Residents Town Hall Meeting

                      21 June 2007

Open Warfare Between Some Members of the Board

As one commentator sadly noted, the level of open discourse, some might say sniping, between Board member and Town Hall moderator Roz Berman and Bob Frank was, if I can paraphrase, uncalled for and a disgrace to witness, reminiscent as our homeowner lamented of a prior period when tension and imperial rule prevailed. We can only hope that the moderator’s somewhat testy manner in her exchange with Mr. Frank will be moderated and improve as she gains more experience in serving the Community’s interests.    

A Personal Attack by Elaine Berg Gets Some Attention 

Did Board member Elaine Berg go too far in personally attacking homeowner Tim Stebbins in response to his opinions and Resolution concerning the Board’s prior action on April 26, 2007? That prior action of the Board had approved a resolution proffered by The Minuteman Foundation that would permanently dedicate the use of certain Association owned space for the use of The MM Foundation. Mr. Stebbins believes that Elaine went too far as he read aloud a portion of an email from Mrs. Berg of what sounded like a bitter personal attack against him.

In response to Berg’s attack on his honor and motivations in drafting his Resolution, Mr. Stebbins announced to the audience that he plans to sue Mrs. Berg for $100,000 for libel. Whether that suit will come to light is unknown, but if it does, will the Association (meaning us) be obligated to defend Mrs. Berg for what appeared to be her intemperate response to Mr. Stebbins, or will the Board refuse to defend her potentially libeless action?

A Problem of Elliptical Proportions—A Swan Song for the P&G Committee?

I recently reported on an incident at the Finance Committee that involved the Property & Grounds Committee’s recent decision on the proposed purchase of 3 hybrid elliptical exercise machines to replace 3 highly used treadmills, not typically a hot or big issue item in the overall scheme of things. However, when P&G’s recommendation to deny Fitness’ request for 3 ellipticals got to the Finance Committee, something quite strange happened.

All of a sudden, instead of considering the P&G recommendation (to purchase only one elliptical), that recommendation got tossed to the wind. Instead, as announced, the FC was presented with a request for 3 ellipticals as if the P&G June recommendation did not exist.  When that decision was questioned at the FC meeting, Board liaison Roz Berman explained that since P&G had already agreed to the purchase of the 3 ellipticals at a prior Committee meeting, it was proper for the FC to act on the earlier 1 June request for funding rather than to act on P&G’s more recent recommendation. As a result, P&G’s recent recommendation was disregarded and was not considered in the FC’s deliberations. End of story.

Well, not quite. There is a problem. According to members of the P&G Committee, no one seems to recall any prior request by Fitness for such elliptical machines. While recollections of prior events may vary from person to person, one has to wonder on what did Roz Berman rely for her statement to the FC that P&G had previously acted on and approved the use of 3 elliptical machines—costing in the neighborhood of $16,000. Clearly, P&G did not do so at their June meeting.

Roz Berman’s rendition of events surrounding P&G’s prior action on this topic was simply a tall tale, or at least one that had no support. Whether her actions represented uncertainty, concern or misinformation is unknown. Regardless, the FC was directed to take action on a request for funding that had been rejected by the P&G Committee.

While the role of the FC is to determine whether there was funding for the purchase, the irony was that the FC expressed the same concerns and doubts about the purchase that P&G had raised in their meeting—why replace highly sought after treadmill machines with machines of unknown value to the Community. Some residents complain that the treadmills are frequently unavailable, causing some to travel down to the athletic facility on Eastern. Clearly, the completion of the new recreation center will provide some needed relief.

Another, and much more interesting explanation for Roz’ tall tale before the FC might have been to protect someone else, say, president Mike Dixon. As it turns out, Mr. Dixon was the one who took steps to scuttle the P&G action and recommendation, as in color it gone. According to Mr. Dixon, P&G had no authority to review any request for funding on items already approved in the capital & reserve budgets. Really? In other words, if funds are currently available (per the Finance Committee) for the item or project being requested, all that is needed is for RMI to purchase the item.

More than anyone, Roz may appreciate the apparent fact that this funding process is not yet a settled issue on the Board and certaintly not among the Committees that handle these issues. While the Board makes the ultimate decision on any purchase, how procurement recommendations are processed when the Community's “need” is taken into consideration is unclear.

Take, for example, the interesting capital budget item for 2007 for the replacement of 3 treadmills. In theory at least, P&G had already signed off on this request, otherwise it would not be a line item in the budget. But, really, did they? Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. What is clear is that P&G never heard of the proposed switch out of 3 treadmills for 3 elliptical machines until June of this year.

So, getting back to my question. Who performs the evaluation and makes the recommendation to purchase? Does the Fitness Department decide or does the Community through the Committee process have an input into the decision-making process? If I understand Mr. Dixon’s position, the Community shall no longer have any input into such matters. What makes this issue even more glaring is not how this purchase item became a line item in the 2007 budget, and not that the line item itself is (deliberately?) fuzzy and misleading since no mention is made for the purchase of elliptical machines, but the apparent fact that our Fitness Department may on their own delete highly used and desirable exercise equipment without any oversight or input from the Community. That’s appalling.  

The Town Hall Meeting

In contrast to the first Resident Forum, there was a concerted effort by the Board to be more responsive to resident questions and concerns, with efforts by individual Board members to take ownership over matters under their respective jurisdiction based on their respective Committee liaison assignments. As a result, there was considerably more give and take with the audience. In many instances, the Board appeared to flowth over with commentary.

Another feature of the meeting that became to some an irritation was the practice to allow follow-up comments on a given topic by others. The original intent was to allow only those in the numbered queue of questioners to address the same issue in a timely manner if they were going to address that issue at a later time when their number came up. That well intended procedure broke down immediately as the moderator and those dutiful helpers holding the audience microphones allowed anyone to speak rather than limiting comments to only those who were waiting in line to speak on the same subject. As the add-on commentators droned on and on, myself included, the number of “legitimate” questioners in the numbered queue that were allowed to speak in the two-hour time frame grew shorter and shorter.

At the end of the designated period, more than half of the audience left the room. To the Board’s credit, they agreed to stay beyond the time allotted to allow those with remaining numbers to ask their question or make a comment.

Summary of Resident Concerns & Questions

1.       On SIGS.   A recent development in groups organizing here in efforts to meet common interests is the development of Special Interest Groups, or SIGS. Such groups are increasingly popular and differ from Charter Clubs in the size of the group being served. In terms of benefits and in contrast to Charter Clubs, SIGS may not obtain firm room reservations more than a couple of weeks in advance of any meeting date, making it impossible for any SIG to bring in a speaker of note on such short notice. For example, that means that the prospect of seeing Carl Rowe, or anyone of prominence, at an upcoming Republican event is virtually nil. Avoiding or sidestepping the issue that was raised, a Board member suggested that SIGS should consider making meeting arrangements with the Activities Department far enough in advance for those events where the Community might benefit from attending. In this way, “special” event dates could be scheduled outside of the SIG’s regular meeting dates. If the Board does not wish to deal with the issue raised, why confuse the matter and the audience with proposals that are not designed to be responsive. 

2.       Building Security.  Concern was expressed over the need to provide some level of added security for our two buildings. Perhaps unknown to the inquirer, a special subcommittee of the Property & Grounds Committee tasked with this very issue has been meeting regularly over the past several weeks. They are attempting to address the security and access control needs in the face of inadequate and contrary information on the level of security actually needed and the level of Community interest in, let alone commitment to funding such efforts.

3.       Trumpets.  While the presence of litigation precludes the Board from commenting, what is known is that the Association has retained the services of a firm that has an excellent reputation in the field of litigation, Jones Vargas. Their website is: http://www.jonesvargas.com. The first scheduled court date is July 3rd.  All public documents related to the lawsuit against the Association and the Association’s initial response are posted on the Association’s website.  

4.       John Leach. John Leach continues to be the Association’s legal counsel for the purpose of advising the Association on matters of interpretation and compliance with NRS 116, the laws governing Common Interest Communities like Sun City. Mr. Leach happens to be a recognized expert on NRS 116 and has served the Association since its inception. In his capacity as Association counsel, Mr. Leach, as any Association counsel, must be viewed as a strong advocate and defender of the Association, not of the rights of individual homeowners. For that type of service, homeowners have access to the Ombudsman’s Office of the State of Nevada. Whether Mr. Leach will continue as our legal counsel is a matter currently before the Board given that the Board is currently in the process of evaluating prospective candidates to serve as legal counsel for our Association. As an aside, Mr. Leach recently left his law firm and established his own practice. We were told that his old law firm does not have anyone left who is knowledgeable on NRS 116, which is a highly specialized practice field. We understand that the Association’s legal counsel is retained only on an “as needed” basis.

There seems to be some degree of personal animus towards Mr. Leach by one or more Board members, based, I am led to believe, on his past advice to the Association. To those who are so concerned about Leach’s past advice to the Association, one need not forget that the client, in our case, Favil West, can typically expect to receive the kind of advice being sought.

One last thought. Do not attempt to correspond with the Association’s legal counsel and expect a reply. Understandably, the legal counsel performs work for the Association, not the members of the Association. Simply stated, the Association is NOT going to pay their legal counsel to respond to resident inquiries.

5.       The ARC and Driveway Pillars.  A Community issue or a homeowner issue, that was the question? Our complaining resident insisted that the issue was a Community issue, not merely a homeowner issue in which the homeowner and the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) disagreed on a matter of what constitutes an acceptable design modification under our CC&Rs. The Board, on the other hand, was dismissive, at least at first, suggesting that the issue did not rise to the level of the Community’s interest. To me, and without being privy to the facts, an obvious advantage, the issue being raised was key to the integrity, fairness and unbiased operations of the ARC.

This issue goes to the heart of the authority of the ARC to make Community-wide decisions in situations that on their face lie beyond the scope of our existing design guidelines. Where existing guidelines are silent, what is the authority of the ARC to pass judgment on this or that home improvement or modification? Is there, or more to the point, should there be some type of process in place that attempts to address design issues that cannot be garnered from past practices or existing design guidelines?

Without a more formalized process for setting design standards where none currently exist, are we to be left to the potential capricious decision-making actions of this or that ARC decision maker? The issue is NOT the protection of design standards already on the books, but the establishment of a proper and acceptable vehicle for the creation of new standards that the Community can accept.

In the Driveway Pillar case, after listening to the alleged “reasons” for the ARC’s denial, I was left with the impression that the ARC lacked sufficient cause to justify their decision to deny the driveway pillar improvement. The only response from the Board was for the homeowner to appeal the ARC’s decision to the Board. I seriously question whether that appeal option, open to any homeowner, adequately addresses the issue of due process at the ARC level when faced with unique design situations. 

6.       The ARC II.  There was a second ARC issue pending and awaiting a response from the Association’s attorney, suggesting the possibility that the Community is not as informed about ARC matters and issues as they should be. Why an attorney? We learned that when a homeowner is represented by legal counsel on an Association issue, as in this ARC instance, the Association is required to forward communications to the Association’s legal counsel to obtain a proper legal response.

It might be helpful for homeowners to have access to ARC documents, rulings and legal opinions in a format so that others can benefit from such information. One thing homeowners should be aware of is that if the ARC makes any type of exception for homeowner “A,” then that exception must be available to everyone else in the Community. As a result, one may gather from this requirement that the ARC is extremely reticent to make design exceptions. Mike Dixon suggested that homeowners can save the Association some money by first attempting to resolve matters in dispute without an attorney.

7.       The ARC III.  Glaring and obtrusive solar panels lifted at a 60 degree angle on a patio structure does not make one’s neighbor especially happy. While homeowner have a right to install solar panels, is there a tipping point at which such panels, ordinarily laying flat on the roof, become unattractive and a potential nuisance? When does one person’s right to construct impede on or hinder the rights of one’s neighbors? These are sensitive design issues that may need further exploration.

8.       Troon’s Ponds are Dry.  Yes, Troon’s somewhat smelly ponds that feed their waterfalls are dry. We were told that the matter is only temporary and the lakes will soon be flowing. What we learned from the Town Hall meeting is that the Board, in contrast to the past, does not currently have a Board liaison with Troon management to discuss or mitigate potential concerns or issues.

9.       Traffic Safety.   Many residents expressed their considerable concern over traffic safety matters, such as heavy truck traffic, speeding, critical and potentially dangerous intersections, line-of- sight issues, and untrimmed median trees and bushes. A number of traffic-related deaths were reported. The Board’s response was understandably low keyed—as if they were helpless to do anything. Apparently, and unknown to the Board, the City is looking into some of the issues that the Community had raised in the past. The Board seemed quick to remind homeowners that the median line-of-sight complaints by homeowners should be addressed not to them but to that elusive organization, called the Anthem Council. Rather than refer homeowners to the Anthem Council, our Board should assume some responsibility for this safety issue since they would have considerably more influence with the Council on such matters compared to individual homeowners. 

10.   The Minuteman Foundation.  To suggest that tensions and rancor in the hall rose considerably as the topic of The Minuteman Foundation came up for discussion would be to put it mildly. It was evident to many that there is a degree of misunderstanding about the matter at issue, as well as about the very different roles played in our Community by The MMF and the Community Service Club. For information regarding the original 2002 design concept for the construction of the Community Services Bldg. that was prepared and submitted to Del Webb by Favil West, click here.

What no one present could answer, including trustees of the Foundation who were present, was why The MMF had made their April ’07 proposal (subsequently adopted by the Board) for the permanent use of certain space in the Community Services Building. No one, not even the corporation's treasurer, Chuck Davis, could offer an explanation. Some in audience expressed the belief that there seemed no reason for the adoption of that April resolution, suggesting that the Community should return to the status-quo that existed prior to the adoption of that resolution.

The matter of that April resolution is tentatively scheduled to come to the attention of the Board next week based on a DRAFT of the 28th June Agenda, NEW BUSINESS, ITEM E, that was made available at the Town Hall meeting. This weeks proposed resolution calls into question the Board's 26 April action, in part based on a proposal drafted by Tim Stebbins. [See Stebbins Proposal.] What has been the Board’s response to date?

According to Mike Dixon, the April ’07 resolution was submitted to John Leach for an opinion on its legality under NRS. What that action tells me is that Mike would prefer not to have to decide either way, relying, instead, on his counsel’s opinion in the event Mr. Leach should question the legality of any portion of the resolution. In that manner, Mike and the Board would be provided with an “acceptable” out of The MMF dilemma they are faced with. If, on the other hand, Mr. Leach finds no problem with already adopted resolution, then Mike and other Board members will be forced into making a determination that they would prefer to avoid.

Meanwhile, The MMF is not sitting still waiting the the proverbial axe to fall on their Resolution. The MMF has already launched an end run around the Board by going directly to the Community with a mailing to all homeowners. [MMF Letter to homeowners.] Unfortunately, as in past efforts in behalf of The MMF, Favil West, President of The MMF, has had great difficulty in addressing the separate needs and accomplishments of The MMF without cloaking The MMF in many arms of the Community Service Club and their array of services, as if they are but one cozy organization.

Most of our readers are likely unaware that all Foundation-owned equipment, like wheel chairs, etc., that is loaned out to needy residents through the efforts of the Community Service Club is efficiently stored, floor to ceiling, in the 956 sq. ft. storage room of the Community Services Bldg. No one has ever challenged the decision to permit such usage by the Foudnation, or the needs of the Community Service Club.

Speaking for myself, and as an active financial supporter of The MMF and the Community Service Club, I believe that the Foundation’s so called efforts to inform the Community will, instead,  serve to further divide the Community on this matter. Sadly, the Foundation has chosen to mislead the very people from whom they need the most support. Hopefully, we can look forward to calmer and considered heads prevailing on this matter. [Click here to read my further discussion on this matter.]

11.       The Construction Defect Committee.  Spokesperson Ken Andersen made a brief pitch for the establishment of an Association sanctioned group of community experts to offer what I term “best available” advice to residents on a range of construction related matters that happen to be plaguing many of our Sun City homes. As Mr. Andersen noted, many unit owners are aware of what happened in the absence of good advice being available in the KITEC matter as many homeowners were misled into adopting a plumbing solution that at most will be short lived and at best providing only temporary relief.

While the motivations for establishing such a committee are well understood and commendable, there are likely to be serious legal and liability issues to overcome, not the least of which would be providing homeowners and others with sufficient justification for a unit of this type to work within the framework and limitations imposed by NRS 116.

12.       No Discussion Allowed on Agenda Items. There is speech and then there is speech! In the rush to open the Boardroom doors, Mike Dixon did not go far enough when he decided to cut off discussion opportunities on individual agenda items. In other words, say you peace before the Board meeting gets started, but stay mum while the Agenda items are being discussed. Readers will note that this practice is contrary to the practice in prior Board meetings, which allowed public comment on Agenda items as they were brought up. While Mike may have the NRS on his side, that approach is not always what counts. According to Roz Berman, the issue has yet to be decided by the full Board, despite Mike’s preference on this issue.

13.       Neon Sign Issue. A few residents living across the street from the storage unit on Anthem Pkwy. have yet to find any relief from the neon sign that glares all night long. This is an old issue for the attention of the new Board. Given that this is an after-the-fact issue, the prospect for a satisfactory resolution is in doubt, but someone on the Board promised to look into the matter to see what can be accomplished.

14.       Unoccupied Homes.  With a significant number of Sun City homes not lived in, for whatever reason, with weeds, trash, phone books, newspapers, etc., piling up, plus age and occupancy issues in home rentals, the Board was asked to establish some type of policy that could address these outright blight matters in some systematic manner that would benefit the welfare of the overall Community. Some suggest that the Security Patrol can help by simple observation and making a list of such homes. Beyond that, the Board was silent on what further measures might be considered. Realistically, the Board might wish to consider contracting with our Community landscapers to periodically, say, monthly, visit selected homes on such a list and pick up and remove trash, etc., along with weeding as necessary. My question is whether the Board does not have some responsibility to those living here for the preservation of the overall Community, whether or not the Association can recover the added cost of doing so through fines or liens on the property for any services that are rendered.  

15.       Rights of Board Members to Speak.  May a Board member attend Committee meetings and voice his or her (private) opinion as a unit owner on matters that will likely come before the Board for a vote at a later date? Do Board members lose their right to speak their mind in such situations when they assume a position as a director on the Board?  Kay Frank rose to suggest that her husband, Bob Frank, was the subject of Board efforts to muzzle his right to speak on issues of concern. This question then prompted a public tiff between Roz Berman and Bob Frank over this matter. While some may find the presence of a Board member at a Committee meeting to be intimidating and prejudicial on the matter under discussion, most Committee members are able to rise to the occasion and look beyond what this or that Board member may say, except of course when the person speaking is President Mike Dixon.

Can Bob Frank, or any one for that matter, be impartial and look to the Community’s welfare when voting on the Board, when he has already taken a position on that same matter at a Committee meeting?

As with any issue, all we can reasonably expect is that each director will vote their conscience as a fiduciary officer holder with the Community's welfare in mind and based on the best information that is available to them at the time. Did Roz Berman have something different in mind when she raised some objections with Bob over this issue?   

16.       Document Access.  Yes, as acknowledged Mike Dixon, there are problems in acquiring access to official documents, especially when the holder of the Association’s documents does not have a systematic and well documented handle on the whereabouts of the Association’s papers that are being sought. Mike said that “We’re working to get that under control,” or something along those lines.

Ron Johnson, 25 June 2007