Information Pages

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Even Former Sun City Anthem President Questions Current Board Activities

Former Sun City Anthem President
Questions Legality of Recent Board Executive Session

face2.jpg (300×450)

On July 20, 2017 we learned that Favil West sent an email to Sandy Seddon, questioning the legality of a recent executive session of the Sun City Anthem Board meeting. 

He requested the email be forwarded to members of the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors for review and clarification.

According to his correspondence, Mr. West noticed a formal notice was sent to members of the Association at 12:38pm regarding a meeting that was to be held at 12:15pm on the same day,  July 13, 2017

Having had experience as a former member of the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors, he questioned the content of the meeting, citing the purpose of the notification was... 

"to discuss to a legal letter concerning employee liability".

West questioned whether such an issue would fall under the purview of an executive session under NRS 116, politely requesting what section of the Nevada law applied.

He also asked for a copy of the "legal letter" under which the Board held the meeting.

The Board itself, did not respond.

Why didn't the Board respond to his reasonable and legal request?

Subsequently, he received an email from the association attorney stating NRS 116.31085(4) justified the meeting.

Anthem Opinions researched this section of the law. 

It reads:

"An executive board shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open meeting be conducted by the executive board.  If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the person:

(a) Is entitled to attend all portions of the hearing related to the alleged violation, including without limitation, the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnesses;

(b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards, adopted by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel; and

(c) Is not entitled to attend the deliberations of the executive board.

Just exactly what does this section of NRS 116 have to do with Mr. West's REASONABLE REQUEST?

In what way DOES IT APPLY to his question?

Did the Board NOT have a legal basis for conducting the meeting, and then scramble by contacting the association attorney AFTER THE FACT, hoping the attorney might come up with one...

...spending association funds to cover their tracks?

Perhaps that might have been the reason for The Board's lack of response.

Note these three allegations specifically summarized in the Removal Petitions:

Holding secret meetings without agendas, public notices, and excluding Members from observing Board meetings

Making decisions at these secret meetings

Incurring excessive attorney fees

Are these accurate allegations of board activity?

To all our readers, we ask you to ask yourselves, are we as unit owners, being legally MANEUVERED in order to justify acts that we wholeheartedly believe are both ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL by a group of individuals whose main objective is both CUNNING and so DESPERATE, that they will stop at nothing to maintain their corrupt system?

Still looking for a reason to Remove Weddle, Nissen, Waterhouse, and Burch from the Sun City Anthem Board?

This is just another one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Want to sign the Removal Petitions?

Send your request to the Removal coordinator, Robert N. at:

Robert N.
Coordinator
Got a comment on this article?

Send it to us at:
scaopinions@gmail.com
  1. Mr. West,
    Thank you for posting your article on this blog. I've signed the petition and hope by doing so I won't be targeted by the names on the petition(s) in the future.

    What I wonder, Mr. West, is how we can get the message out to the full complement of residents, should the petition prove fruitful and the recall happen. The Board, as we have already seen with the Treasurer's (incorrect in much) email, can easily reach out to everyone. Should there be a movement to send out a direct mail to all the residents I would personally be glad to donate to postage, but is there no other way?

    Once again thanks for standing up.


1 comment:

  1. Mr. West,
    Thank you for posting your article on this blog. I've signed the petition and hope by doing so I won't be targeted by the names on the petition(s) in the future.

    What I wonder, Mr. West, is how we can get the message out to the full compliment of residents, should the petition prove fruitful and the recall happen. The Board, as we have already seen with the Treasurer's (incorrect in much) email, can easily reach out to everyone. Should there be a movement to send out a direct mail to all the residents I would personally be glad to donate to postage, but is there no other way?

    Once again thanks for standing up.

    Lawrence Peterson

    ReplyDelete