The request from our BOD to sign onto the lawsuit (already filed) has many holes. It is impossible to make an intelligent decision when uninformed. First and foremost - where is the actual Complaint that was filed? Once again, we are all treated like a bunch of imbeciles who can't understand and therefore the Complaint must be "above" our level of comprehension so we get 5 bullet points thrown at us in a lengthy "pro statement" (vs no "con statement"). No "con statement" tells me the BOD is litigious and the attorneys are not capable or unwilling to provide a downside on this matter - which in and of itself gives me pause.
The fact that the Complaint did not bring Pulte to the settlement table should be concerning. Then again, they are sued all over the country and have teams of lawyers who do nothing but represent them for a living, so this is nothing but an annoying fly to them. Pulte has deep pockets that are constantly refilled as they build and sell, up against our community of retirees. I see the potential for a large special assessment on the horizon.
Our attorneys bring up that SCA would have to pay Pulte's fees if we lose the case. That is a GIVEN. The Plaintiff will be responsible for ALL the Defendant's fees AND costs if we do not prevail. This will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additionally, our attorneys say they will not charge a fee if we lose. What about reimbursing the costs they are advancing? The experts, the deposition transcripts, copy fees, etc.? That issue was conveniently not addressed in the letter at all however, read carefully "advanced" - that is not the same as covering it. They are not allowed to "eat" those costs. Lynch Hopper says they are handling this case on a contingency. So if the Plaintiff prevails, will Lynch Hopper apply to the Court for the Defendant to pay their fees and costs or will they take a percentage of the award (an unknown amount) - if so , what is that arrangement? How much before trial, how much if we go to trial? 30%? 40%/50%?
We are being asked to make a very important decision that can affect not only our finances for years to come but our Community reputation and ability to sell during litigation and yet given only the barest of information. I think it should all be laid out on the table. I would also want to know that the Community can have a say as this would proceed, should litigation continue. Can we pull the plug at some point if we feel we are going down and it is getting out of control or is this going to be a spiral, once committed to, never to be undone? The BOD has proven, with the restaurant fiasco, that they let bad situations get worse and worse, leaving the Community holding the financial bag, before they finally act. I don't believe the law firm or the BOD should have carte blanche on a law suit for perpetuity.
I don't sign a contract before reading it in full - I won't vote for or against a lawsuit until I have all the information - I want to see the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss and have ALL the facts. The BOD should have representatives of Lynch Hopper address members of the Community at a Q & A before we vote. I interview attorneys before I hire them. I would like to see how sharp these people are. Since they can't come up with one negative to our Community filing a lawsuit, I am already leery since a good attorney should know all sides of a case.
Every resident should look deep into "What do we have to gain and what do we have to lose.”
Naturally the law firm wants to move forward as they have lots to gain.
They can string this along at a cost that is not that great, but Pulte will spend whatever they need to fight us.
As the article says, they have lots to lose if they do not prevail and this would be a critical case in Pulte's future business. If and when we lose, we pay their inflated costs. Do we reserve that now? What will that do to your dues. Could it be in the millions?
This lawsuit would probably take years to finish.
Today our illustrious board says sue. Those board members will be long gone by the time this thing moves along. We will then have this lawsuit hanging over the heads of the then current board.
Here is where we will be….keep pushing to finish something that someone else who is not serving in their infinite wisdom said sue.
We had a non professional with bad judgment agree to move forward on accepting the Liberty Center many years ago.
Today we are paying for her bad judgment. Let’s pay the piper and move forward.
Meetings regarding civil actions; requirements for commencing or ratifying certain civil actions; right of units’ owners to request dismissal of certain civil actions; disclosure of terms and conditions of settlements.
1. The association shall provide written notice to each unit’s owner of a meeting at which the commencement of a civil action is to be considered at least 21 calendar days before the date of the meeting. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the association may commence a civil action only upon a vote or written agreement of the owners of units to which at least a majority of the votes of the members of the association are allocated. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a civil action that is commenced:
(a) To enforce the payment of an assessment;
(b) To enforce the declaration, bylaws or rules of the association;
(c) To enforce a contract with a vendor;
(d) To proceed with a counterclaim; or
(e) To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association. If a civil action is commenced pursuant to this paragraph without the required vote or agreement, the action must be ratified within 90 days after the commencement of the action by a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated. If the association, after making a good faith effort, cannot obtain the required vote or agreement to commence or ratify such a civil action, the association may thereafter seek to dismiss the action without prejudice for that reason only if a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated was obtained at the time the approval to commence or ratify the action was sought.
2. At least 10 days before an association commences or seeks to ratify the commencement of a civil action, the association shall provide a written statement to all the units’ owners that includes:
(a) A reasonable estimate of the costs of the civil action, including reasonable attorney’s fees;
(b) An explanation of the potential benefits of the civil action and the potential adverse consequences if the association does not commence the action or if the outcome of the action is not favorable to the association; and
(c) All disclosures that are required to be made upon the sale of the property.
3. No person other than a unit’s owner may request the dismissal of a civil action commenced by the association on the ground that the association failed to comply with any provision of this section.
4. If any civil action in which the association is a party is settled, the executive board shall disclose the terms and conditions of the settlement at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the executive board after the settlement has been reached. The executive board may not approve a settlement which contains any terms and conditions that would prevent the executive board from complying with the provisions of this subsection.
Given what was sent to us, I have little to no information on which to make an intelligent decision. It would have been helpful to have known how much was spent on the repairs to Liberty Center. Second, what have we recovered from insurance claims of that amount? Last, what amount are we hoping to gain from the lawsuit?
From my humble Midwestern upbringing, this is what my Grandpa would have called being asked to "Buy a Pig in a Poke". In his post above, Buddy Greenfield hits the "nail on the head" in making his arguments. I can see people voting to sue today thinking we will get big returns in the future. But if we lose then we will end up owing more for Pulte's legal expenses than we would have ever won. Hmmm - maybe the board ought to just take $1.5 of our money to one of the local gambling establishments - at least we could figure out our odds of winning. Of course I am kidding, but with the lack of information this is what I feel the letter sent to me asking for my vote is asking me to do.
I agree with Buddy to first take a long hard look at exactly what we have to gain and what we have to lose and to then determine that "this is a loser".
Without the information that Dick outlines any "intelligent" person would need to know prior to making this kind of decision, I intend to Vote NO and would encourage others to do the same. Let's move on down the road and focus our efforts on managing and maintaining our property well with transparent and well founded fiscal planning for both our operating budget and reserves.
Anthem Opinions has been made aware that there appears to be a discrepancy as to how the world "majority" is to be determined...that the Board will likely take the position that to commence such legal action, a SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING in favor of the measure, would allow the law suit to take place...
...just another FLAGRANT VIOLATION which not only seems to contradict NRS 116, but our Sun City Anthem CCRs as well.
Other than citing NRS regulations....
It is interesting that Sun City Anthem CCR's are even more stringent than Nevada NRS legislation.
Sun CIty Anthem CCR's Section 16.2
Except as provided in this section, the Association or Neighborhood Association shall not commence a judicial or administrative proceeding without first providing at least 21 days written notice of a meeting to consider such proposed action to its members. Such action shall require of the vote of owners of 75% of the total number of lots in the Association or Neighborhood Association, as appropriate. This section shall not apply however, to (a) Actions brought by the Association to enforce the Governing Documents (including, but without limitation, the collection of assessments and the foreclosure of leins); (b) Counterclaims brought by the Association in proceedings instituted against it; or (c) actions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Members.
This section shall not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the percentage of votes, and pursuant to the same procedures, necessary to institute proceedings as provided above.
Your reader’s have pretty much said all I was considering writing, and in much more depth and detail.
Our house has already voted NO for the many reasons noted above.
Moving here is our first experience with an HOA. The hubris of the Board of Directors would be amusing except for the fact that it is directly impacting our wallet.
Had we known this type of behavior is the norm in Sun City Anthem we would have seriously considered locating elsewhere.
If we were trying to sell a house here, the pending lawsuit and the effect on possible buyers would be a larger concern.
Many of us living here had highly responsible careers before retiring here. We are not idiots.
The new assessment based on a faulty reserve study and now this absurd lawsuit ???
The Board just seems to love spending other peoples money on illegal and harmful positions for the community.
Unfortunately this “group” of people keeps getting elected over and over and they keep driving us deeper into a financial mess.
I only hope some truly responsible and intelligent people will be elected to the Board in the next few years.
If this has gotten to the point of a lawsuit, its unfair to place this burden on the shoulders of Retired People who just want a peaceful transition into the next world...
Rules are in place to help elderly people not have to go through this type of what amounts to ABUSE...
Dick, I would come at this issue from this perspective, and not ALLOW THIS VOTE BE FORCED ON THE MEMBERS....THE MEMBERS DIDN’T CAUSE THIS...
In my opinion, this entire MESS could have been avoided had a former Association President, Roz Berman, had the common sense to listen to the sound advice of Forrest Fetherolf, and had the Liberty Center properly inspected prior to it being accepted.
In our opinion this is entirely on HER SHOULDERS for a blunder that has cost unit owners dearly.
With the ultimate price all unit owners will be paying, with or without a lawsuit, when one looks at her past incompetent record (Liberty Center, Restaurant backdoor dealings, her refusal to comment on a segment of Darcy Spears Channel 13's Hall of Shame), there leaves little doubt as to her and her husband being nothing short of a meddling curse to the financial well-being of Sun City Anthem.
Both of their records at failing at just about everything they touch, can only be denied by those whose head's reside deeply in a mound of sand.
If anyone disagrees, please respond as to ANY success either have ever achieved other than endorsing those who have again and again, led us down a continual downward slide.
Prior to reading the research/analyses, we were determined to vote to sue.
But, having read the article, we changed our mind, and will vote NOT TO SUE based upon the fact that there is too much uncertainty involved if we vote yes to sue, and the uncertainty is NOT Good for property prices when selling.
You never know how long the process of suing would last.
Furthermore, there is not that much remaining money left even if we win.
I totally agree that it is unreasonable to ask SCA residents to simply vote YES or NO without reviewing the contract with the Law Office. We have no idea what kind of financial responsibility that we are agreeing to endure if the legal action was unsuccessful.
On the other hand, if people do not submit their ballots, it will just be deemed as unconcerned.
We are not sure if the board will uphold the majority rule and declare unsuccessful voting if the majority votes did not reach 3,570...or, simply just go the direction of the higher number of votes.
Therefore, I am going to send back my voting ballot with my comment "without reviewing the contract with the law office, I am unable to make an informed/intelligent decision".
If enough people make this type of comment, maybe we will make a difference.
Although we are retired, we are not retarded.
May be someday, but NOT TODAY!!!
At this time, I do not know how to change your vote, yet, your concern is not only legitimate but should be our whole community's concern!
So many of us just got partial facts and asked us to vote.
Fair or not?
Honestly, I never imagined having my retirement stage of my life to deal with something like this.
After so many years working hard for the equal rights for all people from all walks of life, as well as, all cultures, races, who live at the United States of America, some of the details in this country's so called Legal System is trying to leave many of us behind, intentionally or unintentionally.
Thanks to Dick for his thorough analysis.
I hope and believe this response will be a wake up call for our SCA's board members to know whatever they do, is not just a rubber stamp.
WE, AS RESIDENTS OF SCA, DO WATCH WHAT IS GOING ON!!!
It certainly couldn't hurt, although I have received a number of emails from residents who NEVER receive any responses to their concerns with the exception of Director Carl Weinstein.
For those of you who wish to try to contact members of the Board, Anthem Opinions provides an Information Page a listing of who and where to send your thoughts.
From Elizabeth Breier...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteThe request from our BOD to sign onto the lawsuit (already filed) has many holes. It is impossible to make an intelligent decision when uninformed. First and foremost - where is the actual Complaint that was filed? Once again, we are all treated like a bunch of imbeciles who can't understand and therefore the Complaint must be "above" our level of comprehension so we get 5 bullet points thrown at us in a lengthy "pro statement" (vs no "con statement"). No "con statement" tells me the BOD is litigious and the attorneys are not capable or unwilling to provide a downside on this matter - which in and of itself gives me pause.
The fact that the Complaint did not bring Pulte to the settlement table should be concerning. Then again, they are sued all over the country and have teams of lawyers who do nothing but represent them for a living, so this is nothing but an annoying fly to them. Pulte has deep pockets that are constantly refilled as they build and sell, up against our community of retirees. I see the potential for a large special assessment on the horizon.
Our attorneys bring up that SCA would have to pay Pulte's fees if we lose the case. That is a GIVEN. The Plaintiff will be responsible for ALL the Defendant's fees AND costs if we do not prevail. This will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additionally, our attorneys say they will not charge a fee if we lose. What about reimbursing the costs they are advancing? The experts, the deposition transcripts, copy fees, etc.? That issue was conveniently not addressed in the letter at all however, read carefully "advanced" - that is not the same as covering it. They are not allowed to "eat" those costs. Lynch Hopper says they are handling this case on a contingency. So if the Plaintiff prevails, will Lynch Hopper apply to the Court for the Defendant to pay their fees and costs or will they take a percentage of the award (an unknown amount) - if so , what is that arrangement? How much before trial, how much if we go to trial? 30%? 40%/50%?
We are being asked to make a very important decision that can affect not only our finances for years to come but our Community reputation and ability to sell during litigation and yet given only the barest of information. I think it should all be laid out on the table. I would also want to know that the Community can have a say as this would proceed, should litigation continue. Can we pull the plug at some point if we feel we are going down and it is getting out of control or is this going to be a spiral, once committed to, never to be undone? The BOD has proven, with the restaurant fiasco, that they let bad situations get worse and worse, leaving the Community holding the financial bag, before they finally act. I don't believe the law firm or the BOD should have carte blanche on a law suit for perpetuity.
I don't sign a contract before reading it in full - I won't vote for or against a lawsuit until I have all the information - I want to see the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss and have ALL the facts. The BOD should have representatives of Lynch Hopper address members of the Community at a Q & A before we vote. I interview attorneys before I hire them. I would like to see how sharp these people are. Since they can't come up with one negative to our Community filing a lawsuit, I am already leery since a good attorney should know all sides of a case.
From Buddy Greenfield...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteEvery resident should look deep into "What do we have to gain and what do we have to lose.”
Naturally the law firm wants to move forward as they have lots to gain.
They can string this along at a cost that is not that great, but Pulte will spend whatever they need to fight us.
As the article says, they have lots to lose if they do not prevail and this would be a critical case in Pulte's future business. If and when we lose, we pay their inflated costs. Do we reserve that now? What will that do to your dues. Could it be in the millions?
This lawsuit would probably take years to finish.
Today our illustrious board says sue. Those board members will be long gone by the time this thing moves along. We will then have this lawsuit hanging over the heads of the then current board.
Here is where we will be….keep pushing to finish something that someone else who is not serving in their infinite wisdom said sue.
We had a non professional with bad judgment agree to move forward on accepting the Liberty Center many years ago.
Today we are paying for her bad judgment. Let’s pay the piper and move forward.
Wake up…..this is a loser.
NRS 116.31088
ReplyDeleteMeetings regarding civil actions; requirements for commencing or ratifying certain civil actions; right of units’ owners to request dismissal of certain civil actions; disclosure of terms and conditions of settlements.
1. The association shall provide written notice to each unit’s owner of a meeting at which the commencement of a civil action is to be considered at least 21 calendar days before the date of the meeting. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the association may commence a civil action only upon a vote or written agreement of the owners of units to which at least a majority of the votes of the members of the association are allocated. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a civil action that is commenced:
(a) To enforce the payment of an assessment;
(b) To enforce the declaration, bylaws or rules of the association;
(c) To enforce a contract with a vendor;
(d) To proceed with a counterclaim; or
(e) To protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of the association. If a civil action is commenced pursuant to this paragraph without the required vote or agreement, the action must be ratified within 90 days after the commencement of the action by a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated. If the association, after making a good faith effort, cannot obtain the required vote or agreement to commence or ratify such a civil action, the association may thereafter seek to dismiss the action without prejudice for that reason only if a vote or written agreement of the owners of the units to which at least a majority of votes of the members of the association are allocated was obtained at the time the approval to commence or ratify the action was sought.
2. At least 10 days before an association commences or seeks to ratify the commencement of a civil action, the association shall provide a written statement to all the units’ owners that includes:
(a) A reasonable estimate of the costs of the civil action, including reasonable attorney’s fees;
(b) An explanation of the potential benefits of the civil action and the potential adverse consequences if the association does not commence the action or if the outcome of the action is not favorable to the association; and
(c) All disclosures that are required to be made upon the sale of the property.
3. No person other than a unit’s owner may request the dismissal of a civil action commenced by the association on the ground that the association failed to comply with any provision of this section.
4. If any civil action in which the association is a party is settled, the executive board shall disclose the terms and conditions of the settlement at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the executive board after the settlement has been reached. The executive board may not approve a settlement which contains any terms and conditions that would prevent the executive board from complying with the provisions of this subsection.
(Added to NRS by 2005, 2585
Given what was sent to us, I have little to no information on which to make an intelligent decision. It would have been helpful to have known how much was spent on the repairs to Liberty Center. Second, what have we recovered from insurance claims of that amount? Last, what amount are we hoping to gain from the lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteFrom my humble Midwestern upbringing, this is what my Grandpa would have called being asked to "Buy a Pig in a Poke". In his post above, Buddy Greenfield hits the "nail on the head" in making his arguments. I can see people voting to sue today thinking we will get big returns in the future. But if we lose then we will end up owing more for Pulte's legal expenses than we would have ever won. Hmmm - maybe the board ought to just take $1.5 of our money to one of the local gambling establishments - at least we could figure out our odds of winning. Of course I am kidding, but with the lack of information this is what I feel the letter sent to me asking for my vote is asking me to do.
I agree with Buddy to first take a long hard look at exactly what we have to gain and what we have to lose and to then determine that "this is a loser".
Without the information that Dick outlines any "intelligent" person would need to know prior to making this kind of decision, I intend to Vote NO and would encourage others to do the same. Let's move on down the road and focus our efforts on managing and maintaining our property well with transparent and well founded fiscal planning for both our operating budget and reserves.
Anthem Opinions has been made aware that there appears to be a discrepancy as to how the world "majority" is to be determined...that the Board will likely take the position that to commence such legal action, a SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING in favor of the measure, would allow the law suit to take place...
ReplyDelete...just another FLAGRANT VIOLATION which not only seems to contradict NRS 116, but our Sun City Anthem CCRs as well.
Other than citing NRS regulations....
It is interesting that Sun City Anthem CCR's are even more stringent than Nevada NRS legislation.
Sun CIty Anthem CCR's
Section 16.2
Except as provided in this section, the Association or Neighborhood Association shall not commence a judicial or administrative proceeding without first providing at least 21 days written notice of a meeting to consider such proposed action to its members. Such action shall require of the vote of owners of 75% of the total number of lots in the Association or Neighborhood Association, as appropriate. This section shall not apply however, to (a) Actions brought by the Association to enforce the Governing Documents (including, but without limitation, the collection of assessments and the foreclosure of leins); (b) Counterclaims brought by the Association in proceedings instituted against it; or (c) actions to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the Members.
This section shall not be amended unless such amendment is approved by the percentage of votes, and pursuant to the same procedures, necessary to institute proceedings as provided above.
From Lawrence Peterson...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteDick,
Your reader’s have pretty much said all I was considering writing, and in much more depth and detail.
Our house has already voted NO for the many reasons noted above.
Moving here is our first experience with an HOA. The hubris of the Board of Directors would be amusing except for the fact that it is directly impacting our wallet.
Had we known this type of behavior is the norm in Sun City Anthem we would have seriously considered locating elsewhere.
If we were trying to sell a house here, the pending lawsuit and the effect on possible buyers would be a larger concern.
Many of us living here had highly responsible careers before retiring here. We are not idiots.
The new assessment based on a faulty reserve study and now this absurd lawsuit ???
The Board just seems to love spending other peoples money on illegal and harmful positions for the community.
Unfortunately this “group” of people keeps getting elected over and over and they keep driving us deeper into a financial mess.
I only hope some truly responsible and intelligent people will be elected to the Board in the next few years.
Very depressing.
Happy Holidays.
From Mike V...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI have a 7th option....
Lets Sue the Board Members who are directly responsible for getting us into this mess by carelessly allowing a signoff of this project...
Just something to think about...
From Mike V...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteIf this has gotten to the point of a lawsuit, its unfair to place this burden on the shoulders of Retired People who just want a peaceful transition into the next world...
Rules are in place to help elderly people not have to go through this type of what amounts to ABUSE...
Dick, I would come at this issue from this perspective, and not ALLOW THIS VOTE BE FORCED ON THE MEMBERS....THE MEMBERS DIDN’T CAUSE THIS...
My 2 cents worth..
Mike, I fully agree with you.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this entire MESS could have been avoided had a former Association President, Roz Berman, had the common sense to listen to the sound advice of Forrest Fetherolf, and had the Liberty Center properly inspected prior to it being accepted.
In our opinion this is entirely on HER SHOULDERS for a blunder that has cost unit owners dearly.
With the ultimate price all unit owners will be paying, with or without a lawsuit, when one looks at her past incompetent record (Liberty Center, Restaurant backdoor dealings, her refusal to comment on a segment of Darcy Spears Channel 13's Hall of Shame), there leaves little doubt as to her and her husband being nothing short of a meddling curse to the financial well-being of Sun City Anthem.
Both of their records at failing at just about everything they touch, can only be denied by those whose head's reside deeply in a mound of sand.
If anyone disagrees, please respond as to ANY success either have ever achieved other than endorsing those who have again and again, led us down a continual downward slide.
From B & C...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeletePrior to reading the research/analyses, we were determined to vote to sue.
But, having read the article, we changed our mind, and will vote NOT TO SUE based upon the fact that there is too much uncertainty involved if we vote yes to sue, and the uncertainty is NOT Good for property prices when
selling.
You never know how long the process of suing would last.
Furthermore, there is not that much remaining money left even if we win.
From Dorothy Y...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that it is unreasonable to ask SCA residents to simply vote YES or NO without reviewing the contract with the Law Office. We have no idea what kind of financial responsibility that we are agreeing to endure if the legal action was unsuccessful.
On the other hand, if people do not submit their ballots, it will just be deemed as unconcerned.
We are not sure if the board will uphold the majority rule and declare unsuccessful voting if the majority votes did not reach 3,570...or, simply just go the direction of the higher number of votes.
Therefore, I am going to send back my voting ballot with my comment "without reviewing the contract with the law office, I am unable to make an informed/intelligent decision".
If enough people make this type of comment, maybe we will make a difference.
Although we are retired, we are not retarded.
May be someday, but NOT TODAY!!!
At this time, I do not know how to change your vote, yet, your concern is not only legitimate but should be our whole community's concern!
So many of us just got partial facts and asked us to vote.
Fair or not?
Honestly, I never imagined having my retirement stage of my life to deal with something like this.
After so many years working hard for the equal rights for all people from all walks of life, as well as, all cultures, races, who live at the United States of America, some of the details in this country's so called Legal System is trying to leave many of us behind, intentionally or unintentionally.
Thanks to Dick for his thorough analysis.
I hope and believe this response will be a wake up call for our SCA's board members to know whatever they do, is not just a rubber stamp.
WE, AS RESIDENTS OF SCA, DO WATCH WHAT IS GOING ON!!!
From Buddy Greenfield...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteDorothy, you letter could not have said it more effectively.
Shouldn't letters like this be sent to the board?
If enough people sent their thoughts and concerns to members of the Board, they would get the idea… maybe.
Great idea Buddy.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly couldn't hurt, although I have received a number of emails from residents who NEVER receive any responses to their concerns with the exception of Director Carl Weinstein.
For those of you who wish to try to contact members of the Board, Anthem Opinions provides an Information Page a listing of who and where to send your thoughts.
Here is a link to all of their email addresses:
http://anthemopinions.blogspot.com/p/sun-city-anthem-board-of-directors.html