The March Board meeting was something else again. Personally, I had the feeling that while the chairs on the stage were filled, the Board was on holiday and was no where to be found. But to the dismay of some, members of the Board were all too present (except for Favil West who was out of town) doing their thing, if that is what you call it. The spectacle presented by the Board was disappointing, as recounted by Chuck Davis in the Anthem Compendium.

        But before we get to the good stuff, I’ll try to recall what I can remember, plus a few thoughts of my own.

Tree Slasher

        While receiving no new information from the podium, Douglas Hoffman is scheduled to make his first appearance Tuesday (March 28^th) in Clark County’s Henderson Justice Court located at 243 Water Street across from Henderson City Hall, on the matter of felony arraignment, at 9:00 in Department 1, Judge Rodney Burr’s court. There is an informative and expansive article in Sunday’s March 26^th Las Vegas Sun, titled “Trees victim of residents’ zeal for view” by Brian Wargo. Las Vegas Sun article. While Mr. Hoffman’s mug shot from the Police Department was prominently displayed in the print edition of the paper, it does not appear in the online edition.

Slumlord Situation

        The slumlord housing problems in Tall Mesa and elsewhere continue and a solution does not appear in sight. As Chuck Davis had  noted, he’s able to great Sun City’s vagrants as they wind up Eastern towards home with their Vons shopping carts in tow. Little was said at the Board meeting other than they are conferring with the Association’s attorney on what further action might be possible to help remedy these unfortunate situations.

On Protecting Property Values, Part II

        Since we are thinking about undesirable neighbors and property values, let us turn our head for a moment to the subject of undesirable or unappealing looking yards. We know that’s a recurring problem since we are always assessing fines for failure to landscape or to maintain landscaping. But isn’t there something more the Association can do that would remedy the situation in a more timely manner?

        Historically, homeowner associations (HOAs) go about the business of protecting member property values in a variety of ways. For example, recurring efforts will always be needed to maintain, repair and replace items making up our recreational facilities, amenities and common element areas. While few will quarrel with the need to perform those tasks and services, there will always be those who will be alert if not concerned about the expense of doing so since we as homeowners are annually assessed for the amounts needed to fund such expenditures. But we all pretty much agree that’s an accepted cost of living under the roof of an HOA.

        However, a different kind of situation exists on the other end of this HOA equation where our Association has a potentially unpleasant but very necessary duty to perform. At the other end of protecting our property values is the issue of how our HOA interfaces with the residents it serves. That’s where our covenants and rules come into play.

        Up until now we have grown accustomed to the role of the ARC in controlling design matters as well as the role of Barbara Thomas in helping to enforce certain community standards, such as landscaping, children, parking, barking dogs and an array of other nuisances and complaints. What we have not yet experienced is the role of our HOA in addressing other CC&Rs that are out there that more directly impact on our use of our so called “private” property.

        As we should know, HOAs in general and ours in particular have very extensive powers under our CC&Rs, powers that go far beyond the issue of attempting to control landscaping matters. Virtually all of us are only too anxious to see our neighbor’s yard properly landscaped with a friendly reminder, nudge or some other appropriate prompting by our HOA. Such prompting is almost always sufficient as fines escalate and liens are placed. But what should happen if our HOA is ignored? Do we really need to wait 6 months or a year or more before action is taken by a non-compliant homeowner to remedy the situation?

Try to answer this question for your home, neighborhood and community. At what point, if ever, should the HOA march on to another owner’s property and begin to assume control of the property, addressing in our example an unresponsive owner on the issue of failure to landscape? For our purpose, just assume the CC&Rs granted the HOA that power—do not forget that we all gave up certain property rights to the HOA when we signed those papers in purchasing our homes here. Whether owners like ERIC BLACK and other similar owners of properties here signed such documents is an entirely different matter and is not at issue here. We do not know what, if anything, he signed. So, what’s at stake for the HOA if it does nothing and ignores the CC&Rs or if it takes more aggressive action to correct a violation of the CC&Rs? And at what point do the interests of the HOA and the community it represents override the interests of an individual property owner? If you were on the Board, how would you draw that line? Clearly, there is a need to address these issues for the simple reason we are now being faced with with the need to do so.

Let’s say as a Board member you and your fellow members decide to take that plunge and have that needed landscaping installed at 123 Spring Lane Drive, or wherever. We assume the owner has been properly noticed and was afforded all opportunities to correct the violation and to appear at a hearing, but to no avail. The Association seeks legal advice and has been told that if you proceed to do the landscaping as planned, you are placing the HOA at risk of a law suit with an uncertain outcome, with money damages if we lose payable by the HOA, which, depending on the amount of the award, could also include all homeowners as a special assessment. While that latter prospect is indeed possible, even scary, the real question to answer is how likely is that adverse consequence to occur. You’ve listened to the legal advice and you decide to proceed as planned. The HOA incurs a cost of $8,000, pays for some type of watering service, and adds those expenses to any accruing lien on that property. The eyesore has been eliminated by the Association's action, as permitted under the CC&Rs.

        What’s the most likely outcome to the Association for taking such an action? Property values are maintained and no law suit is forthcoming. How do we know that will be the outcome? We don’t! But we are not engaged in high stakes roulette. We are dealing in the probability of legal action and that can be evaluated. Even if the Association is sued, that's a reasonable contingency to anticipate of running an association. That’s why we are living in an HOA and not down the street. We have a huge, mind you, collective investment to protect and the Board has not merely the duty but the means to protect that investment. And, yes, such efforts will require the Board to assume such risks in behalf of the community. While the Board may have a different scenario in mind, failure to be proactive in seeking to timely mitigate these concerns should not be an acceptable alternative.

Trumpets

        Oh, yes, the Trumpets standoff was briefly mentioned, but to no avail or report of any progress. One continues to get the impression that each side is waiting for the other side to blink, with Trumpets bringing their high stakes bargaining power to play by withholding their rent. The issue of lost rent should in no way bar the Board from seeking other options under the terms of the lease, even if that should mean our eventually securing a new vendor to operate Trumpets. Ironically, that option is becoming more and more attractive for the Association the longer this negotiation plays out.

        And, by the way, the lessee of Trumpet has yet to comply with our request for any financial documents requested by our accounting firm, although technically they have until sometime in April to do so.

On Getting it Wrong (According to Dave Weil).

        There was some pointed mention by President Dave Weil on the Board’s position concerning the application of the CC&Rs to the maintenance of fences. Dave was referring to my comments concerning the Board’s directive to the Property & Grounds Committee at their recent workshop. While Dave wanted to give the impression that I had somehow mislead the community on this matter, the fact is that Dave and I are in pretty much full agreement on what direction the Board had given the P&G Committee.

        Let's go back a bit. At the workshop, after several members of the Board had expressed their desire to scuttle P&G’s proposal to include all fencing in Sun City—consistent by the language in the CC&Rs, the Chairman of P&G took repeated steps and great pains to elicit from Mr. Weil the sense of the Board on this matter. That sense was clear and unequivocal—drop the overall community from P&G’s original proposal and focus only on fencing on or facing Association property. No one should misunderstand the implications of Mr. Weil’s directive to the P&G Committee. [See Board Workshop and the language of the referenced CC&Rs.]

        Mr. Weil would like members in attendance at the meeting to think that the issue was or could be resolved by allowing members to “opt in” when the painters arrive on the scene. But that does not make any sense, particularly in light of the language of the CC&Rs, which the Board is choosing to ignore. The plain and undisputed fact of the matter is that the Board was taking a giant step backwards by telling P&G to draw up a proposal that would maintain Association fencing only. That one decision more than any other tells the community where the Board stands on the future of Sun City as a viable homeowners association community.  

        The Board’s message to the community is simply is that when it comes to enforcement of the CC&Rs, the Board is more than willing to selectively relinquish their duty to maintain the community in a manner that is proscribed by the CC&Rs. Without effective administration of the CC&Rs, the future of Sun City will be under a cloud, until it is too late to do anything about it as we slowly head our community down that slippery slope to an eventual state of disrepair. The first time the Board takes us down that slippery road will be the last opportunity the community will have to do the right thing for the simple reason that it will be difficult if not impossible to reverse that direction.

        If one did not know differently, some might believe the Board has been infected by a bad case of libertarian mumbo-jumbo, such as, let’s give our members the option to decide on their own when or if they wish to comply with the CC&Rs. We did not chose to live in a community where the expectation was that the CC&Rs would be flaunted, or worse, ignored by the Board. Those adopting that philosophy should be living elsewhere or at a minimum should not be on a Board running an association that should be committed to enforcing the Association’s CC&Rs in behalf of the entire community. 

        And lastly, least the Board not forget, all perimeter wall fencing throughout Sun City that was installed by the Developer is safety related fencing. As a result, the Board (or the Anthem Council) has a unique duty to see to it that ALL such fencing is properly maintained, whether on my property or on your property. The CC&Rs reflect that understanding, while our current Board members have apparently refused to go in that direction.

        While our Board has a severe case of near sightedness and “let’s take a vote” mentality, that peculiar “now” philosophy can do real damage and ill serves the community’s long-term welfare and interests. The “now” philosophy says that only the “now” really matters and concerns only what feels good now. That point of view poses a real danger for our community, actually for any community that has real and legitimate long-term interests at stake.

        Instead of “now” thinkers, the Board needs to have leaders who exhibit an abiding and deep concern for the long-term welfare of Sun City and not merely relying on a straw poll or a show of hands for this or that proposition of the moment. That is simply no way to run a homeowner’s association, especially one as grand as the one we are privileged to live in.

        But let’s say for the moment the Board screws up and does not mend their ways and goes for the disastrous “let George decide” fence maintenance plan. And as a result, way into the future we end up with thousands of lineal feet of iron fencing that was not maintained because the Board back in 2006 decided not to enforce the CC&Rs on fence maintenance—those homeowners chose not to “opt in” to the Association’s "let George decide for himself" painting program. Now, after 30 years of neglect, while looking OK from a distance, that fence has some very serious weaknesses due to rusting joints. Now that 2006 Board fully understood that when they made their “opt-in” decision. But what they did not plan for was that after 30 years or so, or even sooner, ALL of that fencing that was not properly maintained over this period will begin to show signs of serious deterioration. That’s what happens to unprotected iron over time. So that when granddaughter Betty is playing in the yard or great-grandmother Lucy, etc., leans on that weakened fence, there is a potential and very real liability issue facing the Association in the event of a tragic accident or death, whether that fall is 5 feet or 20 feet.

        Hopefully for the sake of the community, the Association will want to reconsider their position and responsibility not merely to please the fleeting whims of a few but to demonstrate the leadership that is needed to act in behalf of the long-term welfare, interests and maintenance of the entire community.

Waterfalls.

        Again the Board seems bent on taking the shortsighted “now” approach when it comes down to a decision to preserve an already existing amenity, albeit one that is currently turned off. That the Board is fixated on the idea to dump the waterfalls feature is just one more symptom that the Board is anxious to run away from assuming responsibility for the long-terms interests of the community. Again, and as demonstrated at the Board meeting, the “show of hands” mentality was on full display for this matter. But relying on a poll to reinforce a decision is not why we have a Board of Directors, although we recognize that Boards may want to utilize such a tactic when they do not wish to take responsibility for their actions, especially when it comes down to a matter of spending money.

        While Mr. Weil is fast with his cost figures, suggesting an outlay of $150,000, for the removal and replacement of turf with desert landscaping, it’s very likely that Dave has yet to give us the complete waterfalls picture. Having now peaked your interest in this matter, I will beg off for the moment as I hope to be able to send out some additional information this coming week that I hope will be helpful.  

Lifestyle Committee Recommendations on Gallery Reconfiguration   (To see Recommendations, click here.)

        Ouch! In the end, it was all about politics and running for the Board!

        It blows my mind that the Lifestyle Committee (LC), following months of opportunities for community input, internal study and consideration, was able to come up with the one recommendation that would generate the loudest outcry and the most opposition. And the sad thing about that is that their confrontation with table players could have been adroitly avoided altogether if they had done one simple thing—no reduction in the number of playing tables for mahjongg and card players. Would that have been possible while still adding lounge chairs to several tables? Sure,[1] but in the end, the LC made their decision to add lounge chairs at the expense of the table players.

        It had always been a foregone conclusion that pool tables would leave the lower gallery after the opening the Independence Center’s ten table pool room, the only issue being how many pool tables would stay behind for some drop-in play. That decision, just to remind everyone, was the reason the Board had looked to the LC for guidance on lower gallery reconfiguration, coupled with the promise to return shuffleboard to the lower gallery. But with ten high quality pool tables sitting pretty much unused across the parking lot, was there really any need for pool tables in the lower gallery. And, you shouldn’t be surprised to find that those players who are regularly snookering around in the lower gallery are using their privately owned pool cue. What does that tell you?

        And further compounding the problems to be faced by the LC was the unfortunate reception they were given by the Board upon presentation of their report.[2] Regrettably, the LC did not have the foresight to understand the Board would be so unbelievably weak-kneed to cripple their decision-making capacity to take final action on approving the Committee’s recommendations. But in light of the political realities of running for the Board, who could have guessed that some members of the Board would have behaved like savvy politicians running for office and playing the crowd. Were we entitled to expect more from our Board. Yes, indeed.

Ron Johnson

26 March 2003

P.S. For those who do not read the AC, check out the end paragraph of footnote #2 immediately below.

When faced with a group of concerned residents,

the appearance of decisiveness and action is all that is needed

         While the Board was meeting on the pressing subject of investment policy, why not at the same time throw a needed bone to the community as well. Preferring to lie low and do no harm while election are pending, given that three challengers were eagerly looking to oust three board members, the Board decided to emerge for a timely game of "Let's Pretend," as in "let's pretend we're in control and can actually do something about this mess we're embroiled in at the moment." If only the Board could give these residents a perception of decisiveness and resolution, however miniscule that might be, how great would that be? And best of all, those in control of the Board could slink back to their lairs as winners, with nary a vote lost in the upcoming election.

Residents generally and especially those living in Tall Mesa Village were relieved at first to learn that when pressed by circumstances and member concerns, the Board can be responsive to community concerns in a timely manner. And so it was on this date that about 100 residents attended this special board meeting, not to hear about investment plans, but to learn what action was being taken to remove the presence of undesirable elements living on Hickory Valley Rd. With the announcement of criminal elements and the presence of slum conditions on your door step, little wonder residents were both outraged and concerned for their safety and valued lifestyle.

        It was clear that the Board was searching for ideas that might help bring the matter of housing use and compliance with community regulations under more effective control, not only in this Tall Mesa situation but elsewhere in the community where a select group of homeowners are unwilling to abide by standards that we as owners subscribe to. It was also clear that the Board was less well informed about what was happening at the moment at the property in question, believing incorrectly that occupancy matters had been resolved when in fact, as reported by nearby residents, that was not the case.

Also troubling was our apparent inability to physically identify the owner of the property other than by name, ERIC BLACK, who Dave Weil declared was missing at that moment. Of course when you are dealing with properties that are being flipped by one unknown to another unknown in presumably an all cash transaction, the question of ownership can become quite murky. Whether those folks who investigate possible money laundering activities will want to get involved is matter far away from our immediate concerns.  

After listening intently to 20 or so speakers who had expressed deep concerns or offered helpful suggestions, the Board acted on a recommendation of the Covenants Committee to fine the owner a maximum of $100 a week for each of five violations of the CC&Rs, for a total of $2,000 a month.

While some residents seemed satisfied with this result, it was clear the Board was essentially helpless to deal meaningfully and effectively with the real issues that were at stake—the safety, welfare and lifestyle of homeowners who chose to live in our community. As we learned, the particular CC&Rs we are living under here were designed essentially to protect the community from unintended actions by well meaning homeowners and from homeowners who are ultimately amenable to reason, good sense and who eventually want to do the right thing. What that says is that the CC&Rs are essentially worthless to protect the community from gross abuse by certain homeowners, as some residents were saying as they left the meeting.

If there is any lesson to be learned from this experience, including the Board’s action to fine the owner, the Nevada statutes and our CC&Rs are admittedly ineffective as a change or corrective mechanism in attempting to deal with homeowners who have no interest in or connection to the community other than as a potential source of income. It’s quite unfair to blame the Board for their action or inaction in these circumstances since their powers to intercede or take corrective action are severely limited by law.  

On the other hand, members should know that the Board does have a specific duty under law to enforce the provisions of the governing documents of the association. That duty to act should not be taken lightly by members of the Board or members of the community looking for action. But how can the Board even attempt to enforce our governing documents if they have no idea who really owns the homes that make up the membership of the association. In the past, the Board had no interest in knowing the particulars of home ownership. Today, however, that omission and attitude may prove inadequate in light of the messes we are presently encountering. 

 While it's clear the Board should know who owns each and every unit making up the Association, it’s equally clear that reasonable measures should be taken to assure that each and every owner is in fact fully apprised of their duties and obligations under our CC&Rs. As a practical matter, though, the urgency of doing so is especially relevant in only a handful of suspicious or questionable ownership cases. For the Board to rely on only the owner’s “address of record,” a record that can prove to be inadequate or outright false or misleading, may no longer be a sufficient reason for the Board to proclaim ignorance and a basis for doing nothing. In these more troubling ownership cases, the Board may be required to take additional steps to provide appropriate legal notice to owners, if only to protect the Association in the event of future action.     

For those who may not be aware, an owner is nothing more than a legal entity who owns a record title to a lot in Sun City Anthem. As a result, such an “owner” is NOT required to be “age-qualified.” It can be anyone, anywhere. However, an owner is required to comply with all Governing Documents of the Association. That provision gets us back to the issue of persons who are lawful occupants under our Governing Documents. In general, it is only that person or occupant of the dwelling unit on the lot who is required to be “age-qualified.” That gets us back down to the renter. 

But interestingly an owner of a lot has very specific duties to perform when that lot is sold or transferred, as mandated by Article 19.[1] Not only do the CC&Rs mandate the owner provide timely notice of transfer information to the Association, but it also empowers the Association to seek whatever additional information about the purchaser or transferee the Board deems necessary. With such a tool available, the Board should be able to acquire information voluntarily or not, or the Board can even go after information it feels is needed. And finally, there is a presumption (?) that the Board may even be able to penalize an errant owner for their failure to comply, although what that penalty might be is unclear.

Since the Board has not been disposed to seek such information from owners in the past, let alone compliance with Article 19, regretfully it follows that there is no compelling interest for an owner to comply. Hopefully, this lost opportunity, as small as it is, will not go unnoticed by the Board and will be soon corrected.

As we sadly learned at the meeting, any corrective or mitigating process that would serve to eliminate this ongoing scourge on our community can take years to resolve with an uncooperative property owner.  

So, how come? Why do we have these unconcerned owners and what are they up to? Are they looking to cause a sufficient community outrage or nuisance so that they can recover their substantial property loses with a buy out from Pulte or someone else? Or, is this situation merely a matter of the owner wanting to generate some needed income on their losing investment?  

Here is one possible explanation. While the specifics may not apply in all instances, the general problem for real estate investors started back in 2004 when property values here were escalating rapidly. This created an unrealistic expectation of future riches for investors, assuming that market values would continue to grow. When the real estate bubble was shattered in 2004, coupled with Pulte’s decision to reduce the price of new homes by up to $100,000, that left some investors holding properties they could ill afford to sell. For example, their $500,000 investment was soon worth no more than $400,000, or less in many cases. Under pressure to generate some income at any cost, our real estate investors were looking to rent to virtually anyone, restrictions and covenants notwithstanding. While our current real estate market is slowly getting back to normal, no one is forecasting the kind of real estate price inflation that was witnessed back in the 2003-04 period.

Ron Johnson

19 March 2006

Children Living in the Community. The Association and the Board want members to know they are actively pursuing all available means to see that only age qualified residents are renting homes in the community. Members having specific information about potential violations of the CC&Rs should contact the Community Standards Director, Barbara Thomas at 614-5811.

Teacher Volunteers and Insurance.  Residents volunteering their teaching services at SCA-sponsored club events for no compensation are NOT required to purchase or have separate liability coverage for that purpose. Persons who receive compensation for providing such teaching services are understood to need liability coverage. Further clarification, however, may be needed in the case of members who teach a class in a, b or c for which there is a charge for attendance. The existence of such a charge for the class would seem to place that member in the same light as someone who is brought in from the outside and is paid to teach any given class or event.

Heart Defibrillators.  With the proposed purchase of one more, there will be three heart defibrillators available in case of need, one in the fitness center, one at the front desk area, and one at Independence Center.

Golf Cart Lane.  The Board’s Traffic Survey recommendations letter to the City will include a request for a golf cart lane on Hampton Road.

Spirit Magazine Delivery Issues.  Spirit delivery issues should be a thing of the past. As reported by Dave Weil, the Postal Service’s District Director just happens to live in our community and, wouldn’t you known, his February Spirit was delivered late. Following his inquiry into the matter, we gather late delivery problems will not occur in the future.   

Trumpets.  Dave Weil reported that negotiations with the lessee of Trumpets are at a “sensitive” stage. It’s difficult to know whether the term “sensitive” is intended to suggest that progress is actually being made, that there is an ongoing dialogue, or that we have reached an impasse and are awaiting further developments.

Dave Weil reported that the lessee was current in their basic rent payments as of August 2005. Since that time, the lessee has not paid any rent, due at the rate of $10,000 a month.

In terms of any additional monies that might be due the Association based on achieving a certain defined level of gross proceeds, Dave reported that we have not received any monies from the lessee in 2004 and 2005. This does not necessarily mean the lessee is in arrears on the gross proceeds section of the lease since the Association is not due any monies unless the amount of the gross proceeds exceeds a predetermined level. However, the issue remains: just what were the lessee’s gross proceeds in 2004 and 2005? Do we merely rely on the word of the lessee that nothing is due? Or, is the lessee withholding some undetermined amount that is owed?

Of course, the really big and unanswered question to resolve with the lessee is what monies shall go into the proceeds kitty that makes up the “gross” figure. Does the gross proceeds figure include a, b, c, d, and e, as we might believe it should, or does it include only “a” and “b?” And, even if we can agree on what goes into the pie, there remains a question on what data is available from the lessee to generate the proper figures. But that's why forensic accountants exist.

Since the Association is entitled under the terms of the lease to conduct an audit of the records of the lessee to ascertain whether we are receiving what we are owed, we (through an accounting firm) have made a formal request of the company to examine their records.

Gallery Reconfiguration.   Looks like another Lifestyle Committee workshop is scheduled for March as well as a March decision on what to do with the lower gallery. And look for another well packed meeting room, with bows and verbal arrows ready to sling at members of the Lifestyle Committee at the center of the bull's-eye. Kay Dwyer will find it difficult convincing the audience that she is only the messenger.

Goodbye Upper Waterfalls.  While the Property & Grounds Committee was looking for needed guidance on how to proceed on the upper waterfalls issue, the Board was looking for an exit strategy on this hot potato issue. Faced with a reported $120,000+ bid to remove “x” number of square feet of sod & re-landscape to satisfy the City’s demands, the Board is looking to avoid this issue and their responsibility by asking the community whether, to quote Dave Weil’s kiss of death message, “do we really want to spend that kind of money for this purpose.” Perhaps I had expected more, but that sounded like a pencil pusher’s comment from a former Finance Committee Chair looking for a quick and unacceptable fix in lieu of engaging in efforts to retain a valued, long-term aesthetic enhancement to our community.  

It’s regrettable and troubling when the Board comes before the community to announce, in effect, they have already thrown in the towel at the start of the round. Did we miss the fight? Instead of signing a death warrant on the waterfalls feature, one would hope there are some on the Board who are willing to take on the challenge of attempting to overcome the obstacles facing the Association in preserving this very attractive water feature. 

Bocce Court Resurfacing.  Members of the Board were effusive in their glad slapping on each other's backs as they approved $28,700 to upgrade (resurface) the bocce courts. Was that new money or money from the reserve account? No doubt happy and eager to meet the desires of the 500+ member bocce club, the Board moved quickly to put their imperator on this expenditure. While more is always preferable, never mind that the Bocce Club, according to one prominent board member, has no real need for these courts when the new courts at RC3 come on line in late 2007. Or, are we learning that in achieving this upgrade, the Bocce Club has agreed to abandon their claim on the use of space that originally had been set aside at RC3 for bocce play?

Veterans Group Gets Two Thumbs Up.  After several false starts, Colonel Blum and his proposed Veterans organization now have the Board’s approval to form a special interest group in Sun City.

The Clarion Newspaper.  Overcoming the odds and the well established adage that the dead cannot rise up to live, The Clarion newspaper business plan is beginning to show signs of a heartbeat. While the newspaper business plan may have achieved some signs of life, what they do not realize is that they will be running up against the reality of their eventual demise. The crisis in the print newspaper industry generally is very real. Newspapers are making massive cuts in staff wherever they can and fewer people are reading newspapers. But why, you may ask, should the demise of print news nationally have any lessons for a locally produced newspaper to a defined population of Sun City residents? The answer lies in the same reasons impacting the print news industry. According to those chronicling this demise, print news is fast losing interest and readership to two unalterable forces: people are getting their news from television and they are getting it online. Fortunately for Sun City and unfortunately for
The Clarion, these two communication vehicles, Channel 99 TV and the Association’s website, are destined to be “the” primary news and information vehicles for the community.

There is no reason to conclude that by 2008 (when the Developer has moved on), Channel 99 TV will not have the capacity and the ability to broadcast if not that day’s newsworthy events at least the previous day’s events in their nightly news program, among providing other informative programming. Teams of desperately needed writers and editors will be needed to produce copy to satisfy the more immediate and pressing needs of TV and internet productions, not to produce a newspaper that will always be updated and outdated by their arch-rival and superior “company owned” communication vehicles.  

The SCA Traffic Survey Letter to the City of Henderson

As we had already reported, the Ad-Hoc Traffic Survey Committee had reported their ranking results and made their traffic control recommendations. By the time you read this, the Board has followed up with their promised letter to the City.

While the Board’s letter to the City likely benefited from a spell check program, we were too late in our efforts to correct what we found to be a very serious problem with the underlying data forming the basis for the Committee’s conclusions. Hopefully, the City will not even look at the data and will accept the Board’s letter on its face. Rather than go into details here, it’s sufficient to say that when dealing with data, the Board would be well served in the future by first consulting with someone from the community who is trained in handling statistical data in determining what can and what cannot be concluded from the data.

The Community Leadership Council. Say what? 

When it comes down to the Community Leadership Council, otherwise known as the Oversight Committee, it was little wonder that Board Member Bob Sansing listened in stark bewilderment as he heard about this strange appendage that sits apart from and acts independently of the Board and the Association. How could that be, Bob, a relative newcomer to Sun City, no doubt wondered? Surely, his logical mind must have told him there is nothing here in Sun City that is superior to or acting in behalf of the community that the Board has no control over. Bob must have concluded that such an arrangement makes little sense. Yes, Bob, you are likely correct, the arrangement does not make much sense.  

While the Board “could” decide on its own to inject itself into Community-wide matters, such as Focus Groups roadway plans west of Sun City, or other developer plans in and around the greater Anthem community, the Board has apparently decided to abdicate that role to the Oversight Committee. That abdication, mind you, is a decision of the Board, and is not one that was in any way mandated as a result of any ad-hoc agreement in 2002 between Pulte and six members of the then leadership team. If the Board wishes to involve itself in such matters, it may do so, independently of the Oversight Committee. 

The obvious problem, of course, is that the Developer has already found one partner, the OC, to deal with on such matter and the Developer has no interest in having to deal with two partners on similar issues, even while recognizing that the Board has a fiduciary responsibility to the members, while the OC no such responsibility, is without any legal standing, and represents no one but themselves. That arrangement works just fine for the Developer as they can avoid having to deal with the Board on matters of potential mutual concern, which serves their interests.

Favil West, or was that Bob Berman, two members of the OC, took pains to tell Bob Sansing and the audience that the OC makes no decisions and takes no action. The OC was portrayed as nothing more than a facilitator of the community’s will. For example, if 10 other residents show up a meeting on a developer related matter noted by the OC, by golly, we are led to believe that it is those 10 other people who will decide for Sun City what Sun City’s position is on this or that developer matter. Is that how our resident-controlled Board really wants to run the community and protect our interests? Apparently so!

Mr. West was being unnecessarily modest. What Mr. West omitted from his discourse was the overwhelming influence if not the actual power the OC has to control Sun City’s destiny in matters affecting developer issues. That’s no little responsibility. It seems that the OC is in no way restricted in how, when or where it conducts the community’s business. Take, for example, the role played by the OC in their dealings with the Focus Group. There was no community input, let alone any mandate to proceed. And proceed to do what? What the OC did in that instance was to assume a very major role in ostensibly representing the community’s very real traffic and egress concerns when, at best, the OC was attempting to preserve the terms of their own agreement with Pulte, which the Focus Group acquisition had effectively nullified with their successful bid.[1] Del Webb had made certain promises to the community about mitigating our traffic concerns. The OC was the only vehicle available to address those concerns and to confront Del Webb on their promises to the community.  

And then what happened? For the longest time, the OC then proceeded to stonewall any attempt to address those very same traffic concerns that had been raised so prominently back in the spring of 2002. Instead of knocking at Del Webb’s door demanding that they act on their promise to mitigate the community’s traffic concerns, what did the OC do? For inexplicable reasons, the OC did nothing. Favil told us the OC would do nothing and there was nothing for Del Webb to mitigate. Something was terribly wrong but the community was left in the dark and clueless. The OC had essentially sided with the Developer who, unbeknown to the community, more than two years earlier had washed their hands of the traffic matter by not disclosing that their promises to the community to mitigate our traffic concerns meant absolutely nothing.   

So, in the end, the OC is what it wants to be, when it wants to, which may or may not be in the community’s interest as viewed by the Board.

Then Bob Sansing went on to ask what some may regard as the $64,000 question. Just how does one get a seat on the Oversight Committee? If my recollection serves me well, that question was not answered. The short answer is that no one can get a seat on the Committee. But even if you (or anyone else for that matter) could get a seat on the Committee, a seat is no guarantee of one’s participation or involvement in the community’s business. The OC is not unlike an amorphous blob that comes together at the will of its leader, Favil West, to meet this or that need. There may be as few as 2 OC members, or 3, 4 or 5 Committee members doing the work of the Community’s will. At one point, Favil was quoted as defining the shape of the OC as consisting of only three persons in their on going negotiations with the Focus Group. Favil wrote in the AC in September 2004 as follows: “As I mentioned to you in previous issues of the Anthem Compendium, the Focus Group is working closely with Bob Berman, Len Penn and myself to make the west Henderson project a good neighbor to SCA.” That group also included Dick Sovde on occasion and on other occasions only two OC members were needed to handle the affairs of the community in their negotiations with Focus Group, Favil West and the late Len Penn.  

So how many OC members are there? Actually, Bob, there were 6, made up of the original Ad-Hoc core group that negotiated that spring 2004 Agreement with our then new Pulte managers: Favil West, Bob Berman, Dick Sovde, Len Penn, Carol Chapman and Lorraine Kennett. With the passing of Mr. Penn and Dick’s move to Washington state, along with Lorraine’s inactivity, the OC has only three warm bodies remaining. While one might think the OC would be looking to broaden their community representation or mandate by adding new members to the OC, do not hold your breath. That will not happen.

On the other hand, the Board may decide whether the community’s best interests are being met by the efforts of the OC by the Board’s apparent decision to lay low and drop from sight on “developer” matters that potentially affect the community. By the way, those “developer matters” the Board has so conveniently decided to avoid assuming any responsibility for include any and all Del Webb/Pulte matters that affect or impact on Anthem, including Sun City. This is not to suggest that the might of our dynamic troika, Carol, Bob and Favil, are not broad enough to shoulder this tremendous responsibility on their own. No, indeed. But we do question the Board’s apparent decision to remain conspicuous by their refusal to step forward and take a more active, participant role in developer-related matters.

Clearly, the Developer anticipated a continuing relationship and dialogue with what Chris Haines then referred to in May 2003 as the “community’s leadership” going forward, and the establishment of a "Community Leadership Council."

What the community did not anticipate, however, was that that special relationship would fall by default on the shoulders of only three people by 2006, especially following transition in 2005 to a member controlled board.  While the “community’s leadership” has gone through substantial changes since 2003, there has been no corresponding changes in the makeup of or the role being assumed by the OC.

Ron Johnson

27 February 2006

            Despite the call of trumpets announcing the significance of this board meeting, too few members answered the call. Take away the large Pinnacle contingent concerned about mounting CC&R noncompliance issues and those who were there to honor the achievements of Dick Cancellier as the past Chief of the all volunteer Security Patrol, and you will find most of the usual suspects in attendance.   

            As diligent as our Board would like to be in all matters involving the business of the Association, things just seem to pop up here and there to remind them of a corollary of Murphy’s rule about things going wrong. Take, or example, the failure of members to pay their annual assessments or to landscape in a timely matter. That this topic has been covered in previous board meetings is not too comforting or reassuring, notwithstanding assurances by all concerned that we are on top of this, or that we are all caught up now. Despite such efforts, these important matters have continued to slip through the cracks. While the good news is, “Yes,” we fine members and, when appropriate, we lien properties, the bad news is that the Board is occasionally presented with an unwelcome surprise to learn of glaring omissions in the process. As but ONE example, there was no reason to explain why someone who had not paid their annual assessment (or did any landscaping) for an entire year should not have been put in lien status. Dave Weil said that discussions with the accounting staff on the process and problems are continuing!

Dick Cancellier.

            The Board took special note of the dedicated and selfless efforts of Security Patrol Chief Dick Cancellier and the efforts of the hundreds since inception who have volunteered their services to the Security Patrol. Dick was recognized for his 2003-05 service by Bob Berman, who presented Dick with a plaque from the Board. In accepting the plaque, Dick said he will miss those 2 a.m. phone calls he used to receive as a designated watch commander. Bob mentioned that the patrol service, when starting out under his initial leadership as an idea needing volunteers, now has three automobiles working 24/7, patrolling 6 shifts a days, with over 100 current members volunteering more than 18,000 hours and driving 70,000 miles in 2005. An incredible accomplishment. Thanks Bob and Dick. I believe the Patrol’s new Chief, Roland Parsons, is looking forward to redirecting some of those late night calls to Dick so that Dick does not lose touch with his volunteer comrades. The Patrol has a continuing and pressing need for members who can volunteer 4 hours a week since the Patrol is falling short in their ability to meet the needs of all available 4-hour shifts in a week (numbering 42 shifts each week).   

DW’s Largess and Independence Center.

            The reported recorded transfer of Independence Center to the Association 10 days ago brought to a close negotiations between DW and the Association over the so called “completion” issues involving the Independence Center project, which included the bathroom-less Community Service Building. With that, the Association had been initially looking for DW to pony up about $500,000 for the Association to complete the building in a manner deemed acceptable. It’s doubtful whether DW was ever aware of that amount, an all inclusive guesstimate at best. Since then, DW said they would give us $100,000 to meet our “completion” needs. Negotiations were slow to begin on that issue. Only recently did the parties get down to business on the bottom line and our list of priority items. That list became what some refer to as the “A” List,” suggesting that some items were on and others were off of the “A” List. It’s unclear whether those that did not make the “A” List made any list at all, like a “B” List or whether they were simply shunted on to the acknowledged “W” List, or the  “Wish” list. One gathers that DW’s prior funding agreement to complete the woodshop never made it on to any list at all, which in large part explains why the woodshop has laid dormant for months and has yet to open.  

               But DW has not been laying down on the “completion” job. On the contrary, DW has been very busy of late doing and redoing all kinds of good works, as Dave Weil related. Some of those work items include: installation of ceiling lights in the Library; repairing the soffit in Freedom Hall; fixing the popped floor in the aerobics room; re-fixing the popped floor in the aerobics room; repair landscape drainage issues; install drainage grate & correct fall at back stage door; security wiring; sidewalk repair; parking lot repair; network phone line; will move two palm trees and provide an additional one; will tint windows to eliminate offending glare; will come back and revisit window glare issue in 2007 to see if additional work (shades) are needed. 

            With all those finishing touches being provided, was there anything else DW could do? Oh, yes, DW agreed to secure that all important new and more thorough reserve study to replace the old inadequate one. Plus, there will be a window installed in the back door exit of the Community Service Bldg.  

            Anything else DW could do?  Indeed, there was something else. Those recent negotiations also resulted in DW agreeing to provide the Association with a check for $250,000, presented at the meeting, which, we are told, will go towards completing items on that “A” List. However, of that $250,000, $70,000 has been earmarked for a security system, leaving the impression that particular amenity feature may not be among the items on the “A” List. So, what’s left for the “A” List items? Roughly $180,000.   

            The Board needs to provide members with an accounting or breakdown on the following: 1) just what those $180,000 will purchase from the “A” List; 2) what “A” List items will not be funded from that gift; 3) the cost to the Association of funding from their own monies “A” List items not picked up by DW’s check; and 4) the cost to the Association of funding the remaining items on the “W” or Wish List. And, last but not least, the cost of purchasing a range of small tools for the woodshop promised but not provided by Del Webb.

Third Recreation Center.

            Dave Weil expressed three concerns the Board is or will be dealing with in the future. These concerns are: 1) grading; 2) site plan and amenities; and 3) floor plans. At the moment, it appears that DW is not at the stage to provide us with any details about their plans for the site.  It’s unclear whether site grading of this corner plot will be a function of existing street levels, which elevations change substantially from the upper to the lower level. The current grading clears the site at a level more consistent with the lower elevation. An alternate grading plan could do the same but at a level more consistent with the upper elevation, but that would require a substantial amount of fill, while raising the overall elevation of the amenity.

Trumpets. 

            Negotiations have been going very slowly. What’s new, though, is the Board’s decision to seek the services of an accounting firm to conduct an audit of Trumpets. No, this is not an audit of that $100,000 indebtedness that was zeroed out last year. That’s a non-issue. Instead, the proposed audit is an audit of gross proceeds. Under the terms of the lease, the Association is entitled to a percentage of the gross proceeds to ascertain compliance with the revenue sharing provisions of the lease. Further, the lease permits the Association to have such an audit performed. A number of forensic accounting firms were considered in the search process conducted by Jack Troia, Chairman of the Finance Committee. Selected was the firm of Bradshaw, Smith & Co. This company will then send the lessee of Trumpets a formal “Request for Information,” detailing the records that will be needed for the audit.  

            As we understand matters, this is merely the beginning of a process to initiate an audit. However, this does not mean there will be an actual audit conducted. In other words, whether and under what conditions an audit will be conducted is yet to be determined, depending on the nature of the response by the lessee of Trumpets to the Association’s formal request. Stay tuned.

RMI.

            Welcome to Sun City RMI!  It was a pleasure for the audience to meet our new management company officials, Kevin Wallace and Karen DuBose. Mr. Wallace made a brief presentation to the Board. The Board approved the dated 19 February contract with RMI. RMI will hold an informational meeting for staff on February 6^th at 1:30 p.m. in Freedom Hall. We were told that all members are welcome to attend this meeting and that RMI officials will be available to answer any and all questions. The effective date of RMI’s contract is 1 February.

Board Votes to Kill Proposal for the Veterans Special Interest Group.

Expressing concerns about Colonel Blum’s proposed Veterans organization, but without any substantive explanation behind their decision, the Board voted to kill the Lifestyle Committee’s recommendation for approval of this Special Interest Group. In contrast to the practices currently in place at Del Webb’s Sun City Grand, where any group, including national selective membership organizations, may form as a Special Interest Group, our Board prefers to restrict and micromanage the process to their own liking.

Election Committee

Committee Chair David Berman announced there will be no forums this years, where generalized (and gotcha) questions can be asked of the candidates. However, there will be two “Meet the Candidates” sessions plus what must seem as an exhausting 4 debates to be held in Freedom Hall.

Upper Water Falls.

            Something very troubling and quite unusual is going on concerning the status of the Upper Water Falls. We are now told that the Upper Water Falls issue is one of deciding between two quite unacceptable alternatives: either the Association A) incurs the cost of conversion, from bids starting at $124,000, or B) we get a rebate from the water authority for not using the falls. But why are we even talking about a rebate?

While Del Webb had picked up the cost of conversion of the lower falls, DW has managed somehow to avoid getting itself wet on the upper falls issue. Since the falls serve no different purpose, be they upper or lower falls, DW’s disappearance from the upper falls scene is very troubling. To the community, it makes little aesthetic or marketing difference for that matter that the upper falls are on SCACAI grounds as opposed to Anthem Council grounds. We can only hope that our folks are not finished talking with DW about this matter and that the Association will not be forced to confront a no-win Hobson’s Choice.

Ron Johnson

27 January 2006

Who's Interested in the Truth?

Firstservice and Defamation Lawsuits 

Occasionally, rumors are more satisfying, whether true or not. Take, for example, the rumor circulating that union organizing activities in Florida explains Firstservice company's filing defamation lawsuits against homeowners. We can all accept the fact that things can get pretty nasty when a union is attempting to organize your company's almost 3,000 employees. As a result, so the story goes, it would seem that we should be able to conveniently dismiss as irrelevant those defamation lawsuits when negotiating with our local Firstservice company here in Las Vegas. End of story!

Fact or Rumor?

But wait. Is that story just that, a nice story based on fact, or are we dealing with something quite different? And, for that matter whether we're looking at fact or fiction, does anyone really care at this point. After all, it's evident to most folks that a management company decision has already been made and has only to be announced, although we will be told that that decision has yet to be made. 

If there is one thing that can put a real damper on a planned announcement, it is information that is unexpected and not welcome. But like most unwelcome events, they typically can be overcome in most cases by a skillful show and tell to ward off the occasional skeptic or naysayer. And soon enough we will all be feeling good again, blessing the decisions and actions that were taken by the Board on our behalf. So, we are not to worry.

But what about that nice rumor? Suing homeowners for defamation can be best explained as a company response to efforts by a very aggressive union to organize workers of The Continental Group, a Firstservice company.[1] That's a real bummer, regardless of the reason, true or untrue. But in this case, can we really blame this on the union and their efforts to organize the company. The short answer is, "No."

It's true that the SEIU is an aggressive union and has been actively engaged in attempting to organize The Continental Group, Florida’s largest property management employer. But what can we say about the union's connection to those disturbing lawsuits?

We can say two things: 1) The union has not been reluctant to advertise or bad mouth Continental’s so called “bad acts,” including the fact of Continental’s suing homeowners; and 2) The union has apparently written that Continental has a “habit” of suing residents and board members who complain about the company’s services. We know this because Continental tells us so on their website.

In all of this there is one very important point to consider: Continental does NOT dispute the union’s claim of their having sued residents and board members. What Continental’s disputes, however, is whether such suits constitute a “habit” on the part of the company. Here is how Continental deals with this issue on their website.[2] 

SEIU Union claims Continental has a habit of suing residents and board members who complain about the company's services.

The Facts
• For over 30 years, Continental and its affiliates have managed an ever increasing number of residential units that now totals more than one-half million and provides homes to almost two million individual residents. During this period, Continental has only been involved in four lawsuits to defend its reputation and business.

Please note that in their statement Continental makes no claim that their past suits against residents have anything to do with SEIU’s organizing efforts. There is a very good reason for that. The SEIU local, Local 11, attempting to organize Florida workers in the property management industry, was not in existence at the time the company brought their legal actions against homeowners back in 2000 and 2001.

Local 11 came into existence in 2004. Prior to that there was no SEIU local representing or attempting to represent property management workers in the greater Miami area, while prior to 2004 there were other SEIU Locals in the area representing health care workers. An article published in a Florida business journal in early 2005 noted the “set up” efforts of the SEIU, stating that “The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 11 has set up shop in Miami Beach, with plans to organize an estimated 8,000 condo workers across Miami-Dade and Broward counties.”[3]

        In point of fact, there were 4 defamation lawsuits against homeowners in 2000, one in 2001 and one in 2004. In the June 2004 suit, a union representative advised me they had some prior contact with the plaintiff in that instance. From a total of 6 defamation law suits, 5 occurred several years prior to the presence of any management company organizing efforts.

Much To Do About Nothing?

       OK, then, whatever unsavory legal actions that took place in Florida stays in Florida. That was 4-5 years ago and has nothing to do with our proposed contract here in Las Vegas. Perhaps we can all agree that Firstservice’s management style of suing homeowners would not win the “Best Practices” management style award of the year.

• So what that Continental (owned by Firstservice since 1997) sued homeowners in 2000-01;
• And so what that such suits were brought against homeowners who complained about the company and their alleged misdeeds at committee or board meetings;
• And so what that 5 such defamation suits in 2000-01 had nothing to do with union’s 2004-05 efforts to organize the company;
• And so what that the then co-founders of Continental are now corporate officials in charge of Firstservice’s Property Management multinational operations; and
• And never mind that Firstservice’s Florida revenue generates about one-quarter of Firstservice’s $1 billion in annual revenue.  

The real and yet unanswered question is whether any of Firstservice’s past management style practices of suing homeowners would make any difference here under a contract with RMI? Our board members will most likely tell us a resounding, NO.

So what happened in 2004 to cause Continental to sue for defamation the treasurer of homeowner’s association and who is also president of the Board of Directors of a condominium within that association?  It appears that our more naïve and unfortunate treasurer/president had engaged in actions the company alleged were designed to damage Continental’s business by distributing written materials about Continental and had the invited “a third party” to speak at a meeting of the association. That third party, not named in the suit, was most likely, I presume, a union representative.   

So, even if we reduce RMI’s overall point score by 5 or 10 points, where does that leave us? As you might suspect, RMI still comes out on top smelling like a rose and not like that several feet tall foul-smelling Sumatra bloom of the corpse flower.

Rolling the Dice or Betting on a Sure Thing?

        Life is full of uncertainties and multimillion dollar management contracts are not without issues or potential problems. We can expect no less with RMI. Some may find their owner’s practice of filing defamation suits in Florida less than ideal as a method of communicating with uncontrolled and ill-mannered homeowners. The company wanted to get their message across and they did so. Because that what’s it’s all about—how best to communicate when faced with irate or irrational homeowners. 

So how can we end this on a positive note? What we can say is that it is a sad commentary when a “management” company decides they have no other option than to file defamation lawsuits against very disgruntled homeowners they serve. We all should be gravely disappointed when a billion dollar enterprise that is devoted to managing the operations of others finds itself unable or unwilling to resolve potential slanderous or libelous outbursts of homeowners they serve in a non-litigious manner.

To those who may wish to consider possible contract options, there are two schools of thought on what can be done in any contract we might negotiate with RMI, a company I am more than willing to accept as being in our best interest for a number of other reasons. The first school tells us that we cannot abridge a company's right to sue. The second school would suggest that we can limit or restrict that company's right in certain select situations, such as potential defamation situations where the company response would be proscribed to a non-litigious response, to be mutually agreed to by the contractual parties involved.

Ron Johnson

8 January 2006

We assume that in the course of performing due diligence in the process of considering prospective management companies, our Board, as well as the members they serve, would prefer to have more rather than less information about the recommended management company, Firstservice Corporation.

Of course, any such certain information is in the eye of the beholder and is more or less relevant than other information—something for the Board to weigh and consider in their decision making process. In the end and after all is said and done, the Board may well conclude, if they have not already done so, that Firstservice’s RMI is best choice for Sun City Anthem. The Board will soon tell us what decision they have made.

The Board has a lot of information to absorb and evaluate. Take, for example, that relatively small, almost inconsequential area of communications. At the December Board meeting, for example, one Board member spoke very highly about the ease of telephoning the company’s main office in Toronto and their convenient accessibility and responsiveness in a timely manner.

While telephone contact may be an important factor to consider, we are fortunate to have a few examples of how the company has chosen to communicate back to community boards and individuals they serve in situations where the company has been displeased by outspoken or complaining residents and board members. While we may not agree with the particular method chosen by the company to communicate their displeasure—litigation, we cannot deny its effectiveness in getting the company’s message across to the community.

Some may believe that that company's decision to litigate may tell us a little more about Firstservice than their ability to timely answer phone calls. In the case of their Florida company, The Continental Group, residents and board members have been sued for an unspecified amount in excess of $15,000 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court for defamation for making false and defamatory statements with a reckless disregard for the truth of the statements, or disseminating written materials and negative verbal statements for the purpose of interfering with or harming the company’s business and contractual relationships.

This is very serious business and such suits can have a substantial emotional  & financial impact on those being sued. See what Continental requests.

In one complaint, an outspoken committee member was sued for statements made at a committee meeting. In another, the association and a board member were sued. In two separate additional complaints, different condo unit owners who spoke out at a Board or special purpose meetings were sued. In a fifth instance, the President of the Board of Directors was sued. These court cases occurred in the 2000-01 period. A sixth case (in 2004) involved a defamation suit involving a unit owner who, among other things, also took certain action at a board meeting while alleging irregularities in the award of a contract by Continental to a Continental subsidiary. It was interesting to note that of the six court filings, they were not isolated to any particular association but covered individuals owning units in six different south Florida communities that either were then or had been managed by Continental.

While there is always a need for watchful temperance when opening one’s mouth, it’s chilling to consider that intemperate or excessive discourse by a Sun City resident, a committee member, or a board member in a public forum may result in a costly defamation lawsuit against you by your Association's management company. You may correctly ask the question, "Can that happen here?" After all, you might be relieved to know that those events occurred in Florida, and not in Nevada.    

          But, really, can this happen here? The answer to that question is difficult to assess and may depend on the perceived need by the recommended management company to shut down any unwanted dissent, coupled with certain realities, namely Pulte’s presence. My personal belief is that while Pulte is the developer here until build-out in about 2008, nothing like that will occur. For everyone's sake, I hope I am not proven wrong. On the other hand, if the developer had already moved on and we were looking for a new management company, that likelihood would be another thing to consider. On the other hand, one might conjecture that the situations individuals and board members had complained about allegedly falsely in south Florida were somehow uniquely peculiar or they were beyond our capacity to fully comprehend in the absence of more specific information. 

The Continental Group has been a Firstservice company since 1997. As good things happen, the cofounders of The Continental Group, Richard Strunin, President, and Gene Gomberg, CEO, are now heading Firstservice's Residential Property Management Division, which oversees all property management operations in the 2,000 plus associations administered by Firstservice, including Las Vegas' RMI.   

Anyone seeking further information or copies of the documents referred to above is welcome to contact us by return email or at scaview@cox.net.  If you have not already done so, you may read the preceding background article immediately below, Part 2.

Ron Johnson

28 December 2005

The (Proposed) New Management Company

What We Did Not Hear at the Board Meeting

     In the event the Board decides to go with the proposed task force recommendation, our new management company will be RMI Management LLC. But just what is RMI anyway? At least for starters, it seems that RMI is actually an established Las Vegas property management company called Realty Management, Inc. (or RMI) with more than 20 years of experience in property management. Their HOA business is newer, however, having begun in 1994. You may visit their home page at http://www.rmillc.com.  

For those Las Vegas old timers and those who are more connected, RMI is the creation of Dan Shaw, a property manager, a real estate developer, an investor, a former member of the Henderson Parks and Recreation Board, and he is a current member of the Henderson Planning Commission. Mr. Shaw also was a principal in VSS Enterprises LLC, a company that once owned the failed (2003-04) Castaways casino-hotel that VSS had created when they acquired and changed the name from the old Showboat casino-hotel.[1]   

Getting back to RMI, we find that RMI is no longer that Las Vegas company that Dan Shaw had founded, but is now (2005) in reality a slice of a much larger publicly traded Canadian company called Firstservice Corporation.[2] Firstservice’s homepage is: http://www.firstservice.com. So when David Berman talked about those 120 odd employees sitting up in Toronto servicing RMI’s operations, while technically correct, he was actually referring to Firstservice Corporation’s home office operations that manage the company’s multinational operations.

Firstservice Corporation

Firstservice Corporation, a billion dollar enterprise with over 16,000 employees worldwide, provides property and business services to commercial, residential, and institutional customers in the United States, Canada, and other countries. The Company's brands include Rossmar & Graham, Continental Group, Wentworth, Arco Management, Armstrong Management, Cooper Square, RMI, Prime Management and Wolin-Levin, Inc., in residential property management; Colliers International in commercial real estate; Intercon Security and SST in integrated security; California Closets, Paul Davis Restoration, Pillar to Post Home Inspection, and CertaPro and College Pro Painters in property improvement, and Resolve Corporation in business services. The company operates in five segments:

1.      Residential Property Management  (This is where RMI is found)

2.      Commercial Real Estate Services

3.      Integrated Security Services

4.      Property Improvement Services, and

5.      Business Services.

Residential Property Management

HOA management falls within their Residential Property Management segment. That broad category covers a myriad of operations, including the management of condominiums, cooperatives, gated communities, and various other residential developments governed by multiunit residential community associations in North America. As you can see from the above listing of companies, RMI is one of Firstservice’s property management brands. For a description or definition of the remaining operating segments of Firstservice, click here.

          Firstservice manages more than 400,000 residential units in 2,000 community associations across North America.[3] This segment (Item 1 above) accounted for 29% of Firstservice's total revenues over the past 6 months. That’s down from 41% over the same period in 2004, based on their most recent filing with the SEC. In this SEC filing, of total reported revenues in 2005 from all segments or operations, 62% were generated from U.S. operations, while virtually all of the remaining revenues came from Canadian operations. 

          For 3- and 6-month revenue and operating earnings figures, broken down by their five operating segments, click here. To review the complete SEC Filing, dated 9-30-2005, click here.

What about Civil Action (Lawsuits)?

          In his presentation, Jack Silas discussed the issue of civil actions, which he said was inquired of all vendors interviewed. Some vendors were more responsive than others. In the case of Firstservice, Jack said they were forthcoming and acknowledged the company had been involved in a number of civil actions.

            Based on Firstservice's website, the company addresses a number of allegations made against the company by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),[4] Local 11, in Florida, where Firstservice’s Continental Group conducts operations. As an aside, it's fair to say that the SEIU is engaged in an organizing or labor dispute with Continental Group. In responding to one of several allegations made by SEIU, Firstservice states the following on their website:

"SEIU Union claims The Continental Group has a habit of suing residents

 and  board members who complain about the company’s services.

                The FACTS

·         For over 30 years, Continental’s senior management team has managed hundreds of thousands of residential units. During this period, Continental has been involved in only four lawsuits to defend its reputation."

What the company seems to be saying on their website is that, YES, INDEED, their Continental brand in Florida had taken legal action against certain individuals, but only “to defend its reputation.”

While the company may dispute whether they have a "habit" of suing residents and board members, that the company felt compelled to do so is not merely disquieting but very troublesome.  Are we to understand the company will not tolerate any measure of dissent from Board members or from residents who happen to complain about the company’s services? How our Board chooses to deal with this obvious red flag issue will be a challenge for the community to overcome.

To illustrate the company's apparent concern about residents speaking out, there was that poor lady, Sandra Rotter, a 66-year-old widow on Social Security, who was sued by Firstservice’s Continental Group for allegedly speaking up about the management company. Surely, Sandra was not alone and is not unlike many of our own residents living here in Sun City who might be concerned about how monies are being spent. What does Firstservice want us to know about the dreadful consequences of speaking up at Board meetings? According to the SEIU website:

“It’s hard to imagine, however, how Sandra Rotter, a 66-year-old widow on Social Security, posed a threat to Continental.  Rotter, concerned about how an increase in association fees would impact elderly residents of her condominium, spoke at an association meeting.  As she wrote in her response to Continental’s complaint, Rotter and others wanted to “know where our monies are going,” for “even the owners that could afford all of this have been complaining for at least 2 years about Continental… ”[5]

Of course, there are always some manager/employer types who would prefer to see the likes of those more vocal and concerned property owners, like Ms. Rotter, who speak their mind to undergo the adverse consequences of litigation (whether that be incarceration or monetary damages). A lawsuit by a company that's part of a billion dollar corporation against concerned seniors will certainly have its intended consequences.

According to Jack Silas, who I assume is relying on oral representations made by the company, those civil actions were resolved in favor of the company, whatever that means. Without any further explanation, we have no information on exactly what Jack, or Firstservice for that matter, is referring to since it is our understanding that those civil actions were settled out of court under a seal of confidentially. If that is the case, we may never really know the outcome of those cases. For those individuals, however, we can all appreciate the terrible impact that litigation had on their personal lives, apart from the intimidating affect on the community in which they resided. 

Ron Johnson

21 December 2005 

Board of Directors Meeting

15 December, 2005,

 Part I 

This particular Board meeting was seminal for the future of Sun City, not so much for what the Board considered and accepted but for what the Board refused to consider. But first things first. This Board meeting focused primarily on the Management Company Search Committee task force report and recommendations, superbly presented by Jack Silas.[1]

Jack Silas, leading a team of three highly respected residents, not only made his usual excellent presentation to the Board, but in so doing also demonstrated with great care the extensive detail and thoroughness that was undertaken in their efforts to identify the most qualified candidates to meet Sun City’s needs. Starting from a list of 32 prospective vendors, an RFP was subsequently sent to 19. Of the 19, only 6 were considered “qualified” while only 3 of those 6 had the capacity to meet our needs and responded effectively to the RFP. Vendors who did not have experience managing HOA’s of 2,000 or more units were judged not qualified to meet our needs. The RFP for Sun City was based on not less than 5,500 units. However, Jack reported that none of the three potential vendors had a client as complex (undefined) as ours. 

One had the distinct impression that had the experience criteria been 4,000 instead of 2,000 units (we will soon have more than 7,000 units), none of the prospective vendors would have qualified. That possibility should tell us something about the economies of scale in servicing larger HOA’s vs. self-management. The reason is that management companies typically charge on a flat line per rooftop basis whereas self-management costs per rooftop most likely would decline as the number of units increase.

Of the 3 potential vendors qualified and acceptable, there was an overwhelming scoring preference for one of the companies, RMI Management, LLC, a Toronto, Canada based company with a local presence in Las Vegas (a factor considered important by the task force members). In making their recommendation, the task force report noted the following:

“Although all of the 3 finalists are capable of servicing our community, RMI Management, LLC exhibited the most forward thinking and technologically advanced capabilities of the finalists.  On our visit, we observed RMI’s ongoing investment in providing cost-effective and economical solutions for maintaining their leadership.”   

And then there was that “Caveats” section that Jack had prominently listed in his slide presentation at the meeting, but now not found, i.e., deleted, from the website’s slide presentation. While this observer and others clearly understood that Jack had fully intended to present a complete report, including the Caveats, it turned out that that was not what went down at the open meeting. Whether that omission was planned or something had occurred to take those less desirable features off the table, Jack concluded his remarks by saying that he would not be sharing the report’s admonitions or warnings with us. Leaving aside the importance of those omissions, it was unsettling that having mentioned some potential concerns at the beginning of the presentation, there suddenly seemed an unwillingness to share those concerns with the members.

In terms of the cost per rooftop of selecting the highly rated company, RMI Management LLC, compared with the other two and to DW Management Company, RMI’s cost per rooftop was less than all three, making RMI not only a good choice based on their superior point score but also on their projected annualized cost to the Association. In terms of such costs to the Association, RMI would save the Association roughly $300,000 in 2006 compared to what we would have paid to DWMC had they not terminated their contract with us. Said differently, in 2006 DWMC would have cost us about 12% more than RMI’s projected costs.

Board’s Decision. The Board voted to accept the Report from the task force.

Future Action. The Board will review the task force report with a view to making a timely decision to select a new management company. Once that decision is made, the Board then will negotiate the terms of a management contract with the new prospective vendor, whoever that might be.

Q & A Period. During the open mike period, it became abundantly clear that the Board had no interest in exploring the issue of self-management, even dismissing out of hand a suggestion from the floor that the Board set up a second task force to investigate this option with the same rigor that was employed by the contracting out task force. The primary reason given for not pursuing self-management at this time was that that decision had already been evaluated and made by the prior Board and there was no interest by the present Board in revisiting this issue.

Ron Johnson

18 December 2005  

Board of Directors Meeting, November 17, 2005

Annual Membership Meeting—and Independence Center

To the surprise of no one, the 2006 Budget was ratified. But, to the surprise of the Budget Committee, and virtually everyone in the audience, we learned that our Independence Center recreation center has strange funding bedfellows. Apparently unknown to the Budget Committee, whose task, among others, was to project future expenditures, the Association has not, is not, and will not be paying for the cost of utilities for Independence Center UNTIL such time as the building is turned over to the Association.

As Favil West loudly proclaimed, “We don’t own that building.” As a result, and having to do with the Developer’s obligations under a section of the Nevada Code (NRS116.31039), the Association has refused to pay for IC's utilities. So when, about a week ago, the Southwest Gas Company turned off the gas to Independence Center, someone had apparently failed to pay the gas bill. When that bill was paid (not by the Association), the gas was turned on.

Needless to say, there has been an ongoing dispute, if not outright confrontation, between the Developer and the Association over this very matter, with the Developer claiming the building belongs to the Association based, they claim, on our constructive acceptance and use of that facility. The Association disagrees. Accordingly, the Association does not sign off on checks prepared by the management company that include monies for utilities for the Independence Center. Independence Center utility costs are estimated to run at an average rate of roughly $15,000 a month. This compares to roughly $50,000 a month for the Anthem Center building. 

So tell us, when will the IC be turned over to the Association? That's hard to answer. It seems that the process of turning over a building is a little more complicated than one party saying, “Here, it’s yours.” The Association will tell you that the process of turning over the building is essentially a two-way street, akin to a contract, consisting of an offer and acceptance. This can be illustrated in the following manner. One party (DW) makes an offer, saying something like, “The building is complete and ready to be turned over,” while the other party, after taking a careful look at the goods being offered, says something like this, “Looks good, and accepts the building,” OR, as in our case, they say, “The building doesn’t look quite complete yet and rejects the offer. As a result, the parties have yet to come to any agreement on the transfer of IC to the Association. The Association has refused to accept the Independence Center building as a completed project ready to be conveyed to the Association. As a result, Del Webb continues to own the Independence Center building and is believed to be liable for certain costs under the NRS code section cited above.

The Association and the Developer have been mired in that disputed “completed” hole now for almost 8 months with no resolution in site up to the day prior to this month’s Board Meeting. We learned at the Board meeting that for the first time in a very long time, top officials of Del Webb and the Board finally met on Wednesday of this week to exchange views concerning all outstanding issues surrounding the Independence Center. With everything now clearly on the table, the expectation is there will be another meeting when we will hear DW’s response on just what they are prepared to do to "complete" the building, as well as what they are not prepared to do. Stay tuned.

The Regular Board Meeting

And now, back to the regular goings on at the Board meeting. Here are a few highlights of that meeting, including an update on that skirmish with our veterans.

Tree Vandalism. Nothing new to report. There continues to be a $10,000 reward being offered.

New Management Company. Full speed ahead, but nothing to report. Increased costs (over what we would have paid to DW) are projected with any new management company. Given silence on this matter, it appears the Board has no interest in justifying to the members their decision to contract out services as opposed to hiring their own employees.

Trumpets. Nothing to report. Still negotiating. For additional background information, see our series of 3 Reports, ending with Trick or Treat

Next Board Meeting.  January 26^th, Freedom Hall. No December meeting!.

Resident Q & A Session with the Board.  January 11^th at 7:00 p.m. 

Handicapped Access.  Won final approval to modify selected doors to permit handicapped access for the side door at the main entrance, a double door entrance, bathroom and locker room doors. Denied the remainder, or about one-half, of Property & Grounds Committee's proposed door modification request. 

Veterans—Did the Board Say, "No" to Veterans?

While final judgment may never be within reach, you may be able to glean  what happened, as they say, by reading between the lines in the numerical scenario laid out farther down the page.

The Board appeared less troubled by their response to Colonel Blum’s request for assistance than to how they were being portrayed and perceived by others. As a result, we learned the Board supports our veterans, has a complement of three veterans on the Board, attends Veterans Day ceremonies, and provided the Sun City community with a well attended Veterans Day ceremony. While everyone on the Board was fully engaged in promoting their pro-Veterans image, what seems to have been overlooked in all of this was their initial response to Colonel Blum's letter requesting some assistance. While Dave Weil has given us what he referred to as the Paul Harvey version, or "The Rest of the Story," we will offer you a slightly different, more troubling version of events, in our "The Untold Story."

Admittedly, under such circumstances, the truth is sometimes hard to come by when attempting to pry open that Veterans box few persons are willing to open and share.     

The Untold Story

Preface.

The Board, individually or as a group, would have you believe that they were completely uninvolved and out of the loop on this matter, almost akin to the three monkeys who heard, spoke and saw nothing. We are led to believe that whatever took place in the handling of Colonel Blum's request, it happened over there by those management folks in the Administration office. And besides, the failure of Colonel Blum to receive any help was his own stubborn fault—he shot himself in the foot with his refusal to allow others on the buses he was being offered.

While Dave Weil, to his credit, spelled out some important procedural lessons from this unfortunate event, there may be other lessons to learn as well. What we have learned is that anyone’s letter addressed specifically to the Board could languish, be forgotten, perhaps even trashed, or could be referred to management without even a written thank you, an acknowledgment, or any response indicating what action has been done or is being proposed. 

If the Board wants you to know anything, it seems they will let you know. In this instance, the Board neither assumed nor perceived any obligation to communicate with Colonel Blum, who, by the way, had written that he was in communication with well over 100 veterans in the community. One can only conclude that Colonel Blum, and indirectly others in the Community, do not warrant the Board’s attention or acknowledgment when writing to the Board. While I was reminded, "that's what we have staff for," it is apparent that the simple or courteous task of acknowledging (or tracking) communications written to the Board is not one of reasons we pay a management company $2 million a year. 

But did the Board Say “No” to Sun City’s Veterans?

To the dismay of many in attendance, Dave Weil took exceptional umbrage to that recent headline, declaring, in effect, “Not true,” telling us in Paul Harvey’s words, “the rest of the story” concerning what had occurred with Colonel Blum’s request. He told us that Blum's letter was turned over to DW Management to handle, which they did. End of story.

On the other hand, we have Colonel Blum, who believes otherwise. So, who’s right? Do we have an obstinate, cranky, perhaps even senile, decorated WWII veteran who works out daily at the fitness center, or do we have a Board in denial, attempting to put a good face on a situation gone bad? Or, possibly, something in between? From what we have learned, there are some glaring inconsistencies between what the parties have offered up in an attempt to explain away these troubled events.

Reading between the lines on what the Board, DW Management, and Colonel Blum have said, you may conclude there is more to this story than what we have already been told. You can draw your own conclusions. 

1.    BM 1 had lunch with Colonel Blum just prior to his May letter to the Board, when Blum discussed in some detail just what he was planning for this year’s Veterans Day parade in Las Vegas. Not to prejudice the Colonel’s ultimate chances of achieving success with his Veterans Day parade project, BM 1 made it clear that he could not support the Colonel’s efforts. How that initial denial of support affected the ultimate outcome is unclear. Later, actually several months later after this matter was raised publicly, BM 1 will deny having any knowledge of Colonel Blum’s request for assistance.   

2.    Not to be deterred, towards the end of May, Colonel Blum discusses his then plans with BM 2. Interestingly, and apparently due the nature and potential importance of Colonel’s Blum’s request, BM 2 told Colonel Blum to “put it in writing” to the Board. That suggestion, coupled with his follow-up letter to the Board, may, understandably, have led Colonel Blum to conclude that his request for assistance was a matter for the Board's consideration and action.  

3.    Blum sends a letter to the Board at the end of May, addressed to BM 2. Since Blum’s letter ultimately surfaces, we can assume that it was initially received by BM 2 (since denied), who, as it happens, is a close personal friend of BM 1.

4.    What happened to Blum’s letter at this point is unclear and remains a mystery. Board members and DW management give differing accounts of what happened next, increasing speculation on just what had taken place with the handling or non-handling of his request. (More on this later.)

5.     Both Blum and DW management agree on three points: a) Blum never met personally with anyone in DW management; b) there was an initial telephone conversation initiated by Blum with the Activities Director, who relayed her discussion to Wendy Linow; and c) there was a second telephone call, about a week later, from Wendy Linow to Blum advising him, according to Blum, that the Board turned down his request. But, did the Board turn down his request? It depends on who one asks. Or, as some might suggest, it depends on the definition of “turn down.” Did Blum make it impossible for the Board or Administration to approve his request by insisting that only veterans and their spouses be allowed? That's entirely possible. Were that the only issue here, that might be the end of the story.

6.    Timing is everything! And, of course, there are a number of matters in dispute: a) when those conversations & decisions took place—with DW Management suggesting they took place sometime in June, while Blum suggesting they took place in September; and b) how the decision to deny any assistance came about.

You may ask why does the date of those conversations make any difference? Perhaps it doesn’t. Then again, perhaps it does since we are attempting to assess credibility. After all, we are looking at a 60-90 day discrepancy between the two accounts. Blum had asked the Board to respond to his letter by the end of June. They had 30 days to mull it over and decide what to do. Is that what happened? Whether or not you agree, timing may be a factor to consider. You decide.

On the one hand, if Blum is correct on the timing issue, he may be perceived as being more credible on other matters he claimed took place. On the other hand, if DW Management is correct, then their accounting of events may be perceived as being more credible. So, who’s right—who is the more credible in all of this? That’s difficult to say. But before we go on any further, I’ll give you something to think about on the issue of timing.

• We all understand and agree that Colonel Blum learns of the Association’s decision, whether determined by DW Management, or, as Blum believes, dictated by the Board, most likely occurring at some point between June and September;

• What is difficult to factor into this timing scenario is the undisputed fact that Blum writes to his fellow veterans advising them of what he tells them is the Board’s refusal of their request for transportation. In so doing, he asks that they communicate their displeasure to the Board; and

• Colonel Blum does this not in June or July, when he might have been expected to make such notification if the matter had been finally resolved at that time. Indeed, if the matter had been finally resolved in July, what purpose is served in notifying his fellow veterans of what he claims was the Board’s decision in a letter he sent to his fellow veterans in mid-October.

• While we can conjure up some potential explanations for the timing of that October letter, there is always Blum’s explanation that he did not hear anything on his request from the Association until sometime in September. At least that explanation would be consistent with his recollection of events.

• Now comes the hard part. If Blum’s recollection of events is the more accurate, the conclusions are disturbing:

1. The Board/Association was more than willing to let Blum’s request languish or die by essentially ignoring it altogether;

2. There is evidence for this scenario since NO ONE AT ANY TIME TOOK ANY ACTION to contact Colonel Blum to respond to his request;

3. If, as Management has claimed, Blum's request was sitting on their desk when Blum called, just what was it doing there—waiting for Blum to call?

4. As relayed above, management responded only AFTER Blum brought the matter (Blum says in September) to their attention. Until then, the Board/Association had no interest in addressing Blum’s letter and request for assistance.    

7.        And of course, there is BM 3 who ultimately received Blum’s letter and, according to his statement, forwarded it on to the Activities Director to address Colonel Blum’s request.

8.      As for BM 4, well after the recent brouhaha, BM 4 is unaware of any communication by Colonel Blum to the Board requesting assistance, and suggesting it did not happen.  

9.      And, likewise, as far as BM 5 is concerned, that BM is also unaware of any communication by Colonel Blum to the Board requesting assistance, and suggesting it did not happen.  

10.     And, finally, there is BM 6, who, we surmise, is the only Board member known to have offered Colonel Blum an apology.

So, who knows what really happened?

Ron Johnson

20 November 2005 

Board Meeting, Part II (dated 3 Sept.)

August 25, 2005 

In presenting my review of the August Board meeting, I overlooked a couple of announcements. One had to do with the Minuteman Foundation reaching $100,000 in savings, which should challenge their Board of Trustees and the Community Service Club to find new or innovative ways to meet the pressing needs of those here who are most in need of some assistance.  The second announcement which we deal with below was somewhat of a surprise.

President Dave Weil asked whether the membership would favor the Association going "private" or whether we should continue as we have in renting out our meeting rooms to the general public? He said the Board will take this issue up in the coming months. Please take our survey on this topic at the end of this article.

Over the past several years, some members have complained out loud and behind the scenes about the presence of non-members using our facilities, even if they do pay rent for the use of our meeting rooms. This attack or observation goes to the heart of the question about the purpose of the Association as an entity that is ostensibly designed to benefit the lifestyle of the membership.

While asking that question as to the Association’s purpose is easy to do, the answer, it seems, is difficult to come by and poses a variety of complex issues. For example, how and in what manner is our lifestyle enriched by the activities of the Association?  What are those activities and are all such activities actually enriching our lifestyle? Or, to put it another way, does the Association engage in some activities that detract from, degrade or diminish in some respect our active adult lifestyle? If so, what are these activities?

While there may be a number of ways at looking at this issue, I’ll focus on the “private” vs. “profit center” options as illustrated below. Others may have a different way of looking at this matter.

• The “private” option supporters see the Association as primarily serving the interests of the members only. This group would argue that our private, dues supported facilities should not be made available for public use by non-Association entities even if that means we would have to forego rental income. The business of the Association is in serving the lifestyle of the membership and not in serving the interests of the public and non-members who are looking for space to rent to serve their interests.

• The “profit center” supporters view the Association’s facilities as potential profit centers to be maximized to generate income from the General Public. This group would argue that every meeting room, hall, or ballroom is a potential profit center to generate income by renting it out when it is not being used by the Association in some manner. Failure to rent out such rooms to the General Public represents a potential loss of income to the Association, thereby potentially impacting the level of our annual assessment.   

Complicating this issue are two realities that must be acknowledged; 1) Trumpets along with their catering operations that frequently impact the Anthem Center’s grand foyer; and 2) the fact that some outside sponsored programs may actually serve the interests of some members, e.g., those offering some type of financial advice. Since the operation of Trumpets is in large part an Association activity, it’s best to leave that issue for another time. Insofar as events that may serve member interests, those events do not have to be held here but, instead, can be scheduled in nearby facilities, including nearby restaurants where similar financial seminars for Sun City residents have been held in the past and are scheduled to be held in the future.

Religious services are considered likely sources of long-term rental income but only to the extent the congregations do not seek property nearby on which to build their own place of worship. In the case of one such church, the community's New Song Church, they are currently engaged in such a building effort.

Whether for philosophical or practical reasons, some members would prefer the Association go private by not renting out our facilities to the public. These members most likely view the presence of non-members as unnecessary; an avoidable nuisance, distraction or disruption to member access to and enjoyment of the Anthem Center; contrary to the lifestyle they came here to enjoy; and needlessly taking up facility space that could be available for member use. Then there are those who would agree philosophically with this position, but due to their own limited financial circumstances may be unduly concerned if the Association should forgo any income that might be derived from the rental of our facilities. In terms of the potential that would be foregone, I suspect that the amount of non-Trumpets room rental income is a very meager amount compared to the overall budget. As a result, it's potential on our annual assessment is practically negligible, or roughly $1-$2 per household per year. If we continue to run surpluses of the type we have in the past, it's impact would be negligible.

Admittedly, a much larger group of members will be indifferent and not care one way or the other. Some of those because they are not impacted in any way, do not visit the Anthem Center, or because they are not frequent participants in the activities of the Association. In recognition of that fact, that’s why we have a resident-controlled Board to make those decisions in our collective behalf. 

 Some members would like to see the Association more proactive in fostering the development of  mini-clubs to bring together more people in smaller groups in a variety of ways. To accommodate the meeting room needs of such groups,  meeting room space would have to be readily available. Existing rules for the use of meeting rooms might have to be modified to accommodate the needs of smaller groups. With a little more support, easier room access and availability, and more pro-active encouragement from Administration, greater member participation in a broader range of group activities should result. 

Other members might prefer to limit the use of meeting rooms to officially chartered club use only, in the belief that expanding the use of meeting rooms for smaller groups might place undue restrictions on the use of scarce meeting rooms for what may be perceived as ever expanding charter club needs.    

 Now, we would like you to answer a question or two. It takes only a moment to answer our mini-survey on this important subject? If so, please click here.

We look forward to an active community discussion on this topic.

Ron Johnson

September 3, 2005

Board Meeting, Part II

August 25, 2005

In presenting that quite thorough review of the August Board meeting, I was recently reminded that I had overlooked an interesting and potentially very significant proposal by President Dave Weil.

Over an extended period of time, members on occasion have questioned the purpose of the Association as an entity that is ostensibly designed to benefit the lifestyle of the membership. While asking that question as to the Association’s purpose is easy to do, the answer, it seems, is difficult to come by and poses a variety of complex issues. For example, how and in what manner, one may ask, is our lifestyle enriched by the activities of the Association?  Are all such activities enriching? Or put another way, does the Association engage in some activities that detract from, degrade or diminish in some respect our active adult lifestyle?  

While there may be a number of ways at looking at this issue, I’ll focus on the “private” vs. “profit center” options as illustrated below:  

·        The “private” option supporters see the Association as primarily serving the interests of the members only. This group would argue that our private, dues supported facilities should not be made available for public use by non-Association entities even if that means we would have to forego rental income. The business of the Association is in serving the lifestyle of the membership and not in serving the interests of the public and non-members who are looking for space to rent to serve their interests.

·        The “profit center” supporters view the Association’s facilities as potential profit centers to be maximized to generate income. This group would argue that every meeting room, hall, or ballroom is a potential profit center to generate income by renting it out when it is not being used by the Association in some manner. Failure to rent out such rooms represents a potential loss of income to the Association, thereby potentially impacting the level of our annual assessment.   

Complicating this issue are two realities that must be acknowledged, Trumpets along with their catering operations and the fact that some outside sponsored programs may actually serve the interests of some members, e.g., those offering some type of financial advice. Since the operation of Trumpets is an Association activity, it’s best to leave that issue for another time.   

Whether for philosophical or practical reasons, some members would prefer the Association go private by not renting out our facilities to the public. These members most likely view the presence of non-members as unnecessary; an avoidable nuisance, distraction or disruption to member access to and enjoyment of the Anthem Center; contrary to the lifestyle they came here to enjoy; and needlessly taking up facility space that could be available for member use. Then there are those who would agree philosophically with this position, but for practical reasons because of their own financial circumstances may not be disposed to the Association forging the rental income that would be derived.  

 Admittedly, a much larger group of members will be indifferent and not care one way or the other. Some of those because they are not impacted in any way, do not visit the Anthem Center, or because they are not frequent participants in the activities of the Association. But that’s why we have a resident-controlled Board to make those decisions in our collective behalf.

 Some members would like to see the Association more proactive in fostering the development of  mini-clubs to bring together more people in smaller groups in a variety of ways. To accommodate the meeting room needs of such groups,  meeting room space would have to be readily available. Existing rules for the use of meeting rooms might have to be modified to accommodate the needs of smaller groups. With a little more support, easier room access and availability, and more pro-active encouragement from Administration, greater member participation in a broader range of group activities should result.