Members attending today's board meeting learned the following bad news about the trumpets lease:

1. The damning words "permission cannot be reasonably withheld” sprinkled throughout the trumpets lease (concerning gaming and other critical permission issues) were revealed as being demanded by the lessee as deal-breaking terms.

It was claimed that all directors and the attorney had been fully informed on those deal-breaking terms and of the potential legal consequences--PRIOR to the last board meeting. But, Director Weinstein said (after the meeting was over and in front of a group of members and attorney Song) that those words had NOT been brought to the board's attention PRIOR to last month's board vote.

Meanwhile, as reported below, Roz Berman insisted that the damning words had been inserted into all of the director's board books last month. But, she had to finally admit that the final version was restricted from the membership-access version of the board book.

NOT revealed was why the board allowed all of the controversy for the past few weeks before clearing the air? If everything was so cut and dried, why was it not announced and made perfectly clear during the past few weeks?

Regardless of the community confusion, Roz Berman and her attorney insisted the words were legally insignificant. However, neither one would/could explain why the lessee considered them to be "deal-breaking" terms, while they were thinking them to be insignificant.

2. Board attorney Ed Song was asked by Roz Berman to explain the situation. He filibustered for over a quarter hour during which he repeatedly insulted the intelligence and competence of members who dared to object to those damning words being in the lease.

Then Mr. Song (while making it clear he did not represent SCA homeowner interests) claimed he was fully aware of those damning terms PRIOR to the final signing of the agreement, and he had no concerns about the legal consequences to the association. He even went so far to claim he would defend the board for free if he turned out to be wrong. However, those of us with extensive business experience were not impressed by such grandstanding.

No directors objected to Roz Berman and Ed Song's claims that every board member was fully aware that (1) those terms were in the final version of the lease, and (2) that the terms had been inserted as a deal-breaker by the lessee. Not one director stated any concerns about the legal implications. Especially surprising was that no objections or concerns were indicated by either NV Bar member/former judge Ann Small or MBA-holder Carl Weinstein. What benefits are there to having such a legal professional serving on the board if Ms. Small never has anything significant to contribute? Why does she rubber-stamp everything submitted by the board's lawyer and the Board President?

At the end of his rambling and often incoherent comments, board attorney Ed Song finally acknowledged the widespread membership concerns, and he described an obviously self-serving, billable idea that he was proposing for resolving the issue. Instead of just demanding the lessee remove the unacceptable words, he was proposing a "memo of understanding" to require the lessee to conduct yet another survey of member opinions on gaming when the lessee was ready to propose gaming implementation.

While Mr. Song was proposing that the lessee should accept all the costs of the survey (as if that was a big deal in the whole scope of matters), he failed to mention how much billable time his firm would need to draft and negotiate such an additional agreement. He also failed to explain why his approach would nullify the lessee's advantage by retaining the current language.

All in all, it was a very bad day for the 2009 SCA board of directors. It showed how shallow the board's commitment was to the best interests of this community, and it demonstrated how poorly we are being served by the board's law firm.

At the end of the discussion, it was clear that the only acceptable remedy for the situation was to tell the lessee the terms "permission cannot be reasonably withheld” had to be removed from the lease. But, Board President Roz Berman make it clear she would refuse to initiate such an action.

It was obvious the lessee and the board intend to implement gaming in the (near?) future. The membership is being deceived with promises of "no gaming" while the lessee proceeds with expending funds expecting to have permission for gaming--whenever it suits him. Such deceptions are truly disgusting.

Today's South Valley Home News confirms my earlier report on Roz Berman's and Shirley Cheri's deception on the change in language in the trumpets lease concerning gaming.

Prior to the seating of the new board in May, the words “permission cannot be reasonably withheld” were NOT anywhere in the draft lease versions prepared by the association law firm and given to the 2008 board members for comment. Some current directors have said those words were NOT in the final version of the lease placed in the board book that was voted on at the last board meeting. Changes to the contract wording AFTER the board vote was an illegal act.

Ridiculous claims by the Bermans, Cheri and others that such words are "standard" language for such a lease are absolutely false. If they had been in the previous lease, S&D Cafe would have quickly implemented gaming.

This situation has become increasing clear that one or more board members have willfully violated the law, and the CAM appears to be participating in the deception and cover-up.

All it takes to resolve this critical issue is a simple administrative amendment to remove all of those words where they were improperly and/or illegally inserted into the lease.

If the lessee refuses to agree to remove all of those words, we will have proof of the deceptions that have been alleged, and we will know that we have serious ethical and law violations by the negotiating team that were ratified by the board president, CAM and the lessee.