A Real Libertarian and He's Running for the Board Too!

I recently had occasion to label Bob Sansing as one who had called upon “right wing” thinking in his campaign for the Board. For those who may not recall, you can read what I had written about Bob’s campaign message and his broadcast reason for voting for him immediately below.[1]

While momentarily lingering at the Anthem Center, I saw Bob racing towards me in his scooter. “Wait a minute,” Bob said, “I wanted to tell you that you were wrong in what you had written.” But first, he reminded me that he was but a youngster on the Board compared to his fellow members, and was not that “old” gent I had referred to when looking at our two male incumbents. More importantly for Bob, though, he said his thinking was not “right wing” at all, but, instead, Bob declared he was a “Libertarian.”  While I told Bob I would correct the record, it was not clear to me what that correction might entail nor was I clear on the distinction between the two, or for that matter, the meaning of Libertarianism as a political philosophy.

            After some minimal research on this matter, I happen to believe that so called “right wing” thinking shares some political philosophy with Libertarian thinking. To assist me and to help our readers better understand what Libertarianism is all about, I am including some additional information below. In doing so, while I do not maintain that our declared Libertarian Bob Sansing necessarily shares all of the tenants identified below, it's reasonable to conclude that as an avowed Libertarian Bob shares many of these views.

On Libertarianism.[2]  In brief, here are some generalized features of Libertarianism.

“The three central features of Libertarianism are:  (1) The root problem of the modern world is the loss of individual freedom, and a limited state is the pre-condition of that freedom.  The primary freedom is economic and requires the unrestricted right to use one’s property, spend one’s money, and sell one’s skills.  (2) Society is an association of self-directed individuals.  It is not itself an entity; it has no goals, interests, or rights as a whole.  Any effort to define a distinct common good undermines individual freedom by providing the potential basis for collectivism.  It is assumed that individuals have the capacity for self-control and self-direction, and that while everyone pursues their own personal goals they can live harmoniously in society.  (3) The main supports of individual freedom are the major elements of capitalism—private property, the market, and the organization of economic life around private profit.  The major threat to individual freedom is the growing state direction of economic life.”

         For some additional information on what Libertarians stand for, click here to go to a separate page.         

Tree Vandalism Suspect Update.

According to an article by Nicole Feneberg Lucht in the South Valley News, Douglas Hoffman could face up to 38 years in prison if convicted of 10 counts of felony and misdemeanor destruction of another's property. According to the complaint, Hoffman is accused of damaging or destroying about 545 trees on nine separate occasions, costing the Sun City Anthem Council and developer Pulte Homes $242,185.  As reported, Mr. Hoffman is scheduled to appear in Henderson Justice Court on March 28 for an initial appearance. Source: South Valley News, March 9-15, 2006, page 1.

The "Details of Probable Cause" are described on pages 5-6 of the Complaint. To read the County's criminal complaint against Mr. Hoffman, click: Complaint

New Wall Vandalism

As reported and shown on Channel 5 News on Monday, extensive graffiti was written along concrete walls covering several blocks primarily north of Volunteer on Sebring Hills Dr. in Westridge Village, as well as in Tall Mesa Village (opposite Sebring Hills Dr.) just south of Volunteer. This occurred at night in the the early morning hours of Saturday, 11 March. To view some photographic examples:  Examples

We understand the alleged graffiti suspect was able to evade capture.

The SCA Election Campaign

Here we are with just three weeks to go before voting begins and no doubt some folks are beginning to wonder if they miscalculated on the possible outcome of putting up certain candidates for the Board. But more on that a bit later.

When the votes are counted on 1 May, the top three vote getters from among the roughly 3,000 valid resident ballots that will be cast in April will determine the outcome of the election. What does that tell us? Say roughly half of that number, the ones who voted to upset the status quo a year ago, are still of a similar mind this time around. What options will they have in the upcoming election?  There choices are few, actually very limited with only Carl Weinstein as their potential hopeful. While Carl confided to me that he would not object to unseating one of our newbie board members, say Lyndall Ruiz, that prospect may be as difficult as replacing our venerated leader Bob Berman. If Carl had but 130 more votes in last year’s election, he—the next one in the vote getting line, and not Lyndall would be sitting on the Board right now.

In the recent debates, Carl attempted to assume control, as well as drawing a bead on Lyndall whenever he had an opportunity to do so. In the first debate, Carl was the only candidate on the dais who was willing to challenge what other candidates had said and press his point of view. That was refreshing. That alone made Carl stand out as one who is not unwilling to share his opinion on matters others might deem too sensitive and, as Carl would say, to tell it like it is, whichever way it falls. Carl says that if he is elected he will be truly independent, that he will decide matters on the merits for the best interest of the residents, and that he will not side with either faction on the Board. Whether that spate of independence will be sufficient to sway enough voters his way we will just have to wait and see.

Carl was also willing to take on Kay Dwyer on the issue of casual drop-in play in the lower gallery. While Kay was adamant in her position that members not be allowed to use the lower gallery on a recurring basis, like a foursome meeting Wednesday afternoons, Carl was just as adamant that such use is permitted and intended under current guidelines.

Regrettably, Kay Dwyer's voice of reason and conviction was unquestionably muted at the first debate due to a severe case of laryngitis. Kay was feeling a little better and her voice was indeed stronger by the next evening and the second debate. We understand that Elaine Berg, alleged by some to be tied at the hip with Favil West and his board ambitions, had attempted to distance herself from Favil at the Performing Arts Club debate when she announced that she was not one of Favil’s ladies. That being said, however, I do not anticipate that Elaine is quite ready to disavow her Ch. 99 candidate interview statement that she is looking to be a “board member that is not divisive.” When I asked Elaine about what was meant by that “not divisive” reference, Elaine was uncharacteristically evasive in her response.   

And then there was Bob Sansing, who when asked by Ch. 99’s Bill Campbell why members should vote for him, was the only candidate to lurch into a right wing diatribe against government as the primary, if not the only reason to vote for him. While being “passionate about” and running on a platform to constrain government spending a la Prop. 13 type legislation might sound great in a partisan campaign at the state or local political level, that rhetoric seemed far removed and misplaced from the issues immediately affecting the administration of Sun City Anthem. Unless, of course, Bob is looking to turn the Board down the road of engaging in political advocacy. I found it strange and confusing that with so much on our local table to deal with that Bob is looking to attract our attention and votes by campaigning to constrain government.

So with those 1,500 other, non-connected voters in there to affect the outcome, just how will those votes be cast? With women making up a key and increasing force in the community, there are opportunities and dangers afoot, depending on where you stand. For example, take our two lady challengers, Kay and Elaine. Clearly, there’s an opportunity to increase the number of women on the male dominated Board from one to three, taking out two tired old gents in the process, who both happen to be named Bob, retiring one who’s been around too long to matter and the other who is too new on the Board to matter much either. As the argument goes, let the good common sense that women can bring to rule the Board over the problems now radiating from too much testosterone flowing from those male incumbents. While such an outcome may not be on  Kay and Elaine’s agenda in running, who’s to say how those other voters will decide.

Trumpets Update.

It’s election time again, no doubt a mere coincidence of timing, and all we can hear about these days on the Trumpets matter is that we are on the verge of a “win-win” agreement with the lessee.  Why should we not be surprised. We’ve gone from “we can not divulge even those matters you are entitled to know,” to “the ink is almost dry on an agreement with smiles all around.” Are we in time for a real celebration or will that celebration be more along the pattern of a New Orleans funeral procession. We’ll know soon enough.

When the end to negotiations finally arrives, as we are now led to believe is within sight, will we be able to tell whether the Board had grown too weary to continue the struggle in the face of a determined and recalcitrant lessee, or whether they were overly anxious to turn on that money tap that had been shut down for more than six months. What will be the measure of a successful outcome to the negotiations? And how will we be able to judge?  

At least members of the Board will soon be released from their confidentially agreements concerning Trumpets negotiations, possibly leaving us with the prospect of learning “the rest of the story.”  

On Keeping that “A List” Secret.   

A frustrated questioner at last month’s Board meeting made a valiant, but unsuccessful effort to elicit some important information from President Dave Weil. The gentleman’s plea was simple enough, but apparently it was too difficult to answer in any meaningful way on the fly. But what was asked on this occasion was on the mind of many who knew just enough to make that inquiry very pregnant.  Our questioner wondered out loud if we are getting “W” from DW in work on the Independence Center, plus “X” from DW in additional funding for certain completion items for the IC, and “Y” from our 2006 budget for a broad array of related and unrelated items on the “A List,” then what specifically are the items we are NOT getting that were once considered desirable to complete the Independence Center. And, finally, just what are all those items that are on the “A List” that are proposed to be funded by our already approved 2006 budget, even allowing that final cost figures are not yet available?

Where does the Board draw the line in communicating their budgetary intent to the community? While such information continues to remain hidden from view, whose small purpose is being served by continuing to keep our members in the dark on fiscal matters?

The "Unavailable" Board Book! 

A subtext of this heading might read: Whose interests are being served by keeping Committee records secret—the Committee’s or the interests of the members?  Committees typically produce documents. These papers, memos, proposals, spread sheets, etc., are freely circulated among members of the Committee. No one should be surprised to learn that such documents are not made available to members who attend Committee meetings, even though, mind you, as residents of the community we are called upon to make inquiries or ask questions based on items that are under discussion or are up for recommendation to the Board.  If Committees would like to receive relevant input, there needs to be a procedure in place to alert or advise the community at large of changes being considered that could very well impact member lifestyles. I’ll leave this pressing topic of resident access for another day since this is not the topic I want to address at this time.

Now, I will return back to the Board Book topic, as boring a subject as that might be. If there is one thing that the Board had been promising members for a long time was greater access to information about the business of the Association. It was a recurring mantra we could rely on. The Board Book would always be there as a history of the work of the Association, a book everyone had and continues to have access to. Some may look upon the Association’s Board Book as something akin to a unique historical record or a series of documents that any governmental entity may possess. While clearly not comparable in importance to the U.S. Constitution, a signed copy of which is housed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., I’m reminded of a recent political cartoon. A tourist at the National Archives stops at the empty display case of the U.S. Constitution and asks the guard, “Where is the U.S. Constitution?” The guard answered the tourist by telling him that “the document has been removed to be reclassified.” No doubt this was a political comment on the government’s recent efforts to make certain records less accessible to the public’s view.

There was a time not long ago when the Board Book contained an array of information along with Committee produced documents. Perhaps it sill does. But that’s hard to tell. Recently when I asked to see a portion of the Board Book for a prior period, I was told it was unavailable. But what did that mean? I was assured the Board Book was neither lost nor missing. Actually, it was sitting right there, almost within view.

So, what’s the problem? As I learned, the Board Book was undergoing some sort of cleansing procedure, not unlike the reclassification procedures that Federal National Security agencies are mandating in redacting and removing documents from public view.   I was told the same thing was happening here with our Board Book. The Board Book, as I was told, was being “sanitized” to better serve who or what purpose . . . . . . . our members (?), open communications (?), improved knowledge of Association business (?).

Keeping Draft Proposals Secret—Kay Dwyer and Elaine Berg on the Hot Seat. 

Change is difficult to accept and when you have what amounts to a SECRET stamp available to you as a Committee chair, you find yourself reluctant to relinquish control and share your decision-making process with the members you are serving. While not even making the list of sexy items to come up at the Candidate Debates, the issue of making draft proposals available to members before they are finalized by a Committee and the Board was nonetheless an extremely important issue that was debated. When addressing the need for a change in procedures or guidelines, such as in the Lifestyle Committee, the current Committee practice is to gather resident input, consider the need for any change, make a determination, and, if warranted, draft a proposed change. The Committee then votes on the proposed change and sends it forward to the Board with their recommendation for approval.

As a member of the Association, you are NOT entitled to know the contents of the Committee’s recommendation to the Board, regardless of whether the Committee’s proposal will have some impact on your lifestyle. Only after the Board has taken action to approve the Committee’s agenda item will you be privy to the contents of the Committee’s recommendation. If the Board should send the proposed action back to the Committee for further review or modification, members will continue to be left in total darkness.

The procedure of denying member access to draft or final Committee proposals works well for the Committees, but does that procedure have the affect of working against the information needs of the community?

Coming to the rescue of the lowly member in this tug of war over access to what amounts to proposed implementing legislation for the community was Board Member Lyndall Ruiz, who was spearheading the right and need of members to know what the Committees are doing. And spearheading the denial of member access and knowledge of such matters were none other than Kay Dwyer and Elaine Berg, no doubt befitting their positions as Committee Chairs. While the overriding principle of keeping members better informed rather than in the dark would seem a no-brainer, Kay and Elaine are needlessly defending the status quo and getting bogged down in the trivial detail of the paperwork that would mark proposals as a DRAFT until they were finalized and dated by the Committee.

Ron Johnson

14 March 2006

New Community Association Manager.  Thursday marked the fourth day for our new Community Association Manager, Arnie Snow. If his name is familiar to you, it may be because you have heard of him as the manager at  Sun City McDonald Ranch. Arnie has been described by some McDonald Ranch residents as a very likable, warm and friendly person, and not unexpectedly by others as cold and aloof. So what's new?

Reportedly contributing to Mr. Snow's decision to leave the serenity of McDonald Ranch for the challenges of Anthem was his lack of any real authority as the manager. As we were told, a certain over zealous board member had taken upon himself the job of micromanaging the business of the Association, allegedly leaving little final decision-making authority to the manager.

Fortunately, that kind of management problem will not be present here since Sun City Anthem does not have any Prima Donna board members running amuck who are accustomed to second-guessing or interfering with Association management operations or in directing the efforts of individual staff members. What a relief.

We understand RMI will insist that Board members stay out of the office and away from the staff and that any direction from the Board come only to the Community Manager and only from the Board's president.

Channel 99.  Check out Channel 99's expanded and increasingly informative and attention gripping TV coverage. You may zip on over to watch Channel 99 with the "one click" method using your mouse (if you recall that piece of information) or you can use the 4-click method recommended by Chuck Davis by first logging on to the SCACAI website, etc., etc.

Is there a relationship between RMI and that Florida appendage of Firstservice, The Continental Group? In the Channel 99 TV interview now airing with RMI's Karen DuBose, our management company overseer, Karen tells us that she is a Nevada state newbie. Actually, Karen comes to us from that sunshine state Florida and was brought in by Firstservice (that Canadian owner) in 2005 to manage RMI's community associations. Her former, long-term employer was none other than Firstservice's The Continental Group. For background information on The Continental Group, see Parts 2-5 of the Dec. BOD meeting.

Larry Attebery.  We were sadden to hear that Larry Attebery has become too ill to continue his greatly appreciated efforts for Channel 99 TV. For those from the southern California area, Larry is a well known TV personality, investigative reporter and anchorman. Larry ruled the Los Angeles TV airways as a probing and relentless reporter for more than 35 years before retiring to Sun City. We'll miss his warm presence on Channel 99 TV and wish Larry the best. 

Tree Slasher Update.  

First, no legal action has been filed against the apprehended suspect, Douglas Hoffman. If legal action is taken, the misdemeanor or felony charge would be for the malicious destruction of private property. According to the County's District Attorney's office, the matter had been returned to the Henderson Police Department for the development of further information. And according to a discussion I had with Keith Paul, the Police Department's Public Information Officer, a meeting has been scheduled between the officers involved and the DA's office to discuss the additional information that has been gathered.  Following that meeting, the DA's office will make a determination whether there is sufficient evidence to file a complaint, which may be a misdemeanor or a felony complaint. The criteria for filing a complaint, however, is far greater than the "probable cause" criteria used in making an initial arrest.

"Probable cause" is the standard used by police departments to make arrests and conduct investigations. Defined as having more evidence for than against. Also, an apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry, which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe, in a criminal case, that the accused person had committed the crime charged, while reserving some possibility for doubt.

As to what action the DA will take is speculative. In this Sun City case, the options are fairly simple: Granting a misdemeanor or felony complaint, or denying a complaint because of a lack of sufficient evidence or in the interest of justice.

In this observer's view, the likelihood of a complaint being filed will rest on the issue of whether the evidence gathered by the police is "clear and convincing." To be "clear and convincing," the evidence must rise to a level that would produce in one's mind a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established; it is intermediate, being more than mere preponderance, but not the extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. While the lay person may have one idea of what constitutes "clear and convincing," the DA is looking for a level of proof to win a conviction in a court of law.

In the event the DA's office should fail to file a complaint, it's reasonable to conclude the community will be outraged, not so much against the DA's office but for the failure to extract a measure of justice against the person known to have committed these series of crimes against the community.

For additional information about the original arrest, click here.   

Lower Gallery Reconfiguration.

The Lifestyle Committee made no decision at this month's meeting regarding the lower gallery configuration, an exceedingly HOT topic among our card, mahjong and pool players. Instead, the Committee will be busy evaluating and gathering additional "use" information, prompting Club and non-Club members alike to swarm onto the floor of the lower gallery in an ongoing effort to demonstrate a continuing "need" for preserving the status quo.

Poker Table Mania. Still unanswered is the question of when additional poker tables were acquired and added to the lower gallery, how did that expansion correlate to actual use (play) data for the 15 tables now on the floor? Since we have a "dedicated use" situation with Poker and Pan player, the central question is one of scheduling to accommodate Club and drop-in play. In an average month, there are 90 blocks of play time available for EACH table on the floor, one block in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one in the evening. With 15 tables, that equates to 1,350 blocks of playing time a month. Looking at it differently, that's 15 table blocks of time in the A.M. and 30 in the P.M. every single day. Each block of playing time can be from 2-3 hours at a time. With up to 4,000 hours of real table play available each month for Poker and Pan, is no one interested in why those tables must take up more than 50% percent of the tables currently located in the lower gallery? Is it realistic for the Lifestyle Committee and the Board to mandate such a huge footprint of tables based on nothing more than hot air when the operative issue should be AT WHAT TIME is one scheduled to play or may engage in drop-in play?  If through scheduling there is a need for only, say, 8-10 tables, perhaps there are alternative higher priority uses for the unneeded space.

Focus Property Group. 

Heavy duty earth moving machines are shown in the picture to the left as they begin to clear a portion of the Focus Property Group's 2,000 acre site immediately west of Sun City Anthem. Their new development is called Inspirada.

Veterans "Club" Update.  Once rejected by the Board, the Veterans special interest group will again charge up that hill with renewed support of the Lifestyle Committee. It looks as if the proposed Veterans group is destined for approval.

The Association's Tax Liability and the IRS.  Seeking to avoid the consequences of an audit and to comply with IRS guidelines on allocating member vs. nonmember activities to the appropriate taxable or nontaxable revenue category, the Finance Committee will be meeting with the outside auditor to study the matter and make a number of changes to existing, nonconforming allocations. Coming at a time of transition, making such changes will not create any undue attention or concern. Until that process is completed, the impact on our tax liability is unknown. However, the process of moving revenues from member (non-taxable) to non-member activities (taxable) will result in some adjustment to taxable income.

Bank Accounts. The Bank of America was recommended as the Association's holder of investment income and that same bank will continue to provide the Association with operating fund and checking account services.

Service Club Accounting.  There will be a Finance Committee workshop to develop accounting criteria to handle service clubs in general, such as Emergency Preparedness and the Security Patrol. This will cover procedures for the approval of expenditures, donations, deposits and grants.

Lots Sold. The Developer has sold a total of 5,761 lots and the Association is receiving assessments on 6,229 lots, the difference between the two reflecting the inclusion of builder lots released but not yet sold.

Election Committee News Update.  According to Board member and Chairman David Berman, the Committee is seeking questions to ask the candidates. According to Mr. Berman, the Committee decided that while they would like to have your good question to ask the candidates, they also need to know your name, your member number and your telephone number. That the Committee could not figure out that having "a good question" has little or nothing to do with securing your name, member and telephone numbers is bewildering.

While David can cite this or that reason to call you at home about your question, I think the Committee is up to the task of figuring out what to do or not do with anyone's question. They have no need for that "additional" information and requesting same adds nothing to the process. While those who would love to share the fact of authorship may do so, requiring them to do so is a meaningless exercise. Perhaps the thinking is that if you are required to identify yourself to the Committee, you will be more responsible in asking a question.

As a result of the issue being raised, and out of concern that some members having a good question may not feel comfortable identifying themselves to the Committee as the author of a question, the Committee agreed to accept questions that did not include your name, member and telephone numbers.

What about Club-sponsored "Debates?" The Committee announced they will stay away from any candidate related issues occurring within a Club-sponsored event. In other words, a Club is free to do as they wish in inviting or not inviting candidates. And for their part, the candidates, whether they are Club members or not, are free to do as they wish at a Club meeting, assuming they are invited to attend and presumably the candidate acts within the grounds of propriety. As a result, the Committee will not act on any election complaints that occur under the sponsorship of a Club, such as at a Club meeting.

"Incumbents"  Since incumbents typically write and interpret the law and incumbents running for public office at all levels prefer to be reelected, those folks as well as our Election Committee will retain past practices here at Sun City concerning the use of the term "incumbent" on the ballots.

Trumpets Update. 

            Question: "Favil, what can you say about the rumor that the

                          lessee of Trumpets is no longer paying rent?"

            Answer:   "No comment."

When is a $100,000 forgiveness not enough? Apparently, the answer is when you are not pleased with the existing arrangement. What arrangement is that? It's that lease agreement with S & D Cafe, the lessee of Trumpets. Ordinarily, such arrangements are relatively routine and present the parties with few challenges or problems to overcome. But in the case of Trumpets, we’ve moved far beyond the routine and down a slippery slope towards litigation. Are we in need of an attorney or a miracle worker to help fix or restore our Humpty-Dumpty relationship with the lessee? 

By their very nature, written contracts are designed to produce assurances on which the parties may rely, as well as to produce predictable outcomes. The overriding presumption in executing a contract is that the parties know where they stand and they know what their obligations and duties are going forward. While it may sound strange and contrary to expectations, there is a little known class of contracts that produce unpredictable outcomes. While the Trumpets contract does not exactly fall into that special class, the troublesome turn of events we have encountered with the lessee of Trumpets may lead one to believe otherwise.  

Chinese companies undergoing negotiations with foreign companies to manufacture this or that product in China have been know for entering into hard fought, meticulously written contracts. Such efforts lead the foreign company to believe they can rely on the terms and conditions of the contract. But there is a problem or disconnect. On their part, the Chinese have no similar expectation. Once that contract is executed, reality sets in and the question of contract compliance becomes moot. As the process and relationship have been  described, it’s as if the written contract did not exist. The post-contract reality, rather than the contract itself, actually defined the relationship between the parties.

So, what does this have to do with the Association’s contract with the lessee of Trumpets? While the analogy may not be perfect, it seems that the Association has evolved from what on its face initially appeared to be a bona fide contract into a Chinese-looking type of contract, where the reality bears little resemblance to the language of the contract. For example

• Oral understandings are alleged to have modified the contract;
• Mounting indebtedness issues;
• Failed collection efforts over disputed penalty provisions;
• Collection tactics further exacerbate a deteriorating relationship;
• Indebtedness amount "redefined” to a more palatable amount;
• Remaining indebtedness written off as uncollectible;
• Lessee raises potential litigation issues;
• Negotiations drag on without a resolution.

In their torturous negotiations with the lessee, the Board has been severely stressed and challenged in attempting to reach a positive outcome. Simply talking with the lessee or their representatives has not been as productive as we would have preferred. On the other hand, the Association has certain rights under the terms of the contract, even options which they may consider appropriate. As a first step, and without getting into the nitty-gritty of the issues involved, the Board may decide to pursue their contractual rights to take a look at the lessee’s records to establish the gross revenues of the business. The gross revenues figure is used to calculate the amount of any additional monies the Association is entitled to receive according to an established formula.  

Let’s assume we have already made a formal request of the company to produce certain records to establish the amount of gross receipts. But making that request is merely that, just asking. Whether or how the company responds to such a request is another matter. For example, the company may ignore or reject the request, may delay responding, or they may even comply and provide the requested records. For the sake of argument, let’s say the company has not responded positively in a timely manner to a formal request for the records.

Things are looking increasing bleak at this stage of negotiations. Perhaps the formal request for company records was just a formality, a going through the motions “for the record.” In any event, no cooperation, no records, no audit. With a deteriorating relationship, the lessee’s incentive to cooperate with other more tangible terms of the lease has been diminished even further. From the lessee’s perspective, what options are open to demonstrate their concern? 

Answer: Stop paying the regular rental of $10,000/month. That will get our attention. But is this alleged breach a fact or merely an unfounded rumor? According to Favil West's response to this question at this week's Finance Committee meeting, where Mr. West is the Board's non-voting member of the Committee, one is left with little doubt to his unusual tight lipped "no comment" response. Mr. West promised we may learn more at next week's Board meeting. 

Looking at the deteriorating situation, one is reminded of that wickedly funny but tragic DeVito movie, “The War of the Roses,” as the contract war plays out here from what had started out as a friendly bailout of sorts by a white knight offering a very valued service and a supportive relationship. What went wrong? 

While our relationship has continued to spiral downhill, suggesting the absence of any opportunity for a meaningful dialogue, one can only hope (perhaps naively) that it's not too late to find and call upon an independent third party professional to act as an intermediary in an effort to mediate our mutual concerns.

Ron Johnson

17 February 2006

Gallery Reconfiguration

 And that nice, suave, sweet-talking lady with huge cajones

         The gallery reconfiguration workshop brought out a highly charged group of residents concerned that their cherished bridge, rummy or canasta and mahjong tables would soon disappear. The anticipated loss of even one table was viewed with utmost concern, as members rose to challenge any alternative that would upset the current arrangement. When pressed, the Committee was deliberately mum on their own thinking, suggesting that they really wanted to hear questions and ideas from those in attendance. More in likely, members of the Committee did not wish to share their individual views, preferring not to stoke an already smoldering fire brewing just a few feet away. Despite repeated reassurances from Chairperson Kay Dwyer that no decisions have been made, members in the audience somehow believed or “knew” otherwise. 

Those in attendance were at a substantial disadvantage in the absence of a visible target to shoot at. Leaving those in the audience to flail at this or that rumor, the Committee was not going to cooperate by identifying targets for members to knock down. The only rumor the Committee agreed to knock down was the one that couches were going into the lower gallery. Not true. There is no such proposal or consideration. 

However, the audience was steadfast on their view of couch potatoes. Some residents suggested that members did not have a right to sit in the gallery unless they were card carrying table players—such presumably offensive members were simply not wanted and were to be banished from using the gallery at all if their only desired pleasure at that time was to sit and relax, read a paper or book, listen to music (or book) on their iPod, or to simply converse with a friend or family member. At least on this one issue, our card playing members wanted to draw a line in the sand, refusing to share any space with those interested in such activities while preferring to shunt our casual sitters to the foyer or beyond, if not back to their own homes.

Meanwhile the pan and poker players were having trouble holding in their sheer delight as they listened to the troubles and obstacles being encountered by their fellow card playing folks. After all, it was only those other card and mahjong players who assumed they were at risk of losing table space as they were bemoaning what appeared to be their failed efforts to sway the Committee to leave the gallery alone and make no changes to the existing configuration. Except for some minor table adjustments to accommodate disabled access, the pan and poker players had their "DO NOT DISTURB US" sign prominently displaced for all to see. They, it seems, were slated for special "hands off" treatment. 

But change is definitely in the wind, sooner and not later. As I understood Kay’s comments, change is inevitable and the Board and the Committee are committed to meeting the challenge of changing circumstances. As Kay attempted to convey, the Committee was faced with these same issues previously and no one at that time was receptive to making any gallery changes. But the Committee and Board at that time had taken steps that were necessary to implement what we now see as the current configuration. She said the situation is no different now, with members very upset by the prospect of making any changes to the lower gallery.  

What about gallery access for the disabled? Forget it! Good will and charity for the disabled stopped at the entrance to the lower gallery, or so some members had assumed. While expressing some sympathy even empathy for their special needs and situation, our more hard core players were not especially keen on yielding any space to meet such needs, understanding that in doing so they would be giving up a table here and there to make room for easy wheelchair or electric mobility chair movement throughout the lower gallery. If the law did not require it, then they should just suck it up. Relenting a tad, perhaps the disabled could have one table set aside at one end of the lower gallery, or better yet, the disabled could play somewhere on the upper gallery level.  A really tough crowd.  

And what about those shuffleboard tables? Are they coming back?  

So, what’s likely to happen? I’ll make an uneducated, wild stab at the reconfiguration recommendations, with some commentary of my own.

1.  Pool Tables.  With more than sufficient table playing availability at Independence Center, there is little need to duplicate that amenity at the Anthem Center. Moreover, with the power to schedule play, the Lifestyle Committee can (if needed) keep “x” number of IC tables free for casual play. Given increasing demands on lower gallery space, coupled with the need to reconfigure and accommodate the disabled, we simply cannot justify retaining 6 pool tables in the AC.

Likely Recommendation.  Eliminate 4 tables, retaining two tables for casual play by guests, family members, and drop-in play for those using Association-provided cues. This option will free up the maximum amount of space while continuing to provide an opportunity to provide a desirable activity.

2.  Shuffleboard Tables.   The two shuffleboard tables, now in storage, present the greatest challenge to the Committee. Bringing back one or possibly two tables, as board member David Berman said had been our commitment when they were “temporarily” removed and placed in storage, poses some unique problems. Leaving aside the dispute on whether one or two tables are in good playing condition, shuffleboard demands a lot of space, up to 24’ lineal feet to accommodate a 16’ table, or the equivalent of three 8-foot wide glass window panels. One can easily argue the removal of 4 pool tables should be able to yield enough space to accommodate the return of the shuffleboard tables. And clearly, it would be nice, even preferable to offer more, not fewer, gallery playing options to our members. And, “Yes,” it would be easy to place at least one table in the lower gallery.  

Recommendation. While it’s true there are very good reasons to bring the tables back to the lower gallery, there are equally good reasons to defer that decision at this time while seeking an alternative resting place for those tables, or at least one of those tables. For one, it was reported that the proximity and exposure of the tables to the windows presents a constant maintenance issue, suggesting the possibility that such exposure over time will lead to costly replacement issues. While there are members who would like to play shuffleboard, those enthusiasts are understood to be relatively few in number, at least based on prior use. With those thoughts in mind, perhaps another playing location can be found. While there may be other spots, one such location could be the quite large entryway in front of Independence Center’s Library, where one table could be easily accommodated while reconfiguring the seating area in front of Freedom Hall. Walking by and around a 30” wide shuffleboard table to Freedom Hall should not pose any real concern or problem in that entryway.  

3.  Casual Seating.  Yes, let all members enjoy the pleasure of using the lower gallery, if only to lounge, read or converse. No one has ever suggested the lower gallery was designed for the exclusive use of players of one type or another. The lower gallery is there for all to enjoy, not merely to view from afar, the wishes of players notwithstanding. And to those naysayers who would suggest otherwise, the opportunity for casual lounging in the lower gallery will, indeed, provide a needed and valued activity for our members. 

Likely Recommendation.   Provide a seating space and appropriate atmosphere for members to lounge comfortably in the lower gallery. In so doing, however, do not overlook the potential for designing this space with a view to creating a unique experience physically apart from the players, with an end table or two, lamps, a cocktail-type table to set coffee, book, etc., on.

4.  Disabled Access.  Notwithstanding resident sentiment to the contrary, create an overall design that will more conveniently accommodate access for the disabled.

5.  General Observation.  If another, more preferable space can be found for shuffleboard, the above recommendations if adopted should go a long way towards meeting the objections raised by the drop-in players as well as the needs of the membership in general. Drop a shuffleboard table into the lower gallery and color several additional playing tables gone.

6.  Poker and Pan Players.   A long-term solution to lower gallery use should not see Chartered Club or organized play in the lower gallery. Ideally, the Committee should be taking up the issue of “lower gallery use” and not merely gallery use that is west of the quite substantial space currently taken up by the poker/pan tables. The Committee appears to be conflicted in their mandate and drop-in only rules concerning the use of the lower gallery and the acknowledged special status currently accorded the Poker and Pan clubs.  If those clubs with their uniquely configured tables can “permanently” occupy “x” number of square feet of the lower gallery space, we should be looking for non-gallery space for those clubs to play. Whether they actually need “x” square feet of space is another question worth exploring. As we have learned, the amount of space actually needed to accommodate play for any given activity is all in the scheduling of time for that activity.

As a result, there is no reason to conclude that Poker/Pan players actually need the amount of space they are currently using. With a change in scheduling, perhaps the actual need for space to play can be reduced by 50% over what they now occupy, whether such space is in the lower gallery or elsewhere.

Despite Kay’s efforts to justify the special treatment of Poker/Pan players and their use of the lower gallery, it’s not clear that her explanation holds water, let alone passes the smell test. There are too many unanswered questions on why that Poker/Pan space has been declared off limits. What can the Committee do? They can merely remove half of those tables and reschedule Club use to accommodate their needs. The other half of the tables can be placed in storage, or did I hear correctly, in the Independence Center. It's that simple. With than done, there will be plenty of lower gallery space for everyone, including even more space for "drop-in" play than currently exists. Why is the Committee unwilling to tackle the Poker/Pan table use issue? 

Ron Johnson

11 February 2006

On Opening Pandora’s Box¹

News from the Property & Grounds Committee

Olga and I have been living in Sun City comfortably for more than four years, sitting quietly in the sunshine of our laurels and lesser accomplishments in the belief that nothing would disturb our cozy situation. Sun City will be built out in a couple of years and the developer will be gone. That long ago home closing is but a distant if not a forgotten memory for most of us. And by now who the heck knows, or even cares for that matter, where that weighty tome called the CC&Rs is located. Except for those folks who have added a casita, installed an evaporator cooler, or constructed a swimming pool, etc., the CC&Rs are all but irrelevant, or so we thought.  

But those nice folks over in our Association have not forgotten us, no indeed. They’ve been thinking hard about our needs. Yes, they have been rushing ahead with all kinds of work orders and directives to complete our 2005 amenity package in 2006 from that closely held (secret?) “A List” of forthcoming improvements. While those efforts are indeed welcome and will certainly satisfy our pleasure senses, the Association's volunteer leaders have been giving a lot of thought to our long term needs as well. When I say “our needs,” I mean you, Mary, and you Jim, and Bob, David, Harry, and Frank too, in fact, virtually every homeowner in Sun City. If not next month or next year, most everyone is destined to learn what it really means to live in a common interest community.  

Yes, we all pay our annual assessment, well, almost all of us. And the great thing about that fact is that our community’s needs are being taken care of through such payments. Such payments are then allocated to current operations and capital improvements, as well as to future maintenance and repair. That last category, maintenance and repair, while funded from annual assessments, is actually funded from a separate account commonly referred to as the reserve account, an account that builds up over the years to fund recurring needs to repair, restore and replace major components of the community. So, when there is a need for the Association to replace, repair or repaint this or that, they merely dip into this reserve fund to meet that particular need. After 5, 10, or 15 years, depending on the nature of the asset, such needs will be begin to be evident and must be met. And the best news of all is that when that time comes there will be plenty of money available in the reserve account to meet those pressing needs. By law the Association is required to put aside certain monies annually to meet those future needs.

After 4 or more years of exposure to the elements, paint begins to crack and chip and even isolated pieces of textured stucco have managed to be displaced by the weather, revealing that cement base. While our health is being challenged as we grow older, our structures and buildings are beginning to show signs of aging as well. So we can reasonably expect our Association to begin focusing their attention to meeting those recurring maintenance needs. And as the Association begins to do that, they will inevitably begin to turn their attention to you and me for the same reasons they are looking to meet the community’s maintenance needs--namely to maintain the overall look and feel that we first experienced when we moved here.

But just what does that mean, that the Association will begin to turn their attention to you and me? Well, it seems that in deciding to live here, we granted the Association certain powers that go far beyond taking care to maintain community-owned  property. In reality, the Association has far reaching powers. They include the power to maintain (at the owner’s expense) not merely your landscaping, but your sidewalk, your facing walls and fencing, your neighbor-owned fencing that faces you, your lot, and even your home—both inside and outside. When we signed our contract to purchase here, we delegated such powers to the Association for the benefit of the overall community.  Click here to view the language of the CC&Rs.

 While the initial burden to maintain, say, your fence, falls to the owner of the property, the failure of the owner to maintain their fence is a violation of the CC&Rs. Such a failure can bring a range of sanctions and penalties, including the Association having the tasks deemed necessary performed at the owner’s expense. While there are similar provisions in the CC&Rs relating to the “repair and replacement” of damaged structures, I will not address that matter here. 

Before those blue pencil inspectors with measuring tape in hand start roaming your neighborhood and knocking on your door to assess the need for maintenance, a measure of guidance shouls be forthcoming. And so begins phase one of this project with the recent announcement appearing in the Anthem Compendium, reaching roughly 15% of the households in the community, proposing a rule change. Proposed Rule Change.  Yes, in addition to the carved in stone CC&Rs, we also have a set of easily amendable rules to follow. They include a wide range of Charter Club issues, where to walk on the walking track, poolside behavior, parking, posting issues, and a whole host of miscellaneous matters.    

But now we have this proposed General Membership rule out there on the subject of “maintenance.” This week the rule was on the agenda of the Property & Grounds Committee for approval to go to the Board later this month. It was evident that considerable thought had gone into the language of this proposed rule, since there had been no rule on this subject previously. The proposed rule, however, does not apply to all maintenance that we might be faced with, perhaps by intention to minimize our concern. Not unlike the mystery surrounding the contents of Pandora's Box, we are on the verge of opening a new phase in our development. That initial opening will be limited in scope to the maintenance of fencing and walls only. But as we continue to move forward in time, though, it would be unreasonable to conclude that other maintenance rules will not be added.

As a proposed new rule, though, we are fortunate that it is undergoing some scrutiny. That some scrutiny may be needed was amply demonstrated at the P&G Committee meeting on Tuesday, where members of the Committee seemed not to be in agreement on the scope of the rule. And with members of the audience raising questions and getting uncertain answers on who is responsible for maintaining and paying for side and perimeter fencing owned and sitting within your neighbor's lot, and other similar issues, a decision was made to table the proposed rule for now and to seek a workshop where these issues can be better defined and resolved.

With fencing maintenance on the forefront and repainting destined to follow at a later date, we as homeowners will need to plan ahead and put money into our own reserve kitty to take care of these future needs and expense. If you have any comments about this proposed rule, you can contact the P&G Committee or Lyndall Ruiz, the Board member who is assigned to the Committee. You may reach the Committee and Lyndall Ruiz through the SCACAI website here: http://www.suncityanthem.org

Considering the nature, scope, and application of the proposed rule to homeowners, together with the obvious monetary obligations that will result, one has to ask what standards are in place to assure sufficient community notice of a proposed rule of this type.  While it may be true the community should be able to achieve a substantial discount on thousands of lineal feet of fencing to paint, compared to an individual homeowner, it looks as if those self-helpers living down the street with a can of rustoleum rust preventive will be of luck.

It was both interesting and instructive to see Karen DuBose, RMI's Vice President of Community Association Management Operations, in attendance and taking an active interest in the meeting.

Ron Johnson

1 February 2006 

____________________________________________