THE ELECTION THAT WASN’T
The act of choosing a person to fill an office, or to membership in a society, as by ballot, uplifted hands, or viva voce; as, the election of a president or a mayor.
Each year we have an election here at Sun City Anthem. In case you did not know, we have 7 members of our Board of Directors. On alternate years we elect either 3 or 4 new members to serve a 2 year term. The idea behind this process is to have new folks always coming to the board while the remaining members will have some experience as to how we have been running things.
We have committees that are suppose to assist the board in the operations of our community. Each committee has a leader or chairman. The chairman role is a wonderful prelude to serving as a member of the board.
Shortly we will be ready to elect our new board members. Elections are just around the corner.
Well, that will not happen this year. We have 4 new spots to fill and three of the 4 candidates are not new, and all four of the existing board members would have likely run again, had one of them, Wade Terry, not decided to resign and relocate to Texas. They are the same folks that were board members last year.
Last year, all three people who were on the board for the 2 years prior to that, were reelected as well.
Where have all the other potential candidates gone?
Only 2 new people have stepped up to the plate. How disappointing! With 7,144 homes in our community and over 12,000 people, only 2 have decided to run.
Why?
This is not the type of election many of us had hoped for when we moved here.
How sad, but is it something that we should have expected based on the past?
Why is it that only 40-50 residents out that 12,000 even attend a board meeting?
What atmosphere has evolved over the years to create so few having such little interest?
That should be the concern, not who wins or loses in our 2013 elections.
Over the past few years, the Las Vegas valley has had numerous investigations and indictments from HOA problems, many resulting from people who were elected over and over again.
Why? Perhaps due to others who have taken the position that "you can't beat city hall".
And why Is it so difficult for some to look at the dangers of electing the same individuals again and again?
Is it so impossible to believe that what created problems elsewhere, could easily subject us to those same ones here?
If anything, the shear amount of dues collected each year, now approximately $ 8 million, should open the eyes of all us to examine our backyard even closer in choosing the same individuals over and over again.
We can only hope that others that may have great qualifications, think about throwing their hat in the ring for NEXT year.
Let’s all thank the current board and the old board members that are running AGAIN, but then ask them to step aside for new blood for next year. Other than US Senator and US Congress, most elected positions are limited to two terms in Nevada, and perhaps that should be a consideration that we, as residents, should take into account, when we vote, despite CCR's allowing unlimited terms for reelection.
This article is a request for others to consider running in 2014. a request to GET INVOLVED in 2013 so they are better prepared for NEXT YEAR.
WE SHOULD ALL BE DISAPPOINTED IN THIS NON-ELECTION...and even more disappointed that an atmosphere of apathy is so evident; that people have taken a "why should I run, nothing will change" attitude...an attitude, not unlike a contagious disease, which spreads, if not cured at the earliest opportunity.
All SCA residents should feel a great deal of regret when they look over the current SCA Board candidate list. Especially considering that Don Schramski has withdrawn from running for the 2013 SCA Board of Directors. In my opinion he and Jim Mayfield were the only two candidates with any leadership qualities. In the past, there were a few leaders elected, including: Favil West, who ultimately sold us out to the developer; Wade Terry, who couldn't be bothered protecting us from the inadequacies of RMI; and Bob Frank, who was relegated to the far right seat by his fellow board members who wanted nothing to do with his genuine ideas to improve our community. Given the chance, Don and Jim might have been able to point the Board in the proper direction, one that favors the residents over the egos and lust for power on the other side.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly unfortunate to realize the three incumbents running will easily win re-election, and most possibly relegate Jim Mayfield to Bob Frank's old seat. Why do I say that? Look at just three short examples of our Board's deficiency of leadership from the recent past:
⁃ Management Company Search. Last year the Board seated volunteers for a RFI work group. Their task was to write a RFI, send it to prospective management companies and rank their responses. Their report was accepted by the Board at the October 2012 Board meeting. Then, in November 2012, the Board announced it would organize a RFP work group soon. They got around to it in late January 2013, not by asking for volunteers, but by appointing three residents to the group. Three good, solid residents mind you, but they were appointed nonetheless. Page 364 in the November Board Book contains a time-line for accomplishing the tasks up to, and including Board deliberations to contract with a 2014 management company. The first task is to approve a RFP at the March Board meeting; about four weeks from now. But, the work group has not even met in public yet.
⁃ The question is: Why has the Board been dragging its feet? Wade Terry was probably the initial reason because he wanted RMI to remain our management company, but he's gone, so the fact that there is no leadership on the Board is probably the major factor now. They are content to sit back and let things happen around them. Fortunately the three work group members might be able to have a RFP ready by March because it could simply be a adaptation of the RFI, but if that happens it will be in spite of the Board, not because of their leadership. More on this later under the Carver discussion.
Examples #2 and #3 follow in the next comment.
The 2007 IRS Assessment.
ReplyDeleteThat “mistake” cost the residents about $164,000.00. Has anybody been called to task for the mistake? Has anyone apologized? Have the 2007 Board members each volunteered to pay about $23,000.00 so the residents who relied on their judgment would not have to? The answer to each of these questions is No! Plus, while negotiations were going on, the Board hid behind the “lawyer-client confidentiality” excuse so they would not have to tell the residents anything. And they didn't, until the case was settled. Then, through their mouthpiece the Anthem Journal, they tried to make us believe they should be congratulated for reducing the assessment from $1.34 million to a mere $164,000.
⁃
The Carver Governance Model.
I ask each of you go on-line and read about this model. Basically it's an excuse for the Board to do less than they do now, and pass along the work of running this community to the management company. Of course this will ultimately result in higher contract costs, and higher RMI bonuses down the line. This model simply represents more of our money wasted. To the Board members: forget this model, sit down with your Committee Chairpersons and do the work you volunteered to do, and stop wasting your time and our money. You are intelligent people, get motivated, clean up our policies, develop meaningful management company evaluation criteria, objectively vet a management company for 2014 and beyond and take care of our day-to-day business.
Ms. Frank has good ideas and solutions for the many problems in SCA, but unfortunately her message will fall mostly on deaf ears. I wish her the best, but I think winning is a stretch. While participating in the campaign will allow Kay to put forth her opinions, don't expect the other side to sit idly by. Good ideas for the benefit of our residents has never been their strong suit. Controlling the Board members' actions by controlling who is elected is their primary goal, and they do a very good job of it.
Lastly, I have heard rumors this Board actually believes they are servicing the needs of our community adequately. But I look at this inaccuracy as just another stroke to keep them in line from the purveyor of Anthem Journal, who enjoys being the gadfly-in-chief, because anyone who pays even the least bit of attention realizes the Board only meets the minimum standards in many important areas. But, as long as this community has a preponderance of apathy, including over 5000 households who do not even bother to vote for the Board members who will ultimately make important decisions for them, the situation will never improve. This year's incumbent candidates are a case in point. Other than Jim Mayfield, I wish there were better candidates running for the Board.