The 2008 Budget

To Dan M.:

Thank you for pointing out the incorrect entry. I am, of course, guilty as charged with respect to not not entering/spelling Barry Fiedman's name correctly. I regret my typing error, however, there is only one Barry on the board, I suspect no one else was somehow confused. Thank you for your contribution.

Having dealt with that...what are your comments regarding the material content of the appraisals?
Do you agree with them or will you be offering your own appraisals?

Where do you stand on the issue of performance? One would hope that you will also stand tall on the issue of our director's performance. Perhaps you are pleased with their individual performance..if so, that would be most interesting to learn more about. If not, why not?

EJ, one would hope that when one thinks he/has the knowledge and ability to grade other peoples performance----He/She would know how to spell their name right. I could not find a Barry Frank on the BOD. What position does he hold?

My approach to appraising personnel is somewhat different and is as follows:

Michael Dixon:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent is both unable and unwilling to perform at the efficiency levels required of the position.
Recommendation: Release

Bob Frank:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent regularly and significantly exceeds most requirements of the position.
Recommendation: The incumbent should be considered for promotion at the earliest time and well ahead of his contemporaries.

Barry Frank:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent continuously struggles to meet most of the minimum requirements of the postion.
Recommendation: Effect re-assignment to a lower level position in the very near term, with opportunities for additional growth.

Roz Berman:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent demonstrates the ability to meet almost all of the minimum requirements of the position.
Recommendation: Provide additional opportunities for development of improved communication skills.

Elaine Berg:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent fails to meet almost all of the minimum requirements of the position.
Recommendation: Release

Bob Berman:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent, although very talented and experienced, is not a good "fit" in the position and is unable to meet many requirements of the position.
Recommendation: Release

Kay Dwyer:

In this appraiser's opinion, the incumbent, although talented and experienced, is not a good "fit" in the position and is unable to meet many requirements of the position.
Recommendation: Release

E.J.

Since you insist, here is my "report card"

Bob Frank ------------- A+

Barry Friedman ------------ C+

Roz Berman ------------ D

Elaine Berg ------------ D

Bob Berman ------------ D

Kay Dwyer ------------ E-

Mike D ------------- E-

D. Berman ------------ ???

Norm........it does seem clear that both boards were well aware of what the funding situation actually was...versus what it should have been.

In my view, the board has already also communicated what it plans to do about it. They simply plan to raise our assessments and absolutely nothing else.

Regarding John Leach......my view is that he has performed quite precisely, according to the directions he received from board presidents. Attorneys do not answer questions they are not asked and they do not take actions they are not asked to take. In my book, the responsibility for "failures to take action" lies strictly with the board members and board presidents.

Regarding RMI...I believe the same is true. RMI gets it's direction from our board presidents and has performed according to their directives. Failure to properly direct RMI (or improperly directing as it may be) is the board presidents responsibility. RMI (or any other business entity)is not obligated to act on it's own initiative.

So where does that lead us, except back to the respective board members and officers? Now you know why I have pushed for an Individual Performance Scorecard to be completed for each board member and published to all members of our association. Poor performance and excellent performance need to be recognized....along with the mid-range....which we can call "acceptable performance".

Performance Scorecards do present a clear dilemma...since poor performance would require action......and, by and large, the members of our association would be faced with a situation where they need to take major action and not simply complain. Based on my experience, the failure to act on poor performance ends up as ratifying the poor performance as being "completely acceptable". It appears that most residents would rather do nothing and pay whatever monetary( and moral)price it takes. They seem to be saying..."Make the World Go Away". As a fan of the Kingston Trio and their song "Long Time Passing".....I always seem to recall the question in that song....."When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn". Yes, board members, you need not lose a moments sleep...but, in the vernacular and borrowed from the TV show "Cops",..."Watcha Gonna Do When They Come For You"?

E.J.

Welcome to the club. Many more people are now taking a look into the financials of our association, and the news is not good. Lets get the facts up front.

THE RESERVES OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE UNDER FUNDED BECAUSE DEL WEBB DID NOT MEET THE NRS 116 REQUIREMNTS AT THE TIME OF TRANSITION (MAY 31, 2005).

The previous board of directors under Favil West knew it, and the current board of directors (under Mike Dixon), knows it.

The question is "What are they going to do about it."

It seems to me that its time for the board of directors to admit RMI is not doing a very good job of taking care of our money (not to mention our records). It also seems to me that the associations attorney has added to our burden by not enforcing the Trumpets lease and by not insisting the Del Webb comply with NRS requirements. This is only my opinion offered, but with the limited information we are given, what else are we to think? Remember, every board member that was elected in the last election, promised to look into the replacement of John Leach. Now it seems they have forgotten (or ignored), that committment,

Ron..Let me begin by expressing my very sincere thanks to you for your efforts and results in projecting the ACCURATE INFORMATION on the upcoming budget, as well as the well developed analysis. Many of us have discussed the continuing lack of professional management/professional decion-making....soon, the entire community will be awakened by the impact this will have upon all of us, over the extended term.

Sadly, I fear that after all the wailingand wrangling by residents is over (and I'm certain there will be some!), little will have been changed and the budget will have been passed, in the absence of number of votes necessary to defeat it.

From my vantage point, this is only the beginning. This Runaway Train seems to be running at full throttle and no Brakemen are on board. I say that simply because I have also watched the "developments" that have affected our budget and actual expenses, translate that to "needed" expenses). My prognostication is that we will "need" to raise assessments even more in 2009...based on a shortfall of revenues (we certainly won't collect all of the assesments on all of the 7,144 homes). I would project collection of only 80% of the amount attributable to these homes. I project an additional assessment increase of $184 in 2009 and an additional $202 in 2010, given the current rate of spending and the approach our board is taking.

Since I know there are those who will attempt to discredit/question both my facts and my figures quite vigorously, let me also add that I am rapidly growing certain that a very large (and already identified) additional reserve deficiency will "pop up on the horizon" some months after the budget is passed. By itself, it could be as large as $1,900,000. Of course, there may also be some "litigation settlements" to be dealt with. Could our assessments grow to as much as $2,400 annually, by 2012? I frankly don't know. Please standby for the pronouncements from our board and, oh yes, please expect to be told to shut up and sit down....after all, you and I are only homeowners/residents!

Once again the 8th member of the board has abandoned his own venue to go on the attack on Ron Johnson's site. He had also given new meaning to the word huzpah or outrageous, arrogant behavior. To make the self proclaimed assumption that he is Mr. Johnson's colleague is laughable, since he was never, and certainly is not now on the same level with the same talent or capabilities displayed by Ron. But to go on this blog and then criticize it's owner, attests to the 8th member of the board's abhorrent behavior. Perhaps things are not going too well for him at GVR and he had a compulsion to become his nasty, "I have to have the last word" self once again.

Once again, thank you Ron for shigning a light into the dark secret corners of the budget process that the board of directors created to confuse the residents. The board of directors have an obligation to work for the benefit of every member of Sun City Anthem, but they are so hell bent to retaliate agains Bob Frank, they will not listen to his council. The previous board of directors under Favil West could have prevented this shortage in the reserves by insisting that Del Webb comply with the NRS statutes, but instead they did nothing. The current board of directors under Mike Dixon seems to have adopted Favil's bag of tricks, and are ready and willing to pass the burden of making up the reserve shortage on to the residents of Sun City Anthem. It madkes me wonder, why didn't RMI live up to their contractual obligation to advise the BOD that Del Webb had not funded the reserves properly in 2005? For that matter Why did our association attorney (John Leach), not remind the board that money was due and payable from Del Webb at transition? In view of the Trumpet's fiasco, and now the reserve problem, I cant help wondering when the board is going to get serious about replacing John Leach for an attorney that would actually show some concern for the residents.

My esteemed colleague's analysis makes for interesting reading despite the inaccuracies, one of which is his assertion that the Board has already made a decision on what the 2008 dues will be. Those who bothered to attend the various budget meetings would know that the Finance Committee has made a recommendation which the Board has not yet acted on, though we should learn what they decide this week in a public meeting.

I WILL grant that his "journalistic skills" are certainly "creative," as Marcia has indicated.

KUDOS TO RON JOHNSON-

Once again Mr. Johnson has outdone himself in a hard driving, fact finding analysis of a budget process that has gone wrong. In my opinion, he has performed a great service for our community in punching out the truth based on facts, not supposition or on a personal vendetta, as witnessed by the other self-proclaimed journalist in our community. His creative and investigative journalistic skills shine through all the subterfuge and smoke screens utilized to justify an unjustifable raise in our dues. These are just some of the issues that have been raised by Bob Frank, the one board member, who continues to question poor business judgement, lies and unprofessional conduct demonstrated by the other members of this current board. Bob has proven to be a threat to those participating in financial cover up, hence their strong attacks upon him.

Once again Ron Johnson should be applauded for taking on a taboo subject and making it understandable to all those who read his report.