|
|
|
|
|
ELECTION VIEWPOINTS |
|
ELECTION VIEWPOINTS
Page Contents 1. Are You a "Team" Player 5/5 Voter Turnout (separate page) 5/5 1. Where Did the Candidate Interviews Go? 4/24 2. A Surrogate Speaks Out 4/18 3. Candidates' Debate & Trumpets 4/17 4. On Running for the Board & Property Taxes 4/12 5. Preface Reflections by Dick Sovde 4/2 6. Reflections by Ron Johnson 4/2 7. An Election Viewpoint II 3/26
As we can see again, this time from the May issue of the Spirit, our so-called non-partisan Election Committee has not been reluctant to make their election preferences known. First, they unabashedly wrote to prospective candidates that only those who were on standing committees were qualified to be on the Board. And now, rather than sticking to the mechanics of what to do with your ballot, Bob Berman, the Chairman of the Election Committee, wants you to know something much more than taking care to properly complete and return your ballot. He wants you to vote for the right team, or as he calls it, "the best team members," and by inference, he does not wish you vote for that other team, i.e., the worst team members. How does he do that? Here is what Bob wrote:
"It is important that you carefully evaluate each candidate and vote for the six who you feel will make the best team members."
Just who are ". . . . the best team members?" Whose team is Bob refereeing to? While Bob could have used the word "board" as in "best board members," instead of the word, "team," he chose the word "team." As careful writer, Mr. Berman must have had something he wanted to convey. Indeed, Mr. Berman wanted you to know that your ballot decision should NOT be based on an individual's qualifications for the Board, but that your decision on this or that candidate should be based on whether that individual (regardless of qualifications) is going to be part of the team, i.e., the best team members.
As I read Mr. Berman, what the Board needs are not merely members but are team members. Most understand that team players are more comfortable yielding control and decision-making authority to others. Team players are more commonly known as yes-men. Clearly, the option of voting for "yes-men" is certainly before us. It would be only too easy for us yield unto Bob and his so-called team the yes-men he would like us to vote for. Whether we get the yes-men Bob would like to see on the Board or those who by virtue of their qualifications are willing to take on the task of leadership is entirely up to you, the members of the community.
In voicing his preference for "team" members on the Board, is Bob attempting to affect the outcome of the election. No doubt about it. Is there a problem with that? Well, interestingly enough, apparently as a Board member, Mr. Berman may say just about anything he wishes and that impartial, non-partisan Election Committee can sit back and just lump it. But with Bob as their chairman, and given their history in dealing with Board member issues, the EC has no real interest in such matters. As Joe Barbato, the EC's standards guru will likely tell you, Bob is merely doing his job as a Board Member. Sure, Joe!
Ron Johnson 5 May 2005 Where Did the Candidate Interviews Go? An Error in Judgment or Political Mischief? If there was one recent constant during this critical balloting period, that would be the presence of the candidate interviews showing on Ch. 99 at the top of the hour, like at 9 a.m., noon, 3, 6 or 9 p.m., etc., where we were told they would be for our easing viewing. Before casting your ballot over the next 4 weeks, we at least knew we could turn to Ch. 99 and listen to the candidates and their position for one last time, or, in the case of some residents, for the first time. Go ahead, try it. Turn on Ch. 99 and look for those interviews. Having some trouble finding them, are you? It’s no wonder since the interviews, in TV parlance, have been bumped to a different time slot. This bumping to a different time slot would ordinarily be no big deal in TV land because we have ways of learning about that—typically through advertising and, or programming announcements. We’re kept informed. But here in Sun City we are a captive audience that is dependent on Ch. 99 for any and all information concerning changes in programming. So we look and listen to Ch. 99 for needed information. And, quite appropriately, Ch. 99 responds with their informative message crawl at the bottom of the screen to alert the viewer to important information. So far so good. So what’s the big deal. Well, as you can observe for yourself, the crawl message at the bottom of Ch. 99 tells the residents nothing about the availability of or the time of the candidate interviews, as if they are no longer available for viewing. The at the top of the hour Sun City viewer will find nary a word about the whereabouts of those candidate interviews. Instead: · Those looking at the top of the hour no longer find the candidate interviews, as they had been led to believe, but Ch. 99 news. · Those listening to the 20 minute news presentation learn nothing about the existence of the candidate interviews or when they can be viewed. From the viewer's perspective, looking at our own news broadcast, the candidate interviews no longer exist. · Bill Campbell’s presentation on the balloting process refers in the past tense to the candidate interviews, expressing the hope that the resident has seen the interviews—as if those interviews are no longer available for viewing. · Those staying tuned and hoping that the candidate interviews will follow the news are disappointed to find that a Ch. 99 resident-cooking segment follows. · Those staying the course and making it through the cooking segment, and thinking that the candidate interviews will follow immediately thereafter are again in store for disappointed, as Ch 99 returns to their normal Club programming at 20 minutes after the hour. While many residents may be aware that the candidate interviews had moved to the ½ hour time slot, as in 12:30, 3:30, etc., others will just assume that they are no longer airing on Ch. 99 since there is no way for them to know any different. Not knowing what happened to the Ch. 99 interviews, some residents may wish to call their Board Member Favil West for some election advice. Trying to figure out just what had happened at this crucial juncture in the election campaign, some residents may think that someone on the Communications Committee (CC) or elsewhere is engaged in a form of dirty tricks. While that prospect seems unlikely, one can never really be sure. After all, there are usually innocent explanations for most things that on the surface might look suspicious. Take, for example, the omission from the crawl space informing the community about the change in programming from the hour to the half-hour. On the one hand, there has already been offered what would appear to be an innocent explanation by Jack Herlihy, Chairman of the Communications Committee, that there was “no room” on the crawl when the crawl was revised to incorporate the Trumpets workshop announcement. On the other hand, and unknown to Jack at the time of his “innocent” explanation, Del Webb’s person in charge of Ch. 99 programming wrote us that the decision to delete the candidate interview information was made by the CC and had nothing to do with the issue of not having enough “room” on the crawl message. Something would appear to be amiss. Regrettably, it would appear that Mr. Herlihy, a very pleasant gentleman, is not as sensitive to the communication needs of the community as we might prefer. In a written communication expressing the Committee’s apolitical position, Jack, in an incredible admission, suggested that the issue of keeping the community appraised of candidate information on Ch. 99 utilizing the crawl message was not a mission of the CC since, at least in his view, it was unimportant information. According to Mr. Herlihy, in justifying the omission of candidate interviews times from the message crawl, he tell us that the crawl is meant only for important information. “The crawl is . . . . is meant to inform the residents of important information ---- that’s it!!” As we have learned, “important information” did not include keeping the community informed about candidate interview times on Ch. 99, which had been deleted at the direction of a member of the CC. Did someone on the CC have a political agenda in mind by deleting from the message crawl candidate interview times or was this just another misunderstanding to be explained away at some future date? While we hope the latter, we may never really know since we anticipate the community will again and soon be properly informed of this very important information.
Ron Johnson April 24, 2005 Some Thoughts and Personal Recommendations for the Board by Ron Johnson Was Chuck Davis’ use of his AC in publishing Jack Silas’ 11 April concluding comments a last minute attempt to affect the outcome of the election? Of course it was. Is such surrogate use of your own e-mail distribution network in behalf of your own candidacy (and others similarly situated) a use that is sanctioned by the Election Committee? Probably, so there is no reason to dwell on that. [To see Chuck's introduction and Jack Silas' remarks here: Silas.] Jack Silas, a fine gentleman and valued contributor to our community, had many positive things to say. But that’s not why Chuck Davis decided to publish Jack’s comments. Jack, it seems, while making his observations, was engaged in election politics. Jack was telling us who not to vote for and had expressed a number of concerns: the number of uninformed candidates; efforts expended on the Trumpets matter; that some candidates are in effect, “Trumpets issue only” candidates; and by implication, advising us to avoid candidates who represent splinter groups or have personal agendas.
Mr. Silas’ concluding remark is even more interesting: Unless one has regularly attended standing committee meetings, they are not qualified for a position on the Board since, by definition, they lack a strong interest in the community. Jack’s criteria for Board membership is unnecessarily restrictive and extremely limited and we deserve to have as Board members not merely those who volunteer or are excellent practitioners but those who will bring to the Board strong leadership qualities. It is my opinion that the community will be better served with diverse, strong, and outspoken Board members. Contrary to some naysayers, I have no difficulty in believing that whatever Board composition is ultimately achieved, they will rise to meet our future needs and will perform to the overall benefit of our community. Over the long haul, a diverse Board should be more, not less responsive to the wishes of the community. Our biggest mistake in choosing Board members would be to make those ballot decisions on the basis of attempting to emulate what we have experienced in the past. While some may be troubled by new voices and new challenges, we should be gratified that we have those choices before us. Whether as a community we are prepared to look ahead with such new and perhaps different leaders at this time is unclear. I have been asked for my opinion by those who claim they do not know who to vote for on who I would recommend for the Board. I had declined to do so in the past. I have been reluctant to do so for very good reasons and should probably remain silent since any listing of candidates is really unfair, will create confusion, and may have unintended consequences. When it comes down to voting, my list is no more relevant than your list. However, in attempting to respond, I have decided to indicate who I feel are the top candidates for the Board based on what I perceive to be their leadership qualities. There are three such candidates. I attempt to answer the following questions: Which resident candidates will bring: superior leadership qualities to the Board? Favil West (despite a tendency to BS on occasion, Mr. West is simply indispensable and should continue with his good works for the community) very strong leadership qualities to the Board? David Berman (strong community involvement, creative, innovative, & excellent communicator) Bob Sansing (strong community involvement, excellent communicator, & invaluable community service/volunteer background with Lions Clubs International) To my mind, the remaining candidates have strong or less strong leadership qualities, as well as a few who, while well intended, would appear to have less to offer as a Board member. While you may have different criteria, I would prefer to see a variety of strong leaders on the Board of the type noted above, who will bring, at least in my view, a measure of diversity, credibility and independence to the Board. Ron Johnson 17 April 2005
(Please see the Election Committee's response below) In this article: Lyndall Ruiz gets sandbagged by a Question Keeping the Trumpets Matter Under Control How Much is Trumpets' Indebtedness? Spreadsheet calc Trumpets lease The concluding candidates’ debate on Thursday allowed those running for office an opportunity to shine under not so intense questioning by the Election Committee and based, as they advised, on questions that were submitted by our residents. Did anyone on the EC decide it was proper to engage in a form of dirty tricks in an effort to take a candidate out of the running? Didn't happen. They say, "NO WAY." **
Unlike the general, softball questions asked of every other candidate, this one particular question was specifically directed at one of the candidates in an effort designed less to inform than it was to an attempt to sandbag the candidacy of Lyndall Ruiz. That effort was an unfortunate demonstration of bias and partisanship on someone's part. __________ ** Apparently the EC did not know nor did they wish to take steps to insure that their efforts could be misused by others to subvert the election process by allowing "gotcha" like questions of candidates. According to a representative of the EC who has written us, the EC has what some people refer to as plausible deniability since the EC advised they had no knowledge of or responsibility for the questions that were asked of the candidates. [It remains unclear why the EC believes the community is better served by allowing a member who happens to be unhappy with a particular candidate to deride that candidate or their position in an SCA Association sponsored forum.] While the community may be unaware of this, there are certain forces in our community who are uncomfortable with Lyndall’s independent candidacy, and in particular her approach to the Trumpets indebtedness issue. And if there is one thing that makes certain folks extremely uncomfortable is the prospect of scrutiny over the Trumpets matter, and worse, the prospect that such scrutiny might lie beyond or outside of the Board’s ability to control and manage the issue, if not the outcome. Just what has Lyndall Ruiz said to justify such extreme efforts to sandbag her candidacy? Looking at her campaign flyer, one can gain a glimpse of what might have got her into trouble in some quarters, all seemingly quite innocuous to the unaware & untrained eye. She wrote: IF ELECTED, I WILL WORK WITH THE BOARD TO:
Lyndall Ruiz expanded on that same theme at one of the resident forums, when she appended the word “forensic” to the word “audit,” as in “forensic audit" or forensic accountant or auditor. [1] For some folks, the addition of that little descriptive modifier sounded like a warning shot being fired across the bow of a ship due to the uncertainty that has been created over this matter. Some may have wondered if the addition of the word “forensic” necessarily implied criminal behavior, as the resident had charged in the wording of the question that was asked of Lyndall Ruiz. Lyndall, to her credit, and preferring not to walk into that baited trap, declined to answer the question. “Like many certified public accountants, T. C. . . . . works with numbers, but her focus is on digging into records, asking questions, looking behind the numbers and finding missing links. She is a sleuth -- an accounting sleuth, that is. [She] is a forensic accountant.” As Professor Larry Crumbley, editor of the Journal of Forensic Accounting, warns us, "Just as statisticians lie with statistics, accountants lie with accounting information." That may explain why forensic accounting is reported to be the fastest growing field within the accounting profession. While that may give some folks pause, we should have no reason not to rely on the qualified judgment of Del Webb’s accountant and our controller, Linda Lee Peterson. Keeping the Trumpets Matter Under Control. Admittedly, there are those in the community who were not eager to turn the trumpets indebtedness matter over to an outside, independent party. Those who did not wish to do so well understood there was simply no sense in turning the indebtedness matter over to a third party when the chances are they will tell us what Del Webb’s own accountant told us a year ago that the lessee owes the Association roughly $100,000. Why spend $10,000 to an independent auditor when we know what the answer is in the first place? How Much is Trumpets’ Indebtedness? Whether the lessee owes the Association roughly $100,000 is an interesting question. Accounting is an interesting profession, as much for what financial information can tell you and for what that same information can keep from you. As a result, such information is typically subject to interpretation. Confounding that interpretative problem is the matter of methodology, along with the weighty issue of legalities and the interpretation of contracts. While there may be no clear cut, unequivocal way to generate "the" accounting solution, there may be alternate ways to present an outcome. Take, for example, the issue of late fee payments and the contractual terms of our lease with the operator of Trumpets. For example, Del Webb’s method of calculation, which presumably is consistent with their practices under similar lease agreements elsewhere, may produce one result, while Jack Silas, working under the direction of Favil West, may find a reason to adopt a different method, a method which I label as the political correct outcome. Is one method more accurate or better than the other method? It all depends on what is means by the term “better.” And, more importantly, the question is, “Better for whom?” While I see no credible reason to adopt an accounting method different from the one adopted by Del Webb, we'll let the accountants duel that one out. To see how DW most likely came up with their $100,000 figure, I attempted to calculate the amount owing based solely on my understanding of the terms of the lease, and making certain assumption, which you can see. To my surprise, I learned that my calculation of indebtedness and DW’s calculation were almost identical, or roughly $97,000 for the two year period covered by the review. That suggested to me the likelihood that each of us, applying the terms of the lease, were using the same methodology in calculating late fee penalties, which late fees, by the way, account for 90% of the overall indebtedness amount. To see our calculation: Calculation To see the Lease provisions pertaining to this calculation: Lease Having to acknowledge, face the community with, and explain away an indebtedness of $100,000 would be difficult, but it was doable. But laying it all out like that would not be an option. The real problem facing the Board was not one of concern over accounting accuracy, although some fine tuning was necessary, as it was over the issue of political reality. The political reality was stark: How to deal with an uncollectible debt.[2] While the most obvious solution would have been to write all or a portion of the indebtedness off as part of a negotiated settlement, as businesses do all the time, this option had all the lure of committing political suicide. For those in control of the situation, that was an unacceptable option. There was only one other option available: Make that $100,000 indebtedness figure virtually disappear as if it had never existed in the first place. Those in control would have to find a more acceptable solution to the indebtedness problem. Scapegoats would have to shoulder the blamed. In an effort to illustrated the situation, I have set up two scenarios below, one dealing with what I think should have happened and the other with what I understand took place. While both options were open to the Board, the Board took the second one noted below.
While I and others in the community might favor this so called politically correct resolution, we are left to wonder whether we are better off being manipulated into believing something that is not necessarily true than we would have been had the Board been more straight forward and took responsibility for recommending debt forgiveness as the best solution to an unfortunate situation. Not wishing to take responsibility for making make those more difficult choices themselves, the Board has opted for what they hope the residents will find to be a more palatable resolution. Such a solution will be one that we as residents can easily swallow, and will hold members of the Board essentially blameless. There will be no $100,000 indebtedness to defend and definitely no debt forgiveness to justify to members of the Association. Ron Johnson 17 April 2005 [1] For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, a forensic accountant is not necessarily associated with criminal activity although one may be engaged to perform certain analytical accounting tasks by local or federal law enforcement agencies. Forensic accountants are employed in a wide variety of activities, including Lawyers; Police Forces; Insurance Companies; Government Regulatory Bodies and Agencies; Banks; Courts; and the Business Community in general. Typically, a forensic accountant may be called upon to perform an in-depth analysis that will bring forth relevant accounting issues typically involving an issue of legality. Those issues vary widely depending on the purpose of the analysis. Without going into the very broad range of activities that could entail the need for a forensic accountant, one of the areas that is recognized in the field of forensic accounting is the area of contract disputes, which, for SCA purposes, focuses on the application of the Association’s lease with the operator of Trumpets. As an aside, forensic accountants have also been relied upon in money-related disputes by helping the parties to reach a mutually agreeable resolution through a dispute-resolution process. [2] Some no doubt will wonder “why” the indebtedness is uncollectible. This sort of get to the crux of the political reality issue. To suggest that the Association was clearly being stiffed by the lessee on the late fee penalty amounts is to oversimplify the matter. The association (the management company and the Board) must bear some responsibility for having allowed this matter to get out of control to the point that it did. The sheer magnitude of the indebtedness made collection under any terms a real problem. Assuming the Association received its basic monthly rent of $10,000, plus an additional amounts required pursuant to the lease, we are essentially talking about paper charges or fees called for under the terms of the lease. If we got paid late, i.e., more than 10 days after the due date, so the argument goes, since there was no real harm, there was no fowl committed, aside from the technicalities of the lease and its application in other contract situations. And then, of course, there is the all important “relationship” issue with our lessee, and all lessees for that matter, and how important that relationship is in meeting the future needs of the community. While having been stiffed may be an unpleasant experience, having a good, sound, responsible and timely relationship going forward may be more important in the long run for the welfare of the community.
& Property Taxes On Hosting a Campaign Rally Having tossed his hat into Sun City’s political ring the month before, Favil West then proceeds to invite Assemblywoman Sharron Angle[1] to speak here on the 18th of this month. The date of the invitation is the 27 of March, just days before the Legislature takes final action on the property tax relief bill. On the 31st of March, the legislature approves AB 489, capping our annual property tax increases at 3%. This compares to California, where there is a 1% cap based on 1975 valuation with the maximum annual increase in the assessment of the house's value of 2 percent.[2] On 1 April, Governor Guinn announces he will sign the bill. For more about Prop. 13: Prop. 13
Mr. West’s invitation to Assemblywoman Angle was for her to address our meeting (?) on property tax issues. Just what meeting is that? As a Board member, most will agree that there is no one in Sun City who has more political acumen that does Favil West, or so we had thought. And when there is a call for a community meeting (?), something really important and timely must be pressing on our minds, or so we would assume. And as a candidate for re-election, there is no one in Sun City who is more acutely aware of the political campaign occurring during the 2+ month period from March until the 24th of May, the date balloting closes.
So why is Sharron Angle coming here on the 18th? Occurring as the meeting does on the 18th, one might be caught up in the coincidence that balloting for the Board for all practical purposes will begin on the 18th since 5,000 ballots will be mailed out on the 15th of this week. I happen not to believe in such coincidences, particularly when the date of this upcoming meeting on property taxes was determined not to suit the schedule of Sharron Angel but was determined by Favil West. Mr. West clearly knew the significance of the date he chose to invite the well known legislator to our podium, right in the throws of 13 candidates running for the Board.
We might wish to forgive such a possible coincidence in timing if we knew that Mr. West has had a long history of championing the cause of property tax reform and more particularly the efforts of Sharron Angle to adopt a Prop. 13 type initiative for Nevadans. On the contrary, though, Mr. West has not only avoided this issue in the past, he has fought past efforts to involve the Association in this particular property tax issue.
What has happened to change the mind of Mr. West? Well, for one thing, Mr. West is running for re-election. And, more likely than not, Mr. West would also like to bring along with him his close friend and avid supporter, Chuck Davis, who, as it turns out, just happens to be one of Sharron Angle’s initiative supporters. Apparently, just now is the "right" time to get us on board on this very pressing issue!
It’s always nice to have an opportunity to gather the troops around when there is no good or timely reason to do so and you just happen to be running for political office at the same time. While most candidates pray for such an opportunity, Mr. West just makes an opportunity to suit his own political agenda. What better chance to present yourself and others close to you as the anointed messenger of the people. If the tactic was so successful 3 years ago, when there was a real community crisis, shouldn’t it work again? Forget the fact that there is no need for community action on this issue at this time.
In concluding, I believe it's best not to mix local Board politics and the alleged need for a questionable meeting on property tax issues during this campaign process. In scheduling this meeting at this time, I believe Mr. West has had a serious lapse in good judgment.
Ron Johnson, 4/12/2005 [1] Sharron Angle is a proponent of a Prop. 13 type property tax initiative for Nevada. According to one report, Sharron Angle said she has been asked by supporters to run for Congress in 2006. Another report suggests that Angle’s Prop. 13 efforts now may be motivated more to gain widespread publicity in her alleged desire to run for Congress, at lest according to the opinion of Las Vegas John in the Nevada State Democratic Blog, “Why was Sharron Angle the only member of the State Assembly to vote against property tax relief? She seems to be stuck on a prop 13 type of constitutional amendment like California's. It should be obvious that she is only promoting this as a part of her potential candidacy for Congress. She is only serving her own personal political interests, with this ploy. How could she not support such a bipartisan effort to provide real tax relief for home owners, business's and renters. A prop. 13 amendment would quickly bankrupt government at all levels. This would result in drastic cuts in all services especially education and healthcare. The results of prop. 13 in California have been disastrous according to Governor Guinn. The tax plan adopted is one that address's tax problems in Nevada. This is not California.” 4/4/2005 [2] According to one observer of the CA scene: "Others think Proposition 13 is an attack on the public good. Paul Mattiuzzi, a 51-year-old forensic psychologist who owns a house in Arden Park, sees its handiwork in the squalor along major thoroughfares, a local library that's open only four days a week, and the higher fees he will have to pay for his daughter to attend the University of California, Berkeley, this fall. "As a homeowner, I think it hurts my investment," Mattiuzzi said. "If the schools aren't taken care of, the value of my house goes down. If the parks aren't taken care of, the value of my house goes down. If your roof has a hole in it, you don't save any money by letting the rain come in." A couple of years after Mattiuzzi bought his house in 1989, Arden Park approved an assessment on property to keep the pool from being shut down. But his neighbors balked at paying another $30 a year to maintain the Modesto ash trees that were planted on every lot when the neighborhood was built. "People screamed and said, 'No, no, no,' " he said. "Now we have this crisis. Our trees are dying." Source: The Sacramento Bee, Debate over Prop. 13 still rages, 6/1/2003.
Preface to Reflections by Dick Sovde At our request, Dick Sovde has graciously agreed to share his thoughts and insights on the candidate forums, two of which both he and I had attended. In his article below, Dick has very carefully crafted key elements and common themes in presenting the candidates' views, in the end pleading that we residents all need to be better informed before making that election ballot decision. Ed.
Just in case you missed the Candidates’ Forums…. I’ve been asked to comment on the Candidates’ Forums to assist you in making a decision about which six of the 13 candidates you will vote for at the upcoming Board of Directors election. I’m not inclined to be specific about the opinions expressed by the candidates but rather to alert you to the need to become knowledgeable about their platforms and be sure you are comfortable casting your ballot. With this purpose in mind, perhaps the following information will be helpful to you. I’ve attended two forums, one of them sponsored by the Election Committee (a team of residents that is managing the forums as well as the debates [April 13, 3pm and April 14, 7pm]). The second forum was hosted by the Computer Club. The similarities between the two were notable, but a few differences existed, especially because by the time the large Candidates’ Forum took place, the candidates had grown more comfortable with the format and understood the need to make a good impression. All candidates were introduced by the moderator, resumes were read at the outset, and each candidate spoke about himself/herself for about four minutes. Questions and answers followed. There appeared to be several themes woven throughout the presentations: 1. keep dues down; 2. fix the problems with Trumpets including providing more clarity about the financial relationship between SCA and Trumpets, and doing a better job of controlling non-resident use of Anthem Center; 3. increase participation by residents in decision-making; 4. improve communications between the Board and residents by seeking more input which, they felt, would lead to better Board decisions; 5. reduce micro-managing by the Board; 6. provide capable management of the Association’s business; 7. protect residents’ investment in SCA; 8. be sure all residents’ needs are cared for, especially the disabled; and, 9. avoid the appearance of secrecy.
Each candidate recited on his/her opinions and interests related to one or more of these themes, some with greater knowledge than others. Some of the candidates spoke eloquently about the need to choose members who have solid team building skills, good listening skills, and experience in Association governance. Others advanced solutions to various problems, drew attention to their personal qualities that made him/her the “best” candidate, or focused on prior successes. Some spoke about successes to date and expressed a desire to continue moving forward. Most committed themselves to maintaining or improving the lifestyle enjoyed by all. During the question/answer period, residents asked about traffic safety issues, contract management, problems with Trumpets, safety from suburban crime, the credibility of the Association’s auditor, keeping assessments down, greater resident participation in decision making, and contracts with vendors. Answers were generally well done though some acrimony was expressed by a couple of candidates whose knowledge of the issues was limited. At the conclusion of the Committee-sponsored forum, residents were encouraged to talk with the candidates who were stationed at their respective tables in the rear of Hanneman Hall. Each offered flyers; two provided larger displays, one an artist’s rendering of a solution to the Trumpets noise problem, and the other a large photograph of the candidate apparently taken several years ago. There is no question that the forums have provided residents an opportunity to learn more about the candidates’ skills, interests, and respective approaches to providing leadership in Sun City Anthem. By focusing on the substance of their comments and ignoring the usual criticisms that are typical of most political campaigns, thoughtful residents left with a much better understanding of which candidates are best prepared to represent them. It is critical that all residents become better informed about these candidates. They will set the policies, define the decision-making strategies, and deal with a variety of issues that will be very important to the future of Sun City Anthem Community Association. I urge you to attend the debates on April 13 and April 14. The Election Committee has done a superb job of bringing these forums to you. A “well done” and special thanks to them! Dick Sovde Note: I have personally endorsed three candidates who approached me and asked for my support. No reference is made to them or any of the other candidates, by name, in this article. My sole purpose has been to provide the reader with a quick snapshot of what I saw and what happened at the forums which I attended. Reflections by Ron Johnson 4/2
Clearly there is a great wealth of talent and leadership represented by the candidates. Paraphrasing Win Roll’s comments to the audience, the Association should be well served by any of the six successful candidates to the Board. While we hope that will be the case, we also realize that each candidate has their own unique and varied qualities to bring to the Board. Recognizing the presence, if not the importance, of these differences, how are residents going to learn about the candidates? Dick rightly stressed the need for residents to be better informed?
While Dick is correct in his plea, we will be fortunate, indeed, to wind up with the right mix of candidates. Why is that? Because the residents who will most likely decide the outcome of the election will have never heard or listened to the candidates. That fact poses a very real problem both for the candidates and for the residents who will be casting their vote. There will be those candidates, of course, who will have a head start by simply benefiting from name recognition alone. That may be all that is needed to put those particular candidates over the number that will be needed to get them on the Board. In some instances, one may question whether that outcome would be looked at as a desirable outcome. For the remaining candidates, there are those all important Association-sent flyers. Consider, for example, that the content of those flyers may become crucial in determining the outcome of the election. Why? Because those flyers most likely will be the only candidate information available to most of our voting community, other than what one might learn by word of mouth. Are those tom-toms working for or against you?
While that prospect may sound a bit extreme, consider the following. We have about 5,000 households, or roughly 7,500 residents, allowing for a 10% vacancy rate. We had two all resident forums, and one major Club forum, attracting 125 residents, 160 residents, respectively, and for the almost 1,000 member Computer Club, with all residents invited, only about 50 residents attended. Allowing for duplicate attendees and couples present, it likely that we have had roughly 200 households coming out to be better informed. As a result, the candidates have personally impacted only about 4% of the total number of households in the voting pool. On the other hand, based on prior experience, roughly 50% of the households will be voting. So, of those households who will actually be casting their six votes, fewer than 10% are reaching out for more candidate information at this critical juncture in our development. If fewer than 10% of the voting households are better informed than the remaining 90% who are not as well informed, who will be the deciding factor in determining the outcome of the election? While you or I may or may not find this troubling, just think what the candidates must be experiencing with that realization.
With that very low level of resident participation in the election “learning” process, what can we anticipate? Very likely those candidates who feel that they have a message to deliver have yet to locate their target audience. Instead of waiting, apparently in vain, for residents to gather around and listen intently to their message, some candidates may feel the need to actually venture out into the neighborhoods to seek the exposure and support they so desperately need. Or, conversely, some may wish to ponder that prospect, think twice about venturing forth, realizing that they may be better off by staying home. Good luck on making that judgment.
There could be a flicker of hope on the horizon. To bring the candidates out from behind the curtain and into the open and into your living room, we have that advertising marvel and potential candidate salvation called television, or in our case, Channel 99. Given the importance that has been attached to this particular election, and given the potential impact that TV can have on the viewer, we should have been experiencing CNN-type news coverage of the election process and the candidates, day and night, over and over again from day one. But, guess what? There has been no such coverage to date. AND OUR VOTING PROCESS STARTS IN ONLY 13 DAYS ON 15 APRIL!
If you take a look at Channel 99 right now, you will see the following message scrolling along the bottom of the page:
“Stay tuned to Channel 99 for all your election coverage needs.”
What in the world are they talking about--ALL OF MY ELECTION COVERAGE NEEDS? We would not be exaggerating to suggest that Channel 99 is promising a tad more than they have been delivering to us so far. Our needs would seem to be greater than what our communication's people envisage. But do not despair too much or for too long since Channel 99 will be conducting sit-down candidate interviews this next week for later airing.
While Channel 99 has already missed two opportunities to carry the resident forums, or to bring us snippets of what the candidates said, we have two excellent broadcasting opportunities to look forward to on April 13th and 14th with the candidate debates. You can assure yourselves that those who are in control of Channel 99 productions are doing everything they can to bring you the very best election converge possible. Well, that's not quite true since the key word here is "control."
It’s just that whatever election coverage we will be seeing will not be LIVE coverage, nor, apparently, will there be video taped coverage of the interesting and informative candidate debates, which will be our great loss. We will eventually learn from a member of the Board that, no, it was not they (Bob and Favil) who made these production decisions, but it was our partner, Dell Webb, who, we are told, is unwilling to relinquish their control over such matters.
I'm not so sure that if I were on the Board and was running for re-election that I would be vigorously attempting to pressure DW into agreeing to live TV coverage of candidate events. But that's me.*
Ron Johnson April 2, 2005
Addendum: * While "Live" coverage may pose certain issues, including technical obstacles, it had been my understanding that such live coverage had been the subject of discussion with DW in the case of the grand opening ceremonies of the new recreation center building. Having no reason to doubt the accuracy of that information, the natural question is, "If that, then what about broadcasting key election events for the thousands of residents who have television?"
Candidates Forum, 24 March
A Glimpse of What to Expect
[with candidate responses below, if any] The candidates forum sponsored by the Computer Club on the 24th was a welcomed introduction to the candidates and their perspectives on addressing the needs of the community. Except for absence of Win Roll, all of the candidates were represented, with Robbye Sansing speaking for Robert who was out of town. Each candidate was limited to a total of 5 minutes to use as they wished, all speech or a combination of question and answer. The disappointing turnout at this early 9 a.m. event by Club members and residents alike did not detract from the well received event, which also afforded time at the end for questions and answers. While each of the candidates brought a certain measure of qualified experience to warrant our attention and acceptance on our future Board, some more than others managed to stand out from the rest. This stand-out feature does not qualify any one candidate over the other, but it does give recognition to the fact that some candidates are by training or practice more dynamic, more charismatic, or are simply more adept at public speaking. A word of caution, my comments below are not intended to provided a mini-review of each candidate, but merely to call attention to a few of the more memorable events. We were reminded by two of the candidates, David Berman and Lyndall Ruiz, of their law degree and training that they thought might benefit the Board in reviewing and interpreting legal documents. David Berman and Lyndall Ruiz, both very adept at public speaking, stood out for other reasons. David, one of two candidates to mention the existence of their own candidate website, the other being Dave Weil, brought the audience not merely his wishes and vision for our future as a community, as did the other candidates, but he also brought forward, together with architectural renderings, two innovative ideas to solve some real problems. One was a glass barrier to reduce noise from Trumpets catered events and the other was a multi-level parking garage to relieve parking at Anthem Center & RC2. I do not wish to debate the merits for these proposed projects, but to give David the credit I think he deserves in attempting to find and bring to our attention proposed solutions to current and likely future problems. Whether these particular projects ever see the light of day is less important than the need for our community to be represented by individuals on the Board who are open to if not looking for innovative and creative solutions to issues facing the community. Lyndall Ruiz, on the other hand, carried a very different message, one that appeared to be shared by Carl Weinstein, [see Mr. Weinstein's response in his Letter to the Editor immediately below], and she made a very impressive presentation. Compared to the statements made by the other candidates, I believe it’s fair to say that the statements made by Lyndall and Carl were designed to challenged the status quo and were looking for change. While some may welcome this measure of independence as a needed ingredient, there may be some risk in their message by marginalizing their efforts to the extent that voters in general will be looking for a Board that will work well together. On the other hand, the Board might very well benefit from having members who are both outspoken and independent. Other candidates who spoke may have shared a similar message to Lyndall and Carl, but if so, it was either difficult to discern or, more likely, I was less attentive to their message. All speakers had something of real value to offer. Not wishing to leave the impression that only attorneys had something to offer our new Board, Guy Lalouche, upon his introduction, was quick to retort, "How about a chemist," which brought some welcoming smiles to the audience. When Favil West's turn came, he was given the understandable honor of being the only person cautioned about the 5 minute time limit. Could Favil, the moderator must have wondered, keep it to 5 minutes. No one gave any notice as we all listened intently to what Favil was telling us. As usual, we were overwhelmed by his delivery and the outpouring of information. As Favil when on, and on, or so it seemed at that time, some clearly thought the timekeeper had dropped off for a while, as several in the audience and at the speaker’s table were feverously pointing to their watches to suggest that Favil was out of time. Then, to the dismay or utter chagrin of some, Favil was then alerted to the fact that he still had one minute left. Perhaps Favil was merely giving us too much information to absorb and that made it appear that time had stopped or had elapsed more quickly than it had. Following the meeting, a kindly gentleman approached and asked me who among the candidates I would be supporting. I was taken aback by the question as I had not yet decided and I did not plan on making those decision public. But I was reminded by this retiring gentleman of his understanding that I would be doing just that. On re-reading what I had written on 10 February, in An Early Election Decision, one may reasonably conclude that I would indeed become more involved this time around in our election process, even to the point of making recommendations for the Board. On reflection, though, I think I have already gone as far as I wish to in that direction in advocating my support for one of the 13 candidates.[1] While I, or anyone else for that matter, could recommend this or that candidate for the Board, as others have already done so by making candidate endorsements, I have no reason to believe that my opinion is of any more value than anyone else when it comes down to a recommendation for the Board. With sufficient community involvement and candidate exposure, we should achieve a Board that will meet our community's needs. We have a fine group of highly qualified candidates, any 6 of whom should be able to come together in meeting our future needs. Finally, I’ll end by repeating what I had written earlier on the subject of recommending someone to the Board: cast you vote for one who can demonstrate by their own experience that they have been an effective leader, listener, and thinker. The election process we now have in place should allow us to make those critical judgments. Ron Johnson 26 March 2005
P.S. Click here for Candidate flyers. Also present are Links to candidate websites where additional information is available. [1] In an Election Viewpoint on 13 February, I made the following observations in support of a Favil West candidacy for one of the 6 positions on the Board. That recommendation was dictated by a number of factors, including demonstrated leadership qualities, proven good works, quality efforts in our behalf, and foremost, a person who will bring to the Board a certain passion for working together for the community’s betterment as we move from a Developer controlled Board to a resident controlled Board.
Responding to the above Election Viewpoint and in rebuttal, Carl
Weinstein provided the following:
Sat 3/26/2005 5:53 PM Letter to the Editor:
Dear Ron:
I read your review of the SCA Board Candidates presentations to
the Computer Club and find that the review was not a reporting of
news but rather an Editorial laced with your veiled opinions of
the messages within the messages.
I take issue with your characterization of my remarks before the
group this week. All of the candidates have issues they think
could be done better and so do !. The problem is that you
represented my remarks as being in support of big changes on the
Board and implied that because there are things I would like to
see done better that I would be a disruptive force on the Board,
or, unable to be part of a team. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Sun City Anthem is a premier retirement community and
my objective is to make it even better. There are other
retirement communities in the Las Vegas Valley which have
destroyed themselves due to Board bickering and law suits. I
shall keep that in the forefront of my mind if I have the
opportunity to work hand-in-hand with other elected Board members.
Carl Weinstein
Candidate for SCA Board of Directors
Reply to Carl Weinstein's Letter to the Editor I wrote Carl to advise that I do not view an independent voice on the Board as a necessarily disruptive force or one that would be unable to be part of a team effort. Carl is correct that each candidate will bring to the Board differing issues and changes that they believe will benefit the operation of the Board in achieving a better community. Whether a candidate is more or less outspoken should in no way detract from their ability to meaningful contribute to the cohesiveness of the Board and the welfare of the community.
Ron Johnson 27 March
|
| Copyright © 2006 The SCA View-Journal,
Inc. All rights
reserved. Published by Ron Johnson, 2040 Rose Cottage Way,
Henderson, NV 89052, Telephone 702-617-8172
|
