Bob Frank's Report to SCA Homeowners

Keep following the money, it will lead you to the promised land, then we can decide what is trash, and what is gold
bob m

I collect trash papers for a living. Please send me all that TRASH paperwork being disseminated about the Anthem Voice. What pure rabble rousing CRAP!!. The name of the group should be The Bob Frank Fan Club! Except for the respectable Patricks whose names appear as Advisory Board Members, the rest of the leadership reads like a covey of garbage scow captains. I cannot believe that so many residents have "fallen" for the Bob Frank platform. Sort of reminds me of some dictators in out past history who destroyed the countries they lived in.

So wrap all that paperwork in your 13 gallon kitchen plastic trash bag and leave it outside for the garbage collectors.

Mr. Ed McKay: What you said makes a lot of sense (but that’s the problem – it made sense). It was well stated, and concise. We already have Bob Franks published statement. If you get a response from the five children who now dominate our board (Mike, Roz, Bob B, Kay D, and Elaine), please let me know.
In the mean time you might want to know that this community (all 12,000 plus of us), are being denied Mr. Bob Franks experience in the business world, and his concern for the citizens of SCA. His only “crime” it seems is that he insisted that the board of directors act in a LEGAL manner, consistent with the laws of The State of Nevada and our governing documents. For this reason, he is being ostracized. We now live under a dictatorship in every sense of the word, so don’t hold your breath until you get an honest response from the five children.

All this distraction.

Let's get a plan, people - How's this - The Board should:

1. Clearly and concisely state at a Board meeting the grounds relied upon to remove Bob Frank as vice president.

2. Give him the opportunity to respond publicly at the same Board meeting.

3. Publish the allegations and his response in an appropriate fashion, and let the residents decide whether the proposed board action is appropriate by show of hands and verified absentee vote at the next meeting. I trust the NRS permits common sense in this situation.

He did get more votes than anyone else on the board.

4. Whatever the result, get and publish all information as to how and why we got to where we are in all of the "hot button" issues in the community.

You can't move on until you understand how you got where you are and why. No blame, just understanding is needed. My hope is the Board will ask the questions that must be asked on all of the current issues to see how we arrived there and share the information with the rest of us, and with informed resident participation and lessons learned move in the right direction on all of them.

Mr. Sansing:

At no point in my statement did I question Mrs. Berman's honesty and I resent you implying such.
In fact I specifically stated that I had no reason to doubt that Mrs. Berman was trying to do her best to service the community.

As I stated previously, I just feel that there could be a lot more financial documentation somewhere that has not been uncovered.

I ditto Rana's comments. No one has questioned Roz's honesty. It's funny you should say this, since perhaps you believe we think her to be dishonest.

This is not the case, as one who likes to delve deep into the pits of transactions going back many years, essentially following the money, I'm not sure whether she has dug deep enough. I'm not sure if she is acting independently.

I have no idea of what she did. If she would like to make public the steps she took to dig out the documents showing what we are due, and the transactions of what was paid, then she can post them here.

What I do suspect is that there is no handle on the day to day condition of our checking account. The BOD relies on monthly reports, has no immediate access to their accounts and from perusal of such account, monies collected for all sorts of activities are commingled with the monies that are set aside for operations. Not a good accounting system in my book and wouldn't run my home that way.

I do not believe we are being properly audited to see if there is or was any pilferage. An audit is simply a snapshot, a forensic audit is a massive fishing expedition that eventually becomes targeted. It's like comparing a snapshot to a video camera recording. We do have the personell here to conduct such an audit, no need to hire anyone. It will be done, sooner or later.

When someone says they did a complex financial analysis, my question is simple, what exactly did you do, how far back did you go, and what have you looked at.
bob m

Bob, you are missing the point, no one has questioned Roz's honesty. They question the numbers that Roz has been given to work with from RMI. If she is given the wrong data how can she come up with the correct tally? Ask her yourself if her balance, finance committee's balance and RMI's balance's match.

To Bob M & Dina Gerber:
I was told by Roz Berman that she has in fact reviewed all of the financial records and believes that Pulte has paid all of the money owed into our reserves, including the Villa's and Pinnacle Village. I have no reason to question her honesty. If you do, then tell me on what grounds please.

Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community

Ann Bocchino;

If Pulte offered to pay any fee's or dues for a prospective home buyer (and did so), the new home owner is entitled to ask for the records and reciepts at the association manager's office. Why not ask the new home owner to do just that, and file the records away with the deeds,etc. If the records are NOT there, and are NOT paid as promised, I would call it to the attention of Bob Frank (the association's vice president). He is one honest person who will look into the matter for the home owner.

One further comment on whether Pulte has and is turning over all the money due to us. I know of at least one new homebuyer (in Desert Sky Village) who was given the following incentive to sign on the dotted line....LID paid by builder as well as 3 years of HOA dues. I'm not sure of how many more new homebuyers were given this deal, but I can assume to sell their remaining homes, this deal was offered to many more. How do we know that Pulte has in fact turned over 3 years worth of HOA dues to us and, more importantly, if our dues goes up, how and from whom, do we get the increase in dues? Any thoughts on this?

Mr. Sansing:

I certainly have no expertise in complex financial analysis and have no reason to doubt that Mrs. Berman is trying to do her best to serve the needs of the community. However, to answer your questions as to why I feel Pulte may have left our reserves unfunded and why I don't have complete trust in the BOD - my answer is very simply "The Villas Agreement".

I am not a resident of the Villas. I simply feel that this agreement justn't doesn't pass the smell test. The timing of it, the secrecy of it, the failure to have legal counsel review the final agreement, the failure to get a board resolution prior to Mr. West and Mrs. Dwyer signing off on it just doesn't somehow instill in me a feeling of trust. If Pulte convinced some board members to give them a "sweetheart deal" at the expense of the Villas residents, what makes me confident that they wouldn't try to do the same to the rest of us. As far as evidence, I believe we still have not had full access to a room full of "rat infested" documents. Who knows what yet may be uncovered.

bob m:

I think you have the right idea. No more than a 10% increase until we have had a chance to see all the "rat infested documents" and have a clear financial picture of "what went where and who got what".

To Bob Sansing:

I see no evidence of anything at this point, but I'd like to see evidence of what Roz say's, if that is what she says.

In order to make a statement that Pulte has done what it should have done, you have to back it up with documentation, and appropriate evidence of deposits coming our way. You just can't say it in my book.

So, first we establish what Pulte should have been sending our way, then we establish if Pulte did send it our way.

In order to do so, you have to start from day one of this settlement, review the agreements of what should come our way, and examine if this was done correctly.

Just 'cause someone says so, doesn't mean it is so.
bob m

I have a simple question to ask all of those residents that feel Pulte has left our reserves under funded. What evidence do any of you have that your assertions are true?

I voted for Roz Berman because of her direct experience on the Finance Committee as our reserves expert. She tells me that after reviewing all of the records, Pulte has in fact, left our reserves in compliance with NRS:116 and that they do not owe us any further money for reserves.

So I repeat, what evidence, if any, does anyone have to the contrary?

I thought we elected our Board to ensure that we were being treated fairly by the developer. So why are so many people distrusting what the Board tells us?

Regards,
Bob Sansing, ex-SCA BoD Director
Proud to have served my community

To all of those reading this, keep in mind the budget process is opening up, and I do believe that we should spread the mantra throughout the community that we will not endorse an increase in dues greater than 10%, until it is positively established that more is needed to keep us floating.

This means that a raise of no more than 9 bucks a month would be tolerated. Let the Board make the case with documentation, and I mean real documentation, showing that we need more.

I wouldnt worry that it is not enough, as long as the present status quo is maintained, considering an annual inflation of 3% a year, we can easily glide on 10% until it is demonstrated that we are adequately reserved by the developer as per agreement/law, money has and will be spent wisely and that perhaps the rush to reserve at at 90% can be slowed down and done in perhaps 5 or 6 years instead of what is proposed.

The mantra is no more than 10% for this year, spread it around.

bob m

Lowell, I also rode the train to coney island an looked out the front window in the lead car, but the only vision I can see for this place is to forget about the personalities and get as much data as possible under our belts and make our own analysis to answer many of the questions.

As I see it, we are running in circles, and we may be quite underfunded as the developer may well have left us this way, with the hope that in our confusion no one will have the smarts to sit down, gather info, and do a proper analysis.

Keep in mind that developers, local auditing firms, management companies all have much more experience in dealing with HOA's such as ours and with that experience they may very well know when they can get away with a big one.

They may very well be looking at us as a bunch of senior saps as they sell us their expertise knowing darn well they are not delivering a good bang for our buck.

This is why a team will eventually be put together to do this important task, just a matter of time and planning.

When you find out you've been screwed, and you can tell the various parties how they screwed you, this becomes a very powerful factor in dealing with them. They suddenly become very humble.

The villas do have very legitimate questions and the documents eventually gathered that will answer their question, may also give important insight into whether the whole community has been short changed.

This Brooklyn Boy also rode the train. Brooklyn was a good place to grow up and learn a few things about those who want to pull a fast one on you.
bob m

Friends of SCA,

I may not have made my point clear. It is not about who has the best calculator. It is not about false accusations of me wanting to clobber any of my neighbors, it about trying to run a business. In any business if your entire focus is on 2% of the customers and not 100% you are doomed to failure. There is a certain amount of time the Board should spend on the Villas, Trumpets and Pulte Reserve issues. I have been reading the blogs over several days and I can’t find any comments or ideas from most of the writers that had suggestions on improving SCA as a community. Where are the visionaries and forward thinkers?

As a young boy in Brooklyn where I grew up one of the enjoyments was riding the subway to Coney Island. I always ran to the front of the train and looked out the front window with great anticipation of what was coming next. I also looked over my shoulder and noticed many people didn’t mind riding backwards with their eye always facing to the rear. I guess that mirrored real life too.

There are many reasons that the dues may have to be raised and to say this board is comprised of a bunch of conspirators is ridiculous. If there is a dues increase do you honestly believe that all the board members will be exempt from it? I don’t think so.

All I am proposing is to allow some time to look at the future of where we want to be as a community and continue to try to recover any past due revenue without it driving a wedge in the community on a day to day basis.

Hello, any visionaries out there?

Lowell Benjamin

Great idea Carl; Just keep talking about "worldly topics". Try not to wake up the 400 lb gorrila though!

It has just come to may attention that Mr. Lowell Benjamin (After clobbering The Villa Owners) has said (on some other insignificant blog), that

"The Board of Directors need to spend a little attention and energy on all of SCA including the other 97.7% of homeowners."

Don't worry Mr. Benjamin, your going to get some "attention" real soon - in the form of a dues increase FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND PROBABLY MORE SINCE AT THAT TIME THE ASSOCIATION RESERVES WILL STILL BE UNDERFUNDED BY $3,299,393 (according to the finance committee's projections).

Mr. Benjamin:

0.022816901408450704225352112676056%???? What does that have to do with the price of butter??? If the percentage were 0.0000000000000000000000000001% the issue should still be a matter of concern to every homeowner in SCA. By my calculations, you are 0.000013% (sorry my calculator doesn’t go to the “extreme” that your calculator does) of the total SCA population and I wouldn’t hesitate to think that if you were “wronged” by the SCA – especially “wronged ‘financially’”, you would certainly raise your voice to all, whoever, whenever, and wherever you could to get that wrong righted. And, no matter how much time it takes up of the BOD, the finance committee, meetings, public newspapers, flyers, conversations, etc. IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED.

Roz Berman, Bob Frank, Mike Dixon, and Barry Friedman sat in my house at a “coffee” and promised all the Villas owners in attendance that “the Villas owners were wronged”, that they “would research the records to find out what SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the reserve fund at transition”, and make sure that what was “due the Villas homeowners would be determined and gotten from Pulte”. Little did they know that Kay Dwyer and Favil West had already signed a “confidential” surrender to Pulte and accepted a nominal amount to make us go away and shut up. Further, Dwyer and West accepted responsibility on behalf of the SCA for any shortages that may come to light at a later date. They’re agreement – not ours!

Yes, Roz Berman has met with the Villas homeowners to discuss our reserves (or lack thereof). The meetings address ONLY the 2006 Reserve Study and how we can delay some capital expenditures so that we can have more time to build up our reserves. What has NOT BEEN ADDRESSED is WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE RESERVE FUNDS AT TRANSITION.

Following the lawsuit path is not something any of us wish to do. However, if we are continually ignored (as 6 members of the BOD are doing) that may be the path we are FORCED to follow to right the wrong that’s been done.

I closing Mr. Benjamin, I would fight as hard for YOUR wrong to be righted as I had hoped the SCA would fight to right OUR wrong. Only Bob Frank appears willing to open the can of worms to expose the TRUTH – whatever it is. After all that is all that we are asking for – the TRUTH and records to back it up. Is that too much to ask??

To Norm M.
Get your facts straight. Prior to the date/time I told you no more Villa talk you spoke at the Current Events club about the Villa problem AT LEAST 3-4 times including being allowed to read portions of your written comments. It was only after that that I said no more villa talk. Also, how do you know how many people in the club are tired of talking about Anthem. We have already lost a few members who are tired of it all. And if you were paying real attention, you would have noticed that those who swallowed up most of the time on Anthem were the same ten or so people who usually monopolize the conversations. I am trying to get back to worldly topics and get more members involved in the discussions. The Anthem issues have become very devisive in this community and anything I can do to reduce it is worthwhile. Name calling and arguing will not resolve the issues we face in this community.

To Marcia Kosterka;

Thank you for providing Mr Briggs credentials. You are absolutely, 100%, correct. Mr. Briggs is far above his critics on this blog. Even they lived to be 300 years old, his critics could not even come close to his accomplishments, and service to his country, AND THE COMMUNITY HE LIVES IN.

To Mr. Briggs;

I acknowledge your service to this country by serving in the Korean conflict, and salute you. I also want to thank you at this time for dedicating much of your life and career in the service of your state and your community. I am proud to be your neighbor.

To Carl Weinstein; You said
"To Norm M; You were not denied the right to speak about the Villas at Current Events. You spoke and spoke and spoke and finally you were beating a dead horse so I told you enough was enough."
That is not quite factual. YOU did deny my request to speak about the Villa's, and you did so BEFORE the meeting had started. As for the "dead horse" you referred to, my money is still on him, and my odds are getting better every time some one "shoots himself in the foot"
So its your opinion "that many club members are tired of hearing about Anthem problems." That is not exactly what I see judging from all the discussion on this blog. I was at the last Current Events meeting, and it seemed to me that a lot of people were talking "around" the 400 lb gorrila in the center of the room. It may not be that way in the near future, when every SCA resident is sent a bill in the mail for additional money, EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

Good job, Marcia!

Rivka Wolf

Sorry for the redundancy, I believe this comment belongs in this tread not the OP ED thread.
Lowell Benjamin said:
The Villa Controversy

0.022816901408450704225352112676056%.
For those of you who do not know what this percentage represents it is the Villas percentage of total homes owned in SCA at build out, equivalent to a little more then 2%. All homeowners who understand the Villa dilemma will have sympathy for their cause. Who wants to be assessed more money anyway?

After having said that, this issue takes up a tremendous amount of time and energy that is spent by the BOD, finance committee, meetings, public newspapers and anyone who would listen. Villa supporters have relentlessly attacked the current association and any homeowners that disagree with their position. Some Villa supporters have filled the blogs with an almost daily attack on anyone who will in any way shape or form attempt to resolve this issue not to their liking. Their liking being, take the money for the Villas from the general reserve fund since Pulte is off the hook or have the HOA sue Pulte.

In one of the South Valley News edition a Villa spokesman (paraphrase) stated “Pulte short changed the Villas by $374,000 in their reserve fund.” Another home owner alluded to the fact that “all the other homeowners should look into our own thing” assuming he meant we may also have shortfall in the general reserve fund. If that being the case I don’t see how any money can be transferred from the general reserve fund to the Villa reserve fund.

Roz Berman SCA Treasure has been trying to provide specific information to the Villa owners to no avail. Mike Dixon, Bob Frank, Roz Berman and Barry Friedman have been trying to resolve this issue by different methods since they don’t carry any baggage from the prior Board. This also seems not to have worked.

The other Villa option is to start a lawsuit that will embroil the HOA, with a positive outcome having a minimal chance of success, at an unknown cost in legal fees to the HOA the Villa owners and their supporters.
Villa supporters have stated they have gotten council from an attorney; (paraphrase) stated “The attorney that I took it to said although it was not impossible to overturn, it would be very difficult. They had essentially signed away all of the villa’s rights to go after Del Webb/Pulte forever. He added that they have “one heck of a case against our board of directors, and was willing to take it on a contingency he felt so strongly about it.”
It looks like the Villa supporters are going to sue themselves since they are part of SCA. Who will be the winner? Most likely, it would be the lawyers. Talking about dues going higher for everyone! Is this responsible spending?

Yes, the past board did agree to settle the Villa reserves for $241,000 and give Pulte a free pass. “IF” they were wrong in agreeing to that amount, (a story unto itself) I don’t know of any HOA board member in the country seating in jail because of being incompetent.

The Villa issue has been tried in the court of public opinion for approximately a year and everyone has been found guilty.

The Board and SCA homeowners deserve a rest from this unfortunate controversy that is causing the Villa owners to pay more money to maintain their homes then they had anticipated. I hope cool heads will prevail before they go down the lawsuit road and at best may prevail with a hollow victory and a huge dues increase for everyone to cover the legal costs.

The Board of Directors need to spend a little attention and energy on all of SCA including the other 97.7% of homeowners.

The pedigree of Senator Briggs is basically not material to the potential problems concerning NRS 116 facing this community.

He is most likely better versed on the law than most of us and most likely knows the essence of it's provisions along with many other laws of this State.

However, if one really wants to understand and know the law and it's essence, NRS 116 is available for all to view. I would suggest that those interested read it, as it is an exercise in learning how to read and understand law. Sometimes one has to read it several times, since as I have learned, the law first gives, than takes away, so it can be confusing.

I believe, and have always since day one here, that the essence of what really goes on is found in the financial and contractual transactions. Examination of these will tell the true story and wipe away most speculation.

What the developer may owe us can also be found in these records.

Surely what the board has been up to from day one is surely to be found therin.

All the bickering, all the fighting, all the power plays and accusations and demonizing of individuals, name calling, you name it, is nothing but noise next to the wealth to be found in these items.

They are there for the asking.

So ask.

bob m
Follow the money, you can never go wrong.

Thank you for the background information on Senator Briggs. It appears to me that he is eminently qualified to offer commentary and advice regarding some questionable decisions and dealings by past and present board members.

I hope in the future he will share some of his opinions with the entire community.

DAVID AND CARL:

you both are way out of your league. Find someone less informed and educated to pick on. Inventory of the John V. Briggs Papers, 1967-1976

Brought to you by the Online Archive of California (OAC),
an initiative of the California Digital Library
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt3199q2x4
Briggs (John V.) Papers
Processed by Archives staff and Lucy Barber.

California State Archives

1020 "O" Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 653-2246
Fax: (916) 653-7363
Email: ArchivesWeb@ss.ca.gov
URL: http://www.ss.ca.gov/archives/archives.htm
© 2004
California Secretary of State. All rights reserved.

Descriptive Summary
Title:
John V. Briggs papers, 1967-1976

Collection number:
See series description

Creator:
Briggs, John V.

Extent:
7.75 cubic feet

Repository:
California State Archives
Sacramento, California

Abstract:
John V. Briggs, Republican was a member of the Assembly from 1967 to 1976 and a Senator from 1977 to 1981. He was Senate Republican Whip in 1979. Senator Briggs concentrated on insurance reform, a wider application of the death penalty, and regulations concerning contractors.

Physical location:
California State Archives

Language:
English.

Administrative Information
Access
Collection is open for research.

Publication Rights
For permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the California State Archives. Permission for reproduction or publication is given on behalf of the California State Archives as the owner of the physical items. The researcher assumes all responsibility for possible infringement which may arise from reproduction or publication of materials from the California State Archives collections.

Preferred Citation
[Identification of item], John V. Briggs papers,LP[number]:[folder number], California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California.

Acquisition Information
The California State Archives acquired the John V. Briggs papers following his term in the State Senate.

Alternative Forms of Material Available
Some of the records are on microfilm at the California State Arvchives

Processing Information
This collection was processed by staff of the California State Archives over a period of time and described in a finding aid in 2001.

Biography
John V. Briggs, Republican was a member of the Assembly from 1967 to 1976. He represented the 35th District, which included the northern parts of Orange County and the western parts of San Bernardino County. After redistricting took effect in 1974, he represented the 69th District, which covered part of Orange County, including the city of Fullerton. He then served in the Senate from 1977 to 1981 for the 35th District, which included parts of Orange Country. He was born in South Dakota in 1930 and moved to California in 1935. He received an A.A. degree in Business Administration from Fullerton Junior College, and a B.S. degree in Business Administration from Long Beach State College. He served with United States Air Force during the Korean Conflict. He married Carmen Nicasio on December 28, 1951. They had three children, Kathleen, Dan, and Ronald. He worked as an insurance broker. He was a member of the Chamber of Commerce, the Elks, Rotary, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. After being defeated in two elections, Assembly Member Briggs was elected in the State Assembly of California in 1966. He first considered a run for Senate in 1973, but put it off because of the on-going debate over redistricting. In 1976, he was elected to the California Senate representing the 35th Senate District. He served from 1977 until 1981. He was Senate Republican Whip in 1979. Senator Briggs concentrated on insurance reform, a wider application of the death penalty, regulations concerning contractors. He was a proponent of a number of propositions in the late 1970s: the unsuccessful Proposition 6 (1974) that would have restricted the employment of homosexuals as public school employees; the successful Proposition 7 (1978) that expanded the number of special circumstances for murder cases that required either the death penalty or a life sentence without parole, and the successful Proposition 13 (1978) which limited property tax increases. According to the Legislative Handbooks, he served on the following committees:

California State Assembly, 1967-1976
Standing Committees
Agriculture, 1969, 1971-1972, 1974
*Chair, 1971-1972, 1974
Elections and Reapportionment, 1971-1972, 1975-1976
Finance and Insurance, 1967-1974
*Vice Chair, 1969-1970
Government Administration, 1973-1974
Industrial Relations, 1967-1968
Intergovernmental Relations, 1975-1976
Labor Relations, 1969-1970, 1975-1976
Public Employees and Retirement, 1976
Revenue and Taxation, 1970-1974
Social Welfare, 1967-1968
Joint Committees
Atomic Development and Space, 1970-1972
*Chair, 1970-71
Public Domain, 1973-1976
Select Committees
Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition, 1973-1974
*Vice Chair, 1973-1974
Deepwater Ports, 1974

California State Senate, 1977-1981
Standing Committees
Banking and Commerce, 1981
Business and Professions, 1977-1980
Elections and Reapportionment, 1977-1978
Finance, 1980-1981
*Vice Chair, 1981
Governmental Organization, 1981
Insurance and Financial Institutions, 1977-1980
*Vice Chair, 1977-1978
Transportation, 1977-1981
Select Committees
Governmental Efficiency, 1981
*Chair, 1981
Governmental Investigations and Reports, 1980
*Chair, 1980
Small Business Enterprises, 1980-1981

In addition, as a member of the Assembly, John V. Briggs was a member of the Western Interstate Nuclear Board, 1971- 1972. On December 28, 1981, Senator Briggs resigned from the Senate. He was registered as a lobbyist with the state of California from 1983 until 1996, operating a firm with his own name.

Scope and Content
The John V. Briggs Papers consist of Assembly Bill Files, 1965-1976 and Subject Files, 1965-1975. The bill files document his legislative activity during his term as a member of the Assembly. Assembly Member Briggs concentrated on measures that would increase consumer protection, restrict smoking in public places, reform insurance regulations, and increase scrutiny of welfare spending. His 1968 bill, AB 87, was enacted and provided incentives for private employers to hire welfare recipients. He advocated restrictions on government spending. His subject files provide additional information on Briggs's political concerns, including his campaign strategies, his relations with the Republican Caucus, and his responses to district and constituent issues. Particularly rich are the files of newsletters and press releases, which illustrate his continuing concern with controlling state spending. The California State Archives does not currently have papers from the period when Briggs served in the Senate.

Arrangement
Arranged into two series: bill files and subject files.

Indexing Terms
The following terms have been associated with these materials in the Archives' automated public access system (currently in development, June 2004).

Subjects
Briggs, John V.
California. Assembly Republican Caucus
Capital punishment--California
Insurance--California--Law and legislation
Proposition 13, 1978 (California property tax initiative)

Related Material
Some information on Assembly Member and Senator Briggs appears in oral histories of California Assembly Member Leon D. Ralph and Senator Omer L. Rains done as part of the California State Government Oral Histories Program, available at the California State Archives and other repositories.

Series Descriptions

Series 1. Bill Files, 1967-1976 [ Folder see LP numbers below ]
107 file folders
Arranged chronologically by legislative session, then numerically by bill number.

Bill files created by John V. Briggs may include bill analyses, amendments and resolutions, author's statements, testimony, press releases, editorials and newspaper clippings, correspondence, committee statements, and other information.

Microfilm copies of bill files are available for the years 1967-1976 as indicated by (mf) following the LP number.

1967 AB362-AB2537, ACRs, HRs, RCRs, 1967 Special Session (6ff) LP155:77-82 (mf)

1968 AB440 - AB2090, AJR38, HRs, RCRS (7ff) LP155:83-89 (mf)

1969 AB87 - AB2042, ACA17, ACR, AJRs, HRs, RCRs (12ff) LP155:90-101 (mf)

1970 AB314 - AB2392, ACA40, ACRs, HRs (17ff) LP152:12-28 (mf)

1971 AB81 - AB2801, ACAs, ACRs, AJR 14, MRs, RCRs, and legislation not introduced (14ff) LP152:29-42 (mf)

1972 AB53 - AB2076, ACA 85, ACRs, AJRs, HRs, MRs, JRCRs (11ff) LP153:1-10 (mf)

1973-1974 AB76 - AB4493, ACRs, AJRs, HRs, MRs (27ff) LP153:11-37 (mf)

1975-1976 AB37 - AB4537, ACA7 - ACA95, AJR50, HR17 - HR93 (13ff) LP197:64-76 (mf)

Series 2. Subject Files, 1965-1975 [ Folder LP161:129-195 ]
67 file folders
Arranged alphabetically by subject title.

Subject files created by John V. Briggs include correspondence received and sent, memos, reports, newspaper clippings, press releases, speeches, opinions, analyses, research on proposed and pending legislation, committee activities, and district affairs.

A list of subject headings is available in the master finding aid at the California State Archives.

View options:
Standard
Entire finding aid
Search within this document:

Contents:
Descriptive Summary
Administrative Information
Biography
Scope and Content
Arrangement
Indexing Terms
Related Material
Series Descriptions
Bill Files, 1967-1976
Subject Files, 1965-1975

The term "carpetbagger" does NOT apply to John Briggs. He is a homeowner in SCA just like the rest of us. And before that, he was a resident and owner in northern Nevada. Like the vast majority of us, he came from somewhere else to live in SCA and enjoy our lifestyle.

That does not mean that Briggs does not have an interesting past, and what I describe here does not reflect a personal bias or criticism, but is based entirely on information available on the Internet.

I'm sure Briggs would readily acknowledge to anyone that he is an individual of decidedly conservative bent. A number of Internet sites describe him as probably the most arch-conservative person serving in the California legislature at the time he was a state senator, prior to his resigning to become a lobbyist and operate an insurance business.

During the 1970s, Briggs authored and placed on the California ballot a homophobic, anti-gay petition. Today such an effort would be laughed out of town, but in those days it was a matter of great concern to many. At one point prior to the election, a poll showed that the Briggs-sponsored petition was favored by 61% of the voters.

But the petition ended up losing by about one million votes,largely because a fundamentally decent man named Ronald Reagan came out against it. Ironically, the Briggs anti-gay iniitative has been credited as probably the single most influential act leading to the founding of the Log Cabin Republicans, a somewhat influential organization of gay Republicans, seemingly an oxymoron but actually a true fact.

I have heard it said that Briggs was deeply involved in the writing of portions of NRS 116. Research shows that on one occasion in 2001, he and another representative of the HOA he was part of in northern Nevada attended a hearing related to formation of the Common Interest Communities Commission, which is the authority for the Division of Real Estate's Ombudsman office. The two of them spoke to recommend that a particular proposed provision not be included in the legislation. But I could find no evidence that he otherwise contributed to the language of NRS 116, and my contacts in the Communities Association Institute are unaware of any participation by him.

These are the facts as I understand them.

To Rana: You take things too literally. I am well aware of the traditional definition of a carpetbagger . It is a useful word to identify with someone who "is a johnny come lately" who stirs up the pot with comments that cause the general population to get all steamed up. And bythe way, there are serious questions about the "senators" actual level of participation in NRS writings. I don't rate him as an authority. Also, I know that nearly all of us moved here from elsewhere but I feel newcomers are entitled to do a lot of observing before they get involved by opening their mouths. We are faced with several persons who do litttle research and background review and open their mouths and stick there foot into it.

To Norm M; You were not denied the right to speak about the Villas at Current Events. You spoke and spoke and spoke and finally you were beating a dead horse so I told you enough was enough. It does not mean I don't support your thoughts. It just means we need to move on to other topics. We all are aware of what the Villa Owners' complaints are. You have espoused them whenever and wherever you get the chance. By the same token, many club members are tired of hearing about Anthem problems. The club was founded in order to discuss state, national and worldwide situations and we have spent too much time on local issues (this has been the source of many complaints to me by several members)

To Carl Weinstein; You said; “I invite those concerned folks to express themselves at the next Current Events meeting instead of on these blogs.”

I would like to remind you that I am the only resident of this entire community that has been denied the privilege to of speaking on a topic at the current events club. I wanted to speak about the Villa situation but you personally denied me that opportunity. You even made that announcement to all who were in attendance.

You also said “We are simply in a position of realizing that we may not have gotten exactly what we voted for this past April.” --Well you are correct on that one.

When Mr. Bob Sansing responded (on this web site) to some who questioned if he had BROKERED A DEAL, between Mike Dixon and the previous board members after the last election he said --

..." You are absolutely correct; I had already experienced one dictator on the Board and didn't want to see another one. “

Now that we all know HOW Mike got elected, aren’t you just a bit curious, as to what the other part of that deal was. What did Mike have to give in return to become president, by this “brokered deal”. Could it be, to continue the cover up of the many other “brokered deals” (made with Del Webb), that have left this entire community in a pile of under funded reserves, and now requires an increase in our annual dues of over 50% in the next three years?

Carl: with all due respect, Senator Briggs knows more about our state laws than you would imagine. He can recite chapter and verse of NRS116and NAC in his sleep. Just mention the problem, he will give you the chapter, flip open the book and 99.9% of the time he is right on the mark. If that doesn’t make him an expert, I’m damned if I know what does, California transplant or not. “Carpetbagger” by definition is “a Northerner meddling in Southern politics for personal gain after the Civil war”. So let’s see, we are in the wild and wooly West, there is nothing for the senator to gain but helping this community right some of the things that are terribly wrong here, so please explain to all of us, other than repeating David B’s words, why you would slander Senator Briggs like that? I’m surprise at you, I really am.

You are correct Richard.

Rivka Wolf

Those that refuse to provide their names in this blog should not have dignified residents who are willing to share their thoughts AND NAMES even respond to their ridiculous comments.

Time to ignore these people that have literally nothing to say.

Any thought from those out there that have names?

""""" The "Senator" never finished his senatorial term in California. He QUIT to become a lobbiest. Enough said--read between the lines.""""""

To me that's a good business decision. I would do the same thing if I could, you only go around once.
bob m

Mr. Weinstein:

I have great respect for the work you have done as chairman of P&G and in other areas of service to the community.

I have never met Senator Briggs and know nothing about his resume. However, I feel it is inherently unfair to refer to him as a "carpetbagger". I believe if you did a study, you would find that the overwhelming majority of our residents moved into our community from out of state. The minute we each moved into this community we had the right to full participation in our governance. I have lived in Clark County, NV for 39 years but I don't feel that makes my opinions any more important than someone who moved here last month.

In your previous post, you decried that "names were being thrown about" and I am in total agreement with you on that point. I think it would be in our best interest of all to cease the name calling and focus on the important issues at hand.

I believe Bob Frank has brought up some legitimate issues that need to be thoroughly investigated and discussed in the openess of a public forum before we blindly accept an increase in our dues.

Dear Bob(who is hiding behind partial anonimity),

You must have been looking in the mirror when you made the last comment.

Was it you who made nasty comments on both blogs?

Are you upset about truth and justice because they are not your way?

Sleep well Bob.

Proudly, Rivka Wolf

Carl Weinstein, Bob Sansing,
Hurrah for them! Hopefully our next two board members with guts.

Ken K:I agree with what you say the big issues are. And these are all BIG ISSUES. The complainers are focusing on personalities and the BOD has been in place a little over 3 month which certainly is not enough time to resolve such big issues Name calling and nastiness do not help the Board resolve these problems and lack of harmony among the Board members does not bode well for them to attack these issues. I have to bring up one name openly and that is "Senator" Briggs who has made himself the Book of Knowledge of information to some residents. He is a carpet bagger who is in our midst and inadvertently causing some of the problems. The "Senator" never finished his senatorial term in California. He QUIT to become a lobbiest. Enough said--read between the lines.

Carl Weinstein: Your observation fails to factor in that the major issues (Trumpets, Reserves -Villas & SCA, RMI,Documents,Under age residents, to name a few) are all carryovers from the previous board. I think it is natural as issues drag on for tempers to rise. Once these are resolved we should see a return to normalcy.

The Bob Frank situation requires careful handling as there are serious allegations found within his response.

1:New candidates announce in January

2: I love my home, my neighbors AND this community. I am hell bent on improving it. I am not the type to "cut bait and run", so thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not moving thanks, but not thanks.

3: If YOU like to enjoy your life as the three monkeys be my guest, many other don't, they like to know what the truth is. There are MANY, MANY, MANY more than the three of us willing to find it and share it. Sorry to break that to you.

Ron,
Thanks for the opportunity to learn something of Bob Franks thoughts on the action attempted against him. We need BoD members who are strong enough to stand up for what they consider is right and not just bow down to the remaining BoD views by pressure.
As for the contining thought that as they are unpaid we should allow them mistakes, well I find that scenario totally misleading and unacceptable. Have you ever witnessed so many unpaid Volunteers trying to get elected to an unpaid appointment? They have their reasons, each and every one of them, and we vote for those reasons. Accordingly we should expect their expertise and management style to be used on our behalf and in our best interests. That is exactly what Bob Frank is trying, in my opinion, to do.
Have we already forgotten or perhaps foregiven that abuse of our systems last year when a letter from Mrs Berges husband was read out in its entirity and at the same meeting discussion and questions from the floor were curtailed. Or so quickly forgotten Kay Dwyers involvement in the Reserve Fund debacle?
There have been several other misleading items and reports proferred by some Board members and they should be held to account.
Lets have an Open Meeting with Bob Frank and ALL BOD members when his comments/accusations can be aired, discussed and settled in a civilised, Board of Directors, manner and not by innuendo and retort, it gets us no further ahead.
One continuing BoD member has been requesting "togetherness and support" from homeowners now is the time to see what homeowners think and want, namely Accountability by each and every Board member without any exceptions.

I've been reading Marcia, Rana and Rivka comments for weeks on David's blog abd the BOD meetings and now this one. I'm really tired of their continued snipping at the board. If they are so unhappy I think they should do one of the following:

1. Circulate petitions to recall the board and call for a new elctions and also nominate themselves and their supporters to run for a new board.

2. Sell out and move to a new community

3. Shut up and let the rest of us enjoy our community as we did before they arrived.

Sunshine in all matters public is a good thing.

Mark Cook and Richard Arendt,

Kudos to both of you for your comments. You know exactly why.

Larry Wolf

Unimpressed. That is exactly what I am with your transparent excuse for your venal cowardice.

Rivka Wolf

I am someone who is not extremely well versed in examining complex financial matters, and I would not offer my opinion as to the accuracy of Bob's analysis and concerns. But I do know that he has brought forth issues which should be seriously considered by all SCA homeowners, and I thank him for caring enough to do so. I, and all the friends and neighbors with whom I have spoken since the news first broke that our dues would be increased, understood that sometime in the future our dues would most likely go up ---BUT we will not sit by quietly and just placidly accept one cent of increase that may have been caused by any degree of mis-management, or slight-of-hand. Every resident should do their best to educate themselves, and ask hard questions before they just get out their checkbooks! Thank you Bob Frank for your courage in raising the awareness level. I believe you have a deep commitment to the campaign pledges you made. In fact, the ACE mailer stated "Open Communication, Open Meetings, and Open Books". And the very first item on the ACE tri-fold brochure stated: "Secrecy at SCA must end. Too many decisions are made behind closed doors. Our ACE-supported candidates are PLEDGED to end Board of Directors secrecy". So, Bob - open the doors, let the light shine in, and let the chips fall where they may!

I am simply going to repeat the short statement I made elsewhere on this blog.

Thank you Ron Johnson for shining this spotlight into the dark hidden corners that are known around these parts as The Association's Dirty Laundry Closet. Now just like roaches in the sun light, watch the previous board members (including David Berman) run for cover.

The people who now have nothing to contribute, other than insults, and lies, and THEN hide their Idendity, are cowards just as Rivka described them.

Too much sunlight --- I knew it!!!

Ron Johnson:
Thank you for allowing Bob Frank to report to the community. Mr. Frank appears to have presented a very open and thoughtful analysis of his position on the events that precipitated the attempt to remove him from office.

Mr. Unimpressed in Anthem:
Your comments made reference to the fact that the BOD are volunteers and don't get paid for their services. As one of many, many volunteers in our community, I certainly appreciate the work of all those who labor on our behalf. Volunteerism can sometimes be thankless work and the old adage "no good deed goes unpunished" is sometimes true.

However, that being said, I must assume that any individual who ran for a seat on the BOD was a person of intelligence and was fully aware of the enormous fiduciary responsibility that they were undertaking and well as the requirement to be in compliance with state statue NRS 116 as well as all policies and procedures of SCA-HOA.

If there were wrongdoings or possible illegal actions by previous board members that cost the HOA substantial revenue (even if these were unintentional mistakes made by nice people) they must be uncovered and corrected.

The argument that the new BOD should just move forward and forget about any past wrongdoings because they don't have the time or it may incur some additional cost is very shortsighted. If we don't have a complete understanding of what happened in the past, we are setting ourselves up to the same problems occuring in the future. We can't go forward until we know where we've been.

I hope that we can begin to remove the emotion from the situation and start to utilize the enormous amount of talent and energy in this community to begin solving these important issues.

I feel that Bob Frank truly believes that he would be breaking faith with the community if he did not insist on full disclosure of these issues.

Read all the messages on this blog under all the subject headings. Why would anyone want to identify themselves so that three nasty ladies can call them names. Your comments have justified the use of aninomity!

I wish all of you would think about something. At the very WORST time during the existence of the old BOD headed by Favil West, there NEVER was as much nastiness toward the Board, toward Favil, toward each other! What has happened to us all? There are literally hundreds of blog messages on almost every issue, tempers are flaring; names are being thrown about and the hatred is coming thru loud and clear. I invite those concerned folks to express themselves at the next Current Events meeting instead of on these blogs. Perhaps with face-to-face encounters civility would once again reign. We have a habit of having "HOT" discussions at current events and we all leave the room as friends at the end! We are simply in a position of realizing that we may not have gotten exactly what we voted for this past April.

To Unimpressed:

Well now, how about that? Someone who refuses to divulge his name and sends an accusation that Mr. Frank's "missile" is full of "lies and misstatements." Now that's credibility.

Now Mr. Unimpressed, so many of us would like to ask something of you. Just in case Bob Frank is indeed telling the truth and there is merit to the substantial shortfall of $1-2 million, perhaps there is a way for you to solve all our problems since you do not believe they exist.

All you have to do is pledge your personal assets in the amount of the shortfall and I can assure you all of us concerned citizens will praise your convictions and forever hold our peace.

The cashier's check should be payable to "Sun City Anthem"

Those who use anonymous names are either: 1) a well known person who is very unpopular in the community, 2) a coward who will not stand up for his principles, or 3) all of the above. I like to speculate who the secret posters may be...yep, you I agree with the names you just thought of.

As for Bob Frank, I can really understand why a few are throwing stones at him...it's pure jealousy. They liked to leave total control to the previous board, because they didn't have to think for themselves. They very wrongly assumed that things were being run in a proper and honorable manner, but then, ignorance is bliss isn't it. Bob is the best thing ever to come down the pike and the timing could not be better. We have serious problems, he will, with the help of the majority, uncover the root cause and fix it. Can any one of you naysayers name a person so intent on solving our financial situation? Can any one of you naysayers name a person as honorable and trustworthy? Can any one of you naysayers name a person with the extensive background in leadership positions that Bob has held?

You doubting Thomases, you few, disturbed residents, who have sat idly on your posterior for several years while the walls came tumbling down, while Trumpets sucked you dry, and while your finances were depleted before your very eyes, if you really want to place the blame where it belongs...LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

September 5, 2007 3:46 PM

Unimpressed in Anthem,(another creative name for a coward.)

You are correct. I am responding to you. What a nasty and accusatory comment you wrote about Bob Frank. There is an old expression to describe people like you.It is pusillanimous polecat.(look it up in the dictionary). Your comments are worth as much as your identity, NOTHING!

The more you write the more threadbare your mask of anonymity becomes.

As I told you before, I do not respect COWARDS!

Proudly, Rivka Wolf

UNIMPRESSED IN ANTHEM-

First of all, who would even listen to the likes of you who clearly does not have the courage to identify yourself and hides behind a rock. At least Rivka, Rana and I are straight forward, unlike you, and post what we feel and think, whether you like it or not. That is the FIRST sign of honesty. In your case, I think I would trust a used car saleman before I would take anything seriously that you mouth. If you want people to hear your version of the truth, you must first show some honesty and guts, which obviously is lacking in you!

Well here's another chance for the complainers and big mouths to talk about Frank's missile. Alot of it is full of outright lies and misstatements. There are so many of those I would need 5 pages to ennumerate them. All of you gripers are forgetting the most important thing of all---THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE VOLUNTEERS who do not get paid for their services. They certainly are capable of making mistakes, just like the residents did when the elected Bob Frank!! Your attitude clearly indicates that you think the BOD is DELIBERATELY doing these things and don't give a damn about Anthem! Mr. Frank has a habit of spouting information when he hasn't got the facts and complaining about things when he hasn't attended Board meetings that would have cleared things up for him. There is nothing worse than a big ego combined with Tunnel Vision!

So now the BIG THREE (Marcia, Rana and Rivka) can have their vituperouis remarks recorded below mine. I am dismayed that the folks that think Frank has crapped all over us have not taken the time to contribute the other side of the situation

Thank you Ron, for being so fairminded once again in an untenable situation. Again your choice to open up your web site to comments proves to be an overwhelming success. One hundred and ten comments on the Bob Frank story alone! I think Bob's letter is open, honest and overwhelming points to issues that affect all of us who live in this community. For the rest of the board to use him in order to defuse the public scrutiny of their own reprehensible conduct, both past and present, says it all. The closer Bob gets to the truth about issues, the more intense have been the attack on him in a very personalized manner. We are looking at a "house of cards" or a games of dominoes, which in either case is about to come crashing down upon those who have lied, cheated, and denied owners their rights. You don't build a second story to a house unless the main level is well built, secure and will hold up to building codes. Our governing documents, both SCA's as well as those of the state of Nevada, are the codes in this case. You don't sweep the dirt "under the rug", but you secure the foundation before moving forward. In my humble opinion, Bob is determined to do just that.

I welcome Bob's attempt to respond to questions that are being raised concerning the removal action that was taken at last month's Board meeting. I noted that in addressing some of his concerns, Bob referenced a few articles I had written. While I appreciate Bob's confidence in my abilities,readers should not conclude that I either endorsed or solicited Bob's attention, which I found unnecessarily distracting. On one other point, I would like to clarify the scope of my original reference to a potential $2 million owed by Pulte. That amount consisted of a $1 million shortfall in reserves BASED ON USING THE 2006 RESERVE STUDY (not the one used by Pulte for transition purposes) and up to a million dollars for reserves from monies not used by Pulte in the "greening" of Recreation Center No. 3.