Sun City
Anthem
Is Transition to
"Self-Management in Trouble?
Part One of
Three
by
Jim
Mayfield
Director
Sun City
Anthem
The purposes of my three articles on
transition to self-management are to summarize frequently expressed perceptions by homeowners about the
transition to self-management (Part 1), to express my assessment of the root
cause driving these perceptions (Part 2),
and to examine the role of homeowners in insuring better
governance and management at SCA (Part
3).
This is the first of a three part
summary.
Part
1
Frequently Expressed
Community Perceptions
SCA homeowners are expressing their
perception that the implementation of the Board’s decision to transition to
self-management from third-party management (by a management company) was a
mistake and is in trouble.
Their perception
is based on six commonly held
observations.
1. Communication from the Board is
insufficient and poorly executed.
2. Board and management actions have
decreased transparency of the decision making process.
3. Board members and management don’t listen
to homeowners and substitute their personal goals for those of a majority of the
homeowners.
4. Operating costs are increasing and driving
assessment increases instead of achieving promised cost
savings.
5. The appropriate and inappropriate roles of
volunteers is changing and without sufficient input from the
volunteers.
6. The capability to amicably resolve the
inevitable conflicts that arise involving clubs, service groups, individuals,
and long-standing partners has deteriorated.
Specifics About
Perceptions
Communication
The sufficiency of communication
between the Board and management and the SCA homeowners will never be resolved
to everyone’s satisfaction.
Furthermore, communications is a two-way street in which homeowners must play an active role.
Furthermore, communications is a two-way street in which homeowners must play an active role.
Homeowners have
a responsibility to insure that their contact information (e.g. preferred
mail address, telephone numbers, and email address) is up to date and accurate.
Homeowners also
have a responsibility to participate in responding to age surveys, Board
elections, and other assessment tools used to determine homeowner preferences.
Homeowners also
have a responsibility to stay informed on significant issues that affect
the quality of life at SCA and financial issues that affect their cost of
ownership and property values.
Despite of these admonitions, my
assessment is that communication from the Board and
management to homeowners is deficient.
Communications on policy and
strategic issues are strictly controlled by the Board president and General
Manager and frequently do not represent the position of the
whole Board or divergent views by members of the Board.
Communications frequently cherry
pick information and are skewed to “sell” a position instead of presenting all
facts and viewpoints so that homeowners have all of the information or
viewpoints necessary to understand important issues and related Board and
management actions.
Transparency
Board candidates frequently state
they will improve transparency of SCA governance, if elected.
But the two last years, the actions
of the Board Presidents and many Board members haven't matched their campaign
rhetoric.
The Presidents
have used their self-serving, misinterpretation of Section 4.4 of SCA By-laws
and Section 4.5 of the Board Policy Manual to:
1. Give direction to the General Manager,
Community Association Manager, and Sun
City Anthem legal counsel on behalf of the Board, without a majority vote of the Board at a properly noticed Board
meeting.
2. Use Emergency Board meetings that do not
require normal notice requirements in order to avoid timely awareness of such
meetings and to avoid disclosures.
3. Suppress allowing items on the regular
agenda proposed by other Board Members that they did not want publicly
discussed.
4. Issue reprimands, including letters issued
by SCA legal counsel, not approved at a meeting of the Board or without
inclusion of the Board Member being reprimanded.
5. Assign the development of Board policy and
oversight to individual Board members supportive of their positions to insure
that recommendations do not contain minority
input.
The majority of
Board Members supported these violations of SCA
governing documents and, in certain matters, State
law.
Similar tactics have been used by
the Treasurer to circumnavigate the collective governance of the Board, as well
as, the intended roles of the Finance and Audit
Committees.
Preferential
Treatment
With few exceptions set out in NRS
116 and SCA CC&Rs and By-laws, the approval or ratification of Board
decisions by homeowners is not required.
However as fiduciaries, Board
members are expected to stay objective, unselfish, responsible, honest, and
trustworthy as stewards of public trust and must always act for the good of the
organization, rather than for the benefit of
themselves.
Homeowners have
expressed concerns that the Board and individual Board members have exercised
preferential treatment in the following
areas:
1.
Appointment of members to SCA committees.
2. Authorizing use of SCA
facilities.
3. Decisions regarding the
restaurant.
4. Equipment
purchases.
Homeowners also believe that
prudence dictates that the Board and General Manager must increase involvement
of homeowners in major decisions when the support of the Homeowners will be
critical to the success (or failure) a decision.
Two examples of
such decisions are ones taken regarding a restaurant
at Sun City Anthem and authorization of
litigation.
Cost
Control
Over the last three years, revenues
from SCA operations, including assessments, exceeded operating costs plus
contributions to reserves by over $1.25 million.
Furthermore,
once Sun City Anthem elected to no longer use a management company, the $700,000
once paid to the management company became available for other uses.
Yet, the Board
authorized a 10% increase in the annual homeowner
assessment for 2017.
Homeowners are asking why the
anticipated costs savings from self-management plus accumulated excess funds
resulted in an assessment increase instead of a roll back of assessments.
Four answers
partially respond to this question.
The explanations include:
(1) the
costs of transition to self-management
(2) the
costs of correcting construction defects at Liberty
Center
(3)
retention of approximately $600,000 of excess funds (a violation of NRS
116)
(4)
unsupported, unnecessary contributions to SCA reserves
Volunteerism
The effects on volunteers resulting
from the change to self-management have not been assessed on a comprehensive,
strategic basis.
Instead, changes have been
developed on an ad hoc basis by a small number of directors appointed by the
President without the participation of the whole Board or representation of
dissenting viewpoints.
Many active
volunteers have expressed their views that the process resulted in confusion, dissatisfaction,
and a loss of independence and influence of standing
committees and community service groups.
Conflict
Disagreements inevitably arise
within the SCA community involving individuals, clubs, and service groups.
Clearly, one of the primary obligations of the Board is to be the ultimate
arbiter of disputes.
But, since
beginning implementation of transition to self-management, the appearance of an increase in the number of
disagreements is of concern.
More importantly, the ability of
management to impartially and efficiently aid in amicable resolution of disputes
is now frequently questioned.
The result is an increased need for
the standing committees and the Board to become involved in the resolution of
disputes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Visit us tomorrow for Part 2 of Mr.
Mayfield's assessment of self-management.
Until then...
Got a comment?
Send it to us at:
Anthem Opinions has been requested to publish an email Ms. Sidary recently sent to David's Anthem Journal.
I sent the following response to David Berman after he gave his stamp of approval as to who to vote for in the coming election.
" I also understand what you said in your blog and agree that if individuals have a problem with a board member, they should just "not vote for them." It is a volunteer position.
What you brought up is the exact reason why I would not vote for anyone currently on the board. They have taken way too many liberties with their power and our finances. They do not communicate and do not respond. I feel they are totally corrupt and have no transparency. I am most unimpressed with all of them as is everyone that I speak with.
I know you go to board meetings but I don't know why. You can talk before and after and can now talk about a certain agenda item but no one responds and no one listens to what you say. You can't ask questions during the meeting so people don't feel they should waste their time. Very sad what this community has come to. We had a major surplus and were going to even put in a miniature golf course and now we have self-management (which we did not even get the opportunity to vote on) and all of our money has disappeared and we have a dues increase. We have a new manager making more money than she should and our employee expenses don't even begin to show what our CFO and others make. Sandy got a $20K bonus after being here less than a year and in all my years of working (over 50), I never received an almost 10% bonus. She supposedly saved us all this money but it is gone also.
I would like to start over with an entirely new board. The individuals that ran during the last election didn't stand a chance. All I know is that everyone I spoke with voted for the 3 individuals that did not get elected.......not any of them. I think this discourages anyone from making the effort. We all think it is fixed.
I am sure you will not reply or publish this but I had to let you know my thoughts. Sometimes you are right on the money but not this one."
Thank you Jim for your much needed assessment and clarity in our current situation..
Great blog. You definitely hit the nail on the head.
You should have been at mah jongg last Wed.
Mah jongg has had the use of the rooms at Independence Center, for as long as I can remember, on Tues & Wed from 12-4 and Thurs night.
They tried to change that (what a fiasco) last year and got so much flack that they were smart enough to give it up. So the President of the group signs up for all our times and she missed last Wed, by accident.
We were all playing (probably about 15 tables) when Danielle came in at 12:30 and told us we would have to leave as they needed to set up the room for the candidate's forum that was taking place at 6PM.
She spoke with the Treasurer & Vice President who were in the room and they talked her into giving us until 1:30.
I said out loud that was BS but was told to keep quiet since they were letting us stay until 1:30.
After all, it takes 6 hours to set up chairs?????
Some women went and played in the courtyard and one group even took a table and chairs from the room to play out there.
This is just another example of poor management. The mah jongg club has over 300 members and you can't tell me that maintenance can't set up chairs in an hour.
Anyway, congrats on your blog. It is the best and I cringe every time I read Berman's blog and it starts with a quote about how good he is.
Too bad he's out of the running this current election.....his article seems to reinforce my long-running observations:
1. SCA is THEIR Kingdom and we are their SERFS.
2. Your opinion is important so long as it agrees with their opinion.
3. Selective interpretation and enforcement of rules and CCR's will never end.
However I must agree with one point:
Homeowners DO have the RESPONSIBILITY to answer surveys....I cannot believe the number of lazy individuals who have not taken the time to complete the age survey.
Yes, I agree it is really Government Bureaucracy at it's finest....Sales and re-sales are monitored for the age of the buyers, and I doubt that anyone in SCA plans to (or could) start a new family.
BUT if we lose our 'Adult Community' status be prepared for screaming little kids in the pool and running amok in the Community Centers.