October 15, 2017 at 4:08 pm #4131Rana GoodmanKeymaster
David Berman’s Editor’s Note October 12, 2017 David’s Anthem Journal:
Dan Forgeron, Treasurer of FAS, was also at one time Treasurer of the Board of Directors. While not intending to draw Dan too deeply into this controversy, it would be interesting to know whether, during his time as Board Treasurer, he observed any cooking of the books or fudging of the Association’s financial reports.
Dan Forgeron sent in the following post to David’s Anthem Journal October 14, 2017 following the editors note above. I have taken the liberty of posting it here because itis one of the most well written explanations of this recall effort I have seen to date:
“I take personal offense to your comments about whether or not the books were cooked while I served SCA for almost 7 years on the finance committee and as a board member. They never were and I do not believe they are being “cooked” now. Favil and I believe there has not been a full presentation or comparison of the all-in transition costs.
David you know FAS records are available for review. I am disappointed, but not surprised, you did not comment on the fact that I openly discussed FAS’ financials and provided information to both Carl Weinstein and you when asked. During and after our negotiations with SCA I publicly offered in open board meetings board members the opportunity to review our financial records. Except for Weinstein not a single board member or the GM requested a review.
FAS financial statements are audited each year by our CPA, just like SCA. We have received clean opinions each and every year, just like SCA. Each month the monthly financials are reviewed and discussed with the trustees, just like SCA.
Favil’s comments did not suggest the “books were cooked”. He was suggesting that the total disclosure of the cost of transition from managed to self-managed and ongoing costs have not been presented. I have been reviewing the reports and statements provided in the monthly board books and, to my understanding, have only seen payroll costs comparisons. This was only presented, I believe, after serious questions were being raised about the EXCESSIVE compensation package provided the GM and her senior staff.
FSR management costs included in their monthly fee all accounting services (financial systems, payables, deposits, receivable follow-up, etc.), human resources, personnel recruitment and training, board training on NRS, workers compensation and employment practices insurance, computer services and project management. Did I miss any fully detailed report and projection comparisons? Example how much does the ongoing CS4U (computer services) costs? Are/were there account package software or outside service costs? What are the added costs for workers compensation and employment practices insurance?
FAS has taken no position one on the removal election. Just as you have previously written about SCA committee members, as individual members of the SCA community FAS trustees are free to express their personal views on the recall issues. Favil, as do I, has the right to express his personal beliefs. I believe you have reviewed the entire list of those signing the petitions. If you are “fair and balanced” on reporting the facts, you should have reported the names of former SCA directors and or other community leaders that signed the recall and vote of no confidence petitions: such as, Favil West, Dan Forgeron, Jim Mayfield, Bob Berman, Kay Dwyer, and John Waterhouse. You should also note the absence of a position by many former SCA directors.
The removal, in my opinion, is not about or driven by FAS. It is not against self-management. Rather it is about changes in the culture of the SCA community and manner in which this and the previous board and GM manage the organization in a manner that does not recognizes the equal status of all directors, as mandated by Nevada laws. SCA had processes and committees in place that provided forums for community input before decisions were made. We were inclusive not exclusive. The removal is for the way self-management has been implement and has limited openness and did not establish SCA board processes to hold the GM accountable – public accountability, performance assessment and compliance with Nevada laws. Therefore, I signed the petitions and support the removal petitions for the following reasons:
I signed the recall petition of Board Members for: violations of NRS 116; holding secret meetings and making decisions in private and without all board members present, preventing open nominations of SCA officers at the May 2017 organizational meeting by not allowing other nominations to be considered for the president position (decision made before the meeting), marginalizing other Board members input and comments (most recently exemplified by the actions taken to remove Nona Tobin without ANY hearing), eliminating open board book review and certain Committees preventing/limiting Member participation on matters relative to capital projects & fitness facilities and other matters before the Board, improper oversight and preparations of SCA budgets and reserve study, allowing the President, Treasurer and General Manager to make unilateral decisions without full Board input or votes, and allowing the General Manager to make purchasing decisions (for example, researching, obtaining quotes for and recommending the medical insurance package from which she directly benefited) and unilateral decisions that negatively impacted the club activities and Members in general, entering into litigations without the required member approval, and lastly for allowing interference with the May 2017 election by allowing disclosure of election results before the prescribed meeting. This last violation was reported by you on this blog when the submission of invalid ballets was disclosed and a call for those who may have filed them to obtain replacement ballots (vote twice). Again, this point is again highlighted by the manner in which the recall election is being handled. In fact one director has publicly apologized for this. By the way, I believe, the Solera recall cost $8,000+-
I signed the vote of no confidence for the GM, which I have not seen mentioned (other than salary) or discussed, for violations of NAC 116; mishandling the May 2017 Board of Director elections by allowing the opening the ballet boxes and reporting on election results during the voting period (results reported on this blog), failure to provide in a timely manner member’s documents requests as required by law, making unilateral decisions negatively impacting SCA clubs, fitness classes and life style without Member input or participation, and finally for not complying with an April 2016 board resolution to have prepared and provide a lease for signature by the SCA president pursuant to the terms accepted by the board.
I would ask that all the personal attacks and innuendos STOP. There are valid reasons people support the recall. Discuss the facts and your beliefs but don’t snipe or demean those who have differing opinions.”
Dan Forgeron, October 14, 2017October 15, 2017 at 6:36 pm #4135Norman McCulloughParticipant
Can the community manager advise the association to use the same lawyer they use?
That Question was asked and answered by the State of Nevada on February 01, 2013
Very strange (to say the least) that no one mentions that the manager’s lawyer is in violation of NAC 116A.345 (5) because he is “double dipping” and receiving a salary from the manager AND the Association.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.