Archive for March 2011
Could Living in an HOA be Hazadorus to Your Health?
March 31, 2011 by admin.
Tenured psychology professor at the College of Southern Nevada, Dr. Gary Solomon, believes recent medical research proves that dictatorial HOA Board abuse against homeowners can create serious mental and stress illnesses–particularly among seniors.
And, the following snapshots of his signs, web sites, and local TV coverage shows he and a group of others with similar interests have set upon a path to do something about it.
Click here for a short article: HOA Syndrome
See the following websites for more information:
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/27376288/detail.html
http://www.ktnv.com/story/13966867/hoa-hall-of-shame-sun-city-anthem#
No doubt many will consider this to be really bad news concerning the potential adverse affects on HOA homeowner property values where homeowners are making public complaints.
Developers, real estate brokers and some homeowners believe that all such bad news stories must be suppressed to protect community home values, but such self-centered, cover up attempts fail to solve any problems. They just put off the inevitable and create much worse problems.
The obvious solution is to remove abusive and incompetent board members and work to ensure that only trustworthy directors are elected in the future.
Resolving conflicts to mutual satisfaction WITHIN the community is the only way to achieve exceptional lifestyle opportunities, maintain outstanding community morale, and grow property values ahead of market averages.
Our Sun City Anthem homeowners need to wake up and recognize we have a very serious problem with board misconduct. Trying to keep a lid on the SCA board’s misconduct has proven to be unworkable.
A perfect example of what NOT to do is the current income tax fiasco. Consider the long-term impacts of a case like our Board’s attempting to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of hard-earned dues money to try to bully the IRS into giving us a tax credit for their obvious mistakes. What an outrageous act of disrespect and dishonor to our homeowners!
At the rate the “unity boards” are going, Sun City Anthem in Henderson, NV will be long remembered for allowing its boards to do such really dumb things as to pay millions of dollars in taxes out of the many millions required to be refunded to members.
Excuse me? Give away taxes to the Government on money required to be REFUNDED each year to unit owners? Even the best of con men can not make any sense out of that garbage!
We have to wonder, will our community become so notorious that it is studied in future management schools and forever ridiculed for electing such dictatorial, insensitive people to the board, year-after-year-after-year?
The question will be: “Why did we tolerate such mismanagement?” Were we intimidated and bullied into submission as the HOA Syndrome seems to suggest?
It is common for abused people to continue to tolerate abuse until it gets so bad that some type of major blowup occurs. Let’s hope we can do better in this year’s election and avoid a blowup. Having to consider calling for a recall election to get the board focused on working for us homeowners is much more work than getting trustworthy people elected in the first place.
Posted in 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, Truth Squad, Community Affairs, SCA Board, Operations | Print | No Comments »
HOA Advocate Gazette Features SCA Stories
March 28, 2011 by admin.
Diane Gerber’s “HOA Advocate Gazette” has picked up on and featured the Henderson “false arrest” story about Tim Stebbins and Bob Frank.
It also highlights Johnathan Freiderick’s report on the “3 amigas”
Kay Dwyer, Celeste Bove and Roz Berman Testifying–photo by D. A. Berman
who showed up to reveal to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the thousands watching via Internet streaming media as the hateful and self-centered people they are.
Their shockingly anti-homeowner and incompassionate attitudes were exposed in this highly public environment and has been recorded via the Internet. Such egotistic behavior is usually reserved for the home crowd attending board meetings, and when socializing among the community members who enjoy kowtowing to them.
Web Version: http://www.universitycresthoa.com/HOAadvocateGazette/Issue4.html
PDF File Version of the Gazette: HOA Advocate Gazette Volume 1, Issue 4
Posted in 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Special Events, Community Affairs, Clubs & SIGs | Print | No Comments »
Attorney General to Prosecute SCA Boards on April 26, 2011
March 27, 2011 by bobfrank.
On March 24, 2011 the Nevada Real Estate Division notified the Sun City Anthem Community Association that the Attorney General would serve as the Prosecuting Attorney at a hearing of the Nevada Commission for Common Interest Communities and Condominiums on April 26, 2011.
The alleged violation by the two boards in 2008 was to twice vote to illegally modify the SCA CC&Rs. Board President was Roz Berman, and the basic work accused of violating statutes was performed by association attorney John Leach.
This is a historic event as this will be the first of close to 100 alleged SCA Board statute violations brought to trial/hearing before the CIC Commission. It has taken about 3 years to reach this point.
For members who are interested, I served on that board and vigorously objected to what I believed to be highly improper (if not illegal) changes to the CC&Rs being promoted by attorney Leach. I was the only director voting NO on both board votes. However, I had nothing to do with the filing of the case leading to this prosecution.
Since I will have to explain to the Commission my objections and NO vote against the board majority votes to approve the alleged violations, I must save those explanations until after the hearing.
Meanwhile, the hearing before the CIC Commission should be a very interesting situation. At least 4 of the Commissioners have potentially serious conflicts of interests with the other directors, and are likely to have to recuse themselves on this case.
At this time, only the basic affidavits have been scanned in and attached to this posting. The exhibits will be added as time permits.
Download: Attorney General Charges
Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Clubs & SIGs, Laws & Rules, News! | Print | No Comments »
Election Laws Violation–Filed Against SCA Board
March 27, 2011 by bobfrank.
The Board of Directors and Election Committee has been accused of knowingly and willfully violating NRS 116 laws governing board elections.
They have refused to send out candidate information sheets 30 days before the ballot packages are mailed. This failure not only violates the law, it is unfair to first-time candidates and candidates who are promoting platforms that oppose the board’s policies and practices.
Here are copies of the basic documents filed with the NV Real Estate Division:
Affidavit
a-26mar11_certified-letter-to-sca-board.pdf
b-nred_election_rules.pdf
c-sca-2011-community-election-calendar.pdf
d-sca-2011candidates-election-calendar.pdf
e-page-7-of-2011-sca-election-manual.pdf
f-page-16-of-2011-sca-election-manual.pdf
Posted in 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, Truth Squad, Laws & Rules, SCA Board, Operations | Print | No Comments »
What Does Duty, Honor, County Mean To You?
March 26, 2011 by bobfrank.
The below article was received from Davis Leonard. While all veterans and their direct family members are not able
to share the spirit, honor and traditions of the vast majority of USMC members and their families, we share a common
bond as fellow warriors who signed the “blank check to our Nation” by serving in combat.
This story deserves special mention at this time for the residents who continue to support those in our community
who truly understand the meaning of honor and prove it by doing what is right–regardless of the personal
sacrifices, humiliations and disrespect heaped on them for just telling the truth.
————–
Burial at Sea
by LtCol George Goodson, USMC (Ret)
In my 76th year, the events of my life appear to me, from time to time, as a series of vignettes.
Some were significant; most were trivial…
War is the seminal event in the life of everyone that has endured it. Though I fought in Korea
and the Dominican Republicand was wounded there, Vietnam was my war.
Now 42 years have passed and, thankfully, I rarely think of those days in Cambodia, Laos, and
the panhandle of North Vietnam where small teams of Americans and Montangards fought much
larger elements of the North Vietnamese Army. Instead I see vignettes: some exotic, some mundane:
*The smell of Nuc Mam.
*The heat, dust, and humidity.
*The blue exhaust of cycles clogging the streets.
*Elephants moving silently through the tall grass.
*Hard eyes behind the servile smiles of the villagers.
*Standing on a mountain in Laos and hearing a tiger roar.
*A young girl squeezing my hand as my medic delivered her baby.
*The flowing Ao Dais of the young women biking down Tran Hung Dao.
*My two years as Casualty Notification Officer in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.
It was late 1967. I had just returned after 18 months in Vietnam. Casualties were increasing.
I moved my family from Indianapolis to Norfolk, rented a house, enrolled my children in their
fifth or sixth new school, and bought a second car.
A week later, I put on my uniform and drove 10 miles to Little Creek, Virginia. I hesitated
before entering my new office. Appearance is important to career Marines. I was no longer,
if ever, a poster Marine. I had returned from my third tour in Vietnam only 30 days before.
At 5′9″, I now weighed 128 pounds - 37 pounds below my normal weight. My uniforms fit
ludicrously, my skin was yellow from malaria medication, and I think I had a twitch or two.
I straightened my shoulders, walked into the office, looked at the nameplate on a Staff Sergeant’s
desk and said, “Sergeant Jolly, I’m Lieutenant Colonel Goodson. Here are my orders and my
Qualification Jacket.”
Sergeant Jolly stood, looked carefully at me, took my orders, stuck out his hand; we shook
and he asked, “How long were you there, Colonel?” I replied “18 months this time.” Jolly
breathed, you must be a slow learner Colonel.” I smiled.
Jolly said, “Colonel, I’ll show you to your office and bring in the Sergeant Major. I said, “No,
let’s just go straight to his office.” Jolly nodded, hesitated, and lowered his voice, “Colonel, the
Sergeant Major. He’s been in this job two years. He’s packed pretty tight. I’m worried about him.”
I nodded.
Jolly escorted me into the Sergeant Major’s office. “Sergeant Major, this is Colonel Goodson, the
new Commanding Office. The Sergeant Major stood, extended his hand and said, “Good to see
you again, Colonel.” I responded, “Hello Walt, how are you?” Jolly looked at me, raised an eyebrow,
walked out, and closed the door.
I sat down with the Sergeant Major. We had the obligatory cup of coffee and talked about mutual
acquaintances. Walt’s stress was palpable. Finally, I said, “Walt, what’s the h-ll’s wrong?” He turned
his chair, looked out the window and said, “George, you’re going to wish you were back in Nam before
you leave here. I’ve been in the Marine Corps since 1939. I was in the Pacific 36 months, Korea for
14 months, and Vietnam for 12 months… Now I come here to bury these kids. I’m putting my letter in.
I can’t take it anymore.” I said, “OK Walt. If that’s what you want, I’ll endorse your request for retirement
and do what I can to push it through Headquarters Marine Corps.”
Sergeant Major Walt Xxxxx retired 12 weeks later. He had been a good Marine for 28 years, but he had
seen too much death and too much suffering. He was used up.
Over the next 16 months, I made 28 death notifications, conducted 28 military funerals, and made 30
notifications to the families of Marines that were severely wounded or missing in action. Most of the
details of those casualty notifications have now, thankfully, faded from memory. Four, however, remain.
MY FIRST NOTIFICATION
My third or fourth day in Norfolk, I was notified of the death of a 19 year old Marine. This notification came
by telephone from Headquarters Marine Corps. The information detailed:
*Name, rank, and serial number.
*Name, address, and phone number of next of kin.
*Date of and limited details about the Marine’s death.
*Approximate date the body would arrive at the Norfolk Naval Air Station.
*A strong recommendation on whether the casket should be opened or closed.
The boy’s family lived over the border in North Carolina, about 60 miles away… I drove there in a
Marine Corps staff car. Crossing the state line into North Carolina, I stopped at a small country
store / service station / Post Office. I went in to ask directions.
Three people were in the store.. A man and woman approached the small Post Office window.
The man held a package. The Storeowner walked up and addressed them by name, “Hello John.
Good morning Mrs. Cooper.”
I was stunned. My casualty’s next-of-kin’s name was John Cooper!
I hesitated, then stepped forward and said, “I beg your pardon. Are you Mr. and Mrs. John Cooper
of (address.)
The father looked at me-I was in uniform - and then, shaking, bent at the waist, he vomited. His wife
looked horrified at him and then at me. Understanding came into her eyes and she collapsed in
slow motion. I think I caught her before she hit the floor.
The owner took a bottle of whiskey out of a drawer and handed it to Mr. Cooper who drank. I answered
their questions for a few minutes. Then I drove them home in my staff car. The storeowner locked the
store and followed in their truck. We stayed an hour or so until the family began arriving.
I returned the store owner to his business. He thanked me and said, “Mister, I wouldn’t have your job
for a million dollars.” I shook his hand and said; “Neither would I.”
I vaguely remember the drive back to Norfolk. Violating about five Marine Corps regulations, I drove the
staff car straight to my house. I sat with my family while they ate dinner, went into the den, closed the
door, and sat there all night, alone.
My Marines steered clear of me for days. I had made my first death notification.
THE FUNERALS
Weeks passed with more notifications and more funerals. I borrowed Marines from the local Marine
Corps Reserve and taught them to conduct a military funeral: how to carry a casket, how to fire the volleys
and how to fold the flag.
When I presented the flag to the mother, wife, or father, I always said, “All Marines share in your grief.”
I had been instructed to say, “On behalf of a grateful nation….” I didn’t think the nation was grateful, so I
didn’t say that.
Sometimes, my emotions got the best of me and I couldn’t speak. When that happened, I just handed
them the flag and touched a shoulder. They would look at me and nod. Once a mother said to me, “I’m
so sorry you have this terrible job.” My eyes filled with tears and I leaned over and kissed her.
ANOTHER NOTIFICATION
Six weeks after my first notification, I had another. This was a young PFC. I drove to his mother’s house.
As always, I was in uniform and driving a Marine Corps staff car. I parked in front of the house, took a
deep breath, and walked towards the house. Suddenly the door flew open, a middle-aged woman rushed
out. She looked at me and ran across the yard, screaming “NO! NO! NO! NO!”
I hesitated. Neighbors came out. I ran to her, grabbed her, and whispered stupid things to reassure her.
She collapsed. I picked her up and carried her into the house.. Eight or nine neighbors followed. Ten or
fifteen later, the father came in followed by ambulance personnel. I have no recollection of leaving.
The funeral took place about two weeks later. We went through the drill. The mother never looked at me.
The father looked at me once and shook his head sadly.
ANOTHER NOTIFICATION
One morning, as I walked in the office, the phone was ringing. Sergeant Jolly held the phone up
said, “You’ve got another one, Colonel.” I nodded, walked into my office, picked up the phone, took notes,
thanked the officer making the call, I have no idea why, and hung up. Jolly, who had listened, came in with
a special Telephone Directory that translates telephone numbers into the person’s address and place of
employment.
The father of this casualty was a Longshoreman. He lived a mile from my office. I called the
Union Office and asked for the Business Manager. He answered the phone, I told him who I was, and
asked for the father’s schedule.
The Business Manager asked, “Is it his son?” I said nothing. After a moment, he said, in a low voice,
“Tom is at home today.” I said, “Don’t call him. I’ll take care of that.” The Business Manager said, “Aye,
Aye Sir,” and then explained, “Tom and I were Marines in WWII.”
I got in my staff car and drove to the house. I was in uniform. I knocked and a woman in her early forties
answered the door. I saw instantly that she was clueless. I asked, “Is Mr. Smith home?” She smiled
pleasantly and responded, “Yes, but he’s eating breakfast now. Can you come back later?” I said, “I’m
sorry. It’s important. I need to see him now.”
She nodded, stepped back into the beach house and said, “Tom, it’s for you.”
A moment later, a ruddy man in his late forties, appeared at the door. He looked at me, turned absolutely
pale, steadied himself, and said, “Jesus Christ man, he’s only been there three weeks!”
Months passed. More notifications and more funerals. Then one day while I was running, Sergeant Jolly
stepped outside the building and gave a loud whistle, two fingers in his mouth… I never could do that and
held an imaginary phone to his ear.
Another call from Headquarters Marine Corps. I took notes, said, “Got it.” and hung up. I had stopped saying
“Thank You” long ago.
Jolly, “Where?”
Me, “Eastern Shore of Maryland. The father is a retired Chief Petty Officer. His brother will accompany the
body back from Vietnam…”
Jolly shook his head slowly, straightened, and then said, “This time of day, it’ll take three hours to get there and
back. I’ll call the Naval Air Station and borrow a helicopter. And I’ll have Captain Tolliver get one of his men to
meet you and drive you to the Chief’s home.”
He did, and 40 minutes later, I was knocking on the father’s door. He opened the door, looked at me, then
looked at the Marine standing at parade rest beside the car, and asked, “Which one of my boys was it, Colonel?”
I stayed a couple of hours, gave him all the information, my office and home phone number and told him to call
me, anytime.
He called me that evening about 2300 (11:00PM). “I’ve gone through my boy’s papers and found his will. He
asked to be buried at sea. Can you make that happen?” I said, “Yes I can, Chief. I can and I will.”
My wife who had been listening said, “Can you do that?” I told her, “I have no idea. But I’m going to break my
ass trying.”
I called Lieutenant General Alpha Bowser, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, at home about
2330, explained the situation, and asked, “General, can you get me a quick appointment with the Admiral at
Atlantic Fleet Headquarters?” General Bowser said,” George, you be there tomorrow at 0900. He will see you.
I was and the Admiral did. He said coldly, “How can the Navy help the Marine Corps, Colonel.” I told him the story.
He turned to his Chief of Staff and said, “Which is the sharpest destroyer in port?” The Chief of Staff responded
with a name.
The Admiral called the ship, “Captain, you’re going to do a burial at sea. You’ll report to a Marine Lieutenant Colonel Goodson until this mission is completed…”
He hung up, looked at me, and said, “The next time you need a ship, Colonel, call me. You don’t have to sic Al Bowser
on my ass.” I responded, “Aye Aye, Sir” and got the h-ll out of his office.
I went to the ship and met with the Captain, Executive Officer, and the Senior Chief. Sergeant Jolly and I trained the
ship’s crew for four days. Then Jolly raised a question none of us had thought of. He said, “These government
caskets are air tight. How do we keep it from floating?”
All the high priced help including me sat there looking dumb. Then the Senior Chief stood and said, “Come on Jolly.
I know a bar where the retired guys from World War II hang out.”
They returned a couple of hours later, slightly the worst for wear, and said, “It’s simple; we cut four 12″ holes in the
outer shell of the casket on each side and insert 300 lbs of lead in the foot end of the casket. We can handle that, no sweat.”
The day arrived. The ship and the sailors looked razor sharp. General Bowser, the Admiral, a US Senator, and a
Navy Band were on board. The sealed casket was brought aboard and taken below for modification. The ship got
underway to the 12-fathom depth.
The sun was hot. The ocean flat. The casket was brought aft and placed on a catafalque. The Chaplin spoke. The
volleys were fired. The flag was removed, folded, and I gave it to the father. The band played “Eternal Father Strong
to Save.” The casket was raised slightly at the head and it slid into the sea.
The heavy casket plunged straight down about six feet. The incoming water collided with the air pockets in the outer shell. The casket stopped abruptly, rose straight out of the water about three feet, stopped, and slowly slipped back into the sea. The air bubbles rising from the sinking casket sparkled in the in the sunlight as the casket disappeared from sight forever….
The next morning I called a personal friend, Lieutenant General Oscar Peatross, at Headquarters Marine Corps and said, “General, get me out of here. I can’t take this anymore.” I was transferred two weeks later.
I was a good Marine but, after 17 years, I had seen too much death and too much suffering. I was used up.
Vacating the house, my family and I drove to the office in a two-car convoy. I said my goodbyes. Sergeant Jolly walked
out with me. He waved at my family, looked at me with tears in his eyes, came to attention, saluted, and said, “Well Done,
Colonel. Well Done.”
I felt as if I had received the Medal of Honor!
A veteran is someone who, at one point, wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The United States of America’ for an
amount of ‘up to and including their life.’
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. ”
———————
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, Veterans Affairs, Truth Squad, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Who Tells The Truth?
March 20, 2011 by kayfrank.
David’s Anthem Journal said (in part) today:
“I am certainly not going to support a candidate who charged my wife with criminal acts before she was completely exonerated and who then was himself arrested and charged with filing a false police report.”
Posted by: David Berman | March 13, 2011 at 05:05 PM
Truth: Past Board President Roz Berman and Secretary Roger Cooper and other Board members have NOT been “completely exonerated” from wrong-doing concerning the 2007 SCA income tax disaster.
And, our disgraced “suspended attorney and self-acknowledged forger of a judge’s signature on tax records” has once again lied by writing “charged my wife with criminal acts”.
Bob Frank and Tim Stebbins only filed a well-researched, and thoroughly-documented report of suspected forgery in a possible violation of Nevada Revised Statutes 205. They only asked the Henderson Police Department to investigate their suspicions–as required of citizens when financial wrong-doing concerning other people’s money seems apparent. Even a suspended attorney knows that only the District Attorney can file “charges” on such a possible felony offense.
Truth: The IRS Audit Report notifying the SCA Board it owed $1.345 Million in back income taxes and penalties for 2007 has shown that Tim Stebbins and Bob Frank did NOT knowingly file a false police report.
So, the slow process of the City’s justice system seems certain to eventually “completely exonerate” Stebbins and Frank. And, once again the questions will be: were there State or Federal criminal violations involved with SCA’s 2007 incorrect Income Tax filings? And, who is responsible for the apparent mishandling of millions of dollars of surplus funds that were (falsely) claimed to have been “returned” to members?
The Board members and professional advisers who appear to have made, or went along with making false statements to the Henderson Police Department will be the ones found in the harsh glare of extensive law enforcement investigations and possible District Attorney charges in the future.
Truth: 2008 SCA Board President Roz Berman and directors Shirley Cheri, Roger Cooper, Mike Dixon and Carl Weinstein had the perfect opportunity in June 2008 to avoid all of the millions of income taxes and penalties as reflected in the following document.
SCA Board Rejects Opportunity in June 2008 to Avoid Income Tax Fiasco
Note that this opportunity to resolve the dispute on whether the income tax filings were correct or not was in June 2008. This was 4 months BEFORE the fateful 2007 Income Tax Return that contained apparently false statements.
This is only one of dozens of items of evidence that caused Tim Stebbins and Bob Frank to ask for law enforcement assistance on this matter involving many millions of dollars of SCA funds.
In other words, it is perfectly CLEAR that Tim Stebbins and Bob Frank have always been telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
It also seems perfectly clear that current directors (Jack Troia, Roz Berman, Ann Small, Dan Forgeron, John Waterhouse, Celeste Bove and Jerry Gardberg) have viable options available to allow them to terminate the waste and abuse of SCA funds. But, they seem determined to condemn themselves to share the guilt of past directors and auditor while they help cover up the obvious income tax return mistakes.
Since Troia, Berman and Forgeron would have to recuse themselves (due to irreconcilable conflicts of interest on the tax issues) the remaining four directors could easily stop the madness.
That 4-member board majority could call an emergency board meeting and vote to hire their own 3rd party negotiator (with no conflicts of interest with the board, auditor, attorney or developers) to cut our losses to the bare minimum.
Will you join me in writing and asking for that alternate, smart course of action?
Kay Frank
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, kay_frank, Truth Squad, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Responding To Tax Questions on AnthemToday Blog
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
There are a number of significant statements and questions posting on AnthemToday at this link:
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2641
Here are my comments for Bob Miller and Nelson Orth: If the board was sincere about trying to avoid paying the $1.345 Million in income taxes, what would the odds of success be for the two following strategies?
1. The board’s current plan to pay previously involved “experts” to prove the IRS Revenue Agent is wrong,
versus
2. Admitting the error, refunding the $4+ Millions of accumulated surpluses to residents, asking for relief of paying taxes on the returned surpluses on behalf of our senior citizen owners, and offering to pay a modest penalty of $50,000 for the mistake and inconvenience to IRS.
Since no public evidence or court settlement exists showing that any corporation has defeated the IRS on Revenue Ruling 70-604 income exemption issue during its 40 years of existence, would you agree that option 2 has at least a thousand times better chance of success?
So, whose money is being wasted on the board’s losing bet, and why are they wanting to try to bully the IRS?
What should the penalties be for directors who agree to follow such apparent gross negligence?
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Response to Braveheart’s 17Mar11 Question
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
“Braveheart” (R. B. Inglefield) said on Anthem Today on 17Mar11:
If I ask a question of the entire board, I would ask the president the question. If I want to ask a specific board member a question, it’s because I want to know how they feel as an individual on the question I asked them. In my opinion, we’ve suffered enough BOD “group speak” to last a lifetime. It’s time for SCA to enjoy the luxury of a BOD made up of individuals who vote their conscience, not the party line.
Response to Braveheart: I would like to concur with Braveheart that member questions to a director should be answered by the director.
While a director is obligated to research his/her opinion before sending it to ensure it fairly complies with the official policies or relevant rules, informal questions and answers among members and directors should be a routine matter.
All other directors should usually be cc: copied on the exchanges to allow other directors to comment if they wish. And, summaries of the appropriate exchanges could or should be posted on the SCA website under a “frequently asked questions” section.
If a director has previously disagreed on some policy or financial matter, and lost to the board majority, the director can say so, and inform the member of the rationale used by the majority to make their decision, and of the reasons why he/she could not agree.
It is unwise to want all directors to hide behind ego-based confidentiality when members are usually just wanting to know the truth about an issue.
If a member has identified something that should be placed on the board meeting or a committee meeting agenda for consideration of a change in policy or the budget, the director is obligated to follow through and see that it gets onto the proper agenda and honestly addressed.
Again, I believe Braveheart is correct. His question can provide an opportunity to encourage other candidates to comment. We can see that SCA’s environment has been poisoned by undesirable “group-think” behavior.
We need to elect directors who have the expertise, ethics and self-confidence to deal with members and each other in respectful, honest and compassionate ways.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Norm McCullough’s 19Mar11 Questions
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
I can fully understand why you refuse to use one of the local BLOGs to promote your candidacy for the coming election, but today I noticed your name is mentioned in a new editorial on his BLOG. The BLOG owner said this of all the other candidates; “Rather than living in the past, they are pledged to address current problems but are primarily looking toward the future in terms of what they are hoping to accomplish.“
I’m not aware of ANY pledge that has been made by ANY candidate to ignore the past illegal secret meetings, or the past financial misconduct that has plagued our community (To use your words). It’s been said that those who ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Will you pledge NOT to ignore the mistakes of the past, such as our Federal Income tax debacle, and the growing numbers of residents who have been fined and threatened by our current Law Firm?
My Responses to Norm McCullough:
It will be interesting to see if the candidates promoted on David’s Anthem Journal blog confirm that they ENDORSE the old Unity Mantra of “Rather than living in the past, they are pledged to address current problems but are primarily looking toward the future in terms of what they are hoping to accomplish.”
I doubt any of the candidates will agree with David trying to deceptively slip the discredited unity slogan into their campaigns. But, we should watch to see which ones openly reject it–as I do.
This action by David’s Journal shows that while the widely discredited Unity Party machine is working in stealth mode, it is clearly involved again this year, and some candidates may have made secret deals in return for unity support.
Of course, no competent board candidate could “live in the past” or only “hope” to accomplish something as a SCA director as claimed by David’s Journal. As George Santayana said in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The Unity Party political machine tactic used by David’s Anthem Journal is a good example why I refuse to have anything to do with his blog. That site uses and/or abuses people while helping directors deceive the community about the board’s past financial misconduct.
Unfortunately for us unit owners, the past financial misconduct has involved many more millions than the initially reported $1.345 Million owed in back taxes and penalties. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Open financial issues always exist in multi-million-dollar corporations. They can not be effectively resolved in the future without fully understanding the past circumstances. If someone claims they will only look forward if elected, they should NOT be trusted to manage our money.
And, I believe that members should not allow a candidate to get away with promising to wait to “look into things AFTER they are elected.” There is plenty of time now to formulate valid opinions and make unambiguous commitments on the key issues facing our community. While serving as a director, one rarely gets more than a few days to research the background and formulate an opinion on a board agenda item.
And, despite the deceptive tactic used by most directors, the basic facts concerning SCA’s key policies and prior board decisions are NOT protected by any type of legitimate confidentiality.
Finally, if SCA members would like to stimulate some interesting discussions on the blogs, club forums, or at coffees, encourage candidates to explain why they agree with, disagree with, or prefer to restate my top 10 pledges (listed below).
While these pledges are not the only issues of high concern to our members, they could be used to form an initial framework of long-term policies for the 2011 Board to create the good governance practices that SCA members thought they were going to receive when they purchased their retirement homes.
1. Strictly comply with Nevada Statutes & SCA governing rules
2. Return surplus dues immediately to members to avoid income taxes
3. Honestly implement open & respectful communications with members
4. Fairly enforce community rules and quickly resolve member disputes
5. Ensure dues are cut to the minimum while maintaining quality facilities
6. Replace auditor & attorneys with ones not having conflicts of interest
7. Cut the costs of the community management contract
8. Improve our lifestyle with respectful treatment of all members
9. Require the restaurant facilities to operate on a break-even basis
10. Sponsor monthly surveys via Spirit mailings on member concerns
In addition, I hereby pledge to do everything in my power to stop the board
practice of improperly & illegally conducting unqualified secret board meetings.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Comments On Weinstein’s 18Mar11 Statement
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
Carl said at this link: http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2648&p=5091#p4961,
“I still believe that fliers should be distributed to all three centers. The value exceeds the risk!”
Carl is right. There can be no valid excuse by the Board or Election Committee to prohibit candidate information sheets being placed in all three centers. Imagine Election Committee Chair Mary Bruner’s thinking when she requires members to visit the Anthem Center to obtain candidate information because otherwise it inconveniences RMI and the EC.
This kind of unreasonable ruling is symptomatic of other arbitrary, unfair and improper Election Committee dictates. This and other EC policies clearly violate the rights of both SCA members and candidates. For example, Nevada Law NRS116.31034.12 says:
An association shall not adopt any rule or regulation that has the effect of prohibiting or unreasonably interfering with a candidate in the candidate’s campaign for election as a member of the executive board, except that the candidate’s campaign may be limited to 90 days before the date that ballots are required to be returned to the association.
But, it is up to the membership to demand respectful treatment by EC Chair Mary Bruner, RMI and the Directors. The candidates have little authority unless or until elected. If those who normally use the Independence Center and Liberty Center do not care if they are disadvantaged, then nothing will change.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Dick Arendt 18Mar11 Questions
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
There will be three remaining existing board members following this election, one of which, will be our current treasurer, DAN FORGERON.
Rumor has it that he has been “groomed’ to replace Jack Troia as the next president of our association. Mr. Forgeron was a member of the Finance Committee that unanimously approved the IRS 2007 IRS filing that resulted in our current audit whereby we have been assessed $1,345,000 in back federal income taxes, penalties, and interest.
In addition it has been VERIFIED that he, along with fellow directors Jack Troia & Roz Berman, WITHHELD integral background information from other board members, prior to voting acceptance of Audra Tubin for our restaurant ownership:
IF ELECTED to our board, and if Mr. Forgeron expresses interest in the presidency, WOULD YOU SUPPORT DAN FORGERON to be president of our association?
My Responses to Dick’s 18Mar11 Questions:
No. I do not see how anyone could support Mr. Forgeron for any board officer position. In fact, it is hard to envision how he can complete his 2011 term considering the very long list of serious mistakes in judgment he has amassed since his Finance Committee days in 2008.
I will leave up to others to list all of the many reasons why Dan Forgeron should not continue to be a board officer. Our main focus for now could be his personal roles since 2008 leading up to the $1.345 Million tax bill for 2007 and likely additional taxes and penalties for subsequent years.
The attached letters show that even as late as November 2009 he knew the board had failed to comply with Federal Tax Rules. But, as Treasurer and as a Director/leader on tax matters, he failed to act properly. Had he acted before the IRS Revenue Agent had arrived, we probably could have avoided the current fiasco.
With such clear evidence of his inability to be trusted, it is hard to understand how anyone would allow him to continue to have any authority over our community properties and finances.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Dick Arendt Questions–8-13 Mar 2011
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
Dick Arendt Asked on 8Mar11: Assuming no illegal activity has taken place, if a club or service group elects a leader, should a Board of Directors have the authority to override that decision, and refuse to seat that individual as it’s leader?
ALSO
Does a board have the right to demand to see actual vote totals of any club’s elections summarizing the number of votes each candidate received prior to seating any individual as their leader? If so, please cite the CCR’s regulation that permits that action in both cases. Thank you.
Response to Dick Arendt’s 8Mar11 Questions:
Dick, thank you for your questions. They get to the heart of some important issues in this community.
1. Concerning “refuse to seat that individual as it’s leader?”:
No. Once a Committee, Club or Service Group has elected its leaders from among its membership, the board should accept and support them. The Board should help its service group leaders and volunteer members be successful through POSITIVE leadership. Volunteerism is seriously damaged when the board is engaged in manipulating a group’s leadership.
2. Concerning “does a board have the right to demand to see actual vote totals of any club’s elections?”:
Yes and no. Everyone has the right to see the vote results, but not the ballots. Secret ballot elections are intended to protect the privacy rights of the voters–not the results. All SCA elections should implement procedures to assure candidates and the voters for that election process it was honest, and that the results could be quickly audited/verified by a disinterested 3rd party.
The Board’s liaison member could observe the ballot counting process from a distance, but not be involved in the actual counting.
Unfortunately, SCA members also have a community-wide issue with secret ballot handling practices. Our community does not faithfully implement a valid “secret” board election as required by law. Last year was a total disaster, and once again this year there are radically new, last minute, and untested ballot handling and counting procedures for the board election.
If we are to trust the results, our members must be demanding far better election planning and processing practices from RMI, Election Committee and the Board. None of those individuals should be allowed to take offense at being questioned. They should be proud to show and tell about how they are guaranteeing absolute integrity in the election results.
Dick Arendt 13Mar11 Questions About Communications:
I believe that lack of communication is perhaps one of the biggest problems that we face today in our community. So many decisions are made behind closed doors, and as a result, apathy has been the result.
Do you feel that to be the case, and if so, how would you promote open communication within our community in order to reduce it? Do you feel that all emails sent to board members should receive a response?
My Responses To Dick Arendt:
Thank you for pressing this issue as the solution involves more than just simplistic promises from yet another batch of new directors. I apologize for such a long response, but I can not help but be passionate about truly “fixing” this chronic problem.
Of course, all correspondence with the board should be answered in respectful and professional styles. All members are equal, and the board members should demonstrate they know they came from the membership, and eventually they must return to being just another member.
Candidate promises to “improve communications” are often well-intentioned, but extremely difficult to implement. Every candidate ever elected to our board has promised to “improve communications”, but few were able to make tangible improvements during their terms.
I learned as a former director that the cause of the reversal of candidate promises vs. director actions has been the controlling influence from the association attorney, RMI management, CAI training, and the carry-over board member influence. New directors are told they MUST favor the “corporation’s interests” over the interests of the membership that elected them.
They are told they MUST function as a “corporate board team” versus a “shareholder leadership team”. Directors are wrongfully instructed they have only a duty to the lifeless “corporation” and that they must allow members to speak/write, but that directors do not have to listen or respond. This is totally wrong.
New directors are intimidated/bullied into feeling guilty if they dare to speak out in public against the majority will. They are told they are violating their fiduciary duty to the “corporation” if they do not always appear to be a well-oiled, robotic machine that is working in perfect sync and not responding to member complaints or concerns.
They are told that the members do not approve if it appears that there are significant differences of opinion within the board. I passionately believe that members must not be treated like potted plants with no brains and no life experiences.
New directors are also told that a HOA is not a democratic body, and that the US Citizen rights under the Constitutions (US and NV) do not apply to the corporate contract the members signed at time of purchase.
While this is not entirely true, it is also not entirely false. The trick is for smart and compassionate directors to navigate the middle ground, and do what is right for their fellow members.
If a director can not help but follow their conscious and vigorously oppose a bad decision by the majority, the director can be reminded by the “omnipresent controlling force” (the developer’s preferred association attorney–the “minder”) that such an independent/rogue director can be severely embarrassed and punished by the board majority through sustained legal actions and other serious sanctions. I consider this behavior to be a form of extortion.
As a result, you see most directors willfully participating in illegal secret meetings, cover ups of past financial misconduct, and practicing total silence about widespread dissatisfaction with so many board decisions. And, you see that directors never fully respond to complaints or allegations of law violations because the association attorney advises them to keep quiet while he protects them through the government chain. Meanwhile, the SCA HOA web site refuses to allow open and full communications and the association law firm gets wealthy on the backs of our SCA members.
The first step towards implementing professional and respectful communications is to change the secret policy of not listening to members. To do that we have to REPLACE the association attorney with a firm that has no conflicts of interest with the developer and the CAI trade association.
We also have to change the board training by RMI to install the proper balance between concerns over shareholder interests and corporate responsibilities for the common properties.
Directors who are capable of doing that, will be highly successful in implementing open and respectful communications as they will have their priorities aligned properly.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Replies to 3 Member Questions
March 19, 2011 by bobfrank.
My replies to 3 previous questions to me are as follows:
I. Norman McCullough Questions:
Would you vote to stop the Current Board Policy of conducting a Kangaroo Court Hearing (as defined by Wikipedia) that denies any resident the following rights.
1. ) The right to face his accuser in open meeting.
2. ) The right to cross-examine his accuser (or leave it to his/her attorney).
3. ) The right to obtain the information who voted to acquit, and who voted to convict.
4. ) The right to obtain a DETAILED accounting of the money assessed EVEN IF IT WENT TO JOHN LEACH.
5. ) The right to be judged by an impartial body ESPECIALLY if any person has been the subject of any previous NRED complaints by the accused.
6. ) If wrongfully accused of violating a non-existent Code of Conduct, the right to have that person recused from participating in the deliberations ESPECIALLY if asked to do so by an attorney.
My Responses to Norman: Yes, I would vigorously oppose the kinds of board, attorney and community manager misconduct you have listed. In addition, because of my prior SCA Director experience, I know how to initiate action to accomplish more than to just verbally object and/or be a minority vote against such a series of management failures.
In my opinion, it should have been clear to everyone attending the hearing that (a) you were wrongly charged, of (b) violating a non-existent rule, (c) by a person with no standing under our governing documents (RMI manager not being an SCA unit owner), and (d) convicted in secret of violating a different rule than previously charged during the hearing. Worse still, you were arbitrarily denied access to SCA facilities for 6 months and required to pay hundreds of dollars to reimburse the board’s attorney fees.
Since the board’s attorney was responsible for drawing up the bogus charges, the law firm’s invoice for that task should have been rejected by the board, and the attorney should have been blocked from performing any more work for the SCA Board.
Considering the multi-year disputes between you and Mr. Troia over the many villas reserve funds management errors, the other directors should have voted to require the Board President to recuse himself from the voting. The board and the community owes you a deep apology for such misbehavior, and I trust the next board will heal this unjustified wound to our lifestyle. Honorable people should work together to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again in our community.
II. Dick Arendt Questions:
Would you merely retain John Leach as our association attorney, or would you interview other candidates for the position of association attorney? If so, why, if not, why not.
In a related question, when requests are made to RMI in order to examine legal fees paid by SCA, only totals are disclosed. Details are always blacked out. I can understand privacy issues blacking out names of residents which are involved, but other than that, I have never understood why we are not provided a detailed summary of what those bills encompass.
My Responses to Dick: We MUST make a change in law firms. In my opinion, based on 2007-2008 board experience, the single greatest cause of unresolved disputes and open hostility between SCA homeowners and the board is what I have seen to be extraordinarily bad advice and product from the board’s law firm. And, the attorney’s involvement in helping to author the notorious Senate Bill 174 (and others just beginning to surface) is just another example of his anti-homeowner behavior during the past decades.
I believe the board’s law firm is not competent and has irreconcilable conflicts of interest with the SCA developers, other companies, CAI and numerous politicians. I believe the results show the law firm does not favor SCA member interests over any other interests.
It appears to me that not a single negotiation handled by the board’s law firm in the past decade has been settled to SCA member’s benefits. NOT ONE! As a result, SCA members have lost millions, and the law firm has profited hundreds of thousands of dollars. The seemingly abysmal results by the board’s attorneys during the past decade provide compelling evidence that a change MUST be made to a firm that can be relied upon to win disputes on behalf of our homeowners.
Redacting Attorney Invoices? In my opinion, there is no reasonable justification to redact (black out) more than a unit owner’s name and other personal identification data. The statutes do not specifically prohibit the board from doing it, but it is clear that the only one benefiting from such secrecy are the attorneys. So, such actions should be terminated by the new board. In addition, I would advocate that the personal privacy data be replaced by a case number in law firm invoices so that no redaction could be justified.
In addition, I consider it outrageous that the SCA boards have been doing business with its law firm without requiring a contract or engagement letter containing terms and conditions. How could a board ever find its law firm failing in any capacity if there are zero terms and conditions to protect the association? That seems comparable to writing a blank check to the law firm on a monthly basis. It should not be accepted in the future.
III. Forrest Fetherolf Questions:
To date, more than a year later, the current BOD has not required RMI to implement the approved ad hoc purchasing and contracting group guidelines. What would you do now as a Board member to correct this issue? How would you eliminate this from happening again?
My responses to Forrest: Concerning Failure to Implement the 2009 Purchasing & Contracting Group Report? In my opinion, it is gross negligence by the board to allow RMI to refuse to implement the ad hoc group’s report. Failure to implement the key recommendations in that report that the Board approved for implementation should be considered a breech of contract. The new board should issue a “cure notice” to RMI and give them 30 days to fully implement those approved contracting provisions or to show detailed reasons on why such provisions are impractical or not feasible.
We need to be mindful that large management companies like RMI can be receiving financial payments and other benefits in return for the subcontractors receiving favorable awards. Since RMI claims to have over 200 HOAs under contract, it is in a unique position to be tempted to engage in such improper activities. I am not accusing anyone of anything improper, but know from many years of being in the purchasing and contracting career area that the only way to preclude improper behavior is to be ever watchful.
And, one way to avoid such contracting misconduct is to delegate to a director the responsibility and authority to oversee implementation of such purchasing and contracting board decisions–similar to how we assign financial management functions to the “Treasurer”. In addition, I have long advocated that a new standing committee for Purchasing and Contracting be established. It would complement the work of the Properties & Grounds and Finance Committees. During the monthly board meetings, the new committee and its assigned director would report to the full board and the community on RMI’s progress.
If there were failures by the Community Manager to comply with the directions, it would be carefully documented by the new committee and taken up in an executive management session with the RMI CEO and community manager.
After such a meeting, an action plan to correct the contract violation would be prepared and quickly implemented. For the long-run, the Purchasing and Contracting Committee would administer the agreement as chartered by the board. Failure to comply with the agreed action plan schedule and tasks would be a breech of contract and a cause to initiate more formal actions.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board | Print | No Comments »
Stebbins Reminds Senate Judiciary of HOA Member Rights
March 17, 2011 by THE VOICE.
An Anthem VOICE founder, Tim Stebbins, has grave concerns over the tone and substance of many of the proposed law changes concerning homeowner associations, and has written about his concerns to all Senate Judiciary Committee Members as quoted below, and in the attached file.
Tim Stebbins To Senate Judiciary Committee
“TO: Senate Committee on Judiciary March 17, 2011
NRS 116 contains uncodified language stating the basic principles of democracy found in the US Constitution are to be followed. I believe this is very important when considering legislation concerning HOAs.
Fundamental principles of the US Constitution include the three branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial - AND, very important, the separation of powers as a check and balance to protect the people.
HOAs do not have three branches of governance; they only have one - the executive board. Some might see that as similar to an oligarchy.
Without the protections created by the three government branches, the state is obligated to assure proper safeguard of the people, the units’ owners in the case of a HOA.
I believe protections are critical when matters concerning the power of the executive board to impose punishments on units’ owners are considered and written into NRS 116. Such powers must be carefully evaluated and appropriately limited to assure the rights of units’ owners are adequately protected.
There are no qualifications for board members concerning education, training, experience, skills, or anything else. Their ability to fairly and properly determine the guilt or innocence of anyone is dubious at best. Such determinations should be limited to matters of fact such as did or did not the units’ owner pay their assessments, did or did not the units’ owner landscape their property, etc.
When issues go beyond simple matters of fact I hope you will be very careful to protect the rights of units’ owners. Please keep in mind penalties can be very severe involving thousands of dollars and even the loss of the units’ owner’s property.
When matters of law, determinations of the meaning of the law, and judgments concerning violation of the law are involved such as “Misconduct”, “Willful misconduct”, “Negligence”, Gross negligence”, etc. the average board is not qualified. The State should provide, through NRS, for reasonable venues beyond the executive board to consider such matters in order to assure both the rights of individual units’ owners and the rights of the association are honored.
I urge you to review and consider Amendments V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XVI to the US Constitution. I urge you to work with the sponsors of proposed legislation and the LCB to assure language in any bill relating to HOAs considers the rights and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution. For example, wording such as when a fine may imposed vs. when an assessment may be imposed can be critical concerning the jeopardy of the unit’s owner.
If a matter is serious enough for the board to pursue, it should be done in a manner that respects the rights and protections guaranteed to every US citizen and resident.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments,
Tim Stebbins
2106 Alyssa Jade Drive
Henderson, NV 89052
(702) 492-1024
tstebbins1@cox.net”
Posted in 2011 Campaign, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »
3rd Monday Morning (Free) Candidates Forum in AVR
March 14, 2011 by admin.
Reminder:
The 3rd Monday Morning Forum will be held this Monday morning at 8:30. Come early if you want your question to be asked early.
“Coffee or Breakfast with the Board Candidates–Monday March 7th and Following ondays” ome one, come all. Meet six of the SCA Board Candidates and ask them your ard questions. Q & A will begin at 8:30am at Anthem iew Restaurant. Breakfast will be available from 7:45 am. We will provide a sign up sheet for questioners starting at 8am — Questions will be taken in order of signup. Guidelines for the discussion will be read at 8:25am. We are going to rotate the questions to each candidate to balance the opportunities.Each candidate will have two minutes when it is their turn to reply first. Other candidates will have 30 seconds to comment–if they wish. We did this last week and it worked well for both residents and candidates. Please think of questions that any candidate may answer–not just a specific one for one or two candidates.Rich Hogan of Anthem View has said he will provide a breakfast buffet for $7 including meal, resident discount and tax. The buffet will include your coffee. Tip will be extra and optional. Or, residents may order off the menu and lighter fare will be available. While we are encouraging you to have breakfast, Rich says “it is not a requirement.” (The buffet will also be vailable to customers not attending the meeting.) We have a diverse group of candidates so this will give you a chance to get to know them and find out what they think on issues important to you. We all hope to see you there. Please, please call 260-1135 and make your reservation if you intend to place an order. Reservations are needed to assure space,food and staff to make this a great event. “
Posted in 2011 Campaign, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Clubs & SIGs, Operations | Print | No Comments »
What Are The Odds of Success?
March 12, 2011 by bobfrank.
If the board is sincere about trying to avoid paying the $1.345 Million in income taxes, what would the odds of success be for the two following strategies?
1. The board’s current plan to pay previously involved “experts” to prove the IRS Revenue Agent is wrong,
versus
2. Admitting the error, refunding the $4+ Millions of accumulated surpluses to residents, asking for relief of paying taxes on the returned surpluses on behalf of our senior citizen owners, and offering to pay a modest penalty of $50,000 for the mistake and inconvenience to IRS.
Since no public evidence or court settlement exists showing that any corporation has defeated the IRS on Revenue Ruling 70-604 income exemption issue during its 40 years of existence, would you agree that option 2 has at least a thousand times better chance of success?
So, whose money is being wasted on the board’s losing bet, and why are they wanting to try to bully the IRS?
What should the penalties be for directors who agree to follow such apparent gross negligence?
Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Operations, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 1 Comment »
“HOA abuse” March 9th Review-Journal Editorial
March 9, 2011 by admin.
(Updated)
The March 9th Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial is about “HOA Abuse”. Here is a file with the article and some reader comments: HOA abuse & comments
This editorial seems to strike a serious blow against the credibility of the SCA “Unity Party” advocates who seem to believe that the SCA Board does no wrong. It helps to educate SCA voters why they should mistrust unity’s self-serving political machine con that appears to favor the business interests of the developers, attorneys, property manager and auditor over our shareholders–homeowners.
SCA members who have taken so much personal abuse, vicious condemnations, and unfair public ridicule by SCA boards, Finance Committees, Election Committees and unity party leaders for the past few years can now be seen as the honest, ethical, selfless patriots they are.
Imagine that out of the “hundreds” of persons of interest to the FBI, SCA may already have some names on the list. Remember how the current board president and treasurer participated in the 2008 Finance Committee attack against a sitting board member for daring to question the finance committee’s “200 years of expertise”? Since hundreds of years of “financial expertise” within Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Enron, and Madorf scams did not protect those stock holders, it is clear that claiming such training and work expertise is no guarantee of ethics or integrity in this HOA.
While the SCA issues may not seem identical to the ones making the R-J headlines, under the surface there seems to be direct links. It is no wonder that certain (current and past) board members are so incessantly nasty to SCA members who tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
Certain board members are likely to have much to keep them awake at night when the FBI looks into the Sun City Anthem case.
See this link to the R-J web site:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/hoa-abuse-117635883.html
Here are the words of the article:
HOA abuse
“One corruption scandal always seems to segue into another in Southern Nevada, where abuses of trust and public office are as common as foreclosed homes.The latest embarrassment to the community: the federal government’s 2½-year fraud investigation into valley homeowner associations. The Review-Journal’s Jeff German reported Sunday that the Justice Department has identified 75 to 100 co-conspirators including lawyers, judges and former police officers, and that plea deals are being finalized this week for some of them to shore up the prosecution of two-dozen high-level targets.
The inquiry surrounds a scheme to place conspirators on the boards of local homeowner associations through rigged elections, then have those conspirators vote to initiate construction defect lawsuits against builders. The legal work and resulting repairs then would be farmed out to lawyers and companies in on the plot.
The conspiracy was wide-ranging enough before Washington-based prosecutors took over the case from Nevada’s U.S. attorney’s office in response to suspected leaks to suspects. Local prosecutors and other officials are now the subject of a separate Justice Department criminal investigation, sources told Mr. German.
It’s not surprising that such a cabal was concocted around construction defect claims, a legal specialty that’s long been ripe for abuse. Using a handful of legitimate cases as a selling point, aggressive attorneys persuade homeowners with routine, easily fixable repairs that their problems result from developer greed and corner-cutting. Such litigation tied up entire District Court departments for years during the valley’s construction boom.
The entire Justice Department case strikes at the heart of the judicial system’s inability to police frivolous litigation and the lawyers who shake down businesses for quick riches. Every claim has merit; every attorney is righting a wrong. No cases are dismissed. It’s incredibly expensive insanity.
And it’s a prime example of why tort reform advocates seek a loser-pays civil litigation process, so attorneys with flimsy arguments will think long and hard before dedicating their resources to a bogus action, and businesses won’t be compelled to get out their checkbooks to settle every claim.
We’ve all paid handsomely for this alleged abuse and others like it through increased burdens on investigators, prosecutors, courts and businesses. At some point it has to stop.”
———————-
Posted in Removal Election, 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, Truth Squad, Operations, Laws & Rules, SCA Board, News! | Print | No Comments »
Reference Documents for IRS Tax Matters
March 8, 2011 by admin.
We have received requests for some of the referenced documents and records pertaining to the SCA Income Tax Matter and related IRS 70-604 information.
These files are mounted in PDF format on our www.AnthemVOICE.org history site under:
Prior Issues
Income Taxes
Misc. Documents & Records Accumulated Since 2008
See this link: http://www.anthemvoice.org/taxes_issue.html
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Operations | Print | No Comments »
Why was $4,779,709 “Off The Books” in 2009?
March 7, 2011 by bobfrank.
Why would $4,779,709 of “Taxable Income not Recorded on Books” be reported on page 29 of the 2009 SCA Tax Return signed by Auditor/Tax Preparer Gary Lein, CPA?
That page of the 2009 tax return also reports the $4,779,709 amount was a “Carryforward per Revenue Ruling 70-604 from 2008.” So, this would seem to confirm that none of the multi-year retained assessment surpluses were ever “returned” as claimed by SCA Directors under penalty of perjury on the income tax returns filed each year since before 2005. That would appear to be a case of possible tax fraud.
But, why would that off-the-books procedure not be caught/mentioned in the annual audit? Would that be evidence of the Board, Finance Committee, RMI and auditor failing to comply with standard accounting rules? If so, why would they do that?
Some may recall that the SCA Finance Committee under the leadership of Don Manning in 2008 went crazy when the board and/or FC committee were questioned by members on anything. The FC even went so far to claim they could not be mistaken because they said:
“The current FC is comprised of members who have combined business, financial and accounting experience in excess of two hundred (200) years. Four of the current FC members are retired CPA’s and have worked in both industry and public accounting. All FC members have degrees in accounting or finance, or have MBA degrees and extensive financial budgeting and management experience. One of the CPA members worked in public accounting for over twenty five (25) years and was a partner for over fourteen (14) years in one of the four (4) largest accounting firms in the world. Past FC’s have generally had similar levels of experience.”
But, for all the FC’s claimed education and experience, the IRS has shown the Committee and Board filed its taxes incorrectly, and now it seems the auditor/tax preparer was willing (for the first time) to disclose there was $4.8 Million in taxable income carried off the books.
How could a CPA who prepares the association taxes, and is personally aware of huge surpluses in off-book accounts (locations unknown) and reported it in the annual tax return, fail to mention the $4.8 Million in the annual audit of SCA?
Posted in 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | No Comments »
Bob Frank 2011 Campaign Flyer (2 pgs)
March 6, 2011 by admin.
Here are the contents of Bob Frank’s board campaign flyer.
Please consider downloading it and attaching it to your emails to other SCa members with your recommendations and comments.
Posted in Bob Frank-2011, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »
What? You Must Pay RMI $622 to Sell Your SCA Home!
March 4, 2011 by bobfrank.
(Updated) We are not joking! According to Realty Executive Agent Laura Harbison in early March mail, the Law
now requires a seller to obtain and pay for the HOA Resale document package that includes CC&Rs, Bylaws, Rules &
Regulations, statement of monthly assessments for common expenses and unpaid assessments, the current
Operating Budget, the current association financial statement, a statement showing any unsatisfied judgments or
lawsuits against the association or relating to the common interest community.
In addition, the law does not allow a seller to provide the buyer with the seller’s personal copies. The law now
requires the seller to obtain and pay for the package of copies from the HOA management company. The HOA
management company can not bill the expense to escrow. The seller is required to pay for it when it is ordered.
“The current cost of this package in Sun City Anthem is $527!” There is also a $95 “Demand Fee” that must
be paid to RMI–for a total of $622! Not joking folks–according to Ms. Harbison.
This is bloody OUTRAGEOUS! And, some members may still be wondering why some of us “malcontents” are so
adamant that something has to be done to replace our association attorney, management company and board?
The actual cost of routinely producing a CD containing all of the latest versions of those documents could not
exceed $5. So, why would the SCA Board ever agree to allow RMI to receive windfall profits of at least $522 for
every home hold in SCA? Can you agree that is a classic rip-off?
Do you suppose any SCA director will have the guts to defend such an outrage? Is this not more slam-dunk
evidence that all of those XXXXXX directors must be fired/removed and replaced by truly ethical SCA members?
Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Clubs & SIGs, News! | Print | No Comments »
Monday Morning Forums With The Board Candidates!
March 4, 2011 by admin.
A new election initiative created by Wade Terry and AVR’s Rich Hogan for the benefit of the community started last Monday, and it is
planned to continue this next Monday and throughout the 2011 SCA election. We call it the Monday Morning Forums (MMF) at AVR.
Some details follow:
“Coffee or Breakfast with the Board Candidates–Monday March 7th and Following ondays” ome one, come all. Meet six of the SCA Board Candidates and ask them your ard questions. Q & A will begin at 8:30am at Anthem iew Restaurant. Breakfast will be available from 7:45 am. We will provide a sign up sheet for questioners starting at 8am — Questions will be taken in order of signup. Guidelines for the discussion will be read at 8:25am. We are going to rotate the questions to each candidate to balance the opportunities.Each candidate will have two minutes when it is their turn to reply first. Other candidates will have 30 seconds to comment–if they wish. We did this last week and it worked well for both residents and candidates. Please think of questions that any candidate may answer–not just a specific one for one or two candidates.Rich Hogan of Anthem View has said he will provide a breakfast buffet for $7 including meal, resident discount and tax. The buffet will include your coffee. Tip will be extra and optional. Or, residents may order off the menu and lighter fare will be available. While we are encouraging you to have breakfast, Rich says “it is not a requirement.” (The buffet will also be vailable to customers not attending the meeting.) We have a diverse group of candidates so this will give you a chance to get to know them and find out what they think on issues important to you. We all hope to see you there. Please, please call 260-1135 and make your reservation if you intend to place an order. Reservations are needed to assure space,food and staff to make this a great event. “
We urge all members to participate. This is the least constrained and most convenient opportunity you will
have to get to know candidates and to get unrestricted responses to your questions.
No doubt every event will cover some past ground and open up new debates on the SCA policy and procedural
issues that concern the attendees. You will learn more of value than any of the official “forums” and get your
personal questions individually addressed by 6 of the 7 candidates.
And, AVR does not require members to buy anything to attend and participate. What more could you ask for?
See you there on Monday mornings during the next few weeks?
Posted in 2011 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Lifestyle | Print | No Comments »
Gross Overfunding of SCA Reserves?
March 3, 2011 by admin.
Long-time Finance Committee member, Rich Pendleton, has recently resigned and reported on some of the SCA Board’s financial misconduct and gross arrogance. Quoted below is Rich Pendleton’s email to board members, finance committee members, and 2011 board candidates. His words are devastating indictments on the boards and finance committees.
“It is with my greatest regret that I must announce my resignation from the Finance Committee at this time. As most of you know, I have been operating with cancer and a breathing problem. As long as my wife was able to pick up some of the load, I was able to fulfill my commitment to the committee. Unfortunately, in January, my wife was hospitalized and my priorities were affected in a major way, such as how are meals going to be handled? My wife is now at home, her condition has greatly improved and she will be able to continue in her membership in the Lifestyle Committee.
It is also unfortunate that dealing with the issues that most mattered to me did not happen. I had thought that my participation on the Finance Committee would have enhanced their chances of acceptance.
The first issue was to get control of the budget process. Over the four years of my participation, much improvement has been seen, and I developed an Excel model for calculating assessments. Each year, I wanted to have a review meeting after the budget was approved to identify the problems and develop solutions. The previous chairmen did not see fit to hold such meetings. This year, a Budget Task Force has been established (I have not been asked to participate) and I hope it will accomplish my long standing goal.
The second issue has to do with our reserve funding. Bottom line, I believe our Reserve Fund is seriously over funded and, as a result, our annual assessment is greater than it needs to be. I pointed this out to the previous chairmen and they agreed that it looked over funded but they were unwilling to take any action. I have prepared two reports and have presented them only to selected Board members and one Finance Committee member. For reasons discussed in the attached report, the Board will not consider reduction of the rate of Reserve funding.
I think it is an example of Board arrogance that their reserve funding approach is the only acceptable approach and that no consideration will be given to an approach that will save homeowners millions of dollars over the years. Since the Board will not deal with this issue, I have written my final report and have attached it to this email. This email has been sent to all Board members and candidates for the 2011 election. It has been sent to all members of the Finance Committee and the (former) Reserve Study Advisory Group. Please read it and feel free to discuss it with any homeowner, but please do not allow it to go to the press or any person outside of Sun City Anthem.
The data in the report comes from the ARC Reserve Study for 2010 and has been incorporated in an Excel workbook for analysis purposes. I will be happy to discuss the workbook with any interested person.
Richard Pendleton”
Attached is Rich’s report to SCA Homeowners on Reserve Policy Overfunding
Overfunding of Reserves & Overcharging of Dues
Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | No Comments »
IRS Report Released–Board/Auditor Have No More Excuses!
March 2, 2011 by admin.
Finally, the income tax issue is plain. Copies of the IRS report have been released by RMI. It is clear that our auditor/tax preparer and certain board members have been dead wrong about what they can do with end-of-year membership surpluses.
The fact is that “income” is taxable. But, for about 40 years, homeowner associations and condos have been avoiding paying income taxes on SURPLUS membership income if the HOA immediately RETURNS or CREDITS the surpluses back to the members.
The IRS Report states it has assessed Sun City Anthem $1.345 Million in back taxes and penalties because:
“Based upon conversation with Jack Troia, President of Sun City Anthem Community Association, on September 9, 2010, during the field audit, the 2007 reserve surplus was never refunded or applied to the subsequent year.”
Also stated in the IRS Report was this statement:
“The Taxpayer did not refund or credit the homeowners the surplus funds for tax years 2001-2007.”
The truth is clear. The board can not spend such surpluses, save them, or do anything else with surplus membership assessments without having to pay income taxes on the full amount of the surplus. This IRS position has been tested in court before, and it is clear that Sun City Anthem and Nevada HOAs are not exempt.
We believe no one can read the IRS Report and honestly come away thinking there is any “wiggle room” in the findings. There is no evidence we can find showing that a single HOA has defeated the IRS on how it applies 70-604. The chance of beating this rap appears to be zero.
And, that is a good thing for homeowners. The rule prevents boards from consciously overcharging on dues and hiding the surpluses in “slush fund” accounts to spent as they wish.
Our members will be to blame if we allow the SCA board and its apparently discredited tax preparer/auditor and attorneys to waste more of our hard-earn money on a doomed quest to just try to save a bit of their highly inflated egos. Following that path would be a clear violation of the director’s fiduciary duties, and might become a matter of personal liability in the future.
Meanwhile, there is reason to believe that a good negotiator (someone not involved in the past errors) could save our members a great deal of money. In return for not having to pay most or all of the taxes on the surpluses, it could be proposed that IRS allow SCA to admit its mistakes, return all of the accumulated surpluses to members, correct all subsequent tax returns, and pay a modest penalty of something less than $100,000.
Even if the IRS unreasonably demanded all of the income tax be paid, it is obvious that immediate, full compliance with 70-604 is the least cost solution for SCA. Our members should immediately demand to receive nothing less.
However, time is of the essence. The approach of saying we are sorry for the mistakes and we promise to always be compliant, will quickly go up in smoke if the board follows its battle plan.
Nothing could be worse than hiring so-called experts to be the warriors that waste hundreds of thousands more of our dollars–with no chance of winning a reduction in taxes or penalties.
By the way, if you run into a current or past board member, finance committee member or board candidate who supports the board’s announced plan to fight with the IRS, insist they explain to you exactly how they can be confident it will not fail. Ask for examples of where the past and current directors, auditor and attorneys or anyone else has ever beat IRS on its interpretation of Ruling 70-604.
See this link for more details on our library website:
http://www.anthemvoice.org/taxes_issue.html
Posted in Removal Election, 2011 Campaign, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | No Comments »