Waiting for the Official Version of the Balloting Fiasco
with a reply by David Berman and response by Johnson (see below)
The failure of the Sun City Anthem 2010 board of directors’ election process must be viewed as a disaster of sorts, except that the only casualties were a mere few souls to mend from profound embarrassment and those homeowners who either had already voted or were expecting to vote. Whether this was a breakdown in its implementation, faulty procedures, and, or communications, or some combination of all three, is yet to be disclosed. President Jack Troia has promised a full report. So we know there will be an official version, most likely presented at this Thursday's board meeting, at 1:30 p.m. in Freedom Hall.
That does not imply that the official version will not be the complete story of what had happened. It only means that when one is dealing with something as political as the failure of the election process while homeowners are in the midst of voting, we can expect that the official version will be only as complete as the elected directors’ desire. With trust in government at all levels at an all time low, what more can we expect than to hope that all issues are fully addressed.
Not only is the board and board officers under some scrutiny in this election fiasco, the outcome of the election is also at issue with three open seats to fill and two of the board members running for reelection. As in past elections of the board, the outcome of the vote has always been of great importance to the community, the board and those involved in the election process. Of course there is also RMI’s role in administering the contract with The Ballot Box.
As with any disaster, there are usually questions being asked, followed by some insightful reporting. On this occasion, however, conspicuously absent from the reporting scene is Sun City Anthem’s key reporter of everything important, David Berman. Other than what’s going on with the status of Tirzo’s Bistro, there is nothing more important at the moment than what happened to cause the breakdown in the election process. The loquacious David is usually at the forefront by filling us in with information on who, what, when, where and why, but not on this particular occasion. It’s enough to make one wonder what David knows and what Jack will tell us. Given David’s penchant for following up on breaking news, David must be especially frustrated in keeping a tight lid on so important a subject.
Will the board be looking for a scapegoat to shoulder the blame? While that prospect seems unlikely, we will not know until we hear what Jack Troia has to say. Oh, sure, Jack Troia will likely tell us that communications broke down and that there were inadequate procedures in place to ensure effective oversight of the balloting process. But does that explain what happened, or do homeowners even care?
Are we to assume that a colossal lapse in common sense took place when the ballot proofs came back to RMI from The Ballot Box to get the association’s OK before they printed and mailed the ballot materials to the homeowner? Without checking the ballot package for accuracy with a soul, as some have suggested happened, are we to understand that Caren Carrero merely signed off on the error filled proofs? Although that may be the case, I find that particular scenario hard to swallow given the political significance of this annual event. I would prefer to believe that Caren would not have taken a step of such importance without first clearing it with someone beforehand. While it’s true that CAM awarded the contract, the content of that contract, the ballot materials, came under the purview of the board and their appointed members of the Election Committee and Editorial Content Committee. In some of my relative unimportant dealings with Caren, I have come away with the distinct impression that she was carefully following advice given to her and then passed on to me. That she would make such a politically fraught move on the contents of the ballot package on her own initiative makes no sense to me. On the other hand, perhaps it makes good sense to you.
Forgive me, but I am beginning to get the impression that the board had sent in a cleanup team to erase any evidence of member involvement in this balloting fiasco. Admittedly, though, that only happens in the movies and on TV. Some are looking for Caren Carrero to accept complete responsibility for this ballot failure, in effect a mea culpa, to the relief of many.
As we now know, candidate Dan Forgeron became the unknown person Don Forgeron on The Ballot Box printed ballot. Were it not for that single fatal flaw in wrongly printing Dan Forgeron’s name on the ballot, the board might have been tempted to proceed with the balloting process, notwithstanding other irregularities the board might have been willing to overlook. However, one of those irregularities might have resulted in another fatal flaw insofar as the election law is concerned.
As we all can recall, ballot materials in past elections have included signed disclosure statements by the candidates disavowing any potential conflict of interest if elected to the board. The inclusion of such disclosure statements by the association is required by law. There is no option other than for the association to send out those disclosure statements. However, looking at what The Ballot Box sent out, you might think there was such an option based on the board’s apparent decision to eliminate those disclosure statements from the ballot. What the board did in place of complying with the statute was to substitute their own summary of what the candidate presumably had disclosed in writing to the board. Here is what the board wrote in their Notice of Annual Meeting & Election of Board Members, dated 8 April 2010 concerning this matter: “Each candidate has stated in writing that he/she has no potential conflict of interest . . . .”
While that board summary might be nice to know, even accurate, it fails to conform to the statutory requirement placed on the association. That statutory requirement is for the association to actually “distribute the disclosures, on behalf of the candidate, to each member of the association with the ballot . . . .” as required by NRS 116.31034(8), below. There is no other option open to the board other than to distribute the disclosure statements with the ballot. The board’s decision to substitute their language for the statutory requirement must be viewed as a willful effort to evade the law, whether or not that requirement was viewed by someone on the board as burdensome or unnecessary. As such, the board’s decision was without any foundation and capricious, unnecessarily placing the balloting process in legal jeopardy of being overturned because of their own omission.
Ron Johnson, 20 April 2010
Below is a reply by David Berman from his blog, dated 20 April 2010.
"I’ll put aside the description of me as “loquacious,” coming as it is from a writer whose philosophy seems to be, “Why say something in 50 words when you can say it in 500?"
More importantly, Mr. Johnson’s comment highlights a distinct difference in style. As far as humanly possible, I try to eschew speculation and conspiracy theories, instead favoring facts and specific details.
Johnson is rarely content to let the facts unfold, which would allow him to report on them and then state his opinions. I would much rather respect my readers by giving you the news as it becomes available. Having reported on the election snafus, I will await the outcome of a detailed investigation, which I think will be forthcoming, before I rush to judgment with a figurative tarring and feathering of individuals who may or may not deserve a share of the blame. If and when blame is assessed, you can rest assured that I will report it."
Ron Johnson responds
I believe it's fair to suggest that when the matter suits his interest, David Berman is not adverse to interviewing and reporting on those persons having access to the information or facts of the matter. That David decided not to do so in this instance has little to do with style, but with his overt decision not to convey the facts and specific details based on information he could readily access. Perhaps I misrepresented David as a reporter who could provide answers, rather thanmore correctly as someone who can only report what others have presumably discovered.
NRS 116.31034 Election of members of executive board and officers of association; term of office of member of executive board; staggered terms; eligibility to serve on executive board; required disclosures; procedure for conducting elections; certification by member of executive board of understanding of governing documents and provisions of chapter.
8. Each person who is nominated as a candidate for a member of the executive board pursuant to subsection 4 or 5 must:
(a) Make a good faith effort to disclose any financial, business, professional or personal relationship or interest that would result or would appear to a reasonable person to result in a potential conflict of interest for the candidate if the candidate were to be elected to serve as a member of the executive board; and
(b) Disclose whether the candidate is a member in good standing. For the purposes of this paragraph, a candidate shall not be deemed to be in “good standing” if the candidate has any unpaid and past due assessments or construction penalties that are required to be paid to the association. The candidate must make all disclosures required pursuant to this subsection in writing to the association with his or her candidacy information. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the association shall distribute the disclosures, on behalf of the candidate, to each member of the association with the ballot or, in the event ballots are not prepared and mailed pursuant to subsection 6, in the next regular mailing of the association. The association is not obligated to distribute any disclosure pursuant to this subsection if the disclosure contains information that is believed to be defamatory, libelous or profane.
[Emphasis added.]