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 »

October 9, 2010 by bobfrank.

Here is a short list of how to greatly improve our SCA property values by cutting annual assessments, refunding the millions of retained surplus assessments, and by promoting SCA in the buyers markets to make it easier for members who need to sell their homes at above average rates.  For example:

1. Refund or credit the millions of dollars of accumulated surplus assessments and pass a board resolution to stop over-charging assessments in the future.  If all of the millions of dollars of unneeded surpluses were refunded to members as required by law, the net 2011 assessment level could be cut to around $250 per unit.  Now, wouldn’t boost property values?
2. Cut annual assessment rate from $960 to $820 per year for 2011 and 2012.   This is feasible since the effective assessment rate has been $720 for 2010 and 2009.  The $820 level would allow for some growth in the Liberty Center operating and reserves costs.
3. Establish a modest marketing program for the East Coast and other very cold and snowy metropolitan area media outlets to tout the benefits of living high up on the side of Black Mountain in the dry/clean desert air and warm climate of Las Vegas in Del Webb’s “Crown Jewel” Resort-Retirement Community, Sun City Anthem.  Can you imagine a Las Vegas-produced TV/Internet video clip showing SCA as a much more attractive retirement destination than such places as the Florida “Villages”?

Such a business strategy would provide a vastly better return-on-investment for all members than the huge sums being thrown at the poorly-structured restaurant lease, inadequate association law firm, and grossly over-priced RMI contract.

As we go into the annual budget approval process, get off your couch and tell the board and finance committee you are sick and tired of the bogus “dues holiday” scam!  We want ALL of our over-charged assessments REFUNDED, and we do not want them to give our money to the IRS!

And, don’t take any of the typical blow back, personal attacks, change of subjects, and/or deceptive fast talk from anyone.  Remind them you happen to know that the IRS is in for an audit because the responsible people have made some huge mistakes with our money!

We do not owe any thanks or kind consideration to “volunteers” who screw up as badly as these people have.  Practically any other ethical SCA member could have done better than what we have received from the majority of the  current and past directors.  Tell them to lead (competently), follow the resident’s wants, or get out of the way (resign).  Make sure they know that more of the same behavior will not be tolerated.

Also, remember that all we have ever gotten from these “rulers” has been shallow lip service and deception.  Before the elections, they promised to promote this community to the appropriate markets to keep our unit values significantly above the NV average.  But, after the elections, they have consistently displayed incompetent and unethical behavior.  They have failed to do of what is needed to effectively lead this community.

For more information, take a look at the below links.  They help describe how badly the board, RMI and finance committee members have been jerking us around since 2005 with grossly over-charged and un-returned, “surplus annual assessments”.  

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/09/18/dues-holiday-is-bogus-tell-the-board-you-know-the-truth/

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2009/12/20/how-much-should-sca-dues-be/

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2009/11/22/tax-crazy-board-does-it-again/

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

http://www.scaview.org/The%20IRSTaxAuditII.html

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/07/27/why-be-concerned-about-irs-audit/

http://www.scaview.org/CourtCaseRR70-604.html

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/07/24/how-much-unpaid-sca-taxes/

 http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/03/17/current-list-of-open-board-issues/

 http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/03/09/should-trumpets-be-converted-to-an-amenity/

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/01/03/board-failed-to-collect-1375-million-from-pulte/

http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2009/10/29/time-for-sca-tea-parties/

Posted in SCA Board, Truth Squad, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Operations, Other | 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 3, 2010 by THE VOICE.

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

The initial rules will be:

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

These rules will be updated as needed in the future.

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

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 »

April 20, 2010 by kayfrank.

In accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes, board candidates and unit owners are entitled to publish their opposing views in association media channels and at no cost to the members.

And, for the first time in SCA history, I have exercised those rights on April 16, 2010 (See Below Attachments).

Included are my April 16,  2010 letter to the Board, my prepared statement to members to be included in the revised ballot package for distribution before May 1, 2010, and my revised candidate flyer.

It could be critical to the election success, and to the future of this association, if the board refuses to honor my reasonable and lawful requests.

Meanwhile, it could be useful if other candidates and SCA homeowners would review the details of NRS 116.3103 and NRS116.311 75.  It seems clear that board candidates and other unit owners are entitled to publish their opposing views to the board’s policies.

The law appears to not limit the available channels for opposing views to just the  magazine.  For example, recent board decisions to prohibit the use of Ch99 resources for campaign purposes would appear to be incorrect, if not unlawful.

For probably obvious reasons, the Directors and CAM have not previously explained these new, lawful ways to openly debate matters of broad community interest.

List of my recent correspondence with the Board of Directors:
kay_frank_ltr2_bod_16apr2010.pdf
kayfrank_ballot-statement.pdf
kay_frank_flyer_16apr2010.pdf

Kay  Frank, 2010 Independent Candidate for the Board

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

July 17, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

When it comes to managing the board duties to maintain our Villas our facilities manager (Bruno Panek - RMI), has been a complete failure.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

June 30, 2009 by bobfrank.

Contrary to the blatantly false information on D. Berman’s blog stating his opinion on the supposed confidentiality of complaints against the board, I know the following to be true:

1. NRS 116.757.1 says: “1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 239.0115, a written affidavit filed with the Division pursuant to NRS 116.760, all documents and other information filed with the written affidavit and all documents and other information compiled as a result of an investigation conducted to determine whether to file a formal complaint with the Commission are confidential.”

2. This statute section was proven to only prohibit the Real Estate Division from releasing any information provided to it during mediation and investigation phases to third parties. The NV Legislature never intended for the Real Estate Division to block any US or NV Constitutional due process rights of the parties. Any competent attorney would know that to be true; but, there have been times in the past few years where a “cone of silence” was wrongly placed over all parties of some cases. Those actions by the Division clearly violated the respondent’s fundamental constitutional rights.

3. The accusing party is required by law to (a) sign its complaint under oath, (b) release everything in its allegations to the respondent/accused, and allow a reasonable time for the accused to respond BEFORE an affidavit is filed with the State. Nothing in the complaint filed with the Division can be held from the respondent. In addition, the statute prohibits the Division from accepting an Intervention Affidavit that has not been fully disclosed to the respondent and time allowed for a response.

4. Both the accusing party and the respondent can release anything they wish to anyone, at anytime.

In conclusion, since David Berman appears to be speaking for both himself and his Board President spouse, our community should demand that Roz Berman seek assistance from her fellow directors–especially current member of the NV Bar/former judge, Ann Small.

What does it say about the directors if they remain silent while such flagrant deceptions are being distributed by a former board VP?

Posted in Veterans Affairs, Special Events, News!, Other | Print | No Comments »

June 30, 2009 by bobfrank.

Contrary to David Berman’s vain attempts to try to stem Roz Berman’s rapidly sinking reputation due to sustained misconduct, “Letters of Instruction (LOI)” from the Nevada Real Estate Division to the SCA Board are serious SANCTIONS.  Such LOI are issued after one or more directors have been found guilty of serious law violations.

No matter how hard DB tries to spin the facts, LOIs are definitely NOT slaps on the wrists of directors determined to have broken the law!  If you have any doubts, read the LOIs and see what they say will happen if the LOIs are not followed.  There are very serious consequences for repeated violations.

When a director or board is found guilty of violating NRS 116 or NAC 116 provisions, the first level of sanctions is for the State to issue formal Letters Of Instruction demanding “don’t do it again, or else”. These actions can NOT be considered “slaps on the wrist”. Additional law violations will lead to formal, public hearings (very similar to a trial) against the offending directors. Those hearings are conducted in public by the Governor-appointed CIC Commission.  An Attorney General staff attorney serves as prosecutor for the CIC Commission.

Since Roz Berman and other directors have already received a number of such LOIs concerning a variety of flagrant law violations, David Berman and his friends might be wise to not call so much attention to the facts of the violations.  Loudly complaining about SCA members who have proven to the State that our directors, and particularly our Board President and CAM, are flagrantly violating the laws is not a good strategy for the entire unity party group.

In the next few months, large numbers of SCA members may finally discover that all is NOT well with the board–as has been so frequently claimed.  SCA Directors would be wise to pay close attention to the LOI process, and to ensure no new statute violations are discovered.  In addition, unity party associates might find it increasingly more uncomfortable when asked to explain about why they have been tolerating such serious board misconduct–for so many years.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Other | Print | 1 Comment »

May 3, 2009 by bobfrank.

Al Glickman recently said to me on another blog: “On occasion, such as the dispute over your legal fees, what seems best for an individual resident may not also be best for the community as a whole. In such instances, the board should rely on its attorneys for proper guidance. Everyone may not agree with the attorney’s counsel, but isn’t that pretty much what the board has done so far in this case?”

Al, sorry to have to break the bad news, but you have been seriously tricked. Can you “handle the truth”?  I challenge you to concentrate on the following. I was not an “individual resident”. I was an “elected Director” who had only served 4 months before being illegally attacked by my fellow directors and the association attorney.

You must understand that the law provides that ALL directors have unlimited legal protections (indemnification) against all attacks. Without such comprehensive protection, no one would be foolish enough to volunteer to be on the board! If a director is found guilty of willful misconduct at the end of the legal process, the director may be required to reimburse some or all of the association’s expenses.

But, prior to the conclusion of legal actions, the association is required to pay and/or reimburse ALL of the director’s legal defense expenses. The law does not/can not limit a director in any way from getting the best defense possible.  The SCA board can not deny paying my well-justified and well-documented legal expenses while defending myself. Without such Nevada protections, no homeowner would be willing to serve as a director and subsidize the costs of defending themselves against unproven charges.

In this special case, full payment is particularly valid and indisputable because my defense costs were solely in response to the board’s bogus/false charges. After over a year of investigations by the Real Estate Division and the Attorney General, all charges were dropped.

I was never found guilty of anything. I WAS COMPLETELY EXONERATED. The other directors and the attorney were 100% wrong.

So, is it not a “banana republic” idea to try to claim that a group of fellow directors can formally charge another director with law violations, and then vote to deny reimbursing the costs of my defense?  Think about it…. Does that make any sense?  Is that “American justice”?  How would you respond if similarly attacked?  How would current board members react when becoming respondents, and they were not satisfied with the low-cost attorney selected by the D&O insurance company?

You should know that association attorney John Leach knew in August 2007 that I was doing everything in my power to get him replaced. It was an ACE campaign pledge that only I and Barry Friedman had honored.

You also should know there were hold-over/previous directors who were desperately trying to keep attorney John Leach to protect them. He was a key source of their protection against being charged with financial misconduct on the such issues as (1) the hundreds of thousands of dollars of reserves money owed by the developer since May 2005, (2) the restaurant lease mismanagement with hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncollected rent money over a 2 year period, and (3) the board’s handshake agreement to forgive collecting the $1.375 million Co-Gen money from Pulte due in May 2005.

So, Al, how about trying to be the honest and sincere person you claim to be and deal with the facts in this case?

And, 2009 board members:  Under your promised mantra of “cooperation–not confrontation” it is time to settle this major dispute.  The legal obligation to pay will not go away until it is resolved, and the cost is increasing due to normal late penalties and interest.  Would it not be wise to deal with this matter now, instead of going through months of disharmony and investigation by outside agencies?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Other | Print | 1 Comment »

May 1, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Board Members should lead the residents and not make demands or secret decisions that are to their detriment.

“Pulling” is a motivational technique that means creating conditions that the residents can be comfortable with the knowledge they themselves have contributed to the final product.

“Pushing” is a non productive technique often used by overbearing and uncaring directors who want to impose “their will” over the residents resident’s concerns regardless of the consequence or the legality of their decision.

“Pulling” means YOU deciding rather than The Board deciding. Example – 51% is a reasonable number to expect for the residents to reject a budget.

“Pushing” means The Board deciding rather than YOU deciding. Example – 90% is an unreasonable number to expect for the residents to reject a budget.

Most methods of persuasion are based on creating pull rather than push, which is generally coercive in nature. Pull creates desire. It is about making the other person want what you are offering. It is subtly changing how they perceive the world such that they see what you have and want it. Once you have created desire, then the internal tension set up in the other person will lead them in the right direction.

Push and pull are a matched pair: Pushing is the whip and the club. Pulling is fishing rather than shooting. Pulling is creating desire rather than creating fear. Pulling is creating attraction rather than repulsion.

In motivation, pushing is a business management method used by tyrants of industry, while pulling is used by leaders of society.

Pulling is more difficult than pushing, but is ultimately more effective. When you push, you do not know what direction the other person will take. It is like the sheepdog running into the flock of sheep: they all head off in different directions. Pulling has just one direction. It is like being the shepherd, towards whom the flock will move.

The new board members must learn from the mistakes of the past board members. They must learn to pull. Creating pull means creating desire. Creating desire means knowing not only what the residents want but how they decide what they want. Creating push will only cause more of the same divisiveness and discontent that we have witnessed. The choice is theirs to make. The residents all have a voice and they have rights they will not relinquish just because the board members happened to win an election. In the end the laws will govern, not men (or women). If the laws are disobeyed, and the rights of the citizens are diminished, we all lose.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 30, 2009 by admin.

We all have the right to speak at meetings.  We all have the right offer discussion on comments made by our neighbors.  These are our rights and they cannot be denied or refused by anyone. 

We generally have three types of important meetings:  Meetings if Units’ Owners- also called Membership Meetings, Meetings of the Executive Board and Town Hall Meetings.  Every homeowner has the right to speak and discuss issues at all three types of meetings. 

Nevada law requires at least one meeting of units’ owners per year.  Here in Sun City Anthem such a meeting is typically held in November.   That same law requires a period of time devoted to comments by units’ owners and discussion of those comments. 

We all have the right to speak at Membership Meetings about anything we feel is important plus we all have the right to offer discussion on comments made by our neighbors. 

Separate Nevada law covers Meetings of the Executive Board.  Here in Sun City Anthem board meetings are typically held every month.  That law also requires a period of time devoted to comments by units’ owners and discussion of those comments. 

We all have the right to speak at Board Meetings about anything we feel is important plus we all have the right to offer discussion on comments made by our neighbors. 

Even though no action can be taken, a Town Hall Meeting is indeed a board meeting and typically held every month.   

We all have the right to speak at Town Hall Meetings about anything we feel is important plus we all have right to offer discussion on comments made by our neighbors. 

Discussion on comments made by others may be supportive or they may be in opposition or they may be an elaboration.   It is reasonable that any discussion we offer be polite, courteous and focused on the same topic raised by our neighbor who made the original comment. 

Certain unscrupulous SCA officers and directors have deliberately tried to prevent us from offering discussion on comments made by our neighbors.  Such actions are a violation of Nevada law and a violation of our rights.  We do not have to tolerate such gross misbehavior.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules, Other | Print | 2 Comments »

April 23, 2009 by admin.

Here are the comments made by homeowner Tim Stebbins at the April 23, 2009 board meeting.  They have been included with the minutes of that meeting.

———————-

I would like to see the SCA board of directors operate in compliance with all laws, operate in the best interests of the Association and respect and honor the rights of SCA homeowners.

In just the past few months Nevada State investigators have found this current board guilty of violations of Nevada law at least three times.  In each case Nevada State officials issued disciplinary action against the board.  The common thread of the violations seems to be abuse of homeowner rights.

The CAM has told use there are many more complaints currently under investigation by the State. It may be the current SCA board is in more trouble than any other board in the history of Nevada.

To me this is not a healthy situation.  It is an embarrassment to our wonderful community.  It could scare off potential buyers and have a negative impact on home values.  Some corrective action seems warranted.

I suggest the board of directors hold a series of workshops or other sessions including homeowners with the goal to establish a professional cooperative environment where the board will indeed operate in compliance with all laws, operate in the best interests of the Association and respect and honor the rights of SCA homeownrs.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 19, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

If you are currently worried about the sinking value of your Las Vegas or
Henderson home, you might want to read the (very abbreviated), story in Today’s Review Journal (Page 3B under “Top News”). 

The story reports that a new low water mark is expected this year that has not been seen in the last 44 years (How many homes and Mega Casinos were here 44 years ago?). 

By this coming July the reservoir is projected to be 13 feet lower THAN IT IS NOW. 

Wake up my friends. How much would some one offer to pay for YOUR home if the water rates were restricted to half what you consume today, and the rates were doubled or even tripled? 

We almost ALLWAYS seem to be behind the curve when it comes to the issues that impact our lifestyles and our wallets. Will this be yet another example? 

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 17, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Last night at the Town Hall Meeting a very perturbed resident named Gerry was forced on the unsuspecting an uniformed audience by Roz Berman (our board President) to act as a “Facilitator”. Roz claims that the residents actually wanted MORE interference than they had in the past, and were subjected to more hoops to jump through like dogs in a circus ring. 

This was clearly done in retaliation for the embarrassment she has endured because the recent revelations of the secret meetings she (and other board members), conducted.  

My apologies to Gerry. You (along with the growing numbers of the angry members), were treated unfairly by some very mean spirited “Unity” board members who will do anything to avoid being criticized for their unprofessional conduct.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 13, 2009 by admin.

Bob Frank said:

Gordon Blugis was previously commenting (on Ron Johnson’s blog) about the 2006-2007 board actions to extend and sweeten the failed trumpets lease, and he asked: “Can anyone refresh my memory on the position taken that evening by Mr. Troia, currently candidate for the SCA Board?”

My response: The history of the events Gordon is trying to describe is more complex than he has reported. For example, the 2005-2006 Board and their Finance Committee (1) did not collect the hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent and revenues shares owed under the lease for a period of over 2 years, (2) wasted over 2 years “negotiating” a lease amendment that had absolutely no benefits to the community, and (3) wasted thousands of dollars on a survey and campaign that attempted to deceive SCA members into approving their bogus amendment. All of that happened well before the 2007 Board terminated the lease by moving to prevent an extension for another 5 years.

However, Gordon is 100% CORRECT about Jack Troia’s personal involvement in the failure to collect hundreds of thousands of association dollars from the lessee between 2005-2007. Jack Troia was the Finance Committee Chair from 2005 to 2007, and Jack Troia was a key member of the SCA financial management team that worked to create and sustain the trumpets lease fiasco during that time.

But, there is much more. It has been reported many times during the past two years by Ron Johnson, Norm McCullough, and others that Jack Troia and Roz Berman were the leading finance committee members that led to our failure to collect the hundreds of thousands of dollars owed in 2005 to our reserves by the developer. And, there are no acceptable excuses for that gross failure.

Jack Troia was also the Finance Committee Chair when Alan Socolik was “fired” from the Finance Committee in 2006 for daring to insist that the trumpets lease be handled according to generally accepted accounting practices. Imagine! A highly qualified volunteer was FIRED by Jack Troia for daring to insist that funds due from the trumpets lease be accounted for according to statute! As a result, the trumpets financial data was never accounted for within our financial system as it should have been. That proves to me, and many others that our trumpets lease records need to be reviewed by a forensic auditor.

Jack Troia was also the key finance committee member who directed the SCA income tax planning and execution that appears to have resulted in significant errors in SCA’s returns in 2005 through 2007. We are waiting for an IRS audit to find out the whole truth in that important tax matter.

Meanwhile, it is fair to say that Jack Troia and Roz Berman have been key members of the management team in power while SCA was suffering hundreds of thousands of dollars of losses since 2005.

Bob Frank
SCA Director

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

April 8, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

I would like to be the first to compliment and send a sincere “Thank You” to the Anthem Voice members who sponsored the seminar last night in Anthem Center. What a great opportunity for the residents to get REAL information form REAL experts!

The time allotted to The BLM pit mine project, and the informative interaction with the BLM representative was greatly appreciated by all who attended. Your involvement is needed if we are to have an effective response to our health and safety. PLEASE become involved.

The Law firm representatives from The Maddox Law firm were there to explain in detail what SB 349 and SB 337 means and what effect it can have on the home owners living here in Sun City Anthem. If you could not attend last night, PLEASE take the time to learn the facts and tell the Senate Judiciary Committee Member to vote NO on both these bills. You can get the contact information from Anthem Voice.

Time allotted to the informative information about class action lawsuits was more appreciated and well received in my opinion, but is still not well defined, but none the less the information that was presented is more than we have received from any other source in recent months and was very much appreciated.

Also a very special “Thanks You” to speaker Gil Mars who presented information and answered questions about water heater maintenance and how to extend the life of that major appliance we all have in our homes. You did an EXCELLENT job Gil, and I’m sure that the members who attended all came away with more knowledge that they had before.

All in all it was a super performance. Thanks to all who put it together. To me it shows what neighbors can really do if they can just agree to help each other. Knowledge is the key, and last night Anthem Voice demonstrated they are concerned about EVERY ONE in the community.

Take a bow, Anthem Voice — The applause is well deserved.

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Operations, Other | Print | No Comments »

April 3, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Yesterday, my wife and I along with some good friends attended the current events annual candidates forum. As always it was a great chance to meet and hear the candidates, and because the questions are not pre-screened, it often gives the members a chance to see the candidates reaction to a question they really didn’t want to hear. For me it was a real eye opener, and today I offer my sincere apology to Mr. Sturm.Mr. Sturm It’s no secret that I dislike David Berman, and I make no apology for that. When I read your statement on David’s BLOG, I reacted because I had convinced myself that you had relinquished your independence and joined the “UNITY” camp and were about to join the “lock step” society that has given this wonderful community a “distasteful” history. But - from what I heard yesterday, you have indeed changed my mind.

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

April 1, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Disgraced blogger David Berman, who has had his head firmly up his own you-know-what ever since he began his political killing machine that he calls “Anthem Journal” is at it again.

He now complains that Ron Johnson’s truthful and incisive and factual articles are; (Quote from David);

“intended to damage my credibility, as well as the credibility of at least one Unity candidate”

Sorry David - you did that yourself years ago in a Boston court room. You destroyed your own self worth and your own “good” name and now you cower in a corner flailing at the world because the door of exposure was opened.

Now you want to divert attention from the disgraceful conduct of you and your past cohorts that allowed Del Webb to skip out on the State of Nevada requirement imposed on a developer at the time of transition when YOU served on the board. You and Roz, and Jack Troia are so afraid of a forensic audit you now want to “stack the deck” by once again “rigging the election” by promoting a majority of candidates that will “keep the lid on the past”.

You haven’t learned anything, nor have you repent from your past digressions, and your behavior towards female members of the community is the mark of a seriously disturbed individual.

Rant on David - I’m sure the community enjoys your cry baby pleas for attention and your whining about what is the truth being merely “unfair” tactics. You may even convince some that you had nothing to do with the recent disgraceful SCARF episode. But - you have about as much credibility as Mr. Maddoff who recently downsized his mansion for a “grey bar” suite.

When Mr. Johnson wrote;

“With such gross and flagrant misrepresentations of events and facts, one might get the impression that David is letting his past catch up with him.”

His remarks were “dead on and done right”. You are the one with the credibility problem of your own making.

Now you accuse Ron Johnson of being (Quote);

“a much greater threat to our community”

The only threat to our community David is the cover up you and Roz and Jack Troia are promoting. Roz has never answered 17 issues that she promised to answer on July 20, 2007, and Jack Troia STILL won’t answer how he managed to shrink a Villa. We don’t need magicians elected. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HANDLE OUR MONEY. There has been a lot of things swept under the rug by a lot of people, and now it’s time to do some house cleaning.

Instead of “little bitty” complaining why don’t you get Roz and Jack Troia to answer THIS question?

WHY DIDN’T THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REJECT THE SECOND DEL WEBB RESERVE STUDY SINCE IT DID NOT COVER THE DATE OF TRANSITION, AND VIOLATED THE NRS STATUTES?

Posted in Other | Print | No Comments »

March 29, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Mr. Sturm:

I can not let this disgraceful action you have undertaken to go unanswered. A few short weeks ago you responded to an invitation to have dinner at my home with my wife and Bob and Kay Frank.

We extended the invitation because we thought you were running as an independent candidate to demonstrate to the community that you had independent thoughts , and you wanted the freedom to draw your own conclusions free from the biased opinions of a “Slate” induced platform that is obviously hell bent on destroying Bob Frank’s reputation as a citizen, and a true leader who is not afraid to shine a light on the cover up of past events that have cost this association a great deal of money.

Now - you have shown your true colors by allowing your statement to be published only on the BLOG of David Berman who is the most notorious disgraced past Vice President in Sun City Anthem history.

During your visit at my home you reviewed only a few of the documents that I have archived that may (in the end), prove to be evidence of major misconduct of the board and some past members of the board of directors. You were also shown what I believe to be evidence of a scam involving the manipulation of data given the reserve specialist employed by this association by Jack Troia another “Unity Candidate.” As a direct result of this scam, 162 members of this association have suffered financially.

You met and talked with my neighbor who will be celebrating her 100^th birthday in May of this year. You also met the Treasurer of The Villa Group. The very same widowed lady that was chastised by Mike Dixon because she dared question Mike Dixon’s idiotic pronouncement that “Del Webb gave the Villas a GIFT”. You visited her home and even inspected some of the floor tile. All the while you professed to be considerate of our plight and seemed willing to work to shed light on the cover up of the actions of the past board members (like David Berman), who have affected this communities financial well being, and have engineered a “Unity” stranglehold on the free election process.

I hereby make this announcement that because of your calloused and uncaring attitude to discover the truth by adopting the “Unity” doctrine of “never looking back” I would never vote for you, and I ask that every one who considers the truth to be more important than politics to Vote Smart and vote for Bob Frank and Ron Morse - period.

Why would anyone waste their vote on any candidate who has no respect for their own good name and align them selves with a disgraced attorney? Now we find someone who claims to be an “Independent” candidate who runs to the “Unity” camp declaring that a bland statement like the following Quote;

“In short, Anthem Voice believes that Bob Frank, Ron Morse, and Barnett Sturm are the only independent candidates this year.”

Some how is derogatory? No - Barnett, there is more here than meets the eye. This is what YOU have destroyed by the statements you made on the disgraced attorneys BLOG.

You said on your campaign flyer Quote;

“My Goal is to apply my extensive career experience to ensuring efficient and transparent operations of our Homeowners Association.”

Sorry Barnett - I don’t see anything “transparent” about continuing the cover up. You might be able to regain some respect by announcing right now what your stand is on a forensic audit. That’s what the “Unity” candidates are afraid of.

Are you going to continue the cover up and let the reserves of this association go un-audited? Are you against uncovering what it REALLY cost the members of this community when Del Webb WAS ALLOWED to disobey Nevada Statutes by skipping the requirements of providing a well funded reserve study at the time of transition? Do you have the “Spine” to uncover what past board members like David Berman have cost us?

After reading your outrageous statement on the disgraced former attorneys BLOG, I think not. Have fun writing in David’s pigpen that he calls Anthem Journal. Of course I have been banned for some time, but even if I were allowed to, I have higher standards. You apparently do not.

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

March 20, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

If you are successful in your bid to be seated on the board of directors, you will inherit a big problem from the present board. The problem is because the Villa owners have been cheated out of a lot of money. In case your wondering what it’s all about, and why this problem STILL NOT SETTLED, I have presented here the terms of the Villa agreement.

Please take note of the last two items on this list. Those last two items explain the rights of ANY Villa owner or ANY member of this association to question the current or any future board about the terms of the agreement.

Because of the current boards actions under Roz Berman and Mike Dixon YOU will have to answer when called to do so. You can’t simply ignore the problem any longer, because the problem will still be here if you are elected.

Here then are the terms of the Villa Agreement.

————————————————-

RELEASE OF AGREEMENT

• End of June, Pulte agreed to release the confidentiality clause and the Board received permission to release the agreement.

• The Association (via prior Board) accepted liability from Pulte on any future complaints regarding reserve funding for the villas.

• Pulte has no further responsibility for reserve funding past the exchange of the $241,000 payment and the agreement to refresh hardscape.

• Further claims or discussions must be with the Association.

• The Agreement affects all SCA homeowners, not just villa owners.

7/20/2007

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

March 16, 2009 by bobfrank.

For those who have called and/or may be wondering:   I was invited, but elected to not place any re-election information on David and Roz Berman’s Unity Slate blog.

I want nothing to do with the site and the people who have developed and promoted SCA political parties and slate campaigns. Slate politics and politics of personal destruction have done our community great damage. These practices should be rejected by all SCA members.

I urge all SCA members to get to know all of the candidates. Make individual choices for whom you will trust to assess and spend your hard-earned money to maintain and grow our community. History shows that only when electing directors do you have any real power to make a difference for the next year or two.

Spend a little time to get to know the character, ethics and business management qualifications of each candidate, and then, VOTE SMART.

Sincerely,

Bob Frank
SCA Director

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Lifestyle, Other | Print | 4 Comments »

March 16, 2009 by Mark Cook.

If you haven’t checked your bathtub spigot for proper installation, you might have a problem.  The spigot must be seated squarely against the wall, and sealed with caulk all around the perimeter.  This spigot was poorly installed.  It must be fixed to prevent water leaking down into the wall where it will cause mold and all kinds of other undesirable consequences.

The spigot can be removed by using a wrench inserted into the screw on the underside. 

Once the spigot is removed, all of the other parts which are under the spigot can be removed by sliding them off the end of the copper pipe.  Notice their sequence, so they can be installed properly when repairs are made.  The chrome ring should also be sealed against the wall with caulk.

Now for the horror story.  After removing the chrome ring shown above, hopefully you won’t see a sight like this.

Notice the gap around the pipe, that’s not watertight!  In this case, the plumber stuffed wadded up paper into the gap, then smeared on a little caulk.  Of course that’s very poor workmanship.  The paper stuffing and the caulk has to be removed, and the hole, which is too large and not centered in the first place, must be filled thoroughly with caulk.

 Wait at least 24 hours for that caulk to dry, then apply another layer to insure that the pipe is watertight to the wall.  Then install the chrome ring and caulk around the edge of it.  Slide the parts back on the pipe, install the spigot tightly against the wall, and tighten the screw.  Finally, apply a bead of caulk around the base of the spigot and you’ve completed the job much better than the builder. 

There’s one last point I’d like to make.  When we were having a lot of problems with construction defects, sloppy construction, you name it we saw it, a Pulte official told us “we slap the houses up then come along later and fix the problems”.   That is of course if the owner finds all of the problems before the warranty runs out.  Pulte officials bragged about building a house in 75 days.  We’d rather have quality than speed. 

Caveat Emptor. 

Posted in Community Affairs, News!, Other | Print | No Comments »

March 14, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Was it FRAUD or gross negligence committed by SCA Boards concerning Reserves funds due by the developer since May of 2005?  Now that the board election is once again upon us, that issue HAS to be (finally) answered this year!

NRS Statutes REQUIRE that a Declarant provide a Reserve study and fully fund it at the time of transition to resident control. Del Webb/Pulte (The Declarant) commissioned TWO such studies. The first was submitted to the Board of Directors and unanimously rejected. The second (replacement) reserve study was the 2006 reserve study, and it WAS adopted by the Board. So, why was it necessary for this current Board of Directors to conduct a “2008 Reserve Look-back” and set up a committee to supposedly supply the association with the “Fully Funded” numbers at the time of transition?

Well, the 2nd reserve study received by this association from the developer, was even worse than the first–because it was NOT computed using the mandated May 2005 DATE OF TRANSITION.  It was done wrong twice, and our Board of Directors (including Dea McDonald,  a Pulte Vice President and former SCA Board President) failed to ever require the developer to comply with the law.  Does that sound like serious conflicts of interest to you?

But, instead of requiring the developer to get the study right and fully fund its cash obligations, the SCA Board of Directors set up a special Finance Committee group in 2008 (The Reserve Look Back Committee), to modify the study by computing the “Fully Funded” values for May 2005.  But, let’s go a step further, and ask the multi-million-dollar question.

WHY did the board of directors (including Favil West, Bob Berman, David Berman and Finance Committee Members/board candidates Roz Berman and Jack Troia) FAIL to REJECT THE SECOND reserve study in 2006, and fail to require the developer to get it done right, and pay its obligations according to the law?

Said another way, why DID the SCA Board accept the unlawful 2nd study? And, why were SCA HOMEOWNER funds used to fill up the reserve accounts in 2005 thru 2008 INSTEAD of demanding DW/Pulte fully pay its obligations?  Should we consider that to be simple or gross negligence, or could there be fraud involved because the developer received such high financial benefits–at the expense of SCA homeowners?

Can anyone think of a single valid reason to fail to collect the hundreds of thousands of dollars due from the developer in 2005? And, did EVERY budget from the year 2006 until the present time fail to include the money owed by Del Webb at the time of transition?

Finally, how much would our dues/assessments have been reduced if Del Webb/Pulte had been required to obey the Nevada Statutes in May 2005?  How much did that shortage of hundreds of thousand of dollars by the developer cause our dues/assessments to be excessive in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009?

Why has the current board of directors, and all past boards since the transition, refused to answer these obvious questions? What value has our homeowners received from this failure to collect over a million dollars of reserve funds?

After tolerating 3 years of cover ups, are we going to insist on receiving clear answers this year?  Vote SMART.

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

March 12, 2009 by Norman McCullough.

Sun City Anthem residents and Board Members need to be better informed about the Nevada State and community rules that govern our lives. The basic documents governing the SCA Home Owner Association are: Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 116, Nevada Administrative Code (NRC)116, SCA ByLaws, SCA Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), and SCA Rules and Regulations

The CC&Rs—the “Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions”—are the governing documents that dictate how the homeowners association operates and what rules the owners must obey. These documents and rules are legally enforceable by the homeowner association, unless a specific provision conflicts with federal, state or local laws.

SCA’s CC&Rs cover a broad range of topics, including: age restrictions for residents, the number of occupants per house, garage door openings, parking restrictions, house painting, free-standing flag poles, voting rights, association fee increases, reserve funds, expansion of the community, vacation villas, golf ball damage to homes, activity cards, dispute resolution, and many more topics. The writer wishes to point out to this community the specific items mentioned - namely HOUSE PAINTING AND RESERVE FUNDS.

The major problem with the current CC&Rs as well as other documents that govern Sun City Anthem is the fact that they were written by the Del Webb/Pulte developer (Declarant) to protect developer interests. Now that SCA is a resident administered common interest community, the current board of directors (with the exception of Bob Frank), are administering the developer included provisions that are harming the residents of this community.

How can anyone justify allowing Del Webb (Declarant) to completely ignore the NRS statutes that demand a full accounting of the financial conditions of this community via of a viable reserve study and a full AND COMPLETE accounting of all bank accounts at the time of transition?

This current board of directors (with the exception of Bob Frank), is engaged in a cover-up of the failed policies of the past boards and the finance committee members that allowed that to happen. Roz Berman knows more than she is willing to admit because she was a volunteer member of the finance committee around the time of transition, and Jack Troia was even on the Transition committee when this travesty occurred, but he is unwilling to answer the questions that have naturally followed.

The residents of this community have A RIGHT TO ASK FOR ANSWERS.

FACT:  Three and a half years have passed since the date of transition.

THIS ASSOCIATION HAS STILL NOT RECONCILED THE BOOKS AND THE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WAS A MANDATE OF THE STATE AT THE TIME OF TRANSITION ON MAY 31, 2005. WHY??

The CC&Rs must be modified or rewritten to remove conflicts and contradictions with revisions in Nevada NRS and NAC regulations. Other CC&R revisions might also be in order in spite of the fact that it is (a) a monumental task and (b) our past Board President (Mike Dixon), has stated that, while he is in office, it won’t be done because it is too difficult to do.

Still, some changes to consider are: setting lower-level resident voting standards for changing rules or approving budget changes; removing conflicting rules on resident/common property maintenance; and updating architectural review standards.

Posted in 2009 Campaign, SCA Board, Laws & Rules, Other | Print | 1 Comment »