IT MAY BE LEGAL, BUT IS IT MORALLY CORRECT?

Home/Topics/IT MAY BE LEGAL, BUT IS IT MORALLY CORRECT?

IT MAY BE LEGAL, BUT IS IT MORALLY CORRECT?

Home Forums Where I Stand IT MAY BE LEGAL, BUT IS IT MORALLY CORRECT?

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Rana Goodman 8 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4390

    Rana Goodman
    Keymaster

    It may be legal but is it Morally Correct?

    First of all, I would like to welcome Ron Johnson back to the blogging community, personally I have missed his logical approach to things even if we have disagreed at times on issues.

    Ron’s blog sent out yesterday brought up some interesting points regarding the loss from SCA of The Foundation Assisting Seniors (FAS). I have read with interest the stance that he has taken, the position David Berman has taken, and although David has supported FAS, he speaks of the legal points of their removal by the SCA Board of Directors.

    I don’t question that the board may have had the legal right after they received a judgement in court, however, I am more interested in the moral obligation as a community. Why is no one addressing that?

    The shift in attitude over the past several years is astoundingly clear yet no one seems to notice it, or if they do, they remain silent about it. Let’s look at actions by our boards of directors… Please note I have used the plural.

    Here are several examples where the board may have started on legal ground but certainly blew it when dealing with residents when it came to tact, compassion, ethics.

    Norman McCullough:  Accused of “assault on the CAM” a civil complaint, yet never filed with police. Sworn testimony said it never happened. With no notice to McCullough or his attorney the board changed to charge, fined him $500 plus for legal fees, banned him for 6 months from association property. McCullough fought in court for his legal fees back after NRED wrote that the board could not charge a resident for that. SCA spent until 2017 fighting over this $500 plus…. Compute the legal charges folks vs. returning the $500.

    Doris Vesico: Coyote jumped her wall almost killing her little dogs so she asked for and received approval to raise her rear wall to 6’. The builder put one extra row of bricks on the wall and the ARC inspector said it had to be removed. Doris was unaware of the error and since she lives of social security could not afford to do this. Her neighbors signed off on the wall, it was not visible from the street, no one gave a damn about it but the SCA board of directors. A reprieve was given for one year and this 85-year-old lady worried for the entire year what would become of her and her precious dogs at the end of that time with no money to remove the top of the wall. I asked then in-coming president Bella Meese to forgive the punishment, but I don’t know the outcome since I never received a reply.

    Bob Frank:   At the time was VP of the board. He received the highest vote of those running, much like Nona Tobin, he wanted to have his say and make the balance of the board hear him out. He refused to “march to their drummer.” The balance of the board tried to bounce him off but found that they could not, by law do that. They made the balance of his term as uncomfortable as possible.

    And now we have FAS. A group made up mostly of SCA residents who have served this community for more than 10 years. Yes, they serve other communities too, as mandated by IRS mandates, so what?

    Many, many people in SCA would not have been able to overcome their surgical recovery if it were not for the assistance of FAS. There was no logical reason, no reason given why, at some pittance of a rental, FAS could not remain where they were and continue to serve our community.

    After all, the same people who wanted them gone want a restaurant here for no rent whatsoever. How can I draw that parallel? Simple, the restaurant will cost all of us thousand of dollars as “an amenity few will even use. It will be open to the public, I’d guess? So what is the difference, FAS serves the public and does not cost us thousands?

    On a moral basis, if a group is serving our community so well in so many ways, doesn’t the board have some obligation to the community to try to enable that group to stay here, rather than cite a legal means to rid our community of them for some personal reason we have not, to date, been informed of…. I don’t buy “BUT IT’S LEGAL”? …….

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.