sums of money concerning compliance with tax laws.   If you have not seen them, Ron Johnson’s articles on this topic provide useful information and insight:
   http://www.scaview.org/The%20IRSTaxAuditII.html
   http://www.scaview.org/The%20IRSTaxAudit.html
4. While it is impossible to discuss the details of the formal case while it is being tried, Ron Johnson’s personal investigation and reports can be useful.  He provides some facts and draws some conclusions on how the Henderson PD conducted its investigation, and how it appeared to arrive at its decision.  See these links:
   http://www.scaview.org/UnderArrest.html
   http://www.scaview.org/TextHPDLtrBODt.html
   http://www.scaview.org/FalseReport.html
5. There is nothing “laughable” about Mr. Berman’s personal, hateful vendetta of libelous allegations against Kay Frank for over 2 years.  He unilaterally claimed and commented on perhaps a dozen occasions that he believes something unethical or illegal was done by Kay.  But, no violations of association rules or NRS 116 statutes has ever been claimed by him or the board.   So, exactly what has been his agenda for 2 years of such bogus, relentless attacks?  Does anyone really believe he is singularly qualified to establish SCA rules and public condemnations for “ethical conduct”?

Posted in Truth Squad, Removal Election, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, News! | Print | No Comments »

September 16, 2010 by admin.

(Updated on Saturday, Sept 18)
In case you missed it last night, here is a YouTube clip of the O’Reilly interview for your convenience.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=sharronangle&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_760491#p/u/6/kHQtaXRoBxc

Harry Reid is scheduled on O’Reilly tonight (September 16).  We will link to his clip as soon as it is up to allow you to compare and contrast the two candidates for Senate.

UPDATE:  We understand that Senator Reid canceled his commitment for an O’Reilly interview on FoxNews on September 17, and he has not agreed to a future interview. 

Other Sharron Angle video clips can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMgBdYyFmOw

We could not find an equivalent website for Harry Reid, but a Google search for “Senator Harry Reid” will produce hundreds of articles.
An interesting one from July 2010 talks about “Senator Harry Reid’s Campaign Forced to Take Down Deceptive Website”.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25042

Posted in Outside Politics | Print | No Comments »

September 14, 2010 by admin.

While Kay Frank is away, tending to the burial arrangements of her recently passed, 92-year-old, WWII Veteran (B-17 crew member) father, the “little guy” exploits this time of Kay’s intense emotional stress to take yet another cheap shot.   He wrote:

“Nevada Revised Statute 116, which includes reference to removal-election petitions and removal elections, contains no limitations on the methods that may be employed to collect petition signatures, so it would appear that the signature gatherers are operating within their rights, assuming they are residents, in using the online address book for this purpose.

It is definitely not analogous to the situation of a couple of years ago when resident Kay Frank improperly advised a Board candidate on how his non-resident consultant could gain access to the website by pretending to be the candidate’s wife.“

That has always been a willfully false/distorted claim of concern to no one but the little guy.  Kay Frank was never accused by the board of any violations, or subjected to a kangaroo court.  History proves that if the board could have charged her with some violations, they would have.  “Innocent until proven guilty” means nothing to the disgraced, former attorney.

So, why does the little guy continue to repeat such evil claims–particularly during a period of great emotional stress?  Is  knowingly repeating a clearly false claim for the purpose of damaging a person’s ethical reputation a classic case of defamation–or just another cheap shot?

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

September 10, 2010 by admin.

You may know by now that the Board’s law firm (Leach, Johnson, Song & Gruchow) notified Norman McCullough’s attorney that the Board had found him “guilty” of one of the two charges, and that his punishment was (1) to be barred from using our common facilities for 6 months, and (2) required to pay $564 of the association’s legal expenses.

With Norm McCullough’s permission, see a plain text version of the notification letter at the end of this posting.

But, how can one be found “guilty” of a bogus charge that does not violate any statute or SCA governing rules? Even worse, how can the board legally assign MAJOR penalities by barring a member for 6 months from “common” facilities without following the lawful procedures required before assessing such a punishment?

Answer:  The board cannot legally enforce its action because Norman McCullough has not been legally found guilty of anything.  And, we welcome current and former attorneys to correct us if, we are mistaken in coming to that conclusion!

In the meantime, with the compelling evidence available, the McCulloughs have the right to continue using all “community facilities”–including accessing their own home!

Why do we say that?  The Board’s/law firm’s action and punishment are so outrageously wrong that they do not even recognize the difference between the “common areas associated with the 3 SCA “Centers” and the “common areas” surrounding the McCullough villa home!

Article III, Section 3.6 has only to do with activities by “persons using the Common Area or to the Occupants and invitees of other Lots“.  These are the “common areas” between, among and surrounding the 164 villa owner properties.   The cited Section III of the CC&Rs has NOTHING to do with the Anthem Center facilities!

If Norman had truly, intentionally “assaulted” someone in the villa areas, he might have been eligible for a complaint under Section III by another homeowner, but certainly not by an RMI contractor. If a RMI contractor is assaulted in the areas between the villas, they must file with local law enforcement.  Contractors are not bound or have redress under the SCA CC&Rs.

So, if you were the McCulloughs, would you comply with a bogus/half-baked direction that prohibits you from using the grassy areas surrounding your home?  What about the common area that includes the driveway?  Not exception was included to allow access to his garage!

What kind of incompetent attorneys and other directors are sitting on the SCA board and handling our legal affairs?  They all can not claim to be suffering from senility.  This is perfect evidence of gross negligence and incompetence by them all–including the licensed Community Manager that went along with the statute violations, and Vice President Berman.  She is intimately familiar with the statute details for punishing member misconduct since she and her husband have been previously accused (but not punished) of similar or worse conduct.

Bottom Line:  Norman McCullough has NOT been”legally” found guilty of any statute or community governing rules.  In the meantime, he can not be denied access to his own home or other any other SCA community property.

The next step is for Norman McCullough and his friends to demand that the Nevada Real Estate Division direct the SCA Board (and its self-acknowledged, incompetent law firm) to

(1) immediately reverse its actions, and

(2) immediately reimburse Norman McCullough’s legal expenses.

————————————-

Plain text of notification letter follows:

———start of letter————

LEACH JOHNSON SONG & GRUCHOW
Nicole Guralny, Esq. nguralnygleachjohnson.corn
September 1, 2010
Via Email & U.S. Mail
Ryan Hamilton, Esq.
2505 Anthem Village Drive
Suite E-137
Henderson, NV 89052
RyanAndrewHamilton@gmail.com
NOTICE OF RESULT OF HEARING
Re: Norman McCullough —2620 Peoria Avenue
Sun City Anthem Community Association
Dear Mr. Hamilton;

As you are aware this firm serves as legal counsel for the Sun City Anthem Community
Association (the “Association). The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the results the August 26, 2010 hearing before the Board of Directors (”Board”).

First, the Board would like to thank your client Norman McCullough for being present the hearing along with counsel. The audio-tape, along with Mr. McCullough’s testimony, your argument and the affidavits of Caren Carrero, Skyler Jewell, and Dan Forgeron were taken account in the Board’s final determination as to the alleged violations for which Mr. McCullough was called into hearing. The Board appreciates you and your client’s participation in this matter. It must also be noted that at the time of the Board’s deliberations regarding subject violations, Board members, Roz Berman and Dan Forgeron, recused themselves and not participate in the decision of this matter.

Pursuant to the Clark County Nevada Assessor’s Office, The Goldman Family Trust the owner of the property located at 2620 Peoria Ave., Henderson, Nevada, APN# 191-12-610-121 (the “Subject Property”), and Mary Belle McCullough is its trustee. The Subject Property is located within the Sun City Anthem development (the “Community”) and therefore is subject to the use restrictions as set forth in the Third Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation for Sun City Anthem (the “Declaration”) and Association Rules and Regulations (”Rules and Regulations”).

The Board determined that there was no violation of Article IV, Sections 3, 5, 6, and the Rules and Regulations, as these sections of the Rules and Regulations were removed in updated 2009 version of the Rules and Regulations.

Ryan Hamilton, Esq.
September 1, 2010
Page 2

Article III, Section 3.6 of the Declaration states, in pertinent part, that: No obnoxious, illegal, or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any portion of the Properties, which in the Board’s reasonable determination tends to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance, or nuisance to persons using the Common Area or to the Occupants and invitees of other Lots.

The Board determined that on May 27, 2010, Mr. McCullough inappropriately jabbed the Association’s then Community Manager, Caren Carrero, in the shoulder and that such conduct amounted to an offensive activity in violation of Article III, Section 3.6 of the Declaration. Given the unwarranted and physical nature of the violation, the Board determined that it is reasonable that McCullough’s usage of the Association’s Common Areas be suspended for a period six (6) months commencing on September 3, 2010. Accordingly, Mr. McCullough may not utilize the Association’s facilities during the time of the suspension which is from September 3, 2010 until March 3, 2010.

In addition to the foregoing, Mr. McCullough is also responsible for the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the Association for enforcing its governing documents and obtaining compliance. Specifically, NRS 116.3115(6) provides that any common expense caused by the misconduct of a unit’s owner, may be assessed exclusively against that unit’s owners. Thus, Mr. McCullough is also responsible for legal fees and costs incurred for the preparation of this letter and for legal counsel’s attendance at the hearing in the amount of $564. Your time and attention to this matter are very much appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

cc: The Board of Directors

——end of letter——–

Posted in Ann_Small, Removal Election, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Laws & Rules, Other | Print | 2 Comments »

September 10, 2010 by admin.

With the mounting evidence of flagrant abuse of power and allegations of suspected fraud going on against the SCA Board, the question has been asked:  “Can the State Ombudsman suspend a director that is under investigation?”

Answer: no.

The governmental chain of authority (Ombudsman Office, Real Estate Division, Governor) cannot interfere with a corporate director’s duties without following the lawful due process involving allegations, investigations, hearing and judgment by the Commission for Common Interest Communities, or by a court of law. In both cases, those processes usually take years to complete.

On, the other hand, the laws provide that corporate share-holders (i.e., home owners) can conduct a “removal election” for one or more unacceptable directors. The removal process can be completed in a matter of a few weeks–if over 17.5% of the members vote in favor of removal.

That internal process protects the rights of the owners, and allows action to be completed fairly quickly. It has been effective in many NV homeowner associations in the past decade. And, when it looks like they are likely to be “removed” in an election, volunteer directors can elect to resign in lieu of being forcibly rejected by neighbors.

Of course, when there are suspicions of illegal behavior by directors, citizens are required by law to “report” on such concerns to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.  Citizen(s) are not required to prove their concerns–that is the job of law enforcement.

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

September 3, 2010 by THE VOICE.

Since other blogs are discouraging political comments about the local, state and national government elections, Anthem VOICE Blog has elected to encourage such partisan and non-partisan exchanges among Sun City Anthem members.

The initial rules will be:

1. Anonymous posting will not be permitted.
2. Any Sun City Anthem homeowner can post–after registering using their real name and related “nickname”.  Each  registration will be validated for accuracy of name and email before an original post is released to the blog.
3. The focus will be on the facts and individual opinions about local, state and national issues and candidates.
4. Comments about SCA and other HOA political issues and board candidates will be moved to other categories.
5. Vulgar, obscene, defamatory language, unsubstantiated allegations, and personal attacks will not be released for viewing.
6. Verbatim re-posting of other persons opinions and obvious copyright violations will be blocked, but open links to supporting web site materials will be allowed.

These rules will be updated as needed in the future.

Posted in SCA Board, Truth Squad, Outside Politics, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, News!, Operations, Other | Print | No Comments »

September 3, 2010 by kayfrank.

Rana Goodman posted on AnthemToday:  “The Southern Hills Republican Women are bringing Sharron Angle to our neighborhood so you can hear the full and complete thought of what was said and ask your questions before voting day.”  …  “LOCATION: Buckman’s Grill, 2600 Hampton Road, Henderson, NV 89052.   Come early and meet your friends, the Guest Speaker and other candidates. Lunch is served (September 28) at 11:30.  Make your $22.00 check payable to SHRW and mail it to: Donna Lakers, 1817 Tarrant City Drive Henderson, NV 89052 616-0056.  Or, drop off your check in the mail box by the door at: 2001 Di Pinto Avenue, at the corner of Hampton and Di Pinto.  Deadline for reservations is Sept 22nd.”

————————————–

AV agrees that citizens should go see Candidate Angle in person–when ever you can.  Forget about the political party positions.  Ask Sharon Angle the hardest questions you can, and listen to her replies. Women in particular need to filter out the partisan, chauvinist, progressive spinning heard and seen everywhere you turn.  Make up your own mind about what you think is the truth.

Angle won her primary in a big surprise to party leaders.  Her fundamental honesty, ethics and Judeo-Christian principles helped her rise above the dirty politics and reach the rank and file voters.   She overcame the power brokers and massive media bias and won the trust of those she personally contacted during her grassroots campaigning all over Nevada. Even large numbers of registered Democrats were supporting her primary efforts.  That same grass roots style will serve her well in the future.

Sharron reminds us of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, but she is the real thing. She shows Americans who are seeking honest, ethical representation in Washington that she is worthy of our trust.  And, after you have taken your own measure of this honorable woman (wife, mother, teacher and civic volunteer) make a list of the issues you can agree with.

Do the same for our national progressive leader from NV–Mr. Reid. Your list favoring Sharron Angle is highly likely to be many times longer, and you are likely to agree that our State will lose nothing by replacing Mr. Reid with someone who is not apparently corrupted by decades of tainted money and global power brokering.

Looking back 12 years, most citizens in N V could agree that NV was MUCH better off before Reid became Senate Majority Leader.  Only he seems to have benefited from his Senate leadership position.   As Sharron has said, “we can’t stand any more of Harry Reid’s help!”  I believe that Harry Reid is a losing bet for the future of our families and our Nation.

Don’t miss the chance to see and hear Sharron Angle on Tuesday, Sept. 28@1130. Due to the very limited space, reservations are absolutely essential.  And, no other venue offers the easy access and relaxed environment provided by the Southern Nevada Republican Women’s Club Luncheons in Buckman’s.

Posted in Outside Politics, Operations | Print | No Comments »