Board VP Uses Comment Time to Attack

Home/Topics/Board VP Uses Comment Time to Attack

Board VP Uses Comment Time to Attack

Home Forums Where I Stand Board VP Uses Comment Time to Attack

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #7525
    Rana Goodman

    SCA VP, Perlstein uses Comment Time to attack resident once again!

    Apparently, SCA VP thinks it is OK to attack a resident, so long as you don’t use their name. In my opinion, it most assuredly is NOT, especially when, while using the residents name he has done so before, this time however, it was obviously to ruin the resident’s reputation within our community.

    When a statement is made, and even no name is mentioned, yet you are fully aware by the statement itself who you are talking about, derogatory statements have no place within a directors words, most of all while addressing the members of the community at a board meeting.

    Add to that, the attack made by Paul Perlstein was very misleading, for example, he stated that this resident could not run for any HOA board of directors for 10 years by order of NRED. However that ruling come down due to a “squabble”  between the resident’s prior HOA.  HOWEVER, 1:   that was in 2016    2: No statement was ever made that the resident had any intention of filing to run NOW or at all.    3:   In 2016 the person them self freely requested a “permanent ban” be issued since there was no desire to ever serve again!

    As a member of the board, he should be held to a higher standard and his childish outburst is a stain on the entire board. The board should have known better that to let Perlstein’s comments go unchallenged!


    Any Director serving on an HOA Board of Directors always needs to ask himself that question when acting in an official capacity. I always did when I served on the Board of Anthem Highlands and there were many contentious moments and struggles.

    At the January 26, 2023, SCA Board Meeting I was slandered by DIRECTOR Paul Perlstein who made false statements about me in an attempt to damage my reputation in the community. It’s a very serious offense creating legal jeopardy for SCA. On January 27 Rana Goodman without mentioning my name holds Mr. Perlstein accountable on her Anthem Today post.

    On January 28 David Berman in his David’s Anthem Journal posts a defense for Perlstein by mentioning me by name as it was clear to him that Mr. Perlstein without mentioning me by name intended his comments about me. Mr. Berman just proves Ms. Goodman’s argument that an informed observer could conclude Mr. Perlstein’s comments were about me. Others who watched Mr. Perlstein slander me sent me emails or texts alerting me. I happened to have been listening and heard it myself. As the board posts the meeting video/audio you can do your own evaluation as to what Mr. Perlstein has said.


    Anyone who wants the facts can go online and Google ROBERT STERN NRED AGREEMENT and two documents will come up. One is 9 pages, and another is 14 pages. Involved in all of this are three past board members of Anthem Highlands including myself, Charles Hernandez and Ronnie Young. The 9 pager is very clear that the NRED Commission removed Charles Hernandez from the Anthem Highlands board for cause and fined him and made him pay costs. He was thrown off. I wasn’t.

    If you read the 14 pager you will see, I had some serious claims against NRED, and they wished as I did to resolve all matters and move on. Notice that no one was found guilty of anything, and inferences otherwise are just wrong and inconsistent with the facts.

    It was a voluntary settlement on both our parts and an amicable one. And the attempt to continue to smear me is just that, a smear. Rana Goodman got it right. While I did agree to a 10-year period to not serve, the standing joke was that I wanted a lifetime ban as I had no desire to serve in the future, ever.

    For Anthem Highlands I did what was in the best interest of homeowners and I put my own money up to accomplish that. While abuse of power was a big issue, I was also responsible with Ronnie Young and one other board member (a 5-person board) in fighting for homeowners’ rights that returned $1.2 millions of surplus funds to homeowners and stopped pet projects that would have cost monies that in our view were just not justified.

    We were also effective in bringing in new blood (via elections) as Directors to manage the board fairly and smartly as the Community was supportive. In all of the battles I personally financed $60,000 of legal fees. Anthem Highlands as required by law indemnified me and reimbursed me $45,000.


    Context matters when stating facts. Mr. Berman distorts as his goal, as well as Mr. Perlstein’s, is to damage my reputation in the Community.

    Mr. Berman likes to continue to quote my one-time statement calling for a boycott of the restaurant as if that is such a bad idea. I pointed out in the financial data that an early demise of the restaurant would stop the bleeding and actually save homeowners by minimizing the pressure for increased and increased assessments. That’s a fact. I have pointed out that the deficit financing was not and is not in homeowners’ best financial interests. I stand by that claim.

    Even today the facilities personnel are using some of their time to prep the restaurant and the current accounting isn’t even capturing that real labor cost. How much needed maintenance on other assets is being deferred? Again, the central question has to be “What’s in Homeowners’ Best Interests?” And reasonable people can disagree on that question. But to pretend that the majority wanted this restaurant at this fiscal jeopardy is not based on the evidence. And it is the need for spin and distortion by its principal supporters that is appalling.

    Yes, the ship is about to be fully launched. We shall see in two years how it turns out!

    And the other issue I have fought here in SCA is abuse of power and similar to Anthem Highlands it has my attention. Mr. Berman quotes my “rot in hell” statement as well as other statements and he quotes them accurately but not in context. They were written and venting against those that would dare willingly and knowingly violate the governing documents and not equally enforce them. Their abuse of power deserved contempt then and now. I was victimized by the COO/GM’s wrongful action against me and the board’s active abuse of power and weaponization of legal counsel supporting the COO/GM’s wrongful action. I am not the only victim of SCA abuse of power as noted in earlier posts.

    So, what’s in the best interest of homeowners now? What’s in my best interests having been slandered at an open BOD meeting by the Association’s VP without any board action against that VP? I intend to explore that and see if there is a WIN WIN.

    The V P’s action, if he chooses to seek reelection, ought to be denied your vote as he has exhibited that he did not act in homeowners’ best interests by slandering a homeowner at the January 26, 2023, BOD meeting. He abused his power and put you at risk. He ought not be on the board.



    Once again David Berman pushes disinformation and misinformation to support his case against me. He responds to my above comments by claiming my quotes violate the governing documents. They do not. While some can claim my quotes are in poor taste and inappropriate or otherwise including the virus quote none of them cross the line as defined in the governing documents and were not actionable.And that is precisely the point when I claim abuse of power. And Mr. Berman a lawyer disgraces himself and misinforms his readers when he pushes his spin ignoring the rule of law.
    His objective clearly is to present me in a poor light and win his PR battle.
    Making “ nasty” comments may not be “nice” so to some I am not a “nice” person. But not being nice is not actionable as Mr. Berman would want his readers to believe. I did not slander anyone as SCA’s VP did. I did not violate the governing documents as SCA management and the board did. And I did not mislead his readers as Mr. Berman did. I will not respond further. There is no need.In earlier posts he has informed his readers of his objective against me. Mr. Berman is discredited by his own writings. He can have the last word on his blog and probably will. Lol!


    I am an advocate of free speech, and I have supported Rana Goodman regarding her free speech. However, there are limits to what a homeowner can say about others at a HOA.  The limitations are imposed by the federal government (in 20 CFR part 100), state and local governments (in ordinances and in NRS 116), and also with SCA’s CC&Rs and its Anti-Harassment Policies.


    There has been some discussion whether one must consider the context when an owner tells a SCA manager the following:

    • “May you rot in hell”
    • “Perhaps the next virus has your name on it. One can only hope.”
    • “You are all intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt.”
    • “It is you Doris with your two-faced approach”
    • “Stupid is as Stupid does.”
    • “Doris and James and the rest of the SCA clowns”
    • “There are no consequences for the hired clowns who poorly serve our community.”
    • “Karma is a bitch! Hopefully it shows up sooner rather than later.”

    Speech similar to the above was considered by a Nevada Court of Appeals in the case of Pope v. Fellhauer, No. 74428 (Nev. March 21, 2019) (unpublished). A NV lawyer wrote about the Pope case at:

    The lesson from the Pope case is that one should not use derogatory speech or engage in name-calling against others at a HOA.  In Pope, the Court said that they found it significant that Mr. Pope engaged in derogatory name-calling, saying:

    “it is unclear how calling the Fellhauers ‘weird,’ ‘wack-jobs,’ ‘EXTREMELY MENTALLY UNSTABLE,’ ‘crazy,’ and ‘sick” conveyed anything other than ‘a single [person being] upset with the status quo.’… Thus, we cannot conclude that the derogatory remarks about his neighbors were directly related to an issue of public concern.  Therefore, Mr. Pope’s statements were not protected speech . . .”

    Readers in Rana’s blog can consider for themselves whether a court in NV would consider statements by a homeowner to an SCA employee that they are two-faced, dishonest, corrupt and stupid clowns, with the hope that they contract a potentially deadly virus and “rot in hell,” to be acceptable speech.

    I live at SCA, but I am a lawyer who represents community associations in another state.


    Any competent lawyer without a political agenda would disclose to the reader that some of those quotes were not in a communication to a HOA employee but rather to a third party HOA resident who agreed that the governing documents had been violated and that the HOA employees were guilty.
    In the quotes that were in the 1 email to the Community Manager the quotes under the specific Anti Discrimination Anti Harassment policy do not rise to the level of a violation. Yet by abuse of power the COO instigated charges. The board ignored the standards and due process rights of the homeowner and acted wrongfully. That’s the bottom line.
    Precedents on other cases are irrelevant and misleading and are pure spin. The author’s agenda is consistent with David Berman’s misinformation ,disinformation and smears. She is a Berman ally.
    They are worried that the re-election of current board members are at risk.
    I hope the risk is real as Paul Perlstein ‘s slander of Jan 26 is not morally nor legally equivalent to my quotes.
    This is politics folks and as voters you will have to decide which candidates best serve your interests.


    For me, this is not about politics.  I had lunch with Rana.  I like Rana.  My politics are probably more closely aligned with Rana’s than with Mr. Berman.  In my opinion, however, politics is rarely relevant to HOA governance.  I am concerned about civility and compliance with the CC&Rs and Nevada laws.


    Unfortunately it is about HOA politics and David Berman just used you for political purposes. He is the Gatekeeper to the HOA board as he relishes and thrives on his self anointed role. He openly and deceptively spins to protect the COO and select board members. Your stated objective  as to compliance with Nevada Law  is just smoke unless you can categorically condemn the slander made by Paul Perlstein at the January 26 BOD meeting and David Berman’s blogged defense of it.

    If you cannot do that then you have zero credibility, as a prominent board member has already in writing condemned Mr. Perlstein’s slander and apologized for not openly condemning it at the meeting.

    And if you can get that far, I will if you wish go to coffee or lunch and take you through the facts of my statements regarding abuse of power documenting as we go the board’s and COO’s actions violating the governing documents and NRS116. And if you are real about your priorities then we ought to end up on the same page as the facts, governing documents and the law are crystal clear.

    And then I’d appreciate it if you then would post again on this site as well as Mr. Berman’s site your apology as you got this wrong. And perhaps you win on civility as I am indignant at your assertions and misleading statements and conclusions.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.