Prior Board Actions Demand Change
in Leadership Offered by New Tradition Team
by
Robert Latchford
Sun City Anthem Resident
With the SCA Board of Directors election approaching count down time, as votes are due by April 30 @4.00 PM, it seems appropriate to remind home owners in our development who have not yet cast their ballots, to take them off the stack of papers on their desk, fill them out, and get them to Anthem Center before then.
Although it is said that many ballots have already been received, every homeowner should have enough pride in our community to make an effort on a situation so important as to who controls where our dues go, and what we receive in return, to put the most qualified and devoted people on the Board by making sound decisions.
When SCA decided a few years back to remove the management company, it seemed like a good idea to eliminate the middle man to save the cost of their services.
I would venture to wager that far too many property owners seem complacent about all that is going on, and ignore the facts of the direction our community is going.
Having spoken to many residents, many have heard of an election, but are unaware of its possible consequences and behind the door decisions.
The current board, with it’s composition and lack of transparency, seem to lack the ability and/or experience to make it a place we could all take pride in calling it "home", and this is our chance to replace some on them with better choices.
During the past few years current and many former Board members displayed behavior on numerous occasions that were far from our best interests. As an example, a current member, currently up for reelection, was instrumental in granting a deadbeat tenant $40,000 in loans of OUR money which eventually defaulted.
Five of the seven current members voted to approve a no-rent lease with free resident paid utilities, no security deposit, free resident paid large screen TVs with commercial DirecTV service, exclusive catering rights, and numerous other perks, to a company, G2G ( a large Denny's franchisee), without checking their credit rating .
(Luckily it was never signed as they proved far from creditworthy).
The lease was for the area of Anthem Center where five restaurants had failed, but the Board insisted the people wanted a version of a "hash house" there.
Are these examples of mishandling funds?
They even sent out an “opinion poll” to residents and included renters with no vested monetary interest, asking if they would like a restaurant offering a $250,000 annual resident paid subsidy, or a $750,000 one time cost, a hypothetical figure without any evidence to back up that figure, leaving the space vacant with no other options.
Naturally the people voted for the cheaper "no-brainer" option, which was not a fair comparison if they wanted "in-house burgers".
Probably the biggest bonehead measure was hiring a General Manager at a tremendously bloated salary & benefits package.
With s huge outcry from the homeowners, at about twice the going rate for the job, they simply changed the job title to "Chief Operating Officer" in order that the salary could be justified and compared it to a C.O.O.'s job search of websites of various “headhunter” companies.
I am not implying the lady in question is not a hard worker, but there was no thought given to someone with lesser salary demands with more reasonable incentives.
The rest of the management staff seems equally overly compensated.
These are a few examples that our community can surely do a better governing job since the ballot includes a New Tradition Team with five individuals having extensive backgrounds in various fields which could put new life in our stagnant leadership with experience in finance, real estate management, food service and other skills which could benefit our community.
Voting for competent change is voting for candidates:
#1 (Rana Goodman)
#3 (Karen Hadrick)
#8 (Barry Goldstein)
#9 (Larry Mayer)
#10 (Bill Odelson)
Note: I have no personal interest in any of these candidates, but after
hearing many of then speak and respecting their work history, I feel
it’s time we turn the job over to those who have done well for
themselves and are most likely able to do the same with our association's finances.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Got a comment on Mr. Latchford's editorial?
Send it to us at:
Hopefully, the SCA voters will not fall into the axiom:
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
Hopefully the majority of voters can see further than the end of their noses.
You need to vote like your future depends on it...it DOES !