Sun City Anthem
Lifestyle Committee
Chairman
Patricia
Carrell
Joins List of
Sending
Unethical Biased Emails
It just doesn't stop...the interference from committees who have pledged to be neutral, yet have been shown to be guilty of bias in Sun City Anthem.
Have you noticed that almost all of those who oppose
the Board Member Removal are coming from "the
machine"...and from an overwhelming number of
controlling political hacks who are a part of
that "machine"?
It all started when a group of former members of the
Sun City Anthem Board ...all of which were either designers or descendants of
"the machine" and whose decisions were responsible
for the worst in financial incompetence with continuous infusions of WASTED
RESIDENT FUNDS in restaurant after restaurant, Liberty Center negligence, and
encouraging a self-management system engineered by a General Manager whose
income of $270,000 plus benefits...
...sent out a letter to residents telling them how
wonderful the governance of Sun City Anthem was under their
direction.
Ah huh !
That was debunked step by step
as to the accuracy of their boasts.
A few days ago, we uncovered emails sent from Vice
Chairman Joan Roth and co-member of the Lifestyle Committee Robert Goldfried
to many in the Sun City Anthem community stating their opposition to the
removal election.
Then... Election Committee member Linda Krivec sounded off calling residents supporting the
removal IGNORANT.
Next up..the Lifestyle Committee...again..this time from Chairman, Patricia Carrell.
She has now joined them in sending such emails (although in the guise of a "private resident"), yet makes sure it's known she has been associated with official committees.
She has now joined them in sending such emails (although in the guise of a "private resident"), yet makes sure it's known she has been associated with official committees.
Stated Carrell in her
email:
"I will vote a strong NO on the recall ballot for the following
reasons.
First, I have
known and worked with all three of these individuals for several years, starting
before they were elected to the Board of Directors. I worked with Tom Nissan,
Rex Weddle and Aletta Waterhouse when we were all serving on various standing
committees.
I have only
the highest regard and respect for these community servants.
I know them
to be people of integrity, intelligence and commitment to the good of SCA.
While some may disagree with some of the decisions they have made as BOD
members, I believe they were exercising prudent judgment and had the good of the
entire SCA community in mind.
Second, the
charges against them have been vague and misleading. Claims about secret BOD
executive sessions, mismanagement of the relationship with the Foundation
Assisting Seniors (FAS), not acting in a timely manner with respect to the
restaurant space, violations of NRS and CC&Rs, are without substance.
Third, some
of the changes that have come about through the
transition to self-management have uncovered legal requirements and insurance issues which the Association should have been following all along, but were not when we were under external management.
transition to self-management have uncovered legal requirements and insurance issues which the Association should have been following all along, but were not when we were under external management.
Self-management has brought these failures to
light. As a result, management has instituted requirements that were previously
not enforced and have caused some to over react and blame self-management, and
hence the BOD. This has led the proponents of the recall to claim mismanagement
of clubs and their activities with arbitrary and capricious changes. The
changes regarding business licenses and insurance requirements for clubs are
definitely not arbitrary and capricious changes.
Finally,
forcing a community to hold expensive and unnecessary recall elections is not
the way to effect change in community leadership.
If anyone is so unhappy with the leadership of these BOD members,
they can run for the BOD themselves and/or at the very least vote them out of
office at the next regularly scheduled BOD
elections."
Does that sound like a broken record or what ???
But of course, this action was approved by our association attorney...you know, the guy who made sure Nona Tobin was axed showing the "tender lovin' care" he's now become famous for exhibiting...
So...we're all supposed to believe all this bias is somehow A-OK ?
We shall see about that !
Does that sound like a broken record or what ???
But of course, this action was approved by our association attorney...you know, the guy who made sure Nona Tobin was axed showing the "tender lovin' care" he's now become famous for exhibiting...
So...we're all supposed to believe all this bias is somehow A-OK ?
We shall see about that !
Well now, in the
minds of ETHICAL individuals, Patricia Carrell's "extracurricular activity" was nothing more than a further attempt by a
member of an Official Sun City Anthem committee, to continue the corrupt
"machine" she was appointed by, and has been an active part of for
years.
Looking at Carrell, she
has been known to be rude and
intrusive to many who attend Lifestyle Committee meetings, demonstrating
total loyalty to those who were responsible for her appointment...
...previous Lifestyle Committee Chairman Rex Weddle and Aletta Waterhouse ...
...while making life miserable on a number of clubs demanding they march to her whims.
...while making life miserable on a number of clubs demanding they march to her whims.
Of course, this person, along with her committee which is STUFFED with "machine cronies", makes decisions that affect your lifestyle.
They are obviously "in the pocket" of those who who appointed them and support a General
Manager's decisions, despite that woman incurring the wrath of 836 unit owners to sign petitions of "no confidence."
This...is
your how a CORRUPT BOARD maintains a CORRUPT SYSTEM...
...appointing "their kind" to positions who have acted in a manner that maintains that
CORRUPTION year in and year out...
...and leaves little doubt this
woman, her committee, and so many appointed by the CORRUPT members of this and
previous Boards, are nothing more than a BUREAUCRATIC "MACHINE" that has been allowed to seep into
the lives of those who arrived here in good faith, and now...through that lack of concern for their
surroundings...
...continue to experience fewer freedoms, increasing demands from cronies on how to live their lives,
and an expensive future of increased assessments which will
undoubtedly will take place as a result of their continued incompetent
guidance.
Now...this UNETHICAL group has been joined by Removal "honoree"...Aletta
Waterhouse.
This is now appearing in front
of her home...an old campaign sign, the bottom of which is covered in gray
electrical tape !
Is this an attempt to influence
owners?
Is this election interference?
Another act of the OSCAR "machine" at work?
Is this election interference?
Another act of the OSCAR "machine" at work?
Or total desperation from a
person who can't face people in person and relies on emails and signs to
disguise her INCOMPETENCE?
Let's not
forget SHE WAS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE VOTE TO REMOVE NONA TOBIN as
well.
What's next in the "Let's Justify Unethical Behavior" campaign?
A visit
from....
...the only blogger spinning corrupt half-truth tales behind the wheel,
suppressing full disclosure while supporting these
UNETHICAL actions...
...along with OSCAR and
his band of rancid "machine" wieners !
Isn't it rather strange that
these BUREAUCRATS who support the system
"to the death" (and are an active part in it ) have
NEVER made a single comment as to the manner in which the DECEPTIVE BALLOTS were sent to
owners?
Of course not, only ETHICAL people with a CONSCIENCE
desiring FAIR PLAY would !
If you have ETHICS...and a desire to maintain Sun City Anthem as a premier community where "political hacks" no longer
have a place to promote their CORRUPTION and INEPT FINANCIAL DECISIONS...AT YOUR EXPENSE...
Got a comment?
Let us know
!
David you know FAS records are available for review. I am disappointed, but not surprised, you did not comment on the fact that I openly discussed FAS’ financials and provided information to both Carl Weinstein and you when asked. During and after our negotiations with SCA I publicly offered in open board meetings board members the opportunity to review our financial records. Except for Weinstein not a single board member or the GM requested a review."
FAS financial statements are audited each year by our CPA, just like SCA. We have received clean opinions each and every year, just like SCA. Each month the monthly financials are reviewed and discussed with the trustees, just like SCA.
Favil’s comments did not suggest the “books were cooked”. He was suggesting that the total disclosure of the cost of transition from managed to self-managed and ongoing costs have not been presented. I have been reviewing the reports and statements provided in the monthly board books and, to my understanding, have only seen payroll costs comparisons. This was only presented, I believe, after serious questions were being raised about the EXCESSIVE compensation package provided the GM and her senior staff.
FSR management costs included in their monthly fee all accounting services (financial systems, payables, deposits, receivable follow-up, etc.), human resources, personnel recruitment and training, board training on NRS, workers compensation and employment practices insurance, computer services and project management. Did I miss any fully detailed report and projection comparisons? Example how much does the ongoing CS4U (computer services) costs? Are/were there account package software or outside service costs? What are the added costs for workers compensation and employment practices insurance?
FAS has taken no position one on the removal election. Just as you have previously written about SCA committee members, as individual members of the SCA community FAS trustees are free to express their personal views on the recall issues. Favil, as do I, has the right to express his personal beliefs. I believe you have reviewed the entire list of those signing the petitions. If you are “fair and balanced” on reporting the facts, you should have reported the names of former SCA directors and or other community leaders that signed the recall and vote of no confidence petitions: such as, Favil West, Dan Forgeron, Jim Mayfield, Bob Berman, Kay Dwyer, and John Waterhouse. You should also note the absence of a position by many former SCA directors."
I signed the recall petition of Board Members for: violations of NRS 116; holding secret meetings and making decisions in private and without all board members present, preventing open nominations of SCA officers at the May 2017 organizational meeting by not allowing other nominations to be considered for the president position (decision made before the meeting), marginalizing other Board members input and comments (most recently exemplified by the actions taken to remove Nona Tobin without ANY hearing), eliminating open board book review and certain Committees preventing/limiting Member participation on matters relative to capital projects & fitness facilities and other matters before the Board, improper oversight and preparations of SCA budgets and reserve study, allowing the President, Treasurer and General Manager to make unilateral decisions without full Board input or votes, and allowing the General Manager to make purchasing decisions (for example, researching, obtaining quotes for and recommending the medical insurance package from which she directly benefited) and unilateral decisions that negatively impacted the club activities and Members in general, entering into litigations without the required member approval, and lastly for allowing interference with the May 2017 election by allowing disclosure of election results before the prescribed meeting. This last violation was reported by you on this blog when the submission of invalid ballets was disclosed and a call for those who may have filed them to obtain replacement ballots (vote twice). Again, this point is again highlighted by the manner in which the recall election is being handled. In fact one director has publicly apologized for this. By the way, I believe, the Solera recall cost $8,000+-
I signed the vote of no confidence for the GM, which I have not seen mentioned (other than salary) or discussed, for violations of NAC 116; mishandling the May 2017 Board of Director elections by allowing the opening the ballet boxes and reporting on election results during the voting period (results reported on this blog), failure to provide in a timely manner member’s documents requests as required by law, making unilateral decisions negatively impacting SCA clubs, fitness classes and life style without Member input or participation, and finally for not complying with an April 2016 board resolution to have prepared and provide a lease for signature by the SCA president pursuant to the terms accepted by the board.
I would ask that all the personal attacks and innuendos STOP. There are valid reasons people support the recall. Discuss the facts and your beliefs but don’t snipe or demean those who have differing opinions."
Part One of Two
The Community LifestyleCommittee (CLC) “takes off” the month of July. This Committee is supposed to have a monthly workshop (which is the one time that the public can come address them if there are “issues "with the Clubs) and then they have their monthly meeting when they meet and make their decisions based on issues raised at workshops. They will cancel the workshop “for unforeseen circumstances” then move the workshop to the same day as their meeting, causing anyone who might have planned on addressing them to juggle their own personal schedules. They also remove items from their workshop agendas less than 24 hours before a meeting, again causing residents to wait an entire month to address the Committee regarding an issue that might be effecting their Club. For that matter, I rarely, if ever, have attended a workshop when I can say that every member of the Committee was even present, leaving me to wonder how they make decisions on their vote when they meet in private the week after the workshop - I guess they rely on the input of their fellow Committee members and do as they are told .
BTW / I don’t know of a Club Board that takes a monthly hiatus. The Clubs operate 12 months and their Board is therefore responsible year round. To have the entire Committee take off a month and then come back and cancel the very next workshop indicates to me that this is not run with efficiency.
All this attempt to influence the recall from a Committee that makes a BIG DEAL about Clubs being oh so careful about not using our rosters for anything but Club business- see the CCGR 4.9 "COMMUNICATING WITH CLUB MEMBERS:
B. If the club collects and uses email addresses of its members, these email addresses may only be used for the business of the club as determined by the club’s officers. When communicating by email to the membership, the individual email addresses must be shielded by using the blind-copy option (bcc) on sending emails. A club's membership roster may only be used by the club for club purposes, and must not be shared with or distributed to anyone for any purpose other than furthering the activities of the club.
C. A club should desist from asking other clubs to promote the business of a club or service group that does not fall within the business of the other clubs. Club officers and club members must not promote their individual non-club business interests to club members (e.g., selling life insurance or annuities).
Part Two of Two
It is interesting that when the CLC Members ask the Club Presidents to "share" their emails regarding the recall election, they are apparently considering that the officers of the Club's should determine those to be "club business." That is quite the stretch and if that were so, I can only be left to wonder if club officers determined that emails to vote YES were also shared would they be deemed "club business", or would the Club officers be ridiculed? I can't help but wonder how members of the CLC believe that promoting a particular vote on the recall does not violate their own rule to "desist from asking clubs to promote the business of a club or service group". To me it is blatantly asking club officers to promote their individual non-club business interests. I suppose their argument can me made that the make-up of the BOD directly or indirectly effects the Clubs and to this one could agree, but then they should provide articles promoting both a YES and NO vote on the election if they really were honest about that argument for "sharing" opinions with Club members, but alas, only one-sided emails have been sent our way.
I would have far more respect for the CLC members if they urged Club Officers to remain neutral and not try to influence the recall in any way. The Clubs are for the quiet enjoyment of their various activities and SHAME ON THE CLC Members for using their positions to try to get the Club Officers to promote one agenda over another. Any of those CLC Members that have abused their position should immediately apologize and resign.
When I got an email from Danielle Bartle in July, in which she forwarded the infamous email from Forest Quinn, I immediately reached out to my Club's CLC liaison, Joan Roth and the CLC Chairperson, Pat Carrell.
When Pat returned from her vacation she said "...it is not appropriate for CLC as a committee to take action on the activities of individual SCA residents.". (Since when is Danielle an SCA resident)?
So I guess all the emails the clubs are now being asked to "share" are not coming from the CLC "as a Committee, but rather from the "individual members".
Then, why, one might ask, are we being asked to "share" them with our members and why are the CLC Members sending them to the Club Presidents?
I reached out to Pat Carrell and Joan Roth on July 6 and it took until July 11 to get a response - or non-response, which provided me no guidance as a Club President as to how to handle the directive from the Activities Dept.
When I expressed that I was no clearer based on her response, I was advised that I should provide evidence of Club's violating the CC&R by using their Club's email for non-Club business.
The fact that we were being told to do so by the Activities Dept didn't seem to bother Pat in the least.
Since then I have received emails from CLC members, directing me and other club Presidents to disseminate information that we should "share" on which way to vote on the recall election.
I can only interpret this as falling within Pat's interpretation of coming from "individual members" and seeing no correlation to the Committee. I am not so naive.
The full text of Pat's first and second email are below:
"Elizabeth,
I have been out of the country and blissfully away from email for the past 2 weeks,although aware of what was going on.
CLC's silence should not be taken either as support for or lack of concern about the activities of some who would throw the community into turmoil.
While we may have our individual views, and may be taking action as individual SCA residents, it is not appropriate for CLC as a committee to take action on the activities of individual SCA residents.
Just as the BOD and the other committees, some of which are in better positions than CLC to judge the merits or demerits of the arguments, have not spoken as oganizational entities.)
Pat"
Elizabeth,
If you have evidence that clubs are violating the CC&Rs by sending out emails to club members that are not club business, I will take that issue up with CLC.
Please provide me with whatever evidence you have for specific clubs.
Please note that section 4.9 B states that the club email addresses may only be used for the business of the club as determined by the club's officers.
Pat"