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 »

February 21, 2011 by admin.

The SCA members attending the open Republican Special Interest Group meeting Monday tonight heard Henderson City Council Candidate Thomas Wagner (currently serving as a  supervisory METRO Police Detective) respond to questions about the recent $1.3 Million settlement for improper termination of the former Henderson City Manager.

He also revealed critical evidence about the innocence of Bob Frank and Tim Stebbins who have been charged by the Henderson Police Department with filing a false police report in November 2009.

Candidate Wagner explained how, if elected, he would stay involved in the details of important issues and avoid the kind of Henderson City Management mistakes that have been so prevalent, and have cost the City millions in law suit settlements in recent years.

During the statement Officer Wagner gave an example of the kind of action he felt he could prevent if serving on the Henderson City Council.  He confirmed (the written statements given to HPD) that he was one of the two METRO law enforcement detectives that former SCA Director Bob Frank and Tim Stebbins consulted prior to submitting a police report to Henderson in November 2009.

Detective Wagner said the document he had been asked to review was for the Henderson Police Department to investigate suspected criminal statute violations by two Sun City Anthem Directors (President Roz Berman and Secretary Roger Cooper).   Officer Wagner said  the evidence shown to him by Bob Frank (and Tim Stebbins) was good and he advised them they were obligated to ask for an investigation by Henderson Police. 

Detective Wagner said the charging and arrest of Frank (and Stebbins) for allegedly “filing a false police report” by the City of Henderson was wrong, and that such a mistake is an example of why the Henderson City Council and staff had been wasting so much of the taxpayers money when paying out large settlements for their mismanagement. 

Overall, Officer Wagner’s extensive comments made it clear that if the Henderson Police had bothered to ask him, he would have readily confirmed his meeting with Frank and Stebbins and thereby saved the City and the two individuals much time, money and inconvenience.

Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News! | Print | No Comments »

February 19, 2011 by kayfrank.

If you had listened to the SCA directors (past and present) and the board’s contracted auditor/tax preparer, CPA Gary Lein, you might conclude the dispute with the IRS Revenue Agent is just about whether the board had the “authority” to DECIDE on befalf of members to:
(1)  immediately REFUND the surplus assessment income to members, or
(2)  RETURN all of the surplus funds by cutting the annual assessment rate the NEXT year.

But, accepting that misdirection would be a huge MISTAKE!  The REAL issue TODAY is that the boards NEVER RETURNED the surpluses as the Treasurers CLAIMED UNDER OATH!  It is no wonder certain individuals want to stall as long as possible (at any cost to us) before having to face the music!  And, certain directors have been deceiving us for years.  See this document for some hard evidence of that:  Cover-Up

The hard evidence shows the board has filed knowingly FALSE tax returns, lied to the Henderson Police Department, and deceived the membership into believing ALL assessment surpluses have been returned.  Look at this last page of SCA’s 2007 Income Tax Return for some CLEAR evidence.
2007 Tax Return Page & Board Resolution Showing False Claims

Past and current boards have gone so far to falsely claim they had spent some of the assessment surpluses from prior years to “keep dues from going up”.  Outrageous political deceptions!  IRS specifically prohibits the board from doing that under 70-604!

It is now shown that all past SCA dues have been GROSSLY over-charged since 2005!  The boards have been rolling in surplus assessments and wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars while claiming to be managing “prudently”.  Shame on all of us for buying such trash!

Certain individuals have even falsely claimed to use prior year surpluses to enable the “dues holidays” in the 4th quarters of 2008 and 2009.  But, the income tax reports, the IRS audit, and the annual budget reports PROVE those statements were false.

For example, look at the attached budget chart the board FINALLY revealed in 2009.  It clearly reports there were millions of dollars of UNTAXED surpluses rolled over, year-by-year, since 2002.  Never were the annual assessment rates reduced to allow member refunds from prior year surpluses–as mandated by the IRS to AVOID income taxes .

A review of the 2008 and 2009 budgets submitted for approval by the board and members FAILED to refund the millions of accumulated surpluses. And, while the budget planning charts showed the accumulated surpluses, the actual budgets did not show the surpluses.  If they had, the obvious questions would have been, why are the assessments not CUT–instead of increased?  This indicates DECEPTIVE accounting–if not violations of generally accepted accounting standards.

We now know the so-called “dues holidays” had NOTHING to do with the prior year assessment surpluses.  They had to do with the CURRENT year EXCESS assessments AFTER the boards discovered they had failed to find ways to spend all of the gross overcharges, and when there was no room in the BLOATED reserve accounts to park any more surplus money.

The board’s own records show there were millions of accumulated assessment surpluses AFTER the 2008 and 2009 dues holidays.  IF the boards had been telling the truth to the IRS, Henderson Police, and our homeowners, the annual assessment rates would have been REDUCED BY MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT (50%) in both 2008 and 2009, and there would have been ZERO accumulated surpluses at the start of 2010.

Look up the names of all those on the SCA board and finance committees since 2005, and see if you can find more than one board member who voted to reduce the annual assessments and voted consistently against raising them.  One director was ridiculed and harassed when he tried to get the board to understand and apply the tax code correctly. Two SCA members were arrested in 2010 when they were merely seeking justice for fellow homeowners.

Now we know that, contrary to the deceptions by those self-serving directors and friends on the finance committees, our annual dues should have been set at least twenty-five percent (25%) lower than it was.   If we had had honest and ethical directors, we could have enjoyed the extra cash, our property values would have been significantly enhanced over today’s levels, and our lifestyles would not be dragged down by the endless disputes over the board’s financial misconduct.

So, in the future when the SCA income tax issue come up, tell the board members, candidates, and everyone you know that you DEMAND YOUR MONEY BACK!  You want the board to STOP wasting your hard-earned money on their egos and their lawyers.  Instead of paying income taxes on surplus income, YOU INSIST THE SURPLUSES BE REFUNDED TO YOUR SCA ACCOUNT–as the law requires!!  And, you know that there is NO REASON to pay income taxes if they RETURN ALL of the accumulated surplus assessments!

Tell the directors (in writing and in person–every chance you get) that you will hold them personally responsible if they don’t immediately stop wasting your money by trying to bluff, bully or finesse the IRS.  Tell them that saving the director’s egos is not worth a penny of your money.  Assure the directors you consider it GROSS NEGLIGENCE to be wasting your money appealing the tax ruling and that you will be working with the whole community to demand they personally make up the losses from their bad judgments.

Kay Frank
SCA Resident
————
If you are not conversant with Revenue Rule 70-604, see this link for easy to understand details:

————

Kay Frank
SCA Resident

References:

• Bogus Dues Holidays 
• Dues Overcharged
• 2010 Dues Should Be $800
• Why Is There A Dues Holiday?
• Dixon & Roz Berman Fail to Explain Taxes
• Briggs Reports Income Tax Return Errors

(Note: to find more postings on taxes and related matters, use our Search Box at the bottom–left of the home page.)

Posted in 2011 Campaign, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

February 19, 2011 by admin.

As reported by email today, the following candidates (alphabetical order) have filed for the 2011 election:

Michael L. Carey
Robert E. Frank
James J. Long
Bella L. Meese
Wade E. Terry
Michael Dalton Waterhouse
Carl Weinstein

Posted in 2011 Campaign, Removal Election, Ann_Small, SCA Board, News! | Print | No Comments »

February 17, 2011 by admin.

This is a revised outline of Anthem VOICE’s proposed “Contract with SCA Shareholders” for Directors and Board Candidates with the best way to resolve the IRS dispute.

1.    SCA CAI will replace its discredited law firm and audit/tax preparing firm with competent ones.

2.    SCA CAI will notify the IRS Revenue Agent by March 1, 2011 it accepts the findings and that it is proceeding immediately with implementing full and complete compliance with IRS Revenue Ruling 70-604.  Amended tax returns to be submitted for 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 before June 1, 2011.

3.    SCA CAI will notify all SCA Members/Shareholders by March 1, 2011 that all accumulated surplus member assessments will be electronically deposited to member accounts by the end of April, 2011.  At that point, members can elect to withdraw the cash balances or let the deposits ride until exhausted.

4.    SCA CAI will identify a highly qualified, independent professional to approach the IRS to negotiate a low penalty fee that recognizes the Association has returned all accumulated member surpluses, accepts full responsibility for its previous errors, filed amended returns for all years since 2007, certifies it will not happen again, and requests compassion on behalf of the senior members of SCA—most of whom are living on very modest retirement incomes and facing the impacts of rapidly growing inflation.

A retired Senior IRS Revenue Agent has suggested that such a professional  approach could save SCA homeowners millions of dollars of income taxes, avoid wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a discredited tax preparer and law firm, and wind up only paying a modest penalty of around $50,000.

Accordingly, Anthem VOICE asks current Directors and Board Candidates to sign a formal pledge to follow this settlement plan and to abandon the current plan.

——————————

Here are some details for those who are not aware of the situation:

1.  The SCA Board of Directors notified SCA Shareholders on February 10, 2011 that the Internal Revenue Service has completed its audit of the 2007 Sun City Anthem Income Tax Return.  The IRS found SCA in violation of IRS Revenue Ruling 70-604 where it had claimed to be exempt from income taxes on $3.8 Million of surplus annual member assessments. The Board had claimed to intend to credit the entire surplus by reducing the subsequent year’s assessment rate by that amount.  But, IRS found the board had failed to comply with its tax return, and assessed SCA to pay $1.345 Million in back income taxes, fines and penalties.

2.  There are two main elements of the IRS notification:  (1) assessment of back income taxes because of a falsely-declared exemption in 2007, and (2) fines and penalties for filing a false income tax return.

3.  The Board has indicated its intention to challenge the ruling through the IRS appeal process.  This often can take up to a year to complete, and the costs of using the association attorney, tax preparer, RMI Executives and other expert witnesses for such time-consuming appeals could amount to well over $300,000.

4.  IRS Revenue Ruling 70-604 has been in place since 1970.  Based on the history of appeals in other States, the Board’s chance of winning its appeal is near zero.  Meanwhile, the initial IRS fines and penalties will be growing.  In addition, back taxes, fines and penalties could be levied on 2008/2009/2010 tax returns.

5.  Membership costs for following the Board’s current path could amount to well over $5 million and take over 1 year to complete the process.  If the Directors failed during appeals, and continued on to fight in tax court, they would almost certainly be facing more failures, and the costs could be many millions more.

In the end, all of the involved directors could be held personally liable for failing their fiduciary duties to shareholders. It will be obvious that personal interests caused the unjustifiable behavior that drove them through the IRS appeal process in disregard of the severe financial impacts to shareholders.

——————

PDF File of This Posting:     contract-with-sca-shareholders.pdf

Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Laws & Rules, News! | Print | 1 Comment »

February 2, 2011 by admin.

Ron Johnson’s SCA View-Journal has suggested the Board may be accused of committing election fraud by withholding the results of the IRS Audit learned during a December 2010 meeting with IRS.

Here is the link to the January 31, 2011 article by Ron Johnson.
http://www.scaview.org/PossibleElectionFraud.html

He makes a good argument that if the Board had learned the IRS had reported that the association had previously submitted its income tax returns properly, and it owed no back taxes, the board and its political party consortium would be bragging about it from every rooftop.

But, the board’s secretive behavior about what they recently learned suggests the news from the IRS was very bad.  And, such bad news from the IRS could be very damaging to the board’s annual programs to control SCA elections to suit its agenda of ensuring only board-sponsored/endorsed members get elected.

Withholding bad IRS audit results from the members could be considered a type of election fraud, and Ron Johnson’s suppositions about the Board’s behavior could be justified.

Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

January 14, 2011 by bobfrank.

Some of the other blogs have been debating whether the Community/Security Patrol organization of volunteers can survive the long series of attacks by the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors?  It seems clear (to this former board member) that the SCA Board always does exactly what its leadership wants to do.  And, no one should misunderstand the Board’s and RMI’s intent during the past few months.

Here are the links to our extensive reports on the August 12, 2010 meeting, subsequent actions, and the public misconduct by Board President (CPA)Troia and Board Secretary (Attorney) Small.
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/07/31/why-change-security-patrol-name/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/13/security-patrol-named-killed-by-board/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/05/still-mystified-about-security-patrol-name-dispute/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/16/who-committed-the-software-crime/
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/22/follow-the-money-behind-security-patrol-name-change/
In my opinion, the board’s intent to replace the volunteer patrol with a commercial contract is unmistakable.  The unjustified, blanket charges of “theft” and “criminal violations” by CPA Troia and Attorney Small against past and present Security Patrol leadership were intended to damage SCA perceptions of the integrity of the Security Patrol leadership and to destroy the Security Patrol’s morale.  All of the patrol’s leaders had previously completed honorable careers in public safety and/or law enforcement.  The way they have been treated by the Board members has been truly disgusting.

In addition, the piling on by Director (former attorney) Jerry Gardner, and the other Unity Party directors, shows they had prior secret meetings to formulate a carefully orchestrated plan to slowly kill the organization.  The timing and subsequent events prove to most members that the board had a plan to motivate the volunteers to quit while preparing for a contracted organization.  The plan recognized that over the past decade, thousands of SCA members had supported the Security Patrol, and the Board was naturally a bit concerned about the possibility of creating a political backlash against the Unity Party’s control of the Board during the 2011 board election.

So, who wins when the patrol is “outsourced” to a contractor?

•  Board of Directors:  The Directors seek “absolute power” over everything and everyone within this community.  Most board members in the past 3 yeas have disliked the patrol’s volunteer leadership and many of the volunteer staff members.   Due to the nature of the patrol’s mission and its elected leaders, these members have usually been independent thinkers backed by strong community support.  But, the SCA Board Presidents and other controlling officers have been dictators–not leaders.  The Unity crowd can not tolerate anything less than complete subservience.  While the Patrol has faithfully followed Board policies and procedures, ever since Roz Berman became President (and Bob Berman left the Board) the Patrol has been considered “uncooperative”.  By contracting out the Patrol mission, the Unity Party Directors expect to finally achieve total, unquestioned control over this major SCA mission area.  I believe it is obvious the board majority is not concerned about cost or quality service.  It is simply about seeking self-serving, “absolute power”.
• RMI:  It is certain that a contracted out Patrol would have to be done through RMI, and the public and private business benefits/increased profits to that company are obvious.  While patrol services are not normally offered by RMI, it is easy to envision how RMI possesses unacceptable conflicts of interest in a program to replace the volunteer patrol with a contracted service.
• Patrol Contractor:  No candidate contractor has become known to us, but one can see from way the Board normally uses sole-source contracting, it likely has at least one company in mind.  Whomever that is, it would certainly provide windfall profits to some individuals who are likely to be most grateful to the most influential directors.  While we are not suggesting kickbacks or other financial benefits are certain to be involved in this affair, one has to see the obvious potential for such hidden agendas.  Speaking as a former Air Force contracting officer, this kind of odd situation would normally be identified as a potential fraud.

So, is the “volunteer Patrol” dead, but simply put on life support until after the next board election?   Yes!  The only chance of saving the Patrol we have known and loved will be to elect anti-Unity directors in 2011 who will sign a notarized pledge to save the volunteer Patrol.

Nevada Statutes provide for the Patrol members and their preferred board candidates to have the rights and obligations to use their internal organization to oppose the board’s apparent intentions during the election period.  SCA members/shareholders should not allow themselves to be bullied into submission by directors serving their personal interests, while flagrantly violating their fiduciary duties to the shareholders/homeowners.  It this opinion is not fully understood, please contact me for specific evidence to back it up.

If the majority of the thousands of current and prior Patrol volunteers are not willing to get off their “lazy-boys” and immediately do the hard, door-to-door campaigning to identify 4 board candidates and the hundreds of SCA voters they can trust to save the Patrol, we are facing a contracted operation, MUCH higher assessments, and MUCH lower quality of community services.

Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Truth Squad, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | No Comments »

January 9, 2011 by admin.

Below are files containing the words in 5 recent Nevada Real Estate Division Intervention Affidavit requests filed by Norman McCullough against one or more of the SCA Directors.

Normally, such formal Intervention Affidavit words are held confidential by those making the allegations in hopes of reaching some kind of private settlement or justice from the State agencies.  But, that has not been the case.  This time, we have posted the affidavit details, and some online links of validation, to respond to those members who complain that insufficient detail is available to know what is going on.

Some readers will complain of having to deal with too much detail.  Others will complain about there never being sufficient facts posted to know the whole truth.  So, consider the following to be a middle ground.  Those who want the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, can contact us for even more details.  Either way, a fair-minded person should see that the directors can not be blindly trusted to always make honorable and legal decisions.  And, members should wonder, what they would do if the board’s unchecked wrath is ever turned on them?

In the meantime, we are not aware of one single dispute over board actions between a SCA member and the SCA Directors that has ever been settled to mutual agreement.  Nor has there been any punishment against past SCA Board misconduct, so one has to conclude the system is unfair to homeowners, and there are no reasons to keep the detailed allegations private.  It is past time to show the entire membership how they have been deceived by the directors and CAMs, and the only way to do that is through the public media channels.

This change in approach may draw some adverse public attention to the board’s gross negligence and other misconduct, but before anyone tries to condemn the victimized members for going public, it must be remembered that it was the Director’s choice to abuse their power, and to refuse to resolve major conflicts in private.

Also, each filing with the State of Nevada requires Norm to certify under oath that he is telling the truth to the best of his ability, and to recognize there could be State punishment if any allegation is found to be willfully false or frivolous.  Each filing also requires the Directors to formally respond to the member about the allegations, and they have refused to do so.  But, the directors are never punished for failing to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So, no matter who you are, or if you have previously supported the unity and other SCA political party activities, how can you have blind faith in the Director’s perfect judgment and behavior?   In these reported cases (which are a small percentage of the more than 100 filed by various members in the past couple of years), what conclusion can there be except that the Directors have been aggressively working to “retaliate” against Norm and Mary McCullough for refusing to shut up about the financial errors and omissions committed against the villas owners in the past few years?  The McCulloughs have suffered real financial harm involving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars from SCA Board’s uncaring, mismanagement and RMI participation. Are there not significant litigation risks apparently willfully created by the Directors for SCA and themselves by such unexplainable director behavior?

It is particularly sad when one realizes that the money owed to the villas owners could have been refunded instead of wasted on association attorney fees paid to cover up the Board’s mistakes.  And, if you disagree, please post your common sense explanation for the board’s behavior.   We just don’t understand it….

—–Norman McCullough’s Allegations Against SCA Board Statute Violations——–
Affidavit #1
Affidavit #2
Affidavit #3
Affidavit #4
Affidavit #5

——————–
There has been massive evidence previously posted online by most of the SCA blogs concerning apparent SCA Board deception, fraud and corruption.  Here are just a few links to corroborating evidence of apparent willful board law violations against Norman and Mary McCullough. No one can honestly claim that no hard evidence against the Directors has been previously released.

For example, Ron Johnson has consistently reported the truth on SCA-View.  Here are just some recent examples:

http://www.scaview.org/TheCoverUp.html

http://www.scaview.org/Deceit.html

http://www.scaview.org/JusticeDenied.html

http://www.scaview.org/TheMcCulloughHearing.html

http://www.scaview.org/BermanComplaint.html

http://www.scaview.org/BoardLost150000sf.html

Previously posted on Anthem Today:

http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2218&p=3923&hilit=mccullough#p3923

http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2073&p=3588hilit=mccullough#p3588

Previously posted on this Anthem VOICE blog:

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/09/10/mccullough-foundnot-guilty/

 http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/29/was-it-a-charade-or-fraud/

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/25/board-to-hold-kangaroo-court-on-august-26-2010/

Those who help cover up and blindly ignore such blatant board misconduct must be considered parties to what clearly looks like fraud and abuse.  NV history shows that if similar conduct was performed by (for example) the Henderson City Council or the Clark County Commission, the responsible officials were criminally charged and some went to jail.

But, because of apparently corrupt HOA enforcement, our board has skated free–without any accountability for their misconduct.  The only solution is to abolish political parties in SCA and elect independent truly directors who can be trusted to be ethical and honor their promises to SCA members/shareholders/homeowners.

Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Laws & Rules, Lifestyle | Print | No Comments »

December 27, 2010 by bobfrank.

The Anthem Journal’s owner has politically attacked me for sticking up for the owner of the AnthemToday.  The piece is found at this link:
http://anthemjournal.typepad.com/davids_anthem_journal/2010/12/the-latest-bob-frank-flight-of-fancy.html

In response, I have filed a formal complaint form with the SCA Board of Directors via the new web site.  I have attached my contents for your convenience since the Board has never answered any of my previous questions, it is unlikely to change the policy of “we have to let THEM comment, but we don’t have to listen.”  Feel free to use any of my below words or ideas in your own messages to the board.  Ask any attorney you know.  It is not a trivial mistake for Director Ann Small to participate in such a project.

“Former Board VP and spouse of Director/VP Roz Berman has stated on his web site:
‘Mr. Frank is apparently unaware that there is no longer an Editorial Content Committee, nor has any similar function yet to be established, if indeed it ever will be, within the recently formed Communications Committee.’

While I had heard that the ECC had been merged into the Communications Committee, I have not seen such a major decision being officially notified to all unit owners.  Is it true that all of the ECC policies and procedures had been terminated with no replacement of similar or same policies and procedures planned for the future?

Please advise if “Appendix B Standards of Acceptability” has been terminated without planned replacement in 2011?  If so, the Board and CAM have failed to under NRS requirements and the RMI contract to notify all unit owners of such major changes in community governing rules.

Also, I have commented on Anthem VOICE that it appears to me that Director/Attorney Ann Small has violated her fiduciary duty to association shareholders by allowing her name to be used in support of Mr. Berman’s political letter to the City of Henderson against Ms. Goodman.  In my opinion, allowing her name to be used on such a political attack piece to the City of Henderson, her former employer, crates a litigation risk to the Association that can not be justified under the BJR.

Please advise. After the major mistakes made by the Directors and CAM, and particularly those of your active member of the NV Bar, Ann Small, who never caught the association attorney’s major legal errors on the charges and hearing procedures during the recent McCullough case, people are wondering if the board and CAM are receiving COMPETENT advice?

It is well known that creating litigation risks for the board are clear examples of director violations of fiduciary duty.  I believe Mr. Berman’s letter is an example of opening a significant litigation risk to the Board since Director/Attorney Small has put her reputation with the City behind the questionable credibility of the letter.  Otherwise, it would be just a letter from a few disgruntled old people.

Who is looking out for the good of SCA, and why has Director Small failed to notify the City of Henderson that her name was falsely or incorrectly included as a sponsor on Mr. Berman’s political attack letter against Rana Goodman to the City Council?”

Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Community Affairs, Operations | Print | 1 Comment »

December 15, 2010 by admin.

 (The following article has been updated as of 9:40 PM on December 18, 2010.)

As found on Anthem Today and Anthem Journal, the following political hate mail is quoted and shown to be a potential violation of Sun City Anthem Governing Documents.  It is to Henderson Mayor Hafen and other City Council members, and drafted by former Director/Attorney David Berman, Current Director/Attorney Ann Small and about a dozen other hateful old people as listed below.

We are wondering if the Directors who falsely charged and illegally punished a SCA member recently for daring to question their financial management will also move to punish members of their own board for violations of the SCA governing rules and failing their fiduciary duty?

In the past, there have been some really hateful and all-round dirty political tricks played on some of our Sun City Anthem seniors by the members of this group, but this one is perhaps the most outrageously bogus action in some time.

“November 30, 2010

Dear Mayor and Councilors:

The undersigned signatories are all residents of Sun City Anthem (SCA), and the purpose of this letter is to express our concerns over what we believe to be unacceptable behavior by fellow SCA resident Rana Goodman, an appointed member of the Henderson Senior Citizens Advisory Commission.

Ms. Goodman owns and publishes one of several online blogs/forums that serve our SCA community. Her blog is titled Anthem Today, and its Internet address is www.anthemtoday.com. As the owner and publisher of this communication channel, Ms. Goodman holds ultimate responsibility for the content posted on her publication, including the authority to remove or delete offensive or inappropriate material.

In a community such as ours, with 7,144 homes and about 13,000 residents, it is inevitable that differences of opinion will arise over the policies and decisions of our elected HOA leaders. Most of our residents are fully capable of expressing their differences in a respectful, responsible manner, and they demonstrate this capability when they have strong opinions to share with our elected leaders and their fellow residents.

As is their right, Ms. Goodman and the vast majority of those posting to her blog are quite vigorous in opposing SCA management and operational decisions. This is an ongoing expression of their collective freedom of speech, and they are breaking no laws in doing so.

But Ms. Goodman has recently allowed articles to be posted on her blog which are so extreme as to anger a wide segment of SCA, especially those of the Jewish faith but also many of other faiths. Specifically: She permitted an article to be published which, in expressing disagreement over the temporary suspension of our SCA community website message board until a method of moderating the messages can be devised, compared our Board of Directors’ action to the murder of millions by Adolf Hitler in The Holocaust. The article was illustrated with a cartoon showing Nazi soldiers beating Jews in the street and two photographs of concentration-camp prisoners.

Several residents who lost family members in The Holocaust were among those who were outraged by the article.

After a firestorm of protests ensued, with Ms. Goodman refusing to remove the offending article, the writer of the article removed the images and instead changed the slant of his writing to compare our Board’s actions to McCarthyism, illustrating the revised article with several images from the McCarthy era.

Ms. Goodman did not write the offending articles, but she has, on a continuing basis, tolerated these types of written attacks which diminish the level of discourse in our community and refer to community leaders and residents who disagree with her viewpoints on many issues in the most vile and near-defamatory terms.

You might ask why we are putting our names on this letter to you (reverse side). It is not a petition, and we are not asking that Ms. Goodman be removed from her volunteer position on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. Rather, we want to put ourselves on record as believing that as a member of a body that is supposed to be sensitive to the issues and concerns of Henderson’s senior citizens, her tolerance of such divisive behavior is not sending the right message about what our wonderful city and its dedicated volunteers and elected leaders stand for.”

Signed by:
1.   David A. Berman (former SCA Vice President and former MA attorney)
2.   Ann Small (SCA Director & Secretary, Member of NV Bar, Former member of Henderson City Attorney
staff, Former Henderson Judge Pro Tem, Former Nurse)
3.   Michael Wolf (Former NY attorney)
4.   Gerrie Katz-Wolf (Former member SCA Web Site Committee and member,
SCA Communications Committee)
5.   Robert Sansing (Former SCA Director and Former President, SCA Current Events Club)
6.   Roberta Sansing (Has since demanded her name be removed–had not approved the letter as claimed)
7.   Al Daly
8.   Sherryl Daly
9.   Stuart Schweit (Active member of Performing Arts Club/Channel 99as “Chef Stu)
10. Robert Murphy (Former member, SCA Finance Committee and 1 of 3 members of
SCA Restaurant Selection/Lease Negotiation Committee with Roz Berman & Dan Forgeron)
11. Elaine Izaks
12. Paul Fogelson
13. Deborah Fogelson (Has since demanded her name be removed–had not approved the letter as claimed)

 AV COMMENTS:

Lawyer/Director/Board Secretary Ann Small, Former Attorneys Wolf and Berman, former Directors Berman and Sansing,  Former Finance Committee member Murphy and (especially) Communications Committee Member Gerrie Katz-Wolf know that such an obviously political and potentially defamatory letter can not be sent to the Henderson City Council without being reviewed by the Communications Committee and approved by the Board of Directors.

Why is it NOT considered an item of free speech by the signatories to the City Council?  Because Board Secretary/NV Attorney Ann Small is a CURRENT  Director and the others with relevant expertise are not free to ignore the SCA governing documents .  They have a lawful, fiduciary duty to the Association that governs every act they take as long as they are serving as a SCA Director.

Since this letter could be considered highly damaging to the community’s reputation with the City, as well as to Rana Goodman, active participation by Director/Attorney Ann Small might be judged violations of NRS 116.3103.1 on fiduciary duty, the NV Bar Association Code of Ethics, and NRS sections on defamation.

Also, Communications Committee Member Gerrie Katz-Wolf should not be allowed to ignore that SHE KNOWS such types of PUBLIC communications to government officials containing multiple personal endorsements by current directors and standing committee members MUST be reviewed by the new Communications Committee–before it is released.  And, she knows the letter would have failed to get official approval by the CC and the Board.  So, why did she participate if not to play dirty political tricks and to try to hurt Rana Goodman’s reputation in the City?

Director-Secretary/Attorney Small is REQUIRED by Statutes and Bar Ethics Codes concerning fiduciary duties to ENSURE that anything going to any government or other official organization with her name, or any other current director’s name, is properly reviewed before being released.

Board Secretary Small knows that she is required to ensure that the “Editorial Content Committee (ECC) Standards” are used to review everything citing sponsorship by Directors (regardless of whether their titles are used or not).  Although the ECC has been merged into a new “Communications Committee”, nothing has been said about declaring the SCA communications Standards of Acceptability have been revolked.  Those standards are:

“STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY
1. Communications shall serve the good of the Sun City Anthem community as a whole, by
promoting the community lifestyle and fostering a sense of community.
2. Information shall be disseminated in a variety of media formats in order to reach all
residents and support their pursuance of independent living within the Sun City Anthem
community.
3. Priority shall be given to items of significant interest to a majority of the community.
4. With the exception of breaking and emergency news, all media shall be produced
according to a predetermined production schedule.
5. Clear visual/verbal presentations and/or readability are essential for all communications.
All material shall be professional, including quality sound, lighting and editing for video.
6. All material shall he accurate, and all sources shall he attributable. Accuracy shall be
established, fact shall be distinguished from rumor, and content shall not be colored by
personal opinion.
7. The media shall conform to the Association’s legal documents and to the policies of
SCACAI Board of Directors. The Board retains the option of final review.
8. No libelous, defamatory, inflammatory, or insulting material shall be used.
9. No obscene material shall be used.
10. No vulgar or offensive language shall be used.
11. Material shall not be presented in an adverse or antagonistic manner.
12. The media shall not be used to express religious or political views with exception of
issues approved by the SCACAI Board of Directors and official SCACAI elections for
which equal time and/or space will be provided each candidate.
13. Legitimate controversies of interest to all residents shall be reported objectively in a balanced pro/con format. Scripts, video and sound bytes shall be fair and balanced.
14. All advertising shall be informative, targeted and representative of Sun City Anthem’s
uniqueness.”

A review of the letter shows it flagrantly violated a number of the SCA rules and it deserves to be asked,

Why was this violation allowed by the informed directors, former directors and members mentioned?

What sanctions for the involved director and current standing committee members should be recommended?

Should SCA Members ask Ann Small and Gerri Katz-Wolf to resign?

Should SCA members who truly care about Rana Goodman’s good name and those of others who have been defamed by this group write to the Mayor and City Council and expose the long record of hateful behavior by certain signers of that letter?   Although the City Council is probably smart enough to recognize the defamatory intent of the letter, such a bogus letter should not be allowed to stand without being corrected–or get ready to see many more like it in the future.

By the way:

1.  Why were the names of Lanie and Joel Berg missing on the letter?   They were the ones most outraged at the board meeting and subsequently expressing hurt feelings at the original blog post.  Maybe this David Berman letter was just too disgusting for even their tastes?

2.  Why would SCA Director, Board Secretary, and NV Attorney (and former Henderson Assistant City Attorney and Henderson Judge Pro Tem) allow her name to be placed on that political attack letter if not to try to defame and seriously damage the reputation of Rana Goodman with the Henderson City Council–her former employer?  Imagine Ann Small trying to claim in front of a judge that she never thought of that aspect of the letter?

Posted in Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Laws & Rules, Lifestyle | Print | No Comments »

December 10, 2010 by admin.

 (This posting was updated on January 30, 2011.)

———————

Front page, top of the fold headline in LV Review-Journal:

(FBI) “Elite Unit Running HOA Fraud Investigation” by Jeff German.  
FBI Investigation of HOA Fraud
http://www.lvrj.com/news/elite-unit-running-hoa-fraud-investigation-111656164.html

Sun City Anthem’s 2010 board election has been under formal investigation since May 2010
by the Nevada Real Estate Division’s Compliance Section.  More than 600 pages of evidence
was submitted to support the 27+ allegations of law violations in 2010.  The original
Anthem VOICE report on statute violations during the 2010 election is at the following link.
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/05/06/board-election-alleged-illegal/

AV’s report on the board’s flagrantly illegal “early voting” scheme for privileged Unity
Party supporters in April 2011 is at this link:
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/04/25/board-president-has-meltdown-in-april-board-meeting/

AV Report on unfair treatment of non-Unity Political Party candidates is at this link:
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/04/23/election-committee-failing-to-offer-equitable-treatment/

Some SCA VIEW Reports on the 2010 SCA Election Law Violations are at these links:
http://www.scaview.org/ElectionCoverup.html
http://www.scaview.org/ElectionBallotFiasco.html
http://www.scaview.org/ElectionBallotFiasco2.html

Some Anthem Today Reports on SCA’s 2010 Election Staqtute Failures are here:
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1687
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1595
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1702
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1736

Status:  The SCA Board has refused to respond to any of the reported law violations, and no
significant changes were made to the Election Manual and/or policies and procedures since 2009.
At the November 2010 Board Meeting, SCA President Troia made it clear no responses to the
confirmed allegations were planned, and said that the were proceeding with using the discredited
Ballot Box company again.

Meanwhile, the State of Nevada’s formal investigation into alleged election fraud
and abuse at Sun City Anthem is proceeding.  Those who have recently submitted Intervention
Affidavits to the Real Estate Division know that such an investigation would not be opened unless
there was solid evidence to justify the effort.

With SCA’s 2011 election about to start in January, with the State having an open investigation, with the IRS audit of SCA tax returns, and with the FBI publicizing its investigation into LV HOA board election fraud (in an obvious move to gather more
information), one would think the board and its Unity Political Party sponsors would consider
abandoning its stonewalling approach to unit owner/shareholder concerns over the 2010 failure
to have fair and open elections.

Directors are individually/personally liable for honoring their fiduciary duties to unit
owners/shareholders.  When it comes to ensuring open and fair board elections, directors
can not get away with trying to use the “Business Judgment Rule” to justify failures to act to prevent election fraud and abuse by what appears to be a corrupt political party machine.

The FBI’s investigation is heading towards exposing many fradulent activities by LV HOAs. It is not too late for the SCA Directors to do the honorable things and move to correct the past election violations.  Every statute violation will be reported daily during the 2011 election  and not held to the end of the campaign.

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

December 9, 2010 by bobfrank.

Anthem Today Blog is featuring a topic named “Sun City Anthem Named to HOA Hall of Shame–Again”.  See this link:
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2335

The “Hall of Shame” web site is located at this link:
http://hoaadvocate.homestead.com/index.html

Readers should review the topic and comments on Anthem Today, and then consider the following:

———–

The key issue on this case is “how do the fence extensions LOOK, from a neighborhood perspective?” The purpose of our ARC governing rules is to try to ensure our community stays looking “good”, and that should be the bottom line for such disputes.

If it is true that a dozen neighbors in the near vicinity do not object to the way the fence extensions look on both sides of her home, and if there are other examples of similar fence extensions elsewhere in SCA, a variance should have been granted by the ARC and Board to the homeowner.  No hassles for the member, and no fines would be appropriate.

It occasionally happens that someone on the ARC,  RMI staff or Board gets annoyed at a homeowner because they do not dot the i’s and cross the t’s perfectly, and they want to punish them for doing something “without full permission”.

It is the board’s “fiduciary duty” to this community’s shareholders to help them solve problems–even when the individual is mistaken or difficult to deal with.  Fiduciary Duty has nothing to do with “the corporation”–it is about the people who are the “shareholders” of the corporation.

This case  sounds like the “Directors” (not “the board”) who are individually charged with personal, fiduciary duties, are violating the Nevada Statutes, and they could be creating a serious SCA litigation risk (and possibly personal liability) for their misconduct.

If there are attorneys in our midst (particularly Ms. Small and Mr. Gardner who are serving as Directors) who agree or disagree with my conclusion, it would be good to see it in writing. We all want to be saying the right things about the laws and fiduciary duties.

Those Directors trained in the law are most likely to be personally challenged to explain their actions–before this is over.  As Ms. Small has proclaimed at board meetings before, she has special/higher  responsibilities  to the community because of being a member of the Nevada Bar.  Our community should expect the SCA directors to resolve this dispute or explain (without compromising privacy) why the SCA rules are being fairly and equally applied in this case.

Bob Frank, former SCA Director

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

December 8, 2010 by admin.

SCAVIEW Web Site by Ron Johnson has published a spoof about a purported early draft version of Mr. David Berman’s letter to Major Hafen and other Henderson officials complaining about Ms. Rana Goodman’s personal behavior.

Mr. Berman has complained about being the subject of such political humor, but since he enjoys writing political pieces about many other members, he should know how to take it, as well as to dish it out.  Of course, since Mr. Berman has not published his actual letter to Mayor Hafen complaining about Rana Goodman, he is likely to enjoy more of such humorous guessing on what he might have said.  Since it was an official letter to a City Official and can be released, Mr. Berman would be wise to publish his signed opinions before the secret letter is leaked.

Ron Johnson’s text is quoted for our reader’s convenience from the following site:
http://www.scaview.org/EarlyDraft.html

QUOTE

“A secial thanks to those émigré former Iranian Muslim Student Followers who occupied the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
in 1979, and who had prior experience in reconstructing and publishing shredded documents, for submitting to The SCA View
what was purported to have been an early draft of David Berman’s letter to the City of Henderson regarding the suitability of
Rana Goodman as a member of the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission.  Now in their 50s, let’s hope they got it right.

Andy A. Hafen, Mayor
City of Henderson
Henderson City Hall
P.O. Box 95050
Henderson, NV 89009-5050
Re: Senior Citizens Advisory Board Membership

Dear Mayor Hafen:

I am writing to question the suitability of Rana Goodman as a member of the Senior Citizens
Advisory Commission.

But before I begin, you should understand that I’m a troubled man, as you will readily discern.
But never mind. Since coming to Sun City Anthem, I’m doing my utmost to atone for my shortcomings by
engaging in good deeds and services, with my ultimate redemption surely on the horizon. Sadly my
history, past and present, has hindered my progress towards that end.

Although not the largest, I am unabashedly Sun City Anthem’s eminent blog chronicler. Those
efforts have proven to be admittedly selective by necessity in order to redeem my somewhat tarnished
image as well as to promote the actions of the board in a positive way, where, by the way, my wife is an
officer. Sadly, that positive image has been frequently under attack by less informed community
bloggers. Despite these obvious limitations on my efforts, I believe I am able to discern the presence of
good and evil in the community, which brings me to why I am writing to you.

You see, there are evil forces in the community that are keen to find fault where no fault exists,
either with me or with the board. Allegations against the board of mismanagement, financial corruption
along with alleged unjust decisions continue to persist from various community sources. Of course, such
complaints are baseless, have no merit and serve only to divide the community that only I truly serve.
Yes, sadly, it’s true that as an attorney, I committed what in some jurisdictions has been
prosecuted as a felony. Thank God I was able to avoid that fate in this instance. In 1991, the
Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court found me guilty and recommended
disciplinary action for forging a judge’s signature and fabricating certain legal documents in a case
involving the sale of estate property that I had handled 13 years after being admitted to the bar.

Acting on their recommendations, that Court subsequently suspended my license to practice
law. But that was a long time ago, well, only about 10 years before moving to Nevada. Unfortunately,
there are despicable homeowners who feel it’s their duty to post reminders of my past misdeeds, as if
those prior bad acts, actually only mistakes in judgment, matter now.

1

Never mind, as I can now bless those remedies available under the legal system that allows me
to sue those who I believe have defamed my good name and reputation. While some charges in my
current lawsuit against one such homeowner, a Christian do-gooder who volunteers at a soup kitchen,
have been dismissed by the judge, a defamation charge is hopefully proceeding to trial where I assume I
will be vindicated and my good reputation in the eyes of the community will be restored.

Fortunately a cadre of loyal blog subscribers is constantly telling me how great I am and how I
enrich their lives, which acts I feel obligated to share with all of my blog subscribers. However, some
community naysayers detest me for reasons I do not understand, although such intensity might be due
to my well known and occasional public tantrums during which I have been overheard verbally abusing
and assaulting the character of a few no doubt less worthy homeowners.

Least I forget, I am enriched by my past service as a Sun City Anthem Board member.
Understandably, I had to resign from that elected position in a tiff when I felt that I couldn’t adjust to
how board decisions were being made. Simply stated, the board didn’t deserve to have me as a
member. It was clear that my presence on the board did not contribute to creating a worthwhile
consensus. How could I serve the community if my views were being undermined by others on the
board?

With this helpful background in mind, you need to understand why I am seeking to undermine
the efforts of one fellow community blog publisher, that protagonist bitch Rana Goodman. Rana
Goodman, besides devoting her bloging efforts to criticizing and calling unwanted attention to actions of
the board she disapproved of, also happens to be a member of the City’s Senior Citizens Advisory
Commission. As a major blogging competitor, Rana Goodman had the audacity to allow the presence of
most any comment, rant, error-filled content, and just plain muck on her blog. I of course am careful to
censor all postings to my blog to assure that they conform to my standards of conduct, including, I’m
proud to say, prohibiting comments by fellow community bloggers who might wish to offer a different
point of view. Fortunately, I am willing to protect my subscribers from reading alternative opinions and
those I deem inappropriate. I’m confident my subscribers appreciate that.

A recent posting on Goodman’s blog by a contributing editor was blatantly offensive to my
people, which I feel obligated to defend. In an article on free speech, the author offered images
depicting WWII Gestapo actions against Jews and other minorities that limited free speech, ultimately
resulting in egregious harm and death to millions. Ostensibly, that article attempted to draw a parallel
between their actions over seventy years ago and how the board is allegedly trampling over the rights of
homeowners today.

In the case of the association’s own community blog, a target of the author’s article given the
board’s recent decision to drop that popular blogging feature from their website, I believe freedom of
speech by homeowners has its limits. As an ardent supporter of vigilant censorship, I deplore those
other Sun City Anthem blog publishers who allow homeowners unfettered access to freely comment on
their blogs. I know of no greater travesty!

2

The fact that Rana Goodman had allowed such images to be posted on her blog demonstrates
her lack of judgment, thereby raising a question of her suitability as a fair and impartial member on the
City’s Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. I hope you agree.

You can trust me to keep you informed of similar egregious efforts on Ms. Goodman’s part.

Sincerely,

David Berman

cc: Members of the City Council

P.S. Included with this letter are the names of my loyal readers who support my views on this matter.”

UNQUOTE

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

November 24, 2010 by admin.

(Revised as of Nov 27) Why DID SCA Board and Communications Committee terminate the SCA-HOA message board?

It is simple.  They refuse to allow their judgment to be challenged or disputed.  It is fine with them if the members will just “recreate” amongst ourselves.  But, members dare not post any public criticism about the board, its supporting committees, or their actions.

Board actions to purge the community website of respectful dispute of board actions is a violation of Nevada Statute NRS 116.3103 and NAC 116.405.  Refusing to allow member dissent about board actions on the internal membership media channels could be judged as violating the board’s fiduciary duty and displaying unacceptably poor business judgment.

See this example of the last message board topic concerning the “gaming poll” just before the board arbitrarily terminated the community web site feature.  Notice that none of the member words violated the terms and conditions of the message board.  The Board appears to be clearly in violation of the Statutes and Administrative Codes.
Last SCA-HOA Message Board Topic–Just Before The Service Was Terminated

This type of gross misconduct and statute violation started under the 2006 Favil West regime when he and his collaborating directors shut down the Business Development Club because his business judgment and misconduct were openly questioned by about 100 SCA members.  He and some of his fellow directors appeared they might have some agreements and conflicts of interest with the developer and the restaurant operator that they wanted to be held confidential.

All the club did was sponsor workshops that wound up telling the Board it was wrong to let the Trumpets lessee get away with owing the community hundreds of thousand of dollars of rent for close to 2 years while continuing to use and profit from free access to SCA’s restaurant facilities.

What the club stated was true, but since that time, telling the royal rulers/directors they “have no clothes” has been decreed to be unacceptable behavior by mere (mortal) members.

Since Favil West’s time, all individuals daring to publish public complaints against the board have been viciously attacked and retaliated against.  In spite of the fact that these directors are just fellow residents without unique expertise, their policy is that “thou shalt never disagree with the board royalty.”  Otherwise, you will suffer severe punishments for your disloyalty.

In the past, if a member spoke up on the message board and opposed a board policy or practice, the member’s posting was summarily deleted.  But, lately, there have been so many members with the courage to openly challenge the board’s  actions by posting compelling facts against the gaming/gambling survey that the Board could not stand the opposition.

What happened was sort of an updated version of the Unity board mantra first heard years ago from former director Lanie Berg who shouted at a board meeting, “We have to let THEM speak, but we don’t have to listen!” That mantra was told them by their association attorney and publicly repeated by such directors as Favil West, Kay Dwyer and many others in their social clique.  The current board refuses to even let us openly speak on our own membership message board–that stays within the community.

The whole message board appears to have been deleted (in part) because a Sun City McDonald Ranch member had successfully sued his board for removing his message board postings.  Our board is already facing membership litigation, and it has probably been told to avoid the additional litigation risks of arbitrarily removing individuals from the message board.

While the best board option was to do nothing, the board’s attorney assures them they can do what ever they want–regardless of member complaints.  And, since it is board election time again in a few weeks, the (Unity Party-sponsored) Directors are determined to stifle all kinds of dissent for fear they might get removed or replaced.  Since they are unpaid (and supposedly uncompensated in any way) it is a mystery why the Unity Party group is so determined to retain absolute board control–forever.

Perhaps we now know why the board, and some former directors recently went out of control at being called “gestapo” and “Nazis” for this kind of arbitrary suppression of member dissent.  Perhaps they prefer to be called “fascists” or “communists”, but the fact remains that the dictatorial concepts of “Big Brother” as used in “Anthem” by Ayn Rand is alive and being practiced by your unity-party-controlled board.

And, in case you do not recall the essence of “Anthem“, here is a wikipedia summary:

“Anthem is a dystopian fiction novella by Ayn Rand, first published in 1937 in England. It takes place at some unspecified future date when mankind has entered another dark age as a result of the evils of irrationality and collectivism and the weaknesses of socialistic thinking and economics. Technological advancement is now carefully planned (when it is allowed to occur at all) and the concept of individuality has been eliminated (for example, the word “I” has disappeared from the language). As is common in her work, Rand draws a clear distinction between the “socialist/communal” values of equality and brotherhood and the “productive/capitalist” values of achievement and individuality. “

This stimulates a question about why Del Webb used the name “Anthem” for so many of its HOA  developments?  Maybe the basic governing rules were always intended to be more diabolical/dictatorial than we have realized?  The previous AV blog about “Del Webb’s outrageous policy requiring 6,431 members to show up at the annual meeting to reject a budget” may be a clue to the developer’s true intent of how SCA is to managed under unquestioned board authority.

In the near future, we hope more residents will feel motivated to help SCA members oppose the suppression of individual behavior by our director-dictators, and continue to speak and act out on the various message boards and blogs.

Freedom is not free–not even in Sun City Anthem!  We need to remember that a new board majority from the next election could quickly reverse the misconduct of the “Big Brother/Unity” party and put Anthem on the right path for the future.

SCA homeowners need to capture the spirit and energy of the “Tea Party Grassroots Movement” and elect a board in 2011 that honestly and ethically serves member interests as its top priority.

Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Community Affairs, News!, Other | Print | 3 Comments »

November 21, 2010 by admin.

Monday, November 22nd at 9 AM is the 2010 Annual Membership Meeting.  The most important item on the annual membership meeting is the ratification or rejection of the Board’s proposed budget for the subsequent year.

As every Sun City Anthem member should know, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Sun City Anthem unit owners to reject a budget. Thanks to what some of us consider fraudulent behavior by Del Webb and the subsequent continued behavior by SCA boards since 1999, SCA Boards always have a blank check to do whatever they wish on the budget.  That is not what is intended by Nevada Statutes.

We have vigorously complained about this outrageous situation for over 4 years; but, it has been a waste of time.  Without there being an ethical board majority who understand the true meaning of “fiduciary duty”, there is no way to force any changes to anything in the budget or in the rate of assessments. For anyone to pretend otherwise is plainly insulting.  For example:

* SCA CC&Rs have always required (originally inserted by Del Webb in 1999) that over 90% of 7,144 unit owners much show up in person to reject a budget.  Otherwise, whatever the board wants in the budget is automatically approved.  We believe that rule is a license to financially abuse/defraud the members. 

* Even if 90% wanted to attend the annual meeting, there is no place large enough to hold a meeting for so many thousands of members.

* NRS 116 only requires 50% +1 to reject a budget, so the Del Webb and recent boards have been knowingly forcing unreasonable/bogus budget rejection criteria on SCA members for over a decade.

* Even if only 50% +1 was the SCA rule, it would be impossible to find a place to seat over 3,572 members.

* So, the only feasible way to conduct an ethical budget ratification process in SCA would be to implement the State standard and to conduct it by secret ballot by mail.  The ballots/votes on the budget, and any other ballot measures placed before the membership, would be counted during the November annual meeting–as we do for the May board election membership meeting.

While serving on the SCA Board, I proposed CC&R changes to remove Del Webb’s outrageous 90% budget rejection requirement, revert to the State criteria of 50%, and conduct a secret ballot prior to the annual meeting for ratification. But, that was soundly rejected by the other directors in 2007 and 2008.  The main objection was that is would be too hard to do.  But, the objections were based on faulty assumptions on how the membership approval would have to be conducted. Where there is the will, there is a way–always!

Those who attend the annual meeting on November 22nd @ 9 AM are encouraged to support this idea.  And, since a “decision” is impossible during this annual members meeting, the matter will have to become a issue for the next board campaign.

It will be interesting to see what lame barriers will be used to argue against this practical issue.  No matter what anyone says, the members have a right to meaningfully participate in the budget approval process.  That right does not truly exist at this time.

How could any reasonable person argue to retain such an unreasonable/fraudulent budget ratification process?  Could you not agree that no matter what it takes, the outrageous “90% budget rejection criteria” and the “no voting on the budget by mail” must be fixed in the future?

Should every board candidate in the future be required to sign a pledge to repair this broken process?

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

November 14, 2010 by bobfrank.

I did not attend last week’s Restaurant Advisory Committee meeting due to hosting a house full of family visitors; but, the report posted on the board’s surrogate blog site confirmed the meeting was a waste of time, and only 35 members attended.

Verbal statements pumped out at such meetings are easily misunderstood and/or only partially answered to suit special interests. As in the case of other types of “corporate meetings,” only written answers to specific questions should be accepted by the membership . If the vote was “above board,” all pertinent questions would have been answered before the ballots were mailed out. Has anyone explained the rush?

Meanwhile, members are reminded that even after many weeks of waiting, NONE of the relevant questions from various member sources have been answered in writing by the board, CAM or lessee. Examples of unanswered questions are:

1. Who will pay for what?

2. Why is there a vote held before the details are known?

3. Why should the voting results be trusted as valid?

4. Why did the board refuse to allow ‘member opposition statements to the ballot issue’ be included in the Spirit mailing as required by Nevada Statutes?

The only written responses received to detailed questions have come from a former board member who is married to a current board officer. He claims he is only stating his opinion, and he does not really know the facts. And, yet, none of the questions are hard to answer, and none of them qualify as “board-restricted” information.

What does this improper/illegal board and lessee withholding of vital financial information tell the membership?

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

October 29, 2010 by admin.

The Board claims to be “neutral” while its public relations group (Anthem Journal) aggressively promotes gaming for Anthem Center–on behalf of the Board.  It claims to be only wanting to know what the majority THINKS about adding gaming to Anthem Center–before anyone is told what it will cost, who will pay for which items, and what kinds of returns on investment will members receive?

Does that have the cart before the horse, or what? Who could choose in favor of such a major policy item without knowing the pros and cons of the issue?

The Board has appeared desperate to salvage its disastrous restaurant lease while summarily dismissing the mounting losses to our members.   How can it be explained when the directors claim the restaurant lessee’s so-called “poll” is not a “vote”, is not a “ballot”, and the results will not be binding on the membership.  Outrageous!

Unfortunately, this proves the board is in denial of reality while it continues to treat other members as if they are stupid.  We know when we are being conned–and this is a classic example!

While some of us may be too old/too senile to deal with reality, we submit that the majority deserve much more respective treatment.  Unfortunately, it has become increasingly obvious that Sun City Anthem’s Unity Party and its directors are cursed by the same sort of “progressive/dictatorial” beliefs that we see so prevalent in the national political parties.  Power and money attracts them like mosquitoes to bare skin!

For example, ask yourself, if the directors were truly “neutral”, why would they ask us to vote for installing gaming in Anthem Center BEFORE all of the costs and other pros and cons are known and communicated?  If they were using common sense, the vote would not be allowed until AFTER the pros and cons are known.  What the Board is doing is just like Speaker Pelosi asking House members to vote on Obamacare and Cap&Trade bills BEFORE anyone is allowed to read them!

Asking members to vote for gaming without first providing business case details is a gross insult to us all. 

Even those who favor installing some gaming in our facilities should vote NO and demand to know before a final vote is taken exactly much it will cost, and when will the restaurant lease be modified to ensure 100% of its costs to members are being reimbursed.

In our view, voting NO this time around (and demanding all the data before being asked to vote again) is just exhibiting common sense.

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

October 19, 2010 by bobfrank.

Reference our recent article about “You CAN Participate During Board Meeting Discussions“.  The following information could be a good item to discuss during upcoming board meeting discussions about the budget.

The Board’s own data as previously reported during a board meeting shows that the SCA board has consistently overcharged annual assessments/dues by 1 to 2 million dollars every year.   That is a fact.  See this link for our previous postings on this issue.
Dues Holiday is Bogus

If $720 per unit ($5,143,580) was enough to fully fund the needs for this association during the past 2 years, why will it take $2,000,000+ more to run it in 2011, and the future? That question must be clearly and concisely answered to member satisfaction.

In addition, according to:

1. NRS 116.31073.3(c) “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the executive board is prohibited from imposing an assessment without obtaining prior approval of the units’ owners unless the total amount of the assessment is less than 5 percent of the annual budget of the association.“
2. NRS 116.3115.8:  “If liabilities for common expenses are reallocated, assessments for common expenses and any installment thereof not yet due must be recalculated in accordance with the reallocated liabilities.”  This appears to state that when a board determines that assessments are overstated, and a”dues holiday” is declared as was done in the past 3 years, the following year’s assessment rate must be recalculated and reduced accordingly.  Not doing so would seem to violate this Statute.

Obviously, a 39% increase must be fully justified and approved by the membership via ballot.  In addition, this whole murky situation calls to question:

1. Was last year’s action to raise dues from $720 to $960 legal?
2. When will the board’s reported $3,000,000+ of accumulated ’surplus assessments’ be refunded as required by law?
3. When will the other millions retained for the unjustified (per IRS ruling) slush funds called ‘working capital’ be refunded to members as required by law?

This seems to be the case where an extra million here, and another extra million there, and the board  and finance committee members wind up with some serious money owed to the members and some potential liabilities for the actions taken! 

Our community should demand the refunds be made now, and not not allow the board to waste the hundreds of dollars owed per household on unnecessary income tax payments, fines, and penalties.

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

October 14, 2010 by admin.

In the past, the Boards have occasionally invited members to come to the microphone and comment on agenda items when they are deliberating on a matter.  It has been a rare event only allowed when the Board President finds it useful.

But, the governing documents of Sun City Anthem give ALL members the right to participate in the deliberation and discussion before the board of all items–during the time the board calls for deliberation and discussion on agenda topics. 

Our by-laws specifically allow YOU to ask questions and express your views in favor or opposition–DURING the deliberations and discussions.   SCA’s 3rd Amended & Restated Bylaws dated May 2008, Section 3.15/page 14 on Open Board Meetings is quoted as follows:

“3.15. Open Board Meetings. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.16, all Board meetings shall be open to all Members. Members other than directors may participate in any discussion or deliberation except those taking place in executive session; provided, the President may place reasonable limitations on the time any such individual may speak on any matter.”

You can not be limited to only speaking during the member comment periods before and after the board meeting.  The Board must allow you to directly participate during the deliberation and discussion of financial matters, lifestyle matters, committee reports, or anything else on the agenda for that meeting.

AnthemVOICE encourages members to take advantage of this important right during future board meetings.   Participate in the governance of your community by attending board meetings, and contribute during the time when it is possible to influence the outcome of a decision.

When exercising these rights, you can anticipate the board rules are likely to be similar to the following:

1. Our bylaws grant the right to participate in any deliberations and discussions, but you can not vote.
2. Your views, questions, etc. must be limited to the deliberation and discussion of the specific agenda topic before the board at that time.
3. If you wish to participate in more than one deliberation and discussion, do so separately.  Wait until each agenda item comes before the board at the meeting to approach the microphone.
4. The polite way to participate would be to approach the podium when the president calls the agenda item for consideration.  Respect the board members and let all board members talk first–if that is their desire–then it should be your turn.  Regardless of the board’s choice on the sequence, the Board President is obligated by our By-Laws to allow members to speak before a vote is taken.

Remember, this important SCA By-Laws right is in addition to your rights to make comments at the beginning and end of the board meeting.  If you choose to do so, you could comment at three different times on a given agenda topic.  Your rights to participate in all such deliberations and discussions are guaranteed by our governing documents.  Our governing documents are the contract between you and the Sun City Anthem Association.  Nevada law guarantees those rights. 

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

October 9, 2010 by bobfrank.

Many members are not aware there are no State or SCA rules governing the integrity of the lessee’s ‘poll/ballot’ about putting gambling into the restaurant area.

The proposed Ballot Box Company contract to conduct the poll will be with the lessee–not the association. This can NOT be a ’secret’ ballot that can be trusted.

No director or member could have any right to supervise the processes, inspect the ballots or the counting, or challenge the results. There are no consequences if fraud is suspected and/or discovered.

Who would blindly trust the lessee and/or the Ballot Box Company when millions of dollars of long-term membership funds and prime facilities are being put at risk by this type of informal poll?

So, why are so many members, all of the SCA directors, and the association attorneys going along with such a flawed idea? 

Has SCA Director/Attorney/Former Judge ProTem Ann Small failed her fiduciary duty to members, and violated some of her rules of professional conduct?

See this link to NV Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/rpc.html

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

September 23, 2010 by admin.

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

QUOTE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Yun Lee

UNQUOTE

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

September 18, 2010 by bobfrank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 10, 2010 by admin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) immediately reverse its actions, and

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

————————————-

Plain text of notification letter follows:

———start of letter————

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan Hamilton, Esq.
September 1, 2010
Page 2

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

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

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

cc: The Board of Directors

——end of letter——–

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

September 10, 2010 by admin.

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

Answer: no.

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

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

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

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

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

August 29, 2010 by admin.

(REVISED on August 31, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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