March 27, 2011 by bobfrank.

On March 24, 2011 the Nevada Real Estate Division notified the Sun City Anthem Community Association that the Attorney General would serve as the Prosecuting Attorney at a hearing of the Nevada Commission for Common Interest Communities and Condominiums on April 26, 2011.

The alleged violation by the two boards in 2008 was to twice vote to illegally modify the SCA CC&Rs.  Board President was Roz Berman, and the basic work accused of violating statutes was performed by association attorney John Leach.

This is a historic event as this will be the first of close to 100 alleged SCA Board statute violations brought to trial/hearing before the CIC Commission.  It has taken about 3 years to reach this point.  

For members who are interested, I served on that board and vigorously objected to what I believed to be highly improper (if not illegal) changes to the CC&Rs being promoted by attorney Leach.   I was the only director voting NO on both board votes.  However, I had nothing to do with the filing of the case leading to this prosecution.  

Since I will have to explain to the Commission my objections and NO vote against the board majority votes to approve the alleged violations, I must save those explanations until after the hearing.

Meanwhile, the hearing before the CIC Commission should be a very interesting situation.  At least 4 of the Commissioners have potentially serious conflicts of interests with the other directors, and are likely to have to recuse themselves on this case.

At this time, only the basic affidavits have been scanned in and attached to this posting.  The exhibits will be added as time permits.

Download: Attorney General Charges

Posted in Truth Squad, Ann_Small, 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Clubs & SIGs, Laws & Rules, News! | Print | No Comments »

March 27, 2011 by bobfrank.

The Board of Directors and Election Committee has been accused of knowingly and willfully violating NRS 116 laws governing board elections.

They have refused to send out candidate information sheets 30 days before the ballot packages are mailed.  This failure not only violates the law, it is unfair to first-time candidates and candidates who are promoting platforms that oppose the board’s policies and practices.

Here are copies of the basic documents filed with the NV Real Estate Division:

Affidavit
a-26mar11_certified-letter-to-sca-board.pdf
b-nred_election_rules.pdf
c-sca-2011-community-election-calendar.pdf
d-sca-2011candidates-election-calendar.pdf
e-page-7-of-2011-sca-election-manual.pdf
f-page-16-of-2011-sca-election-manual.pdf

Posted in 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, Truth Squad, Laws & Rules, SCA Board, Operations | Print | No Comments »

March 9, 2011 by admin.

(Updated)

The March 9th Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial is about “HOA Abuse”. Here is a file with the article and some reader comments:   HOA abuse & comments

This editorial seems to strike a serious blow against the credibility of the SCA “Unity Party” advocates who seem to believe that the SCA Board does no wrong.  It helps to educate SCA voters why they should mistrust unity’s self-serving political machine con that appears to favor the business interests of the developers, attorneys, property manager and auditor over our shareholders–homeowners. 

SCA members who have taken so much personal abuse, vicious condemnations, and unfair public ridicule by SCA boards, Finance Committees, Election Committees and unity party leaders for the past few years can now be seen as the honest, ethical, selfless patriots they are.

Imagine that out of the “hundreds” of persons of interest to the FBI,  SCA may already have some names on the list.  Remember how the current board president and treasurer participated in the 2008 Finance Committee attack against a sitting board member for daring to question the finance committee’s “200 years of expertise”?  Since hundreds of years of “financial expertise” within Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Enron, and Madorf scams did not protect those stock holders, it is clear that claiming such training and work expertise is no guarantee of ethics or integrity in this HOA.

While the SCA issues may not seem identical to the ones making the R-J headlines, under the surface there seems to be direct links.   It is no wonder that certain (current and past) board members are so incessantly nasty to SCA members who tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! 

Certain board members are likely to have much to keep them awake at night when the FBI looks into the Sun City Anthem case. 

See this link to the R-J web site:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/hoa-abuse-117635883.html

Here are the words of the article:

HOA abuse

“One corruption scandal always seems to segue into another in Southern Nevada, where abuses of trust and public office are as common as foreclosed homes.The latest embarrassment to the community: the federal government’s 2½-year fraud investigation into valley homeowner associations. The Review-Journal’s Jeff German reported Sunday that the Justice Department has identified 75 to 100 co-conspirators including lawyers, judges and former police officers, and that plea deals are being finalized this week for some of them to shore up the prosecution of two-dozen high-level targets.

The inquiry surrounds a scheme to place conspirators on the boards of local homeowner associations through rigged elections, then have those conspirators vote to initiate construction defect lawsuits against builders. The legal work and resulting repairs then would be farmed out to lawyers and companies in on the plot.

The conspiracy was wide-ranging enough before Washington-based prosecutors took over the case from Nevada’s U.S. attorney’s office in response to suspected leaks to suspects. Local prosecutors and other officials are now the subject of a separate Justice Department criminal investigation, sources told Mr. German.

It’s not surprising that such a cabal was concocted around construction defect claims, a legal specialty that’s long been ripe for abuse. Using a handful of legitimate cases as a selling point, aggressive attorneys persuade homeowners with routine, easily fixable repairs that their problems result from developer greed and corner-cutting. Such litigation tied up entire District Court departments for years during the valley’s construction boom.

The entire Justice Department case strikes at the heart of the judicial system’s inability to police frivolous litigation and the lawyers who shake down businesses for quick riches. Every claim has merit; every attorney is righting a wrong. No cases are dismissed. It’s incredibly expensive insanity.

And it’s a prime example of why tort reform advocates seek a loser-pays civil litigation process, so attorneys with flimsy arguments will think long and hard before dedicating their resources to a bogus action, and businesses won’t be compelled to get out their checkbooks to settle every claim.

We’ve all paid handsomely for this alleged abuse and others like it through increased burdens on investigators, prosecutors, courts and businesses. At some point it has to stop.”

 ———————-

Posted in Removal Election, 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, Truth Squad, Operations, Laws & Rules, SCA Board, News! | Print | No Comments »

March 7, 2011 by bobfrank.

Why would $4,779,709 of “Taxable Income not Recorded on Books” be reported on page 29 of the 2009 SCA Tax Return signed  by Auditor/Tax Preparer Gary Lein, CPA?

That page of the 2009  tax return also reports the $4,779,709 amount was a “Carryforward per Revenue Ruling 70-604 from 2008.”  So, this would seem to confirm that none of the multi-year retained assessment surpluses were ever “returned” as claimed by SCA Directors under penalty of perjury on the income tax returns filed each year since before 2005.  That would appear to be a case of possible tax fraud.

But, why would that off-the-books procedure not be caught/mentioned in the annual audit?   Would that be evidence of the Board, Finance Committee, RMI and auditor failing to comply with standard accounting rules?  If so, why would they do that?

Some may recall that the SCA Finance Committee under the leadership of Don Manning  in  2008 went crazy when the board and/or FC committee were questioned by members on anything.   The FC even went so far to claim they could not be mistaken because they said:

“The current FC is comprised of members who have combined business, financial and accounting experience in excess of two hundred (200) years. Four of the current FC members are retired CPA’s and have worked in both industry and public accounting. All FC members have degrees in accounting or finance, or have MBA degrees and extensive financial budgeting and management experience. One of the CPA members worked in public accounting for over twenty five (25) years and was a partner for over fourteen (14) years in one of the four (4) largest accounting firms in the world. Past FC’s have generally had similar levels of experience.”

But, for all the FC’s claimed education and experience, the IRS has shown the Committee and Board filed its taxes incorrectly, and now it seems the auditor/tax preparer was willing (for the first time) to disclose there was $4.8 Million in taxable income carried off the books.

How could a CPA who prepares the association taxes, and is personally aware of huge surpluses in off-book accounts (locations unknown) and reported it in the annual tax return, fail to mention the $4.8 Million in the annual audit of SCA?

Posted in 2011 Campaign, Bob Frank-2011, Ann_Small, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | Print | No Comments »

March 3, 2011 by admin.

Long-time Finance Committee member, Rich Pendleton, has recently resigned and reported on some of the SCA Board’s financial misconduct and gross arrogance.   Quoted below is Rich Pendleton’s email to board members, finance committee members, and 2011 board candidates.  His words are devastating indictments on the boards and finance committees.

“It is with my greatest regret that I must announce my resignation from the Finance Committee at this time.  As most of you know, I have been operating with cancer and a breathing problem.  As long as my wife was able to pick up some of the load, I was able to fulfill my commitment to the committee.  Unfortunately, in January, my wife was hospitalized and my priorities were affected in a major way, such as how are meals going to be handled?  My wife is now at home, her condition has greatly improved and she will be able to continue in her membership in the Lifestyle Committee.

It is also unfortunate that dealing with the issues that most mattered to me did not happen.  I had thought that my participation on the Finance Committee would have enhanced their chances of acceptance.

The first issue was to get control of the budget process.  Over the four years of my participation, much improvement has been seen, and I developed an Excel model for calculating  assessments.  Each year, I wanted to have a review meeting after the budget was approved to identify the problems and develop solutions.  The previous chairmen did not see fit to hold such meetings.  This year, a Budget Task Force has been established (I have not been asked to participate) and I hope it will accomplish my long standing goal.

The second issue has to do with our reserve funding.  Bottom line, I believe our Reserve Fund is seriously over funded and, as a result, our annual assessment is greater than it needs to be.  I pointed this out to the previous chairmen and they agreed that it looked over funded but they were unwilling to take any action.  I have prepared two reports and have presented them only to selected Board members and one Finance Committee member.  For reasons discussed in the attached report, the Board will not consider reduction of the rate of Reserve funding.

I think it is an example of Board arrogance that their reserve funding approach is the only acceptable approach and that no consideration will be given to an approach that will save homeowners millions of dollars over the years.  Since the Board will not deal with this issue, I have written my final report and have attached it to this email.  This email has been sent to all Board members and candidates for the 2011 election.  It has been sent to all members of the Finance Committee and the (former) Reserve Study Advisory Group.  Please read it and feel free to discuss it with any homeowner, but please do not allow it to go to the press or any person outside of Sun City Anthem.

The data in the report comes from the ARC Reserve Study for 2010 and has been incorporated in an Excel workbook for analysis purposes.  I will be happy to discuss the workbook with any interested person.

Richard Pendleton”

Attached is Rich’s report to SCA Homeowners on Reserve Policy Overfunding

Overfunding of Reserves & Overcharging of Dues

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

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 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 11, 2011 by admin.

Sun City Anthem (SCA) Board President Jack Troia, CPA, announced during the February 10th SCA Board Meeting that the IRS Revenue Agent had found the Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc. guilty of violating tax laws and owing $1.345 Million in back federal income taxes for 2007.

He also stated that the IRS had not yet reviewed the previous or subsequent tax years.  So, the total amounts owed to the IRS could wind up being significantly more than $1.345 Million.

This appears to be the first IRS corporate audit of a Nevada HOA.  The major area of error appeared to be where the SCA boards had overcharged annual member assessments and (1) failed to refund the surplus to members, and (2) failed to pay income taxes on the retained surpluses.

The IRS finding means that Sun City Anthem homeowners may wind up paying twice for the board’s and tax preparer’s mistakes:

(1) for the excessive annual assessments not refunded or credited to future assessments as required by law, and

(2) for the board having to pay the high corporate income taxes on monies that should have been given back to members.

SCA Board Presidents responsible for the 2007-2008 year income tax returns were Mike Dixon and Roz Berman.  Roz Berman was also the 2007 Treasurer.  SCA Tax Preparer for the past decade has been Mr.Gary Lein.  Association attorney for the past decade was Mr. John Leach.  Mr. Ed Song has also provide legal services to SCA after joining Leach’s firm in 2008.

Current Board President/CPA Jack Troia was the SCA Finance Committee’s expert on tax matters in 2007 and 2008.

The serious problems with the SCA Income Tax returns was initially reported on in early 2008 by Anthem VOICE founder and 2008 board candidate, retired CA Senator John V. Briggs.  Board President Mike Dixon and Treasurer Roz Berman summarily rejected all of the well-researched facts presented to them at that time.

See this link for some details.
http://www.anthemvoice.org/taxes_issue.html

See this link for some more history:
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/01/dixon-fails-to-answer-key-question/

Unfortunately, it is clear that IF the SCA directors in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 had paid attention to the facts presented to them, our community could have easily avoided the $1.345 Million tax bill for 2007, and the years since then.

We have some serious questions to ask of the Del Webb/Pulte-appointed auditor and attorney who have guided the association along this disastrous path.  It appears we have not been well-served by them.

And, SCA members may be considering demanding restitution of the lost funds through a class-action suit against the responsible individuals.

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

February 11, 2011 by admin.

An ancient saying is: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
SCA members are at risk of learning the meaning of that saying with regards to the 2011 board election.

The 2010 SCA Board election and related FBI investigation was most recently reported on at this link.
hoa-fraud-investigation-looks-at-rigged-board-elections

But, most members are unaware there were over 27 alleged violations of the Nevada Statutes
submitted for action in May 2010 by the Real Estate Division and case number IS-10-2182 was assigned.
Over 600 pages of evidence of the allegations were submitted.  Since May 2010, one statute violation
has been validated and the SCA Board was sanctioned by a formal Letter of Instruction issued with a
warning of severe penalties should the violation occur again.  The other 26 alleged violations are still
being investigated.

Please review the 5-page overview of the 2010 election allegations enclosed below.  We are asking SCA
members to use this summary to help monitor the activities of the 2011 election.  Members are planning
to notify the Board, Election Committee and the Real Estate Division Investigator on a daily basis when
apparent violations are detected.  This approach should help deter the kinds of flagrant violations seen
in 2010 and help the investigator come to quicker conclusions about the integrity of those in charge.

Of course, we hope to detect no statute violations in 2011.  We know the board, committees and CAM
know how to comply with the statutes.  But, in doing so, they will lose control of the election outcome.

Meanwhile we are greatly concerned over the failure of the Nevada authorities, the Real Estate Division
and Commission for Common Interest Communities (CIC), to respond in a timely basis to the massive list
of statute violations in April 2010.  SCA members deserve open and fair board elections.  And, if all or most
of the reported violations are not valid, we should be told where we went wrong in interpreting the laws.

Otherwise, the allegations must be validated and the Directors, CAM, attorneys, and Election Committee
appropriately punished and/or removed by the CIC Commission for committing flagrant violations.

Some have asked, so what is the problem?  We will save the details until a later article; but, for now, we
will mention there are apparently serious conflicts of interest within the Real Estate Division and by 4 out
of 7 of the Commission members.  Such conflicts appear to insulate the SCA directors from punishment.

For example, one Commission member is 7-year SCA director and former SCA President/Treasurer,
Favil West.  And, SCA auditor for the past decade, Gary Lein, is a CIC Commission founding member.
So is Randy Watkins, VP of Del Webb Community Property Management (who manages the Anthem
Council operations and serves as the executive community manager for many Las Vegas area Pulte
developments).   The fourth CIC Commission member (out of seven) with apparently serious conflicts
of interest is the Chairman, attorney Michael Buckley.  He is a member of the Jones-Vargus firm that
has been involved with various construction defects matters affecting Del Webb/Pulte developments.

All four of those CIC Commission members are founders and/or leading members of the Nevada CAI
organization that effectively controls how HOAs boards are trained and how HOAs are governed.
Such CAI leaders appear to have strong business interests in protecting the SCA Boards from being
convicted of statute violations. While this information alone may not prove unacceptable conflicts of
interest, the outrageously poor results from the Commision’s work in recent years is an indictment
on the ethics of the whole system.  Those details will be provided in a later article.

So, with such influential friends in that high Commission, it is not surprising that NONE of the over 100
well-written and well researched allegations of statute violations filed against SCA Boards since 2007
have ever been scheduled for CIC Commission Hearings.  For unexplainable reasons, ALL allegations
against SCA Directors in the past 5 years have been dismissed for “insufficient evidence” or,  they have
been “hung up” in the “investigative system” for many years while they (allegedly) gather dust in the
office of the Division Administrator.  We believe it is just using common sense to consider that such
bad results reflects corruption of some sort or another.

Bottom Line?  Members are stuck with ensuring we get open and fair board elections.  As long as we
tolerate election corruption, and continue to elect poorly performing directors, we will continue to get
more of the same.  Hopefully, 2011 will be the year that our membership puts a stop to election fraud.

Summary of the 2010 alleged election violations:
Alledged 2010 SCA Election Violations

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

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 30, 2010 by admin.

Harry Flagle, Country & Western Songwriter and Recording Artist, has written and recorded a song about his terrible Las Vegas HOA/Condo Board experiences. 

This song may strike a resonant chord in the minds of many Sun City Anthem homeowners who hate the way SCA Directors and their attorneys treat our homeowners.

Here is the music clip of the recording by Harry Flagle, “One Way Ticket to Hell”.
1-way-ticket-2-hell

And, here are the words:

Bright lights and lots’ a people ….. .Pretty women everywhere

I gamble till my heart’s content….. .Win..loose..it’s all the same

Bought A Condo run by CCRs…. ..Life’s over…I’m fair game

(Chorus)

Those petty rules and regulations ….  …It’s enough to make you cry

No statues, ponds or Christmas trees … …And no one knows just why

Slick manager and lawyers …..  .Slither close, but they won’t tell

If your condo’s in Las Vegas …..  .You bought a one way ticket to Hell

Now there’s lots of open meetings. ….. Closed to “Justice For H.O.”

Those arrogant board members… …Say what they want you to know

The NARC and CAI conspire …… To help you lose it all

But, I wouldn’t sell my condo yet ….. .The writing’s on the wall

(Chorus)

Well, we’re not afraid or stupid ….. .All your threats mean nothing here

Time marches on…you’ll soon be gone .. ….”United”…we’ll be there

So!  put your rules and CCR’s .. ….Up where the sun don’t shine

Just enjoy your precious “Golden Years” ….. .Stop messing round with mine!

(Repeat Chorus)

Posted in SCA Board, 2011 Campaign, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Operations, 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 »

November 24, 2010 by THE VOICE.

SUN interview of RMI CEO Wallace reveals interesting facts, and stimulates many comments and questions from those of us in SCA.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/19/q-kevin-wallace/

“What will HOAs look like in 10 years?

I still think we’ll have homeowners associations. There’s more good that bad that comes out of them. I think there will be more active adult associations as the population changes and more age-restricted communities are created. That’s a trend that’s still viable. I think some projects will evolve. Not all the condos may survive but it will be difficult to unwind.”

Agree.  Even the detractors of HOAs can agree that the “bad” that comes from HOA management is directly from the insensitive, uncaring, arrogant and dictatorial (often referred to in the industry as “Nazi-like or Gestapo-like”)  management behavior of some elected directors.  (Even members of our own NV Legislature have used such terms to describe the need for statutes to anticipate and prevent dictatorial HOA board misconduct.)

It sounds like Kevin Wallace sees the handwriting on the wall.  He knows better than most in the industry that community leaders (such as those in SCA who have opposed the frequent misconduct of our boards) will eventually be successful.

There is a (slowly) growing recognition that for HOAs to prosper in the future, the system must improve the abilities of HOAs to clean house when finding themselves burdened by directors who fail to place the homeowner interests ahead outside interests and the director’s personal interests.

Some even believe the unprecedented success of the 2010 grassroots, “Tea Party” movement in the US has begun to wake up the citizenry to be less afraid of questioning authority, and to be more willing to demand that elected officials serve the community and not themselves.  If this takes hold within the HOA markets, people like Kevin Wallace will see much faster progress than expected.

Every day of a senior’s life is especially valuable, and misbehaving directors can be considered stealing valuable days from the homeowners they claim to represent.  Senior HOA unit owners often try to ignore board misconduct while they are trying to enjoy their retirements.  But, eventually, they discover it is smarter to quickly purge the misbehaving directors than to tolerate them for untold months or years.

Because the boards of large HOAs are able to totally control the information (propaganda) flows to members (except the really bad news that gets into the public news channels), HOAs such as SCA take longer to deal with their management problems.  But, history shows it is impossible to fool most of the members–forever.

By the way, a few questions we wish could have been asked in the interview are:

1. Has RMI partnered with Del Webb/Pulte (largest USA developer) on a multi-State basis to accomplish its rapid expansion?
2. Why does RMI send less than fully qualified Community Managers to SCA and they wind up leaving in less than 2 years?  Is SCA a “training site” for RMI’s rapid development plans?  How much does SCA save by accepting provisionally-licensed CAMs who are in on-the-job training status for up to a year?
3. Why are RMI’s community managers so often charged with violating Nevada Statutes and Administrative Code?  Are they not properly trained, or is the RMI management policy to ignore the Statutes if directed by a Board President?
4. Why does RMI market its unique capabilities to manage an association’s records using all-digital capabilities when its largest (and RMI’s most profitable) customer (SCA) is still paper-bound and often unable to find records in less than 2 weeks?  Is this a case of false RMI advertising, or is it the SCA Board’s policy to stay with higher-cost paper records that are easily lost while withholding information from unit owners?

Perhaps our AV readers can think of other questions they would like to ask CEO Wallace?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, News! | Print | No 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 16, 2010 by admin.

Throughout the US, many homeowners living in HOAs are claiming their Boards of Directors are dictatorial and have called for help through public media channels.

The SCA Board’s poor reputation has recently earned it exposure on the NV hoa-advocate site.
http://www.the-hoa-advocate.com/

Channel 13 has also picked up on the “HOA Hall of Shame” topic.  Here is a link to the site.
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13406544

And, here is an example of one post to the Channel 13 message board by “homeowner advocate”:

“Some people missed the point of the HOA Hall of Shame. The purpose is to highlight the widespread abuse by HOA Boards, HOA Community Managers and their companies, Association Attorneys, Association Auditors, members of the NV Commission for Common Interest Communities and Condominiums, Real Estate Division members, developers, CAI leaders, etc.

Sure, some homeowners act badly because they are jerks or maybe because they have been treated very badly and unfairly by one or more elements of the “controlling powers” listed above. When one digs into the details of the most outrageous disputes, it is rare to find a jerky homeowner. Usually we find jerks on the boards. Sometimes it is a mystery how a poor homeowner can ever receive justice.

The NRS 116 and NAC 116 laws and rules read like they are homeowner-friendly, but the enforcement is often spotty and disputes can take many years to be resolved. One of the biggest problems is that the HOA system violates some basic principles of the American Justice System. For example, free speech and due process are not normally guaranteed to homeowners.

This outstanding effort by Channel 13 and Mr. Friedrich and others involved should be supported for doing the public a great service.”

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Operations | 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 »

November 3, 2010 by bobfrank.

Form: Board of Directors
Community: Sun City Anthem
Submitted By: ROBERT E FRANK at 2374 SANDSTONE CLIFFS DRIVE

Addressed to All SCA CAI Directors, CAM, Finance Committee, and Association Attorney:

Let’s see if we understand what has been said about the gaming poll:

1. This is ‘just a poll–not a vote‘, but a decision will be made by the Board to implement gaming if at least
   1,252 ‘ballots’ are delivered by the lessee with markings in favor of implementing gaming.  Is that a fact?

2. Since the lessee controls the voting process, it alone will know how many ballots were received and what
   the results were.  Is that a fact?

3. While the Ballot Box company will tally the votes, it will be bound by a business confidentiality agreement 
   the mail with the desired number of yes votes to control the outcome.  Is that a fact?

As has been said numerous times before, this is an UNTRUSTWORTHY process. Without verification and validation
controls established, fraud could creep into the process and corrupt the results. As it is, the disclosed
procedures can NOT produce results that could be used to force the members of this community to accept gaming
in our facilities.  Only a secret ballot as spelled out in NRS 116 could minimize the SCA liabilities.

Out of all the CPAs, attorneys and other smart people serving on the Board, committees and CAM, why
has this flawed process been accepted? Why did the association attorney go along with it?  Is there anyone on
the board with the knowledge and strength to tell the Board President he is creating a huge liability by
following this process?

Robert E. Frank
Former SCA Director

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Operations | 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 »