How convenient... . Coupled with the insert regarding the Restaurant Space in The March Spirit, I am convinced that the Board and Management have come up with what they believe are preemptive ploys to make residents think that anyone cares what they want.
Up until now we have been treated like stupid children who need to be told what and when to do everything. Our years of life's and formal education are pushed aside for the whims of a few that want to remain in control and power.
For example, shortly after going to self-management, all the Clubs were told to select new times and days to meet, based on a 10:00 am to 2:00 pm or 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm daytime schedule.
Our cries for reconsideration fell on deaf ears UNTIL one concerned citizen was clever enough to circulate a petition which ultimately reached the Board.
The Board panicked and only then did our esteemed new Manager agree to meet.
Ultimately the ridiculous rules were rolled back but it took a lot of work on the part of ONE CITIZEN TO CIRCULATE A PETITION and then the fright of the Board that they would lose votes at the next election.
I foresee that everyone is going to be coddled for the next 6 weeks and made to think that all of a sudden our opinions matter, but once the election is over, if we have the same old guard I can't imagine why they would decide to change the "my way or the highway" attitude we have all suffered.
Valerie, I can understand some things being confidential such as arrest records, child support delinquencies, or bankruptcies, but as far as items that include length, duties, income and responsibilities associated with her employment contract, there is no reason not to disclose any such information.
Yesterday afternoon, both incumbents made every attempt to justify full secrecy, which did not bode well with the audience.
Barry Goldstein quoted the section of NRS 116 that seemed to allow such information being divulged.
It further demonstrates a major difference between The New Tradition Team and the incumbents, Weddle & Quinn.
Whereas the former believe the community has the right to know, the later does not.
What was most disturbing yesterday afternoon, was the commentary of some that instead of confronting various candidates and seeking their views, a number of individuals specifically confronted some candidates with insults. Adults? No discourteous adults, acting like children !
The board has hired at 40k plus benefits etc person who is supposed to inspect the community four times a year and use his own car to do but we would still be responsible if he is liable in an accident. We reimburse him based on mileage when we have many Patrol vehicles that he could use that we are already paying for. However, as stated below I do not think that we need a paid employee to do these inspections and four times a year is just a make work project and a total overkill for a problem that for 20 years we did not know we had. Once a year would be a much more efficient and sensible idea.
I think that we should have volunteers do the inspections ONCE a year starting in March every year and those ten teams of two volunteers each would use an association Patrol car to inspect the homes. If the volunteers find violations both volunteers would have to agree on the violation and then they would send it in to management for review and the sending of a letter to the homeowner.
If the two volunteers cannot agree on a violation, they would report the disagreement to management who would then make the call and issue a letter if warranted. This should reduce frivolous charges against homeowners.
I think that a team of two people wearing a HOA vest of some kind and a HOA hat and with an HOA ID of some kind on their vest would be a good idea to avoid concerns about people roaming around checking houses. The HOA would inform the community before and during the annual inspection period that the volunteers are out inspecting to reduce the chance that residents become alarmed if they see two people inspecting homes in their village.
First I want to thank you for publishing an alternative opinion about the issue of what Nevada laws require with respect to compliance with HOA requirements from the Massachusetts attorney.
This is an important issue which suggests at a minimum that the board might want to seek a second opinion before charging ahead with the current plan.
Second I would urge that all parties in this dispute to turn down the rhetoric!
Everyone should be treated with grace and respect when offering an opinion.
References to the machine and suggestions that Attorneys or board members are incompetent simply add fuel to an ongoing fire and do not help to actually resolve the issue or come up with a plan to treat residents better.
It is perfectly reasonable to complain about a policy or board action but personal attacks are simply counterproductive.
I suggest the right approach is to simply ask the board to come up with an analysis of what went wrong in this compliance activity and a plan to move forward that addresses the legitimate resident complaints heard to date. If they asked me.
I would immediately freeze or stop the current practice of sending out violation letters and ask the staff to perform an analysis of the frequency and type of violations found to date.
Then the ARC should be asked to decide if a case can be made to make some modest changes to each guideline to address concerns raised to date and if so what are the pros and cons of each possible change.
Only then will the board be in the position to decide if and when to restart the compliance audit.
Having said all that I acknowledge I am not in possession of all of the facts here and could be wrong.
Nevertheless I hope some of the board candidates and the board itself will consider this course of action or some variant thereof.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply to this comment and for your service in keeping lines of communication open.
Mike, thank you for your comments, but I would like to address some of them. First, "toning down the rhetoric:".
The New Tradition Team has been referred to as "The Arendt Team", obviously a tactic used by another blogger to somehow enhance the candidates he supports. It is common knowledge that his elective weapon has always involved destroying character, rather than facing any real issues. Unfortunately, that tactic on this go around has accomplished little as evidenced by the more than sparse commentary on his publication.
This is nothing new and fully expected, and I might say, now considered irrelevant; so much so, that it is our belief that if that alone determines a candidate's qualifications in the minds of some, our condolences are sent to them for the obvious insult to their intelligence if a choice is made on that basis.
What has taken place is a venue I fully support...and I make no apology in doing so....namely,OPEN COMMUNICATION, and frankly, knowing something about who you are planning to vote for in this election.
That objective is being accomplished by The New Tradition Team's web site offering to answer any relevant campaign questions posed to them.
That is their web site and they are the ones who to date, have been more than willing to earn the votes of the community by keeping their promises in answering them to the best of their ability.
Anthem Opinions is merely making our readers aware of it, the questions asked of their candidates, and providing a reference as to their answers.
You have not seen anything similar to that from those endorsed by the other blogger. Instead, his cry is "Vote for Them Because I Say So" and not for the others because of my support for them.
You also have not in any way witnessed any reference to The New Tradition Team web site or candidates or their website to obtain their views either, have you?
On the other hand, Anthem Opinions has WELCOMED commentary from other candidates if they will play by the same rules of The New Tradition Team, namely answering ANY relevant election questions posed by our readers.
That was met by the them through the other blogger by saying that such questions would be loaded.
We will leave it up the community to determine if that reasoning is sufficient to elect his candidates of choice.
Tragic to say the least if that reasoning is acceptable to the electorate.
The New Traditions Team has worked for three months in actively seeking GOOD and KNOWLEDGEABLE BUSINESS EXPERIENCED candidates to represent our community, and...WE FOUND THEM.
Their supporters are upward of 30-35 hard core individuals who have committed their time and money to make SCA a more friendly and fiscally responsible place, I am merely one of them.
Why, because I gotten to know them, talk to them, and whose openness, views, and kind demeanor are those most cordial individuals should possess to lead a community.
Finally, if "machine" is inflammatory in any way, well, that's how things have worked out here, and that's calling it like it is. I've been here for 13 years, and believe me, what I have seen and witnessed over that time period is more than disturbing...and that sir, is what a blog that includes community governance should be about...
...making people aware that a problem exists, identifying it and those responsible for it, bringing sound reasoning for such concerns, and a common sense approach to solving them....
Not...saying "Vote for Mr. X because I say You Should".
From Elizabeth Breier...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteHow convenient...
.
Coupled with the insert regarding the Restaurant Space in The March Spirit, I am convinced that the Board and Management have come up with what they believe are preemptive ploys to make residents think that anyone cares what they want.
Up until now we have been treated like stupid children who need to be told what and when to do everything. Our years of life's and formal education are pushed aside for the whims of a few that want to remain in control and power.
For example, shortly after going to self-management, all the Clubs were told to select new times and days to meet, based on a 10:00 am to 2:00 pm or 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm daytime schedule.
Our cries for reconsideration fell on deaf ears UNTIL one concerned citizen was clever enough to circulate a petition which ultimately reached the Board.
The Board panicked and only then did our esteemed new Manager agree to meet.
Ultimately the ridiculous rules were rolled back but it took a lot of work on the part of ONE CITIZEN TO CIRCULATE A PETITION and then the fright of the Board that they would lose votes at the next election.
I foresee that everyone is going to be coddled for the next 6 weeks and made to think that all of a sudden our opinions matter, but once the election is over, if we have the same old guard I can't imagine why they would decide to change the "my way or the highway" attitude we have all suffered.
From Larry Mayer...New Tradition Team Candidate for the 2019 Sun City Anthem Board...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI would like to answer Liz’s letter.
I along with my wife drafted the petition regarding the GM and Board's decision to revamp the club hours.
Her actions were taken after only 2 months on the job without asking anyone.
After only 2 days more than 150 signatures were obtained by frustrated homeowners.
Morning hours are often reserved for doctor appointments, as well as, exercising or just sleeping and not rushing to a morning game.
The non-Club gallery would have seen an unbelievable overflow with people not interested in playing at club locations with those ridiculous hours.
10 to 2 poses questions when to eat lunch.
Only after our board president got wind of the extent of dissatisfaction did he consult with management.
The change was made back to the way it’s always been, but not before The Spirit went to print proudly announcing all the clubs new hours.
So if 2 people can make a difference, imagine what 5 new faces on the board can do?
I might add 5 with a common sense approach!!!!
Good changes can be made by those that care enough to work at it !!!!
From Valerie Lapin...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteWhy are the terms of her contract hidden from owners?
What is she hiding?
Owners have a right to know!
Golden parachute perhaps?
Valerie, I can understand some things being confidential such as arrest records, child support delinquencies, or bankruptcies, but as far as items that include length, duties, income and responsibilities associated with her employment contract, there is no reason not to disclose any such information.
ReplyDeleteYesterday afternoon, both incumbents made every attempt to justify full secrecy, which did not bode well with the audience.
Barry Goldstein quoted the section of NRS 116 that seemed to allow such information being divulged.
It further demonstrates a major difference between The New Tradition Team and the incumbents, Weddle & Quinn.
Whereas the former believe the community has the right to know, the later does not.
What was most disturbing yesterday afternoon, was the commentary of some that instead of confronting various candidates and seeking their views, a number of individuals specifically confronted some candidates with insults. Adults? No discourteous adults, acting like children !
From Matt Horween...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteThe board has hired at 40k plus benefits etc person who is supposed to inspect the community four times a year and use his own car to do but we would still be responsible if he is liable in an accident. We reimburse him based on mileage when we have many Patrol vehicles that he could use that we are already paying for. However, as stated below I do not think that we need a paid employee to do these inspections and four times a year is just a make work project and a total overkill for a problem that for 20 years we did not know we had. Once a year would be a much more efficient and sensible idea.
I think that we should have volunteers do the inspections ONCE a year starting in March every year and those ten teams of two volunteers each would use an association Patrol car to inspect the homes. If the volunteers find violations both volunteers would have to agree on the violation and then they would send it in to management for review and the sending of a letter to the homeowner.
If the two volunteers cannot agree on a violation, they would report the disagreement to management who would then make the call and issue a letter if warranted. This should reduce frivolous charges against homeowners.
I think that a team of two people wearing a HOA vest of some kind and a HOA hat and with an HOA ID of some kind on their vest would be a good idea to avoid concerns about people roaming around checking houses. The HOA would inform the community before and during the annual inspection period that the volunteers are out inspecting to reduce the chance that residents become alarmed if they see two people inspecting homes in their village.
From Mike Messenger...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to thank you for publishing an alternative opinion about the issue of what Nevada laws require with respect to compliance with HOA requirements from the Massachusetts attorney.
This is an important issue which suggests at a minimum that the board might want to seek a second opinion before charging ahead with the current plan.
Second I would urge that all parties in this dispute to turn down the rhetoric!
Everyone should be treated with grace and respect when offering an opinion.
References to the machine and suggestions that Attorneys or board members are incompetent simply add fuel to an ongoing fire and do not help to actually resolve the issue or come up with a plan to treat residents better.
It is perfectly reasonable to complain about a policy or board action but personal attacks are simply counterproductive.
I suggest the right approach is to simply ask the board to come up with an analysis of what went wrong in this compliance activity and a plan to move forward that addresses the legitimate resident complaints heard to date. If they asked me.
I would immediately freeze or stop the current practice of sending out violation letters and ask the staff to perform an analysis of the frequency and type of violations found to date.
Then the ARC should be asked to decide if a case can be made to make some modest changes to each guideline to address concerns raised to date and if so what are the pros and cons of each possible change.
Only then will the board be in the position to decide if and when to restart the compliance audit.
Having said all that I acknowledge I am not in possession of all of the facts here and could be wrong.
Nevertheless I hope some of the board candidates and the board itself will consider this course of action or some variant thereof.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply to this comment and for your service in keeping lines of communication open.
A resident since 2015.
Mike, thank you for your comments, but I would like to address some of them. First, "toning down the rhetoric:".
ReplyDeleteThe New Tradition Team has been referred to as "The Arendt Team", obviously a tactic used by another blogger to somehow enhance the candidates he supports. It is common knowledge that his elective weapon has always involved destroying character, rather than facing any real issues. Unfortunately, that tactic on this go around has accomplished little as evidenced by the more than sparse commentary on his publication.
This is nothing new and fully expected, and I might say, now considered irrelevant; so much so, that it is our belief that if that alone determines a candidate's qualifications in the minds of some, our condolences are sent to them for the obvious insult to their intelligence if a choice is made on that basis.
What has taken place is a venue I fully support...and I make no apology in doing so....namely,OPEN COMMUNICATION, and frankly, knowing something about who you are planning to vote for in this election.
That objective is being accomplished by The New Tradition Team's web site offering to answer any relevant campaign questions posed to them.
That is their web site and they are the ones who to date, have been more than willing to earn the votes of the community by keeping their promises in answering them to the best of their ability.
Anthem Opinions is merely making our readers aware of it, the questions asked of their candidates, and providing a reference as to their answers.
You have not seen anything similar to that from those endorsed by the other blogger. Instead, his cry is "Vote for Them Because I Say So" and not for the others because of my support for them.
You also have not in any way witnessed any reference to The New Tradition Team web site or candidates or their website to obtain their views either, have you?
On the other hand, Anthem Opinions has WELCOMED commentary from other candidates if they will play by the same rules of The New Tradition Team, namely answering ANY relevant election questions posed by our readers.
That was met by the them through the other blogger by saying that such questions would be loaded.
We will leave it up the community to determine if that reasoning is sufficient to elect his candidates of choice.
Tragic to say the least if that reasoning is acceptable to the electorate.
The New Traditions Team has worked for three months in actively seeking GOOD and KNOWLEDGEABLE BUSINESS EXPERIENCED candidates to represent our community, and...WE FOUND THEM.
Their supporters are upward of 30-35 hard core individuals who have committed their time and money to make SCA a more friendly and fiscally responsible place, I am merely one of them.
Why, because I gotten to know them, talk to them, and whose openness, views, and kind demeanor are those most cordial individuals should possess to lead a community.
Finally, if "machine" is inflammatory in any way, well, that's how things have worked out here, and that's calling it like it is. I've been here for 13 years, and believe me, what I have seen and witnessed over that time period is more than disturbing...and that sir, is what a blog that includes community governance should be about...
...making people aware that a problem exists, identifying it and those responsible for it, bringing sound reasoning for such concerns, and a common sense approach to solving them....
Not...saying "Vote for Mr. X because I say You Should".