Many false, defamatory rumors are being passed around the clubs and fitness centers.

See these links on AnthemToday and Anthem-View Journal for facts to refute such smear campaigns by the current and past boards.

http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=3771

http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=37

Here is my latest response to the smear actions to try to claim that I have intended to profit from blowing the cover on the board’s tax malfeasance:

—————————————-

Contrary to the Berman site’s false claims and the incumbent treasurer’s BS, here is the truth.

No amount of distortion, half-facts or flat false statements will change reality and here are just a few additional facts to make the public evidence complete.

- It is 100% true the board had at least a dozen chances since early 2008 to avoid the IRS audit and to have zero wasted member funds on avoidable taxes. It is apparent that our boards and finance committees have been dominated by gamblers who believed they could do what they wanted with the state and federal tax systems and not have to be held personally accountable.

- For those with lingering questions and/or want to review the compelling evidence for themselves, many items are found at this site:
http://www.anthemvoice.org/taxes_issue.html

- We need to remember that ALL of the $1.3 million (or whatever portion one wants to believe has to be paid to the IRS) was SURPLUS DUES that by state and federal law was REQUIRED to be RETURNED TO MEMBERS by immediate refunds or by immediate reductions in the next year’s assessment.
That is not “opinion”–it is provable TRUTH confirmed by the Hqs IRS Chief Counsel, the IRS audit report and the Henderson exoneration of Stebbins and I.

- No one knows whether the IRS, Federal Prosecutor or District Attorney will ever decide to prosecute those responsible for this fiasco, but claiming that no crimes have been committed simply because no charges have yet to be filed it much like one who whistles in dark as they pass the cemetery.

- Who called in the IRS? It absolutely was not me in some vain hope of getting some kind of reward! Such bogus rumors are nothing more than political smear tactics.

But, here is what we know the IRS had access to:

1. FACT: May 2008–Senator John Briggs stated in public that he filed a report with the IRS in hopes of forcing the Board to do the legal and honorable thing of returning all accumulated slush funds/working capital/surplus assessments to the members.

Evidence: http://www.anthemvoice.org/resources/SCA+-TAX_FACTS.pdf

2. FACT: Nov 2008–the public (including IRS internet data mining systems) was informed of the questions concerning SCA Board tax issues from the R-J article.

Evidence: http://www.lvrj.com/business/34543364.html

3. FACT: Nov 2009–Tim Stebbins and I wrote the IRS Hqs Chief Counsel in November 2009 asking for specific guidance on IRS Revenue Ruling 70-604. At that point the IRS was aware of the SCA situation. We certainly were not involved in any kind of whistle blowing process. The board had plenty of time to avoid the consequences of the subsequent audit in 2011.

Evidence: http://www.anthemvoice.org/resources/SCA+-TAX_FACTS.pdf

4. FACT: Jan 2010–The Henderson Police Department contacted the IRS and asked for clarification about ruling 70-604 and alerted it to a possible tax problem.

Evidence: Contained in the detailed arrest warrant (not mounted online)

All of the above goes to show that what the boards and current treasurer have been claiming is shamefully false. It has been strictly for political and self-serving purposes to control our community and protect those board officers who have totally failed us.

The truth is plain. Reject the bogus BS you are hearing through rumors and political misdirection and advise your friends to do the same.

This is yet another example of David Bermans continual manipulation of the truth. Both he and some of his “Unity” cohorts have played a fast and loose game with the truth, and it will hopefully soon come to and end.

Every one can remember when the “Unity” Board members voted unanamously to eliminate the Code of Conduct to benifit David after he was complained against by several women in our community. It demonstrated to all, that it pays to have friends in high places when it comes to Sun City Anthem affairs.

David and his “Unity” friends may be able to control most things in this community, but hopefully they will find out that they reached too far by going outside the confines of Sun City Anthem.

“Regarding Bob Frank’s objections to the Board appealing the IRS findings,
the Board would be violating its fiduciary responsibilities to the SCA by not
appealing. Once again the man is in his own world. I hope someone has an
opportunity to ask Bob Frank, face to face, during election interviews,
whether he or anyone he knows filed a whistle-blower complaint to the IRS
in attempt to collect a fee regarding the HOA 2007 tax return.
Posted by: frblaha@centurylink.net | February 25, 2011 at 04:15 PM”

My responses are:

Frank. Blaha spins it BACKWARDS. The boards have been found by the IRS to
have incorrectly/falsely claimed on Federal Income Tax Returns (under penalty
of perjury) to have RETURNED surplus member assessments (as clearly required
by IRS Ruling (70-604) every year since 2005. The Director’s individual fiduciary
duties require them to comply with Federal Laws/Rules and immediately RETURN
the surpluses to members as stated under oath.

Wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional member funds owed to the
members in a vain attempt to delay the inevitable is the WORST possible action
the directors could take–from all perspectives! It is a classic lose-lose strategy.

However, the director’s who HONOR their fiduciary duties will ask for:

(1) no additional member funds be wasted on “defending the indefensible”

(2) compassion from the IRS on behalf of our 7,000+ senior homeowners
(many with low retirement incomes),

(3) taxes to be reduced or eliminated, and

(4) penalties be significantly reduced to a modest level to recognize that
all surpluses were refunded.

This approach would be proposed by the board in return for immediately:

(1) refunding ALL of the rolled up surpluses, and

(2) submitting modified 2008, 2009 and draft 2010 returns to be fully
compliant with all IRS rulings.

While there is no certainty this would be acceptable to the IRS, it has a chance of
success if the IRS can avoid wasting its time with apparently “frivolous” appeals.
IRS Agents prefer to go after much larger corporate tax violations, and quickly
moving to close the case can most benefit our members who pay the bills.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the “Sun City Anthem, Henderson, NV
case” is likely to become a historic and frequently-cited example of what happens to
HOAs and their tax preparers who violate IRS ruling 70-604.

Members can be confident that a practical and sincere proposal would not work
if it is not submitted BEFORE the board foolishly completes its actions to try to
stall the inevitable through the appeal process. Failing to move now to cut the tax
and penalty losses to the minimum could be a long-term disaster for all concerned.

To do the right thing as well as protect themselves, at least 4 of the current directors
should be demanding an emergency board meeting to vote to admit to the errors and
to promise to avoid repeat violations in the future. That would clearly be the honest,
ethical, and fiduciary path to follow by 4 or more directors who claimed to intend to
put SCA homeowners interests ahead of their own interests during their campaigns.

However, it is a terrible path to follow by any director to continue to follow the bad
advice of the personally-conflicted directors, involved finance committee members,
and the apparently discredited tax preparer. In the future, they may be held
accountable for their past failures, and it is not too late for a board majority to take
the better path and by electing a different representative to negotiate with the IRS.

Mr. Blaha, the Bermans, and many others in this community already know who
claimed to have turned in the 2008 Board for tax return violations. Retired Senator
John V. Briggs announced in 2008 he had blown the whistle because certain
directors and finance committee members had made it clear those individuals knew
they were wrong and that they would never return annual surpluses as required by
the IRS to avoid income taxes. Senator Briggs said he had not asked for and did
not desire any compensation for merely honoring his community duty.

To clear the air and expose this nastiness, John Briggs has been asked to
restate his public claims and to pop the bubble of this obvious dirty political trick.

A voice of reason has appeared to set us on a path that may get us out of this mess that was created by our “Unity” Board of Directors.

“Folks” — if we don’t get behind this effort En-mass, we may be facing some very tough times. It’s time to stop the political bickering that has closed our eyes and opened a wound.

WE MUST JOIN OUR HANDS AND TELL OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”.

Norman McCullough

1. ) WHY DIDN’T THE BOARD LISTEN WHEN THEY WERE INFORMED BY SENATOR JOHN BRIGGS THAT THEY WERE ACCUMULATING A “SLUSH FUND” THAT MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO AN INCOME TAX AUDIT? —- AND

2. ) NOW THAT THEY HAVE EXPOSED THIER BLUNDER, ARE WE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO SPEND EVEN MORE OF OUR OWN MONEY TO APPEAL?

Unfortunately, the last CA elections indicate it has to get much worse economically for the majority of CA residents before they will act to force the fundamental changes required to reverse the basic policies installed by the minorities that have led to the long-term declines.

“Recently learned” ?? Are you kidding?

“Secretive Behavior” has been THE TRADEMARK of this “Unity” Board of Directors.

As far as I’m concerned, it started the day that a past Board of Directors decided to keep a Villa Agreement a “secret” from the Associations attorney John Leach right after the transition from Del Webb.

Soon after that, the two Board members who signed the agreement (Favil West and Kay Dwyer), kept “secret” who the legal source actually was that they “claimed” they consulted with.

Then they “kept secret” the SOURCE of the numbers in the Villa Agreement.

Then they “kept secret” the SOURCE of the $1.57 per sf paint cost that raised the Villa neighborhood dues by $500 in 2007.

What else are they hiding?

It seems to me she has arrogantly painted herself into a difficult corner–without thinking it through….

The reason that the SCA-HOA Bulletin Board was terminated is because the “UNITY PARTY” Board wants to deny the SCA residents they fear the most, access to tell the truth.

Ask yourself “What is the first thing a dictator would do after getting control of the government?”

The answer is;
They did the same thing our “Unity” Board is doing. The are restricting our freedom from reporting and commenting on the deceitful conduct of “Unity” board members and thier supporters who are carefully and selectively placed in committee positions.

Sun City Anthem is sorely in need of an investigation into the practices of the “Unity” board promotors, beginning with the separation from the developer. Some day the truth may finally come out about how much money is involved in the strange and unexplained decisions they have made, but in the mean time it is shameful what the “Unity” board is doing to our wonderful community.
　

Articles like that are not welcomed by those in charge, for they reveal the lack of professional management and that simply cannot be tolerated. In an exchange of emails with John Waterhouse on this subject, he adamantly stated only one point, that they were using the recommended CDC procedures. However, when I checked the validity of that assertion, I received a reply from the CDC that they recommend UV and Ozone in addition to over-chlorination, because both of those instantly kill the crypto germs. The CDC also made other recomendations, but I don’t wont to confuse the managers with the facts, their minds are already made up.

AV Admin References:
http://www.anthemvoice.org/health.html
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/08/08/pool-spa-water-quality-concerns/

But, even if Dick does not understand, or if he sincerely objects to having to help pay for the system as it exists, the history of the Congress (under both political parties) shows that the federal government does not spend a dime more of public funds for the military and reserves than it is forced to do so. Otherwise, it would not get the minimum number of volunteers and careerists needed.

For over 200 years it has been a constant battle to get The Congress to properly care for the military it sends to fight the government’s wars. The members of Congress have a long track record of making flowery speeches during election campaigns and on certain holidays, and then systematically failing to follow through on its sacred duties for the veterans and their families.

In fact, the Congress is still shamefully short-changing the benefits to disabled military members and their families after they return with war zone injuries. In addition, the millions of dollars of compensation granted to the surviving family members of 9-11 civilian causalities compare shamefully to the few thousand granted to military family members of war causalities.

In short, Dick and any others interested in this topic, can rest assured that retired military and reserve members are quire well aware of the differences between military and civilian retirement systems. All have served for one or two decades under both systems. And every one I know feels strongly they well-earned the benefits they receive.

————————————–
DICK ARENDT said on Anthem Today: “Bob, Stop the cry baby routine—and take a reality check.

There are a number of items about which you have not completely informed individuals, much like the style of “the other guy.

First, you mentioned that following 20+ years of service, the retirement income is approximately one half of normal pay. What you did not mention is that it is collectible IMMEDIATELY.

In the private sector, one might qualify for a retirement plan following 10 years of service; however, there is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE at that point. Normally you are not allowed to collect full benefits until normal retirement age which in the private sector, is age 65. At that point in time, the benefit received is dependent on the formula used in the plan.

Military and government pensions are defined benefit plans which predetermine a benefit dependent on income earned. Very rarely are these plans available any longer in the private sector due to the HIGH COST OF MAINTAINING and FUNDING THEM.

To simplify the explanation, if one is earning $10,000 p/month at the point of retirement and the DEFINED BENEFIT is a monthly retirement income of 50% of pay, than a sufficient amount must be accumulated at that point of retirement. This is based on an annual deposit, interest rate, and life expectancy. If the individual retires at age 45 years for example and the BENEFIT IS COLLECTED IMMEDIATELY, then funding for that amount is based on probably paying out a benefit for a 30 year period as life expectancy is about age

Without the discounting factor plus the interest rate earned on the funds, that would mean it would take approximately $60,000 p/yr X 30 years of life expectancy or $1,800,000 to merely fund ONE PERSON’S PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION BENEFIT. (The cost to provide benefits for females is HIGHER due to their longer life expectancy, and increased monthly retirement benefits due to Cost of Living increases also add greatly to the price tag in order to provide the benefits as well.)

In the private sector these plans are now all but nonexistent. The plan of choice now is a 401(k) plan whereby the INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE MAY TAKE A VOLUNTARY REDUCTION IN PAY to save for retirement. In the past, corporations would match part of employee contributions, but in today’s world, those matching amounts, due to the poor economy and their being A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER, are now ALL BUT NONEXISTENT. The cost of providing such plans, other than administration, to an employer is therefore, NEGLIGIBLE.

In addition, with 401(k) plans, any withdrawal prior to age 59.5 years incurs a 10% income tax penalty PLUS the ACTUAL INCOME TAX PAID. Since “income averaging” is no longer available in our tax system, it therefore becomes A VERY DISASTEROUS SITUATION IF YOU WITHDRAW YOUR OWN FUNDS prior the age of 59.5 years. There are a few exceptions, but most people do not qualify for them, and any loans taken against the plan, ARE LOANS, must be repaid at an interest rate, and if unpaid, the funds then become taxable income. In addition, RARELY, if EVER, are these loans repaid, and the end result is LITERALLY A PAULTRY RETIREMENT SUM.

So, at this point, the retirement system AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND RETIRED MILITARY IS FAR GREATER THAN ANY BENEFIT AVAILABLE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR…and trying to make a case for an even reduced benefit due to a “net take home” was humorous. Does that mean you should be exempt from federal income tax on that benefit as well? Those in the private sector certainly don’t have that availability, and our retirement benefits are taxable just like yours causing the same reduction in “net take home” pay.

Next, let’s talk MEDICAL CARE. To my knowledge retired military receive FREE MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE BENEFITS OR LIFE. Not bad, when one considers that in the private sector, IF RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE AT ALL, they are only PARTIALLY SUBSIDIZED and RARELY IS DENTAL COVERAGE AVAILABLE. For example, when I retired and sold my insurance agency, part of the package was a provision for a partial subsidy of medical and dental coverage. As of January, 2011, MY CONTRIBUTION IS $18,000 P/YEAR, a 20% INCREASE FROM 2010, DUE TO OBAMACARE.

<p>In addition to those facts, over the past number of years, many large companies have merged or been acquired by other firms, and do you know the first benefit DROPPED by the new owners in most cases?
<p>RETIREE MEDICAL.

Then there are medications. Retired military need merely to go to a veteran’s hospital or clinic and receive MEDICATIONS FREE OF CHARGE, while those in the private sector often pay deductibles and HIGH CO-PAYS FOR both GENERIC AND BRAND NAME DRUGS.Once again, not a bad deal for retired military individuals.

<p>Third, there is the opportunity of RETIRED MILITARY TO PURCHASE MANY ITEMS AT BASE INSTALLATIONS at a substantially lower cost than THOSE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT MUST RELY ON COSTCO OR SAM’S CLUB for their discounts. Then there is NO SALES TAX on purchases made by RETIRED MILITARY whereas the rest of us have to pay 8.1% in addition to the higher price.

In summary, as usual, there is always MORE TO THE STORY, and very often, when someone CONDEMNS as he and his dear friend did, perhaps when it comes to the BENEFITS THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE and PAID BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THEIR ENTIRETY, one should not complain as much as the colonel.

If he would like to trade his package with the normal one available to PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES, I’m sure he would have a lot of takers.

She is a Christian with unwavering belief in the Constitution and our American free-market system. She states she has no intention of denying Social Security benefits to those who have paid into it. But, she proposes to develop an approach that involves a mix of options for the younger generations.

It is true that massive government corruption has created a meltdown in our financial system. We must now elect individuals to Congress who can be trusted to stay the course, and to make the hard decisions that favor our individual rights.

It appears that Sharron Angle is the only candidate running against Harry Reid who can handle such monumental tasks.

Action by traditional veterans organizations like the American Legion, VFW, Disabled American Veterans, Air Force Association, and Military Officers Association of American (MOAA) are the ones most likely to take action on this kind of issue. I have forwarded the info to them as well.

Answer: Probably SCA Director/Attorney Ann Small.

This is because the association attorneys are retained by the board and therefore only responsible for “advising” the board. The board makes the decisions, and the directors have to be held individually accountable for any actions they take.

Since Attorney/Director Ann Small was elected to represent SCA homeowner interests, and she has previously served as a Henderson Judge, her behavior could be held to higher standards of ethical conduct.

Since all three attorneys were directly involved in this apparent example of ethical misconduct, someone could consider filing complaints against each one under the following link:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/scr_cjc.html

Why? Because the previously relevant contents of those sections NO LONGER EXIST in the Rules and Regulations!

For more details, review the earlier posting on this site called “Was It a Charade or Fraud?”
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2010/08/29/was-it-a-charade-or-fraud/

You can hear the sound clip of Troia’s own words. He was not quoted accurately by the attorney–after discovering Troi’s outrageous mistake to cite an obsolete version of the rules and regulations.

Some one said that such flagrant misconduct by NV Bar members could be considered grounds for filing code of ethics violations against them? Do we have any SCA retired attorneys willing to recommend an action in this regard?

Is our insurance broker really acting in the best interest of SCA?

Is our attorney/law firm really acting in the best interest of SCA?

Is the SCA Board really acting in the best interest of “stakeholders/homeowners”.

Now that there is a newly created “gap” in security, (courtesy of the SCA Board and it’s advisors) will RMI or an affiliate come to the “rescue” with the “security solution”….after all, what’s another $150 per household, per year? (Someone mentioned a “bid” of $837,000…..but, remember…that’s to get in the door!)

When an organization like SCA hires a commercial security service isn’t there an automatic and very, very significant “elevation of risk” related to potential increased likelihood of litigation….which requires even more and better insurance coverage?

Yes, my friends…….. you have entered the sideshow….step right up and take your chances. Just drop your checks in the hat right over here! We’re going to take good care of you!

Sadly, this entire matter is of much lesser quality than a fiasco (Should we start refrring to SCA as “Chicago-West”?) Was this outcome based on any material facts or was it simply a move to show the board is completely in change….or simply the “push” from CAI?

With no case law in Nevada to support the change in name (as per corporate counsel)and no newly identified and elevated exposure to risk (as per the “loss prevention specialist”) there seems only to have been the push from Community Association Institute (CAI) to make the name change. CAI seems to manage our board and SCA quite effectively, wouldn’t you say? The lesson here clearly is that there is no need to work through the SCA board….just work back through CAI representatives. (That has a great appeal to it!) There is another question, though…just who is the Terry-Fator-like person at CAI who controls what is said and done by the SCA board at SCA? That person is clearly more powerful tha a speeding locomotive! We’ll look to give them the recognition that they truly deserve, in the not too distant future.

It’s been suggested that one board member threatened to resign if the name change was not made. Perhaps the board member could see some previously unidentified and undetected new and elevated risk and exposure to loss, in the night sky…..or were those simply meteors?

While there may be continuing calls for the recall of board members….it might also be far better (for SCA stakeholders) to allow them to swim in their own percolating swill for several more months, to allow the much larger and more important issues to be brought to the forefront as part of a very formal and very painful and powerful process.

It’s a very slow process at times. Patience my friends…patience! We will prevail with an outcome that may be truly remarkable!

1. This re-naming and subsequent re-organizing of the Security Patrol is a vital issue affecting all 7,144 rooftops. Downgrading the name and subsequent mission is a major policy matter affecting all unit owners. All members must have access to all of the facts, all of the arguments–pro and con, and to participate in making the final decision for this community.

2. The members pay the bills and elect the directors. In the end, it will be the members who decide if they want a change in the Security Patrol. Unlike the restaurant lease matter, every single SCA owner is likely to care about board actions to damage Security Patrol. Make SP more useful and more effective? You bet! Make it less effective? No chance! It is impossible to force even a third of 7,144 unit owners to come to a ‘workshop’ in August in Southern Nevada. So, why is the board trying to do something so outrageous? Even if 200 showed up in Hanneman Hall, so what? That is only a small percentage of the total who must be included in the final decision.

3. Our CC&Rs and other governing documents spell out the Security Patrol as a major segment of our ‘community property’. I argue that nothing substantial concerning ‘community property’ can be changed about the Security Patrol (including the name and mission) without a membership vote. So, trying to bully people into accepting a unilateral board decision coming from an inadequate August workshop is not possible. Even if something is done against the majority of the member’s wishes, it can be reversed by a new board.

4. And, please don’t any of the guardhouse lawyers try to waste our time claiming that the ‘business judgment rule’ grants the board the power to do anything is wants on anything it wishes! NRS 116 and NRS 82 shows there are many times when members MUST be allowed to vote on major business and property matters. This is one of those times. It does not matter if it takes a whole year to study the issues and assess the trade-offs before making a final decision. All the true facts must known, and all the members must be allowed to be involved.

5. Members can also publish their opinions in the Spirit and other SCA media channels because the new provisions of NRS 116.31175.6 & .7 say:

‘6. If an official publication contains or will contain any mention of a candidate or ballot question, the official publication must, upon request and without charge, provide equal space to the candidate or a representative of an organization which supports the passage or defeat of the ballot question.

7. If an official publication contains or will contain the views or opinions of the association, the executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association concerning an issue of official interest, the official publication must, upon request and without charge, provide equal space to opposing views and opinions of a unit’s owner, tenant or resident of the common-interest community.’

I hope that current and past leaders of the Security Patrol, and many others in our community will take advantage of the new statute provisions and express their opinions in the Spirit, Ch. 99, email notices to SCA clubs and SIGs, and elsewhere–before there is a final board vote scheduled on this matter. There should be no rush to judgment on such a vital issue.

1. The CAM has reported that nothing in writing has been received from the association attorney, insurance broker or the insurance underwriter about this topic. Nothing.

2. Director/Attorney Ann Small and Director Celeste Bove’ refuse to provide any facts, but insist that members must come to the August workshop to find out what is going on.

3. Director John Waterhouse responded to someone pointing out that SC Summerlin and SC McDonald Ranch both use Security Patrol and seem to be satisfied doing so said:

‘I think to find out what Summerlin and McDonald Ranch have done is a good idea. However, to assume this can then be ‘handled very easily’ is an over exaggeration. By keeping the word ‘Security’ in their name, they are indeed taking on more liability than had they used a name not using that word.’

Conclusion: This matter is of a MUCH bigger concern than anticipated last month. Nothing is in writing, but an action item for the board is pending?

Who can make any sense of that? How can a director (or all of the directors) believe that major liabilities exist if there is nothing in writing to justify whomever is pushing this major change in policy?

This is crazy! The board has done some really outrageous things in the last few years, but this one is likely to become its Waterloo. Probably over half of our SCA members have volunteered to serve on the Security Patrol in the past decade and/or have significantly benefited from its services.

If there are compelling reasons to change the name, it is outrageous to demand that 7,144 members come to an August workshop to find out the reasons.

From: Mary Lee Duley [mailto:mlduley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:27 PM
To: ‘Board President’; ‘Roz Berman’; ‘dforgeron@cox.net’; ‘annieksmall@gmail.com’; ‘gardberg@gmail.com’; ‘celeste.bove.sca@gmail.com’; ‘John Waterhouse’
Subject: FW: Security Patrol name change

Dear Sun City Anthem Residents:

I am forwarding Phil Brown’s email regarding the Sun City Anthem Security Patrol as it’s EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the entire community to support them and this provides specific information as to concerns.

Let me be very clear about one thing, I do NOT blog, nor do I approve of the ongoing finger-pointing, name calling, and distortion of facts on web sites available to SCA residents. This community has been divided since I moved here in 2006 and it saddens me to say that it seems to be getting worse, rather than better.

I would like you take a moment, when driving throughout SCA, to notice the “NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH” signs. The Security Patrol, through Phil Brown’s tireless efforts, has initiated a neighborhood watch, organized and coordinated efforts, established an effective neighborhood watch, and ALL residents of SCA benefit.

July, August, and part of September are months where, traditionally, many residents go on holiday to cooler climates. The attendance at most meetings will be minimal, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know this fact. To have the Security Patrol ASK for an EXTENTION of time before the Board of Directors makes a NAME CHANGE (that the majority of Security Volunteers do NOT want), was professional and not unreasonable. To have the Security Patrol’s request for more time in order to obtain what the majority of RESIDENTS desires are REJECTED by the Board of Directors is disrespectful to ALL of the SCA Security Patrol Volunteers that have put in countless hours for the benefit for ALL of us.

Food for thought: It’s my understanding that a name change would require new uniforms, paperwork changes, vehicle changes, and that’s just the beginning. The estimated cost would be $25,000+.

Additional food for thought: The SCA Security Patrol consists of VOLUNTEERS who give tirelessly to this community. You see the roving vehicles but may not be aware of everything that is done by the Security Patrol. Give the Chief’s a call and allow them to elaborate on their VOLUNTEER responsibilities. IF the VOLUNTEERS decided to QUIT, the estimates that I’ve received to OUTSOURCE this service would cost the Association about $800,000 per year. The Volunteers do NOT want a name change, it has been successful since Sun City Anthem established the community, from what I understand, so WHY is the Board considering this change?

The Sun City Anthem Security Patrol NEEDS your support. PLEASE take the time to attend the meeting on August 12th and express your concerns about this change. As you can see from Phil Brown’s email, even though he is on holiday, he is willing to return your call and answer any questions you may have. PLEASE RESPECT AND SUPPORT OUR VOLUNTEERS.

I DO not consider this email a “political” one and have assured participants in the Desert Sky Village Directory that I would not email political agendas BUT I consider this one a NEEDED SUPPORT FOR OUR SUN CITY ANTHEM SECURITY PATROL!

AGAIN, the MEETING is August 12, 2010 at 5:30pm in the Theatre (Independence Hall). If there are any changes, emails will be forwarded immediately. PLEASE BLOCK YOUR CALENDAR FOR THIS IMPORTANT MEETING.

I am listing the Board of Director’s email addresses, in the event you desire to email them and inquire as to WHY an extension of time could not be given to the Security Patrol for a decision of this magnitude. As you can see, I am forwarding a copy of this email to the board of directors, however the Desert Sky Village Directory participants email address will not be reflected, nor will my data base addresses. This email will be sent using Bcc for your privacy.

Jack Troia, President BoardPres@scacai.com
Roz Berman , Vice President & Co- Treasurer ^ rozberman@cox.net
Dan Forgeron, Treasurer dforgeron@cox.net
Ann Small, Secretary annieksmall@gmail.com
Jerry Gardberg jerry gardberg@gmail.com
Celeste Bove celeste.bove.sca@gmail.com
John Waterhouse johnwaterhouse@cox.net

Again, I do NOT BLOG, however I am giving consent to ALL web owners to POST this email exactly “as it is written” (without their interpretation of my concerns) in order to garner support for the SCA Security Patrol Volunteers. They have done an outstanding job and I, for one, am GREATEFUL for their ongoing services!

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Mary Lee Duley
Desert Sky Village

“With respect to folks writing that the discussion of this topic is ‘getting old,’ the irony is that everyone is reaching conclusions without knowing what will be presented at the August 12 meeting, and without even waiting to see what IS presented. Yes, questions should be asked of the Board, the broker, the attorney, etc., but isn’t that why the meeting has been scheduled?”

“With respect to Chief Mihalich’s response to my quoting of his Security Patrol comment on my blog, I invited him, in writing, to post the full text of his emailed response to me as a comment on my blog, without any editing by me. As of now, he has not accepted that invitation, but he is more than welcome to do so at any time.”

Bob Frank responded on SCA-HOA message board as follows

“Is it reasonable to try to force all interested members to wait and attend an arbitrary August workshop date to finally (supposedly) get the whole story?

August is one of the highest travel months for our members. Since 10 or 20 times more members are monitoring their email and web sites than will ever be able or motivated to attend an August workshop, why the secrecy and delays on releasing the facts?

Why can’t a board member tell our members exactly why the name change is important–at this particular time–and not treat everyone like inferior subjects.

The main problem with making things so mysterious is that it stimulates conspiracy theories. A good example is the recent member posting on the Anthem Voice Blog that says in part:

‘it’s possible there are other goals and agendas in motion….which have not yet surfaced….such as the complete disbanding of the current Security Patrol, with the idea that they would be replaced by an outside provider…..’to limit our liabilities’. The additional cost to a ‘rooftop’ would be in the $11 to $13 range….PER MONTH. What’s that you say? You think that sort of thought process is too wild a notion…even for the SCA BOD?’ See www.blog.anthemvoice.org for the full posting.

It is no secret that current and past boards have had difficulty ‘controlling’ the behavior of some Security Patrol Chiefs. And, no doubt a contractor would be much easier to control than such a very large Security Patrol membership. So, perhaps there really are directors who might prefer to contract out our volunteer SP mission–no matter the cost. We can not know if the board tells us nothing of substance.

However, I am not suggesting that any of the rumors are true. I am just pointing out the obvious it is wrong-headed to hide the truth.

Publish the facts now, and let the members mull over the facts before the workshop. It will improve attendance at the workshop and improve member confidence in the board.

And, be respectful to members by not forcing everything into an arbitrary, one-day only, August workshop meeting. Such a major decision will take many months to debate and come to a consensus.

Hiding the facts and not allowing the full membership to feel comfortable with the truth is certain to back-fire.”

Working from that premise…it’s possible there are other goals and agendas in motion….which have not yet surfaced….such as the complete disbanding of the current Security Patrol, with the idea that they would be replaced by an outside provider…..”to limit our liabilties”. The additional cost to a “rooftop” would be in the $11 to $13 range….PER MONTH. What’s that you say? You think that sort of thought process is too wild a notion…even for the SCA BOD. Each of us is entitled to our own opinion!

Of course, we could talk about the role that our insurance broker should be playing…..we hire him and he reports to us! We should and may frequently seek his advice…BUT, WE DO NOT NEED HIS CONSENT! Our business decisions cannot be made by our insurance broker. He should and must respond to the Board’s directives or we should dismiss him, summarily.

We could also talk about the fact that the role of our “out of house counsel” is to advise on legal matters….but, the business decisions are made by the HOA’s Board….yes, the Board………and not the President of the Board. Counsel should report to the Board and not solely to the President of the Board. We should and may frequently seek the legal advice….BUT, WE DO NOT NEED HIS CONSENT! Our business decisions cannot be made by our attorney. He should and must respond to the Board’s directives or we should dismiss him, summarily.

Please remember…Nothing, absolutely nothing, is as it appears to be!

Have a good day!