February 13, 2009 by bobfrank.

Since the political hit piece on me by the Finance Committee Chairman and Board President was distributed this month in the Spirit mailing without allowing me to respond to my attackers, I have been asked, is it possible that SCA has been defrauded? My answer is that one should trust, but verify, verify and verify again.

That is one of the reasons why I continue to push for a few SCA forensic audits to clear up some unanswered questions involving millions of dollars of uncollected funds owned by Del Webb/Pulte. In the meantime, a director is required by law to keep their eyes open for signals such as the ones described in the below article.

Bob Frank
SCA Director
————–
Written by Sam E. Antar (former Crazy Eddie CFO and convicted felon)

The Art of Spinning: How to Identify Possible White Collar Criminals or at Least Unethical and Deceitful People Who You Should Avoid

“White collar crime is a crime of persuasion and deceit. Since the white collar criminal uses persuasion and deceit to commit their crimes, it follows that such felons are artful liars.People often ask me what characteristics I look for in other people that alert me to possible criminal activity or at least unethical and deceitful people.

Not all questionable conduct is illegal. A person can be unethical or deceitful (however they are defined) without committing any illegal acts as defined under the law.

However, most criminals use tools like spinning (see below) in the conduct of their crimes.

The Art of Spinning:

• Sell people hope. My cousin ‘Crazy Eddie’ Antar taught me that “people live on hope” and their hopes and dreams must be fed through our spin and lies. In any situation, if possible, accentuate the positive.
• Make excuses as long as you can. Try to have your excuses based on at least one truthful fact even if the fact is unrelated to your actions and argument.
• When you cannot dispute the underlying facts, accept them as true but rationalize your actions. You are allowed to make mistakes as long as you have no wrongful intent. Being stupid is not a crime.
• Always say in words you “take responsibility” but try to indirectly shift the blame on other people and factors. You need to portray yourself as a “stand up” guy or gal.
• When you cannot defend your actions or arguments attack the messenger to detract attention from your questionable actions.
• Always show your kindness by doing people favors. You will require the gratitude of such people to come to your aid and defend you.
• Build up your stature, integrity, and credibility by publicizing the good deeds you have done in areas unrelated to the subject of scrutiny.
• Build a strong base of support. Try to have surrogates and the beneficiaries of your largess stand up for you and defend you.
• If you can, appear to take the “high road” and have your surrogates do the “dirty work” for you. After all, you cannot control the actions of your zealots.
• When you can no longer spin, shut up. For example, offer no guidance to investors or resign for “personal reasons.” Your surrogates and so-called friends can still speak on your behalf and defend you.
• If you are under investigation always say you will “cooperate.” However, use all means necessary legal or otherwise to stifle the investigators. Remember that “people live on hope” and their inclination is to believe you.
• When called to testify under oath (if you do not exercise your 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination) have selective memory about your questionable actions. It is harder to be charged with perjury if you cannot remember what you have done rather than testify and lie about it.
• However, before you testify have other friendly witnesses testify before you to defend you. You need to “lock in” their stories first (before they change their minds) so your testimony does not conflict with their testimony and your story will appear to be more truthful.
• Try not to have your actions at least appear to rise to the level of criminal conduct or a litigable action. Being stupid or being unethical is not always a crime or a tortious action.
• One last rule, to be a most effective spinner always keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The kindness you show your enemies will reduce their propensity to be skeptical of you.

If you see some of the above similarities in people who are in authority such as executives, politicians, and others, you are forewarned to watch out. Before a person can be a white collar criminal, they must be deceitful and be able to follow most of the above rules of spinning.”

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules | Print | No Comments »

February 11, 2009 by bobfrank.

David Berman, you are wrong to insult the independent-thinking SCA members who disagree with you and Rosalyn and your associates.  Those independent members TRULY care about the future of our community.

Unlike you, they don’t enjoy deceiving and playing dirty political tricks on neighbors. They have TRUE compassion for our wonderful retirement community. They commit their time, energy and resources working to make SCA a much better place for the long-run.

Meanwhile, you and Rosalyn continue to avoid answering the many key questions presented to you. We know you know the answers to the secrets because you were some of the key people in charge at the critical times since 2005.

For example, what will it take to get you (the former attorney and board vice president in 2005-2006) and Rosalyn (the former Finance Committee Member in 2004 to 2006) to explain the following:

1. Why did the board fail to collect the hundreds of thousands of dollars of rent money and catering revenue shares in 2005 and 2006 from the trumpets lessee?  Who was responsible?

2. Why was the $1.375 million Co-Gen money not collected from Del Webb in 2005?

3. Why was the bogus rationale accepted for greening Rec. Ctr. 3 by your board (without following the law concerning contract modifications) instead of demanding the $1.375 million cash be paid in 2005?

4. Why were the $1 Million to $2 Million shortages in community and neighborhood reserve funds not collected from DW/Pulte in 2005/2006?

5. Why were excessive community dues/assessments levied and used to fill our reserve funds shortages since 2005–instead of demanding that Pulte pay up as required by law?

6. Why was Pulte allowed to delay constructing Recreation Center 3 for over 2 years, and hold on to about $10 million during the unexplained delays?

7. Why was action on community property construction defects delayed until 2008 and risk not being able to collect due to 10-year statutes of limitations that started in 1998 with the initiation of SCA?

8. Why were the funds owed by DW/Pulte not considered to be collected until it is almost too late to collect and after the company is at risk of not being financially able to pay?

9. What consideration has the developer offered/provided, and/or the SCA Board requested, for permitting the developer to be excused from paying millions of dollars during the past 4 years?

10. Why does the Board Majority and Finance Committee refuse to allow me (and a couple of retired IRS senior managers living in SCA) to ask the IRS for clarification on our tax returns for 2004 through 2006?  If the SCA Board, CAM and our auditor had no concerns over the accuracy of SCA’s tax returns, there would be no risks by our asking for clarification and thereby eliminating this explosive issue.

No, David and Rosalyn, this is not a political game. These matters are very serious business issues, and the stakes are high. You have a lot of explaining to do, and I believe most SCA members will be holding your feet to the fire as they learn more of the truth.  This community can be put on a stable financial program and the dues/assessments can be reduced to around $860 per year if we collect the funds Pulte owes, and if we quit wasting so much money from poor contracting and purchasing procedures.

With the economy in the tank and heading towards disaster in the near future, you and your cohorts are going to find it very hard to continue to block members from the truth on all of the above questions–as well as many more. Bullying, dirty tricks, ridiculing and making empty promises will not work again  this year.  Perhaps that is why you are fighting so hard and so viciously to hide the facts from members–while attempting to harass honorable people like Ms. Miller?

Bob Frank
SCA Director

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

February 11, 2009 by kayfrank.

I did not receive an email or other contacts from Linda Miller that recommended members not vote for Roz Berman, and I was unaware she had sent one until my husband read David Berman’s attack piece on his blog.  Ms. Miller has the right to her independent opinions and the freedom to state the facts and to make recommendations as she wishes.

Mr. Berman is clearly attempting to harass this homeowner and at the same time send a message to everyone who might dare to speak out to oppose Roz Berman’s behavior.  No doubt Roz will claim she did not know about this nasty behavior and again pretend to be a victim of David’s misconduct.  But, Roz should be required to put a stop to David’s bullying and to apologize to Ms. Miller.

Here are some facts.  David Berman has validated Ms. Miller’s concerns over Roz Berman’s re-election candidacy by his bullying actions, and by Roz’s failure to correct him.  As Board President, she is required to act swiftly against such misconduct—especially when it is her own spouse who is misbehaving on her behalf.

We have seen this kind of attack and intimidation by David Berman before  this flagrant attack.  He is showing typical behavior when someone opposes him or his spouse.  In the past, some of our community women have been physically threatened by David Berman when they did not agree with him. He has a known anger management problem, and Roz protects his misbehavior.

Meanwhile, David’s claim is false that my affidavit filed against Roz Berman and Carl Weinstein is the only one that Ms. Miller could have been talking about. Roz Berman has received numerous SCA and Nevada Real Estate Division complaints while she was on the Board. And, Real Estate Division actions are not final while the individual making the complaint is pursuing other available channels for appropriate actions.

Nevada did recently direct Roz Berman to comply with the law and provide uninterrupted time to community members during member comment times.  David Berman has even admitted that fact and thereby validated my allegations.  In addition, since David has made such a big public issue out of this matter, I have been asked to post a summary and transcript of the violations at this link: 
Affidavit Summary
Transcript of Violations

Meanwhile, my tip to all SCA members, and especially to David A. Berman’s blog readers, always read between his lines.  He and his spouse ignore basic issues while they are viciously attacking those who seriously disagree with them.  And, they arbitrarily dump everyone who disagrees with them into a common opposition group.  That is a classic dirty politics technique.

This community should recognize that Ms. Miller does not deserve to be harassed and intimidated for simply exercising her rights when privately stating her preferences and her reasons for making those choices.  If she had used similar words to urge her friends to not vote for my spouse, we know from past experiences that the Bermans would have defended her rights to do so.

The Board President can not be allowed to stand by quietly while her spouse runs roughshod over others. Roz Berman should apologize to Ms. Miller and openly repudiate her husband’s vindictive campaign activities.   The SCA community should require Roz Berman to be the leader she was elected to be by publically apologizing to Mr. Miller and repudiating David’s willful misconduct.

Kay Frank

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | No Comments »

February 5, 2009 by bobfrank.

Note: The following revised posting was accomplished after receiving advice from the SCA Election Committee on February 2, 2009.

PDF version of this posting is at this link:
PDF Version of this Posting

Here are the minutes of the annual meeting with the Finance Committee allegations on which the following responses are stated:
Annual Meeting Minutes + Finance Committee Complaints

The SCA Finance Committee (FC) Chairman Joe DeMeo and all other FC members have made five public allegations against me. The FC complaints are summarized here since the full text is available from the Board’s mailing in February 2009, and since most of Mr. De Meo’s words are not directly related to the Review Journal article. My responses have to be detailed because the consequences of further misunderstandings are quite high.

1. FC Complaint: Focused on defending SCA financial management before, during, and since the transition in May 2005, and claimed there was no evidence of misconduct or mismanagement by anyone on the FC, CAMs or the Boards.

My Response to 1: I believe the FC complaint is deceptive and disingenuous. The time frame I focused on was May 2005 until the end of 2006. Because of the many changes in management and CAM companies, there is ambiguity on which individuals were responsible for the association’s accounting and financial management in 2005 and 2006. Del Webb’s financial records prior to March 2006 were not made available for open review until mid 2007.

We have been told that RMI manually transferred the accounting records, developed a new chart of accounts, and changed other key accounting records and procedures when RMI took over in 2006. Those many accounting changes, manual records adjustments, and employee changes provided many opportunities for errors and/or financial misconduct. When millions of dollars are involved and subjected to major changes, prudent managers have to be very inquisitive and very cautious.

Once again, RMI replaced its accounting system during the following year (2007). The SCA accounting system was rebuilt with a new chart of accounts and extensive manual re-keying of records in 2007. That sort of manual conversion process creates errors and provides temptations for corruption. The conversion in 2007 was supposed to be handled electronically between the old RMI systems to the new RMI system. But, Directors were told that the electronic conversion failed and the transfer processes had to be manually completed during the summer months.

Meanwhile, there were many problems caused by the conversion that were reported by FC members while they were trying to develop the annual budget. We were told that at one point the SCA member account data was so corrupted from the RMI conversion that a manual spreadsheet had to be keyed in and used for dealing with SCA’s 7,000+ members. We were told this manual spreadsheet was used to accomplish monthly mailings of SCA’s magazine and official records for some time. We were also told RMI’s Comptroller was fired/replaced because of the many accounting and finance problems in the RMI system, and that it took almost a year for RMI’s accounting and financial reporting to finally come up to SCA’s minimum requirements. Not reported were the amounts of overtime hours and extra SCA costs in 2007 and 2008 due to correcting conversion problems.

In summary, SCA’s multi-million-dollar financial systems suffered two complete overhauls in less than 2 years. I am fully justified in be highly concerned about the errors and possible losses from those experiences. And, since only one member of the current Finance Committee was serving on the committee at transition time, and since none of the FC members have been SCA Directors, the current Finance Committee members have insufficient first-hand knowledge to make such serous, unanimous, group allegations against a director. The FC report is an embarrassment to the chair and it members, and it should be retracted.

2. FC Complaint: Although he was not involved in the issue at that time, Mr. De Meo insisted that nothing adverse happened during and after transition that would justify an investigative/forensic audit. The FC has contended that in spite of the complex financial transition activities, nothing could have been missing while millions of dollars of bank accounts were transferred between Del Webb Community Management Company bank accounts and SCA’s bank accounts with RMI. FC claimed that during such a huge transfer of assets and management company responsibilities, no one should be concerned that only routine audits were performed, and that the auditor (inherited from Del Webb) reported no significant issues in 2005 or 2006.

My Response to 2: A forensic audit was clearly called for in November 2006 to review a few financial issues. Because of the simultaneous transitions of both the Board of Directors and the Community Managers, there should have been a close review to ensure full integrity of all accounts. In this case, the Finance Committee’s claims about the term “outside auditor” should be considered deceptive.

I have been told that SCA’s auditor, Mr. Gary Lein, has performed every audit, and prepared all SCA tax returns since Sun City Anthem was initiated in the late 1990s. Of course, we all know he is not an employee of SCA, DW, Pulte or RMI. He is a consultant/auditor employed by his own company.

But, we know it is possible for consultants involving financial matters to possess even more serous conflicts of interest than other types of corporate employees. It is wrong for the FC to try to claim that because Mr. Lein is an independent auditor that he could have never had any conflicts of interest between Del Webb and SCA community interests. And, even if one has such a potential conflict of interest that does not suggest anything improper was acted upon.

In my opinion/business judgment, regardless of how good Mr. Lein may have been in the past, the auditing company should have been changed at transition time in May of 2005 from the developer’s selection to another company not affiliated in any way with the developer. I also believe our auditing company should be routinely changed every three to five years to encourage fresh and innovative reviews of our association’s business practices. I have found during my career it is an advantage to have new auditors looking at a company’s accounts because they detect things that can be missed by those who might be too close to the ways things have always been done.

Since we know of at least some poor financial management decisions were made during 2005, 2006 and 2007 that resulted in the association losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, we must be alert to possible financial misconduct and/or fraud during that same time frame.

And, since there were (a) two accounting system conversions involving many manual actions, (b) two transitions in community managers involving major corporate changes in people and policies, and (c) major changes in the SCA board members between 2004 and 2007, our association has been exposed to many opportunities for misconduct and fraud. We need to always be alert to such possibilities. We can not afford to be caught by the kinds of fraud and power abuses our Nation and State are involved in at this time.

No person has been accused of any specific misconduct, and it is more than appropriate for a Director to be highly concerned when answers to his valid questions about finances and contracting are ignored or suppressed. If the records and accounting procedures were as clean and complete as claimed by the Finance Committee, it would not take long and not cost much for a qualified forensic auditor to verify the results. Everyone in our community would benefit from investing in such independent validations of the associations funds and financial records.

3. FC Complaint: Because the Del Webb-appointed auditor worked for his own company, members of the FC believe it could be unfair to claim Mr. Lein might have had conflicts of interest with the SCA community’s interests at transition and since. And, because Mr. Lein is a very nice person and has earned high credentials within the auditing community, and because he was endorsed by previous developer-controlled and other SCA Boards, he should be above being questioned about possible conflicts of interest.

My Response to 3: It is deceptive for the committee to try to claim that because Mr. Lein is a named partner in his own firm that he was not retained/did not “work for” the Del Webb Community Management Company—a Pulte Corp. company. Mr. Lein has admitted he has been the auditor for the SCA since he was originally retained by Del Webb in the late 1990s. Mr. Lein’s firm services hundreds of other homeowner associations. And, Mr. Lein can receive new business accounts when developers open up new communities and/or when Community Management Companies are changed by HOAs. Conflicts of interest are clearly possible.

There is nothing factually wrong with what I said in the paper, or above. As a Director with relevant business experience in this auditing area, I have the obligation to question Mr. Lein about potential conflicts of interests related to his Del Webb/Pulte business, and he should not feel uncomfortable with such questions. Nothing untoward or improper was suggested or inferred. This is an example due diligence by a board member.

4. FC Complaint: Because Mr. Lein has always followed normal auditing practices, and because there are 4 CPAs on the FC, no one should question the results of the past audits. Also, because a forensic audit would cost more to validate some of Mr. Lein’s work, such additional audits would be a waste of time and money.

My Response to 4: My statement is factual, and the FC’s recommendations have been noted. As an elected Director I have legal fiduciary duties and responsibilities that appointed FC members do not have. The FC advises and the Board makes the decisions. In the case of potential misconduct or fraud, a Director is required to consider and advocate the matter of an investigative audit until being satisfied–even if the majority of the board does not wish to do so.

We have many examples in this State and Nation where large numbers of highly experienced CPAs have hundreds of years of cumulative experience, but they failed to identify and act on findings pointing to significant fraud in companies and government agencies. But, under Nevada law, the boards of directors can be held accountable for failing to use their business judgment to detect and initiate actions to correct financial problems. My objections and inquiries are clearly within my authority and duty.

On the other hand, the Finance Committee members serve at the pleasure of the Board. The FC charter does not provide it the authority to politically attack a Director. If a Director want to challenge the actions of another Director, he/she must make the challenge directly. A committee must not be exploited and misused to speak for other directors.

5. FC Complaint: The FC continues to deny there have been any past problems with SCA’s income tax filings. The FC insists that it was proper for SCA to pay no income taxes in 2004 to 2006 while we were accumulating over $3.7 million in “profits” from charging more dues/assessments than needed for operating expenses, reserve funds and facilities improvements.

The FC and Mr. Lein also claim that the SCA Boards used good business judgment to over-ride IRS policies and not refund or credit the surplus dues to members. The FC also claims it and the Board of Directors used good business judgment to fail to report the surplus dues as corporate profits—as believed to be required by IRS Revenue Ruling 70-604.

My response to 5: I consider the FC comments to be untrue, and I believe they are intended to politically influence members against me during the current board campaign. The facts do not support the FC claims.

Retired IRS agent advisers living in SCA have frequently made themselves available to meet with the FC members, SCA Treasurer and Board members. But, the Board officers and FC members have refused to meet to discuss the well-documented and precisely explained concerns. This failure by the Board of Directors is a well-documented fact.

Past rationale used by our auditor and FC and other board members to circumvent Revenue Ruling 70-604 has not been proven valid by the IRS. Until the IRS has provided written confirmation that our tax returns for 2004-2007 were correctly done, I must remain unconvinced of the legality of way our returns were prepared and submitted.

And, I must remain concerned over SCA’s potential liabilities for paying back income taxes, penalties and interest that could exceed $1.5 million. As a Director, I have the personal fiduciary duty to pursue the matter until it is clearly settled. The FC can advise, but it can not decide the matter. And, the FC must not be used as a political tool of other board members to try to bully me into agreement by using SCA funds to mail out politically-charged materials to influence the SCA membership. That action is highly unethical.

In addition, the FC and auditor Gary Lein refused to state categorically that there is no risk to SCA for owing back taxes. They know that I am right in claiming there is a good chance they made mistakes on past income tax returns for this community. They know there is a chance that our returns that reported no tax due for 3 consecutive years are wrong. And, they have refused to join me and our retired IRS tax advisers to consult with the appropriate national IRS staff member to settle this dispute. Instead, they insist waiting until an IRS audit is conducted on SCA in the future.

In summary: my tax concerns have been clearly stated. After receiving advice of highly competent professionals, I am convinced that SCA’s income taxes have been incorrectly submitted in the past few years; and, I am quite worried that significant tax filing errors have been made on our $3+ million of accumulated surplus assessments (profits) have been made in the past. There appears to have been a cover-up of those errors in hopes that the IRS will not notice.

As a Director, I can not condone such apparent misbehavior. If our tax preparers (Mr. Lein and Jack Troia) and past SCA Treasurers (West, Dwyer, Roz Berman and Cheri) have made some mistakes, or made errors in judgment in filing our tax returns, then they need to admit such mistakes, and we can ask the IRS for permission to make the necessary corrections and pay a negotiated fine.

In the meantime, I must insist that SCA asks the IRS to confirm that we previously filed our returns correctly in 2004 through 2006. We can not afford to take the risk of waiting until we are audited to learn we have done our returns wrong. Such a mistake could cost us hundreds of thousands of unnecessary dollars in fines and penalties.

Bob Frank, SCA Director
Send questions or comments to: bobfrank@cox.net

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »

January 29, 2009 by bobfrank.

Someone recently complained because they thought I was one of those SCA members who wanted the parkway/loop speed limit be reduced to 35 mph–no matter what. That is not true.

I have consistently advocated that 45 mph COULD be a safe speed limit on the loop–IF (1) it was strictly enforced, and IF (2) the dangerous intersections were made safe by removing line-of-sight blockages, AND IF (3) traffic lights were installed at the most dangerous intersections. Phil Hight and Dan McClintock deserve great credit for their selfless efforts while serving on the Property & Grounds Committee before passing away, and a good way to honor their work would be to insist that the full project gets completed in 2009.

As a matter of background, we need to accept that Del Webb intended to have the loop speed controlled at 35 mph to allow this to be a golf-cart-permissible community–WHEN there were 3 golf courses planned. But, that goal has since become impractical due to the 2002 changes to the Master Plan, and the resulting major changes in parkway/loop use. We need to insist that the loop traffic controls be upgraded if we are going to continue to have a 45 mph posted speed limit.

We should not accept some Henderson proposals to wait for installing traffic lights until the accident rate increases significantly, i.e., until more SCA members are killed or become maimed from accidents at the intersections. It is clear the most dangerous loop Intersections need to have traffic lights. And, to provide the most efficient results, those traffic lights should be installed with access switches activated by vehicles and pedestrians entering, exiting, and/or crossing the loop.

Let’s pull together and ask the City to install traffic lights at the 4 or 5 most dangerous intersections before the end of 2009. Please help me to help you on this vital lifestyle safety issue for our community! The lives and health we save may be our own.

Bob Frank
SCA Director
bobfrank@cox.net

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Safety | Print | 1 Comment »

January 23, 2009 by admin.

Here are Director Frank’s Responses to the Political Statements by Finance Committee Chair Joe DeMao at the 2008 Annual Meeting and planned to be mailed at community expense by the BoD. 

 The Board has unfairly refused Director Frank’s request to have his rebuttals to the FC allegations included in the Board’s mailing–which will occur during the campaign.

The article can be reviewed online at this link: http://www.lvrj.com/business/34543364.html?numComments=21# or in this file: R-J Article

Finance Committee Made 5 Allegations (they are only summarized here since the full complaint is available from the Board’s mailing and since most of the FC words are political attacks or unrelated to the Review Journal article.)

1. FC Complaint:  Focused on defending the financial management before, during and since the transition in May 2005, and claimed there was no evidence of misconduct or mismanagement by anyone.

My response:  The statement is not correct.  The time frame I was referring to was May 2005 until the end of 2006.  Because of the many changes in management and companies, there is some ambiguity on exactly which individuals were responsible for the association’s accounting and financial management in 2005 and 2006.  The official file records from Del Webb prior to March 2006 were not even made available to the members for open review until mid 2007.  I was told that RMI manually transferred the records and developed a new chart of accounts and other key accounting records when they took over in 2006.  That provided many opportunities for errors and/or financial misconduct.

RMI replaced its own accounting system again–during the following year.  So, the SCA accounting system was rebuilt—again—with a new chart of accounts and extensive re-keying of records.  The conversion in 2007 was supposed to be handled electronically between the old RMI systems to the new RMI system.  But, the conversion failed and the transfer processes had to be manually accomplished during the summer months.  Meanwhile, there were many problems reported while trying to manage the SCA finances and develop the annual budget.  At one point, the SCA member account data was so corrupted by RMI during the conversion that a manual spreadsheet had to be keyed in for the 7,000+ members in order to accomplish the monthly mailing of SCA’s magazine.  The amount of overtime hours required due to the conversion failure was not reported.

So, SCA’s multi-million-dollar accounts had to suffer two complete overhauls of its accounting systems in less than 2 years.  And, since only one member of the current Finance Committee was serving on the committee at transition time, and none of the FC members were ever SCA Directors, the current Finance Committee members do not have the first-hand knowledge to make group allegations against a director.  

2. FC Complaint:  Although he was not involved at that time, Mr. DeMeo insisted that nothing happened during and after transition that would justify an investigative/forensic audit.  The FC has pretended that in spite of the transition activities, nothing could have been missing while millions of dollars of bank accounts were transferred between Del Webb management company’s bank accounts and SCA’s bank accounts with RMI.  FC claimed that during such a multi-million-dollar transfer of assets and management companies, no one should be concerned that only routine audits were performed and the auditor (inherited from Del Webb) reported no significant issues in 2005 or 2006.

My response:  A forensic audit was clearly called for in November 2006 because of the simultaneous transitions of both the Board of Directors and the Community Managers.  The Finance Committee’s use of the term “outside auditor” is deceptive.  The same auditor, Mr. Gary Lein, has performed every audit since Sun City Anthem was initiated.  Of course, he is not an employee of SCA or Pulte or RMI.  But, no one is an employee of SCA.  SCA has no employees.  We only operate with sub-contractors.

In my opinion, the auditing company should have been changed at transition time from the developer’s choice to the community’s choice.  And, the auditor should be changed again every three to five years.  This policy would just be following common sense.  And, since there were some poor financial decisions made during 2005 to 2007 that cost the association hundreds of thousands of dollars, and since the two accounting system conversions and transitions between community managers and boards were so irregular, there is more than sufficient cause to look into the potential for financial misconduct and/or fraud.  If the records and accounting procedures were as clean and complete as the Finance Committee members claim, it would not take a qualified forensic auditor long to verify the results. Everyone would benefit from having such a validation of the associations funds and financial records.

3. FC Complaint:  Because the Del Webb-appointed auditor worked for his own company, members of the FC believe it could be unfair to claim Mr. Lein might have had conflicts of interest with the SCA community’s interests at transition and since.  And, because Mr. Lein is a very nice fellow, has earned high credentials within the auditing community, and because he was endorsed by previous developer-controlled and other SCA Boards, he is above being questioned about possible conflicts of interest.

My response:  It is deceptive and improper for the committee to claim that because Mr. Lein is a named partner in his own firm that he was not retained/did not “work for” the Del Webb Community Management Company—a Pulte Corp. company.  Mr. Lein has admitted he has been the auditor for the SCA since he was originally retained by Del Webb before the year 2000.  And, Mr. Lein’s firm can receive new business from developer referrals when Pulte opens up new communities. 

There is nothing factually wrong with what I said in the paper, or above.  As a Director with relevant business experience in this auditing area, I have the obligation to question Mr. Lein about potential conflicts of interests related to his Del Webb/Pulte business, and he should not feel uncomfortable with such questions.  Nothing untoward or improper was suggested or inferred.

4. FC Complaint:  Because Mr. Lein has always followed normal auditing practices, and because there are 4 CPAs on the FC, no one should question the results of the past audits.  Also, because a forensic audit would cost more money to validate some of Mr. Lein’s work, it would be a waste of time and money.

My Response:   My statement is factual, and the FC’s recommendations have been noted.  As an elected Director I have legal fiduciary duties and responsibilities that appointed FC members do not have.  The FC advises and the Board makes the decisions.  In the case of potential misconduct or fraud, a Director is required to consider and advocate the matter of an investigative audit until being satisfied–even if the majority of the board does not wish to do so. 

We have many examples in this State and Nation where large numbers of highly experienced CPAs have hundreds of years of cumulative experience, but they still failed to identify and act on findings pointing to significant fraud in companies and government agencies.  But, under Nevada law, the boards of directors can be held accountable for failing to use their own business judgment to detect and correct financial problems.  My objections are fully within my authority and duty.  The Finance Committee serves at the pleasure of the Board.  Its charter does not provide it the authority to politically attack a Director.  Only the SCA Board members have such authority.  If a Directors want to challenge another Director, he/she must sign their name to the statements and not use a committee to speak for them.

5. FC Complaint:  The FC continues to categorically deny that there has been any past problems with SCA’s income tax filings.  The FC insists that it was proper for SCA to pay zero income taxes in 2004 to 2006 while we were accumulating over $3 million in “profits” from charging more dues/assessments than could be justified for operating expenses and reserve funds.  The FC and Mr. Lein also claim that the SCA Boards used good business judgment to fail to refund or credit the surplus dues to members and also failed to report the surplus dues as corporate profits—as required by Revenue Ruling 70-604.

My response:  The FC comments are deceptive and incorrect.  This is just a political statement carried over from last year’s board campaign.  It is designed to try to negatively influence the upcoming board campaign against me.  The facts do not support the FC claims.

My retired IRS agent advisers (who are also SCA members) have frequently made themselves available to meet with the FC members, SCA Treasurer and Board President.  But, the Board officers and FC members have refused to meet and discuss our well-documented and precisely explained concerns.  This fact is well-documented. 

The past rationale used to circumvent Revenue Ruling 70-604 has not been proven to be valid.  Until the IRS has provided written confirmation that our tax returns for 2004-2007 were correctly done, I will remain unconvinced of the legality of way our returns were prepared and submitted.  And, I will remain concerned over SCA’s back income tax liabilities that could exceed $1.5 million.  As a Director, I have the fiduciary duty to pursue the matter until it is settled.  The FC can advise, but it can not decide the matter.  And, the FC must not be used as a tool of other board members to try to bully me into agreement by using SCA funds to mail out politically-charged materials to influence the SCA membership.

In addition, the FC and auditor Gary Lein refused to state categorically that there is zero risk to SCA for owing back taxes.  They know that I am right in stating there is a reasonable chance they made mistakes on past income tax returns for this community.  They know there is a chance that our returns that reported zero tax due for 3 consecutive years are wrong.  And, they have refused to join me and my IRS retired tax advisers to consult a qualified, national IRS Agent to settle this dispute.   Instead, they insist on rolling the dice and taking chances while waiting until an IRS audit is conducted in the future.

In summary:  my tax concerns have been clearly stated.  Upon advice of highly competent professionals, I am convinced that SCA’s income taxes have been wrongly submitted in the past few years; and, I am quite worried that significant tax filing errors have been made on our $3+ million of accumulated surplus assessments (profits) have been made in the past.  There appears to have been a cover-up of those errors in hopes that the IRS will not notice.  As a Director, I can not condone that kind of misbehavior.  If our tax preparers (Mr. Lein and Jack Troia) and past SCA Treasurers (West, Dwyer, Roz Berman and Cheri) have made some mistakes or errors in judgment in filing our tax returns, then we have to make the corrections and ask the IRS for permission to make the necessary corrections. 

In the meantime, I am compelled to insist that SCA asks the IRS to confirm that we previously filed our returns correctly.  We can not afford to take the risk of waiting until we are audited to learn we have done our returns wrong.  Such a mistake could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties. 

Bob Frank
SCA Director
January 22, 2009

Posted in Truth Squad, 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Lifestyle, News! | Print | 3 Comments »

January 18, 2009 by bobfrank.

Let’s try to focus on the REAL issues concerning safety and convenience for the Anthem Parkway loop. Like many other residents, I like to drive fast along the loop. But, I worry about the dangers to me, my wife, and our fellow residents caused by the very serious design deficiencies in this roadway. For example:

1. All of the INTERSECTIONS are dangerous, and some are reported as EXTREMELY dangerous. That means that if the most dangerous intersections are not corrected first, our people can be killed and/or seriously injured when loop traffic exceeds 35 to 45 mph. Both the loop drivers and the cross traffic are equally at high risk to collisions, and everyone loses when collisions occur.

2. Setting and enforcing a speed limit of 35 mph means that loop traffic will be ticketed when going over 45 mph. That would be a good thing to do unless or until the dangerous intersections are modified to be safe for enforced speeds of 45 to 55 mph.

3. Speeds over 55 mph will ALWAYS BE UNSAFE due to the curves, hills and parkway landscaping. But, since speeders over 55 mph can not be prevented, the best way to cope with that situation is to put in traffic lights at spaced intervals at the most dangerous intersections. These new lights should be of short duration and activated by cross traffic. This way the loop traffic will not be interrupted unless cross traffic needs to make a safe entrance or exit. Those who prefer to drive very fast will know far enough in advance that a red light truly means “stop for slow-moving cross traffic and/or pedestrians”

4. Everyone has a right to an opinion; but, as a Director, I am compelled to advocate what is clearly the safest solutions to protect the entire SCA community while sustaining our unique lifestyle. Whether that earns me votes for re-election or not, my primary duty is to serve the whole community. Please support me in this important community safety matter, or show me a better way to achieve the objective.

Bob Frank
SCA Director
bobfrank@cox.net

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

January 16, 2009 by bobfrank.

Whatever is said about the safety of the Anthem Parkway/Drive loop, we need to stay focused on the real traffic control and safety issues.  Those few who attended the Henderson Citizens Traffic Advisory Board meeting in City Hall last evening learned that Sun City Anthem’s traffic safety issues are being influenced by individuals who obviously have already decided to recommend that the City Council retain the high speed limits on the road that circumnavigates our senior community.

I apologize in advance for the need for such a long posting.  But, there is so much misinformation and confusion, I am obligated to try to explain the facts.  If you do not want this much info, just ignore it, and accept that many others may benefit from it.

One thing that was made very clear last evening was that many community members (including myself) put “member safety” and “retaining the beautiful and scenic parkway through our community” as our TOP priorities for the future of the “Anthem Parkway/Drive Loop”.  However, the meeting also showed that the long struggle to defend those priorities is at high risk of being lost.

The City, aided and abetted by David Berman’s and Chuck Davis’ sustained aggressive advocacy, is clearly intending to seriously modify the landscaping along the parkway to make the 45-55 mph speed on the Anthem loop a permanent decision.  That would probably eliminate the possibility of this becoming the “golf cart permissible community” that was promised to most homeowners, and has been declared on the Del Webb-erected monument at the entrance to Sun City Anthem.

However, this decision may not yet be over.  There are still many nagging issues flying in the face of making such a major change without more facts.  Moreover, few individuals among the tens of thousands residents of the full Anthem Community have been consulted on this critical safety policy issue.

To illustrate some of these issues, here are just a few of the important items discussed last evening:

- The City’s traffic survey team reported that when no speed limits are enforced, “most drivers” find it “COMFORTABLE” to drive at 45 to 55 mph.  That was no surprise since there is almost no speed enforcement and little knowledge of the high risks involved traversing the blind intersections along the parkway.  This is particularly true for those living in such communities as Anthem Highlands since they problem never use the interchanges between SCA villages and the parkway.  In addition, mechanically measuring vehicle speeds at selected parkway points does not reveal what SCA residents think about the serous dangers of entering, exiting and crossing the parkway (both in vehicles and on foot).

- The survey team declared it will NOT recommend reducing the current 45-55 mph speed limits on any portion of the 7+ miles of the Anthem Parkway/Drive “loop”.. (Note: 55 mph is mentioned because everyone knows that speeding tickets are not issued unless a person exceeds a speed limit by more than 10 mph.)  The rationale to stay at 45-55 is for the “public benefit” and not intended to be for the “Anthem Community benefit”.  As shown below, that may be a seriously misplaced objective as those who are “more comfortable” at the higher speeds are just as likely to be seriously injured from a collision at a blind corner as a slow-moving senior. Such  “comfort” at the higher speed is not based on the facts of the roadway hazzards.

- The team/board admits that the way the “parkway” has been built and maintained it does not safely support more than 35 mph speed.  It was reported that it is very dangerous to drive faster than 35 to 45 mph because cross traffic at almost all intersections is not safe when parkway traffic exceeds 35 mph.

- There was great confusion on whether the “Anthem Parkway/Loop” was designed and approved in the master plan as being intended to be restricted to 35 mph.  The confusion was due in large part to the many steep hills, very sharp curves, massive landscaping in the medians and along the sides of the “parkway”.  These items of designed natural beauty for the parkway also provide clear evidence that Del Webb was not intending for this loop to be a high speed (45 to 55 mph) artery for general commuting.  This beautifully-designed and landscaped “Anthem parkway/drive” was obviously intended to be a “SCA amenity” to support the Anthem “golf-cart-permissible” community lifestyle.  Anthem was designed to FEEL LIKE a special, gated community without requiring the burdens of maintaining gated controls.

- Further evidence that the Anthem loop was not intended to be a general purpose 4-lane “public traffic artery” was revealed when it was reported that the Anthem “loop” was the ONLY “4-lane, divided, public road” in Henderson where the median and side properties were owned/maintained by the community.  WOW!  That would seem to be a BIG deal!  The traffic board/survey members said that all other 45 mph divided roads in Henderson were specifically designed for the higher speeds, and they were owned and maintained by the City.  Further confusion was due to the fact that Del Webb had to have received Henderson City approval before it could declare SCA to be a “golf cart permissible community”.  That designation requires parkway speeds to be set at 35 mph or lower.  Perhaps setting the speed limit to 45 mph for the long-run may even require a master plan change with public comments by all those affected in Anthem–before it is final?

- Evidence was also presented suggesting that much of the traffic increases in the past two years and the current speed-related problems were related to new residents in Anthem Highlands, and adjoining communities to the South and West.  Most of these individuals have to use the parkway to connect to Eastern for their commute to work.  These major community increases were not anticipated in the original design and construction of the Anthem Parkway loop in the late 1990’s.  And, the roads required to support the new communities to allow exit/access to the North and West have not been completed.  Some believe THAT very critical issue needs to be addressed before a permanent conversion of the Anthem loop into a high speed artery is considered.  In the meantime, most (if not all) of the former law enforcement professionals living in SCA believe that a posted 35 mph speed limit and traffic lights at the most dangerous intersections will provide the needed traffic/speed controls–without having to butcher our parkway landscaping and ruin our community style.

- Also confirmed was that the intersections at such places as Thunder Bay, Scotts Valley, Williamsport, and Atchley were examples of VERY dangerous intersections and worthy of high consideration for future traffic light controls.  It was also reported that the DW/Pulte master plan agreement required the company to pay for any future traffic lights.  That might be a good reason why there is so much invisible resistance to the ideas of traffic lights at key intersections. Proposing some cost savings through a slower speed limit may also be a way to motivate Pulte to support our desire to retain Anthem Parkway/Loop as a golf-cart-permissible roadway.  Worthy of consideration?

- It was reported that improving line-of-sight abilities at most intersections may make it safer for those who are “comfortable” driving at high speeds and for those entering and exiting SCA villages along the parkway.  But, no conclusive evidence was presented to show that massive changes to improving line-of-sight barriers will finally solve the dangerous blind intersections problems.  There are just too many steep hills, sharp curves, utility boxes, walls, monument signs, etc. to be able to make it function like the flat terrain of the typical 45 mph roadway.

- The City intends for landscape removal actions to be just a first step, but it was clear that most of the expenses for improving the Anthem loop safety would be BILLED to Anthem residents.  In the meantime, it appeared that a much higher accident and injury rate at the intersections may have to be experienced in order for the City to justify installing new traffic signals at the blind crossings.

- The traffic board/survey team is proposing to City Council that Pulte (that means Anthem residents) pay the high costs of major landscape reductions near the intersections since the Anthem residents own or will eventually own the medians and side landscaping. While some line-of-sight landscape work in the intersection areas has already been done, and more needs to be done, the proposed plan is to wait to consider adding traffic lights ONLY if parkway accidents continued to increase to MUCH higher levels.

David and Roz Berman appeared to be the only ones present from SCA that supported the City’s plans.  Roz said nothing. But, since she does not drive, and she does not believe that SCA Directors should get involved in public policy matters, her lack of action was typical.  Meanwhile, David deceived those in attendance by issuing a prepared statement claiming that “70% of surveyed SCA members” preferred the higher speeds.  That was just plain wrong and totally deceptive. For example, during his statement, David did not report that:

(1) No community-wide, or Anthem-wide survey (affecting tens of thousands of people) has ever been taken on this vital matter.

(2) At least 3,000 new SCA homeowners have moved in since the previous (limited) survey was conducted in 2005.  In other words, David Berman’s survey results contain no representative or statistically significant data in the year 2009.

(3) Many thousands more (of all ages) live in new homes built/occupied in Anthem Solara, Anthem Highlands and in the many other adjacent communities to the West and South. None of those thousands of potentially concerned residents have been informed on the key safety issues involved by driving at high speed across the extremely dangerous intersections along the parkway.  They do not know that it is next to impossible for cross traffic at many blind intersection to see fast, oncoming traffic in time to avoid a collision.

In other words, thousands of Anthem residents are not aware of the very high risks to their lives and property from the slow-moving, slow-reacting senior residents trying to cross the parkway at the blind intersections–without the protections of traffic signals.  And, SCA homeowners are not aware of their potential liability risks if our SCA insurance is insufficient to settle a suit from an unusually serious accident involving the combination of high speeds and blind intersections.  Where the the board has prior knowledge that SCA community property features can increase the risks of accidents, and where the board has failed to act to mitigate those risks, our liabilities could be greatly increased.  We need to act to help reduce the accident risks along our Anthem Parkway through reduced speed limits and new traffic signals at blind intersections.

Conclusion: it was clear at the meeting that David Berman’s obsolete community survey, and his personal opinions, are dangerous paths to follow.  I am one of those who were deceived by his arguments in the past.  But, we have now learned that Mr. Berman’s arguments are not useful for making decisions in 2009. His flawed positions must be soundly rejected in the future.

In the meantime, our community must become better informed and prepared to defend our rights and lifestyles for the future.  Our Board must become far more involved in protecting our community lifestyle.  Traffic safety and community security must be recognized as being far more important to our senior homeowners than being able to drive up to 55 mph on the parkway before being ticketed for speeding.  Even if you prefer to drive 45 mph, a posted 35 mph does not automatically force you to slow down.  I believe that reasonable people can agree that 55 is NOT an acceptable speed on the parkway.

But, regardless of the speed limit solution, we urgently need some type of traffic signals at the most dangerous/blind intersections. I can not accept that just removing landscaping is a viable solution, and I refuse to wait for more of our members get killed or injured before being mobilized to demand approval of the necessary traffic signals.  I hope you will join me in this effort.  It is clear that if more SCA residents do not get engaged in this issue, the original intent and beauty of the Anthem Parkway will be lost, and the traffic dangers to our residents will steadily increase until many more parkway deaths and injuries are experienced.

How about all of you past and present Security Patrol members?  What do you think?  I welcome statements on both sides of this issue–so we can continue to learn and sort out the truth!  <bobfrank@cox.net>

Bob Frank
SCA Director

Posted in 2009 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Lifestyle | Print | 5 Comments »

December 31, 2008 by bobfrank.

D. Berman is skilled at trying to change the subject to other unrelated matters to try to avoid having to answer hard questions and accept personal responsibility for his own misconduct. But, the facts remain that he, and his spouse Roz, were key players among those directly involved in the 2005 Reserve Study disaster, and they have steadfastly refused to answer such questions as:

1. Why did it take half a year to reject something so obviously flawed as the 2005 reserve study by Association Reserves, Inc., and why did it take another whole year to get a replacement (that was additionally flawed from being calculated using the wrong as-of date)?

2. Why was the 2005 Reserves Study not simply revised with better data instead of totally rejecting it half a year later?

3. How many millions (plus interest) has DW/Pulte saved since May 2005 because the SCA Boards and (Del Webb and RMI) CAMs have failed to have an accurate and independent reserve study produced that can be used for negotiating a settlement of the developer’s shortages?

4. Since some members of the Board, the CAM, and some standing committee members had to submit data and otherwise participate in the formulation of the initial 2005 reserve study, why was the exceptionally poor quality of the 2005 reserves study product claimed to be such a BIG surprise?

5. What happened during those 6 months of delays–except that Del Webb was relieved of having to pay millions more into the SCA reserve fund

6. Since the CAM was required by law and by SCA contract to verify/ensure the accuracy and integrity of the reserves study (even if individuals like Terry DaSilva and Windy Linow were employed by Del Webb and had obvious conflicts of interests) why did the Board fail to require the CAM to immediately get a fully acceptable reserve study submitted–as required by law? Was the CAM unable to do its job, or was there some other more basic reason?

7. Why did the CAM (as authorized by the Board) not call the reserves study contractor in within days of receipt of the bogus study and demand replacement with a quality product or recommend immediate rejection? What have the Del Webb CAM and the RMI CAM done to protect SCA’s interests in this whole sordid affair?

8. Why did it take until November 2006 to replace the fake reserves study with yet another reserve study by another company that was also fatally flawed because it was calculated using the wrong date?

9. Who (by name) signed the direction on the replacement reserve study requiring the calculation use the wrong date?

10. Why have the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 SCA Board majorities seemingly conspired to allow Del Webb/Pulte to get away with seriously underfunding millions of dollars for our SCA reserve accounts for the past few years?

11. Why have large SURPLUS homeowner dues been knowingly used since 2006 to fund the developer shortages in our reserve accounts INSTEAD of requiring the developer to fully pay its legal obligations into the association reserves? Does that not seriously jeopardize the community’s chances of collecting what the developer owes for the reserves?

12. And, of course, why has it been so hard to get answers to the above questions? All of the answers should be above board and a matter of record? Why the cover ups? Who (besides the developer’s companies and employees) have benefited from the gross mismanagement of SCA reserves?

Bob Frank
SCA Director

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Clubs & SIGs, News! | Print | 5 Comments »

December 29, 2008 by admin.

 The following has been quoted from Ron Johnson’s OP_ED Blog for the convenience of AV readers.

It reveals some of the secrets held by previous board and committee members involved in the history on the SCA Reserves, and why Del Webb/Pulte has still not been required to fully pay up on it reserve fund obligations–as required by law to be completed at time of “transition”.

In the near future, a white paper on SCA Reserves will be published by AV for the convenience of SCA members.

——quote——-

Bob Frank  said:

Rich Pendleton: Why did you ask Norm to post the name of the failed reserves study company? You know it well and you were quite involved in the rejection process. I believe I heard that the company founder and president was a colleague of yours from the Rockwell International Space Division. Did you happen to know the company president before he received the DW/Pulte contract for the 2005 reserve study?

And, by the way, why do you think the 2005 reserve study was judged to be so bad that it had to be totally “rejected” INSTEAD of just being updated with better data? Since the reserve study process is mostly a garbage in–garbage out situation with computer models, it is highly dependent on the quality of the data provided to the reserve company.

From your experience, who gave the false/bogus data to the contractor for use in its computer model, and who guided the 2005 reserve study so that it turned out to be completely unacceptable? Such a seemingly valid company could not come out with such a flawed product without guidance from someone from the SCA CAM (operated by Del Webb and reporting to Pulte), Board or committees.

If it was not you, would it have been Dea McDonald, Favil West, David Weil, Terry DaSilva or Jack Troia (all of whom were involved in the CAM, finance committee and board management of the reserves)? (Dea McDonald also had the serious conflict of interest by being the senior Pulte Corporate Excutive for this region while serving as SCA Board President in 2004-2005–just prior to transition.)

And, since you were personally involved in validating the 2005 reserve study (as a member or Chair of the Property and Grounds Committee) that turned out to be bogus, why do you think it took so many (seemingly competent) directors and committee members so long to get a valid reserve study completed? It should have been easy to produce by May of 2005, but until the look-back study was completed in late 2007, we went almost 2 years without a valid reserve study.

Doesn’t it trouble you even a little bit when we recognize how much money was lost to the association due to that long set of delays? A competent board of directors should have been able to validate the bogus reserve study and get it re-accomplished with better data within a 60-day period. Why did it take almost two years to finally complete the process? And, is it not true that even last year’s “reserves look back study” showed Pulte owes SCA close to a million dollars, and no demand for payment has been made for even that modest amount? How is the finance committee reporting on that Pulte obligation?

Bob Frank
SCA Director

December 29, 2008 12:32 AM

———————————–
Richard Pendleton  said:

Norman,

Did the form you mentioned contain the name of the company that performed the Reserve Stuty? If so, could you post it?

December 27, 2008 10:03 AM

————————————
Norman McCullough  said:

I am not going to address this to David Berman because we had a gentleman’s agreement to not attack each other. We both agreed because his wife Roz was concerned about the hateful remarks between us both. Obviously David is not concerned what his wife thinks.
——————————–
To all members;

The 2005 reserve study is labeled “Bogus”, for one simple reason. It was unanimously rejected by the board of directors.

This same reserve study was submitted to The State of Nevada on August 28, 2006 (date stamped). The signature of the individual who signed the form is LeeAnn Withers who was at the time an Agent of RMI. She signed on August 25, 2006.

I obtained my copy of this form from the Ombudsman’s office. Any one who wishes to can also get a copy. If you do not have the time or the inclination, let me know, I will furnish you a copy at the going rate of $0.25 per page.

As to David’s reasoning for his lapse of memory on the subject, you will have to ask him.

December 26, 2008 10:38 AM

—————————————

Norman McCullough  said:

Bob Frank;

You also might (or might not), be surprised to learn these facts.

Mike Dixon was fully aware that RMI submitted the bogus 2005 reserve study to the State of Nevada! Mr. Dixon is also a member of the Nevada Legislative Action Committee!

Another member of the NLAC is none other than Kay Dwyer. You remember her don’t you? She refuses to this day to name the legal council she says she consulted (along with Favil West), before signing the infamous Villa Agreement.

Yet another member is John Leach, our association attorney, who said he was never aware of the terms of the infamous Villa Agreement.

It certainly makes one wonder what are the prerequisites for persons serving on the Nevada Legislative Action Committee doesn’t it?

Do you suppose that the Chairperson (Donna Erwin), and the Vice Chairperson (Pamela Scott) of NLAC are aware of this little escapades?

December 26, 2008 9:56 AM

—————————

David Berman  said:

Norman McCullough writes:

“All the previous board members knew that RMI intended to submit the bogus reserve study to the State of Nevada. All the members of the finance committee knew that RMI intended to submit the bogus reserve study to the State of Nevada. If that’s not an example of RMI, the previous board members, and the previous finance committe members, willfully deceiving the State of Nevada, what is?”

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The superficial -not “bogus”- reserve study Mr. McCullough refers to was submitted to the Board in June, 2005, one month after I joined the Board. After reviewing it, we voted in November, 2005 to reject it.

RMI came aboard in February/March, 2006.

I’d love to see a complaint of some sort filed using Mr. McCullough’s time line. Chances of success since RMI was not even around at the time? Try “zero.”

December 26, 2008 9:24 AM

—-unquote—–

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | 3 Comments »

December 23, 2008 by admin.

 The following recent clips from Ron Johnson’s SCA View-Journal are posted for our reader convenience:

Bob Frank  said on SCA View-Journal:

Mr. Weinstein has once again proven my case. Can anyone take his kind of abusive behavior seriously? He claims to be an HR professional, but he has proven he is unqualified when it comes to leadership, management and compassionate behavior.

Is this man who calls people who disagree with him “liars” and “desert roaches” the kind of leader you thought you were electing last year as part of the so-called “unity party” ticket? Is he the kind of leader you want to make decisions on our $8 Million-dollar budget in the future?

Perhaps now many more members understand why it took Mr. Weinstein 4 attempts to get elected to the board, and then only squeaked in on the coattails of David Berman’s political machine.

We clearly need much better leadership on the board next year. Carl has failed us so many times in the past. What a disappointment!

Bob Frank
SCA Director

December 23, 2008 6:08 PM

Carl Weinstein said on SCA View-Journal:

As a member of the current Board of Directors, the proper thing for me to do would be to ignore the rantings of madman Frank but I just cannot sit quietly when this know-nothing moron spouts off.

Of course the BOD made mistakes with Trumpets. When I first ran for office several years ago my platform was “Get S and D to pay up or get them out” But what has that got to do with life in Sun City since transition? Retired Colonel Frank is a disaster for this community. His hatred for all of us show thru his phoney dewsire to “fix things” in Anthem. Following is a multiple choice quiz on Mr. Frank for you to answer:

Bob Frank is:
1) an idiot
2) stupid
3) a chronic liar
4) all of the above

December 23, 2008 4:57 PM

Bob Frank  said on SCA View-Journal:

Members should take notes on who is making the most noise when the old machine politics (sponsored by the developer’s best friends) are criticized. Note that a consistent theme of the developer’s team is that they never admit to making any mistakes. Not one. That alone is a sign of significant mismanagement.

Even the best managers occasionally make mistakes. Good managers know how to react when errors become known. They admit to their mistakes, make the necessary corrections, and try hard to avoid a repeat. We have not seen such honest behavior by the majority of our board members in the past few years. That signal alone is enough to create some suspicions.

Take for example the case of the disastrous Trumpets Lease with S&D Cafe V. NRS 116.3105 provides for “Termination of contracts and leases of Declarant”. Nevada statutes clearly allows a resident board to terminate (within the first year) any of the developer’s contracts–for the convenience of the association.

The 2005 Board of David Weil, David Berman, Bob Berman, Favil West, Dea McDonald, Bob Sansing and Lyndal Ruiz Board could have notified the Trumpets Lessee anytime during that first year of resident control that the lease was being terminated as authorized by NRS 116.3105. With two trained attorneys on the board, and with the guidance by a so-called Community Management Company, the board had no excuses for not knowing the statutes and for not knowing the importance of gaining full resident control over the lessee’s unsatisfactory performance. But, the board failed to act properly. Why?

During the weeks between notification of lease termination and actual date of vacancy the board could have completed the termination as notified or negotiated revised terms more favorable to SCA and forced the lessee to pay 100% of rent and catering revenue shares. But, the board did neither. It failed to act and the community has suffered over a million-dollar loss and our premises has stayed vacant for over a year.

If the lessee had threatened in 2005 to sue over past misconduct by DW/Pulte and/or the CAM, the board would have simply told them fine; but, meanwhile, the lease was terminated, and the lessee’s multi-million-dollar catering revenue steam was over. I have little doubt that the lessee would have paid all rent and all revenue shares in lieu of having to lose its very profitable lease. Does that look like exceptionally poor business judgment, and/or possible fraudulent behavior, by the board and its Del Webb Community Management Company? It certainly does!

Meanshile, the fact remains that the 2005 and 2006 boards did nothing but aid and abet the lesse’s misconduct. Why? David Berman and Bob Sansing have claimed that they tried for a whole year in 2005-2006 to do something, but they failed. And, if they are not to blame for our losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Trumpets lease since 2005, who is?

Favil West, Bob Berman and Dea McDonald were the “trumpets negotiating team”. Are they personally responsible for such a disaster? What what about the other 4 board members? David Weil, David Berman, Bob Sansing and Lyndal Ruiz could have acted in 2005? And, what about the other four board members including Kay Dwyer, Lanie Berg, David Berman and David Weil in 2006? Did they not have a controlling vote in both years to over-ride such gross misconduct and financial waste and abuse? Why is this story such a big secret, and why is it still being covered up?

Conclusion? Stay tuned for the real facts and ignore the blustering. Public protests and unsubstantiated defensive claims to the contrary, the machine politics sponsored by our developer and friends seem unable to admit their failures and to correct their problems.

This year, SCA Members have no choice but to vote the old guard out and keep them out of office in the future.

Bob Frank
SCA Director

December 23, 2008 4:07 PM

David Berman  said on SCA View-Journal:

Lowell:

Please take note that Mr. McCullough seems to have a distinction that no one else holding any position in SCA can claim: a lifetime appointment.

December 23, 2008 3:49 PM

Lowell Benjamin  said on SCA View-Journal:

Friends of SCA,

The financial wiz of the dynamic duo Batman and (everyone is Robbin’) otherwise known as the Prince of accusations and name calling continues with no let up in sight. What an embarrassment to the many Villa homeowners who are punished as their properties values continue to sink. A lot of potential buyers probably have been turned off and turned away. How many more thousands in property values have to be lost by bad press and hate in his quest of chasing windmills?

This home schooled auditor, bookkeeper, accountant and CPA has accused every volunteer board member, finance committee member, RMI and fellow homeowners that don’t agree with him, of corruption wrong doing, embezzlement, mismanagement and stupidity. Doesn’t he have any mirrors in his home? I’m afraid he is missing something.

Whenever a compelling argument on a Villa reserve issue is brought forward by qualified people he always reverts back to his comfort zone which is a torrid attack of belittling a person, put downs or denigrating ones hard earned reputation. Any normal person would flinch in disgust at his writings.

The only thing that he hasn’t accused anyone as of late was shooting President Jack Kennedy. Stay tuned his dog may enlighten us shortly. When will the good Villa owners and the rest of SCA residents say enough is enough? There is one male in that household that needs a muzzle and it’s not Dexter.

December 23, 2008 1:55 PM

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 5 Comments »