As announced by President Favil West at the Special Board meeting on 3 May 2007, the four ACE-supported candidates pictured at left were elected to the four open seats on the SCA Board of Directors. They are from left to right, Mike Dixon, Roz Berman, Barry Friedman and Bob Frank.

For starters, the election results represented a clear and decisive vote for change. In saving that, I believe the results primarily represented a widespread frustration over the failure of the Board to satisfactorily resolve the Trumpets matter, and to a lesser extent dissatisfaction over the management style of Favil West. It also represented a huge victory for slate or machine politics, in this instance the election of the four ACE-supported slate of candidates. Congratulations to each and all the candidates who ran for a position on the Board.

Whether and how that outstanding victory will accrue to the benefit of the Community we will have to see. While expectations are running quite high, that will have to be tempered somewhat by the reality and practically of having to run and manage a multimillion dollar enterprise.

What we did learn on this occasion is the considerable benefit of machine-type politics, with a slate of candidates chosen by a few and supported by the efforts of a very well designed and managed campaign. To the voter and individual unit owner, there was this appearance of each candidate standing on their own and vying for your vote. The reality, however, was far different for the majority of the candidates, who for all practical purposes, were running against, not each other, but against a slate of candidates. Any one candidate with no distinguishable message to convey was at a distinct disadvantage in the campaign, a disadvantage no one was able to overcome. That slate politics prevailed here in Sun City is obvious. For those that won, the message was clear. For those that lost, the message was even more profound. The real question for Sun City is whether the adoption of a slate will ultimately produce the best result for the Community.

The potential problems for Sun City that are posed by a victorious slate campaign are many, some of which I suggest were evident in our most recent election. For example, a future slate campaign could easily result in the following:

• Qualified people will be discouraged from running for the Board.
• There is no incentive, actually no reason, for qualified people to run for the Board unless they have some assurance or reasonable expectation that they will be included among the slate-preferred candidates.
• Non-slate candidates cannot have any expectation of gaining a seat on the Board.
• The selection criteria for slate-approved candidates may be skewed or biased or different from your criteria, but voting for a non-slate candidates will ordinarily be wasted.
• No matter how qualified or desirable a non-slate candidate is, the chance of success at the ballot box is next to zero.
• Some of the slate candidates may be on the ticket for the wrong reason, or for a reason you do not agree with, which you have little or no control over, but their election to the Board is guaranteed because they are running on the slate.
• Some slate candidates may not be the best qualified but they will be elected anyway.

The unanswered question for Sun City will be whether slate politics will determine the outcome of the 2008 election and beyond? Given the results of the current election, with a vote spread of almost 1,000 votes between the lowest slate candidate (Friedman) and the highest non-slate candidate (Weinstein), a slate-type campaign will be extremely difficult for some to avoid. Any slate of ACE-approved candidates looking to unseat or take the seats held by Bob Berman, Kay Dwyer and Elaine Berg should not have a problem.

From a personal perspective, the huge victory amassed by Bob Frank over all other candidates must taste especially sweet. This is especially so given his personal and financial sacrifice in defending what amounted to a personal vendetta against him and the Business Development Club that was carried forward by Favil West, actions which required the support of his then fellow Board members.

So how did the ACE team accomplish such an outstanding victory? Since I am not a member of ACE, I will attempt to expose as little of my ignorance about ACE as possible. ACE technically stands for Anthem Citizens for Excellence, a grass roots organization formed in 2006 by Bob Sansing and David Berman, two former Board members who had become disillusioned by aspects of Favil's role as President. ACE was to become a potential counter force to that one-man rule. In the process, ACE developed a series of Issue Papers with specific suggestions for improving Association governance. While ACE developed and published some interesting concepts and advice, I viewed ACE as a potential vehicle for bringing about change on the Board. That opportunity clearly presented itself with 4 open seats on the Board, providing ACE with a unique opportunity to gain a majority control in a seven-member Board.

With over a hundred ACE members and others to call upon for active support, I would attribute the ACE landside to a combination of the following, not in any particular order.

• The absence of an exceptionally well qualified candidate to oppose who was also a very charismatic candidate.
• The absence of Favil West on the ticket. Favil’s absence created a substantial void that no one could touch in terms of the pages of accomplishments in behalf of the Community he could rightly point to. While a Favil West candidacy would have been more difficult to overcome, I believe the outcome would not have changed.
• The number of residents actively supporting Mr. West’s style of management had gradually diminished over time, creating an increasing number of residents who had become disenchanted, disheartened or disillusioned and were looking for a change in leadership and style.
• The failure of the West-Berman-McDonald negotiating team to bring the Trumpets matter to a satisfactory resolution in a timely manner, which had not only lingered on with no apparent end in sight, but also had created in the process of delay a substantial unpaid indebtedness to the Association.
• More than anyone else, Bob Frank provided residents with not merely an acceptable vehicle for change, but one who also appeared to exhibit certain desirable personal traits and highly needed management skills and qualities.
• Aside from my personal support for Bob Frank, and the obvious ACE-related support, I believe there were a number of strategic elements in the campaign that contributed greatly to Bob's victory, and with that victory, bringing along with him the three other ACE-sponsored candidates. They include:

1. A call for change that was responsive to the needs of the Community;
2. That the call for change was mailed to every resident in the Community, which in part addressed the perception that there was a need for a change in leadership that the ACE group was willing & able to address;
3. The widespread use of informal “meet the candidates” opportunities in homes throughout the Community, which the ACE group afforded and promoted the venue, giving residents the opportunity to get personally acquainted with Bob, Mike, Roz and Barry. That effort generated an invaluable network of additional support that filtered throughout the Community; and
4. The use of strategically placed “Vote for Bob Frank” signs that gave the impression of additional campaign momentum.