Following the article we published on Thursday
regarding SCA-TV, Anthem Opinions received numerous comments, ALL OF WHICH clearly indicated two overwhelming
observations:
1. The number of unit owners viewing the programming is
nil.
2. Financing the local television station is considered a complete
waste of association funds.
Of the comments we received, none touched us more
than that sent by Sun City Anthem resident, Janet
Marks.
She told a story...a story that dramatizes the
history of waste and disrespect toward many who have chosen Sun City Anthem to
spend their remaining retirement years...
...a sad history that has been led by individuals
whose inappropriate actions must be corrected without
delay.
Namely REMOVAL of those who
have allowed situations like the one described below to
exist...and..persist...again and again...with
each passing year.
Why I Never
Watch
by
Janet Marks
Sun City Anthem
Resident Since 2000
"I never watch SCA-TV. It
started with a very unfortunate experience for me
personally.
Here is my
reason:
I‘ve been living here since 2000.
My husband, who had a Video
Production Business, passed away in 2003.
At that time, SCA-TV was in its infancy.
Since I had all of his Professional
Equipment, I offered it Free of Charge to the station on numerous
occasions.
(Professional Cameras, Monitors,
Cordless Mikes, etc.)
After never
receiving any kind of response from anyone, I gave up
trying.
As a result, I donated all of his equipment to the Community College of Southern Nevada.
(The equipment filled the entire
interior of a car including the trunk). In return, I received a lovely letter
from the President of the college thanking me.)
Thus started the unnecessary
spending of the association for SCA-TV.
For the life of me, I cannot
comprehend why the overspending for this new equipment, when as you have
mentioned, the same can be purchased for a much lesser
price.
Who does the research for these
things?
I can understand some
disagreement with the board; however, it always seems to be “My Way Or The
Highway.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Circumstances like this should
NEVER have taken place, but they do, again and again, yet usually go unreported
while the individual wishing to make a positive contribution to the benefit of
our community, is all to often ignored and in so many cases, in a rude and
condescending manner.
Let's change all THIS...by
changing THEM.
Sign the removal petitions.
You can obtain them by simply
clicking on this link:
-
This is interesting Dick. I forgot all about K-BORE (Anthem TV) since I got rid of Cox and changed to another carrier for my TV services. I changed because I could save A LOT (!) monthly. Don't seem that I have missed it either. We sure however surely find people here that are really good at spending Other People's Mpney thru the magic of the protection of NRS rules, and the law.
I'm happy you point out the percentages of folks that do watch as it gives me perspective if the question comes up as to do we keep it because we always have had it, or just dump it (finally).
Great work once again keeping perspective all the money being spent here. -
From Karen Hadrick...to...Anthem Opinions (Part One of Three)
We don't have Cox Cable, and only watched SCA TV once on our computer (in the 5 years we've lived here). Didn't really like watching it on a small screen then, and don't find the particular topics all that interesting now.
(A lot of the same info can be had through Anthem Opinions, and the magazine published by George Meese).
I would be curious to know exactly how many people do watch it. Is it shown on any in-house television in the rec centers? I realize that this is part of a club, so how many actual members are there?
Does the club not own these particular pieces of equipment, or what's wrong with the equipment they already have? It's probably still working just fine, but it seems that anytime something that might be listed on the "estimated useful life" list for the Reserve Study date nears, suddenly the item(s) need to be replaced--regardless of their condition. I am all for preventive maintenance, but some of the spending at SCA is just plain wasteful.
A few years ago there was a similar issue that came up regarding recommendations made to replace the stacking chairs. It appeared to be an "all-or-nothing" decision by the BOD at that time. I actually took the time to send an email (copied below) to the then Board President, Bella Meese, questioning the overall need for total replacement and offered some suggestions. I never received so much as a thank you for your interest, drop dead, or any type of response from her. And, given that the Boardapproved the purchase of the EXACT same chairs that club members were complaining about, I assumed my e-mail was never even read or the info passed on. Such a waste of our association's money. Wonder what happened to the old chairs? Could they have been reupholstered? Probably just got tossed in a big dumpster. -
From Karen Hadrick...to...Anthem Opinions (Part Two of Three)
Dear Mrs. Meese: (12/7/2015)
I have some questions regarding a recent recommendation made by Mr. Daniels to the Board for replacement of the stacking chairs our various clubs are using. What is the maximum weight load for this particular chair? I did not see this pertinent information provided anywhere by MTS Seating, including within their catalog. Given that the recommended chair seem a bit pricey and has a relatively limited frame warranty (12 years), I would hope it would be able to support someone that weighs more than 200 pounds.
Additionally, if club members have been complaining about thin cushions and a lack of lumbar support on the current chairs they are using, then why weren't stacking chairs designed specifically with lumbar support being looked at? As a person who has suffered from low back pain most of my life, I can appreciate the need for a comfortable chair, and none of those that are being shown as options appear to have addressed the users complaints. Why should the Association spend thousands of dollars more than was originally budgeted for on a style of chair that people will still complain about? And, as the SCA population ages, it might be a good idea to order some chairs with arms on them to assist those that have difficulty getting up.
I looked online and found several chairs (both with and without arms) that offered lumbar support, came in multiple colors, had lifetime frame warranties, and were less expensive. And, they were sold by a company that I have used before that specializes in furnishings for schools--where you would certainly expect more abuse from the users than what SCA adults can do. I am attaching a link of a chair that I found for you to look at. https://www.schooloutfitters.com/catalog/product_info/pfam_id/PFAM25227/products_id/PRO40145. The website also indicates access to many other commercial furniture companies that offer similar style seating.
I also question whether all 252 chairs are really in such poor condition that they warrant being replaced at the same time. Is someone actually looking at each of the chairs and making an evaluation? Just because a reserve study suggests an item may be reaching the end of useful life, doesn't mean it must be done right then. Surely out of the entire lot of chairs, there must be enough that are still in above-average condition that could be consolidated to be used by a few of the smaller clubs this year to keep overall costs in line with the amounts previously budgeted for 2016. Next year, re-evaluate those chairs and as the number whittles down, move them again to an even smaller club. My point is, stay on budget!
I don't want you to think I am just some axe-grinding homeowner-- I am speaking from actual experience. After 35+ years in various aspects of property management, I do understand the issues related to making a purchase for the long term. I would, however, like to offer a suggestion to the Board, and that is to continue to researching replacement chairs, and actually obtain a sample or make a minimal purchase that can be tried by those that complained the loudest before ordering such a large quantity.
Believe me--no one wants to get stuck with having 252 uncomfortable chairs for the next 10-20 years!! Thank you for your time and serving on the Board. Sincerely, Karen Hadrick
******************************************************************************************************************************************************** -
From Karen Hadrick...to...Anthem Opinions (Part Three of Three)
I am truly hoping that Nona is able to keep up her fight to getting things done correctly and with the OVERALL Association's BEST INTEREST in mind. Homeowners with personal agendas or visions of grandeur should never serve as board members or make up association rules--especially since many have NO CLUE as to proper installations, or visual impact of the so-called "rules" already in place (many from the developer(s)
Do you think we could just start over with everything??
-
-
-
And...it was brought out in the July 27th Board meeting...
...in a typical manner.
Evidently it was stated that the cost comparison was not "apples to apples"; that what was brought up in the Anthem Opinions article did not have "the bells & whistles" suggested by Mrs. Seddon and her band of Merry minions.
However, as is always the case with this, as well as, with their predecessors...
...there is always more to this story, and in this case, no exception.
First, they never explained what those "bells & whistles" included (or why such extravagance is necessary).
Second, because it was "in the budget, it was an acceptable purchase"...the typical answer any BUREAUCRAT would employ who believes in the "let's spend it or lose it" concept of INEFFICIENCY and WASTE.
Third, no one seems to watch SCA-TV. Anthem Opinions has yet to have ANYONE say they do, or for that matter, justify the costs involved.
...and best of all:
Fourth, the old equipment is STILL OPERATIONAL.
Oh yes, one final comment.
The "inflated purchase" was APPROVED with ONLY Nona Tobin casting a "no" vote.
Waste, waste and more waste.
Still believe this "regime" is acting in the best interests of the community?
Just another reason to DUMP the four, and perhaps consider adding a couple more to the list.
This is now the NORM in our community, a NORM that requires immediate change.
WHAT A WASTE.... We would never watch it.
Who cares about local restaurant evaluations etc??
Any resident here could write better ones...
And the Spirit Magazine includes anything of value?
I once was one of the winners of a photo contest sponsored by that group...and soon realized what a "good-ol-boy" bunch this is.
Luncheon attended by Berman and a couple board members..etc.
What fools to reject a professional equipment donation!!!
And let's not forget the $30,000 waste created by the SCA video that was contracted for!!! What use was it? Where is it now?
If I remember....it was another "Bella-Gate"..?
It's OK to have a video club... but sponsor it yourselves!!!
This is of VERY small interest to the majority of our population here at SCA.
I don't know of anyone who watches these broadcasts...except the ones involved in it.