- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Judge Judy Was RightBy: Dan Roberts
I’m not angry or even annoyed but found it more than humorous that our SCA Board could find time from its very busy schedule to pen an article in the December Spirit.
My reaction was that Judge Judy was correct in her book. That book title is the perfect response to the Board’s article, namely: “Don’t Pee on My Leg and Tell Me it’s Raining.”
Are you kidding me? Advising residents to disregard the blogs and to “trust” the Board (and ONLY the Board) tells you everything you need to know about this Board of Directors.
Compounding such absurdity, the Board claims that it really, really, really wants to tell residents the truth and be totally transparent, but alas they cannot. Why? “Confidentially.”
Be honest, you believe them?
You want to discuss reality? Ask the Board how issues can be confidential when the so-call aggrieved person (starting with my Rana) waives confidentiality.
You know why they can’t even respond to this claim? It’s confidential.
Let’s be clear, any claim of confidentially is to solely shield the Board from residents’ wrath. Not to protect residents or based on Nevada law.
And since when is lying confidential? If the Board believes that this blog and especially statements by Rana and yours truly are not 100% accurate, they are ALWAYS welcomed to submit anything in response.
Instead of wanting to shout from that “proverbial rooftop” stand up (either individually or collectively) and say it. Don’t be afraid, the truth can indeed set you free.
Want another more recent example?
When my PILL (partner in love & life) resigned, the Board decided to ask for volunteers to fill her position. Apparently, residents came forward.
How many and who were they? The Board can’t tell you because it’s confidential.
And now? The Board “realized” that there was not enough time for new applicants to be brought up to speed on all the issues.
Seriously? We’re not talking about state secrets or even theorical physics.
You wanna bet that the Board simply did not want any new guy or gal not of their liking disagreeing with their collective mind-set? You know, sort of what Rana did.
After all, when the Board made the initial announcement for volunteers, did they not “realize” the “time frame”? You think this newfound wisdom (and timetable) came only after the volunteers came forward?
Am I wrong? Go ahead, ask the Board, but like everything they do, they can dispute the validity of the allegation but can’t back it up (although once again, they really, really, really want to), due to confidentially.
Telling residents not to read or respond to the accurate information this blog provides (and will continue to provide) since it may hurt their feelings speaks volumes about their good faith and (lack of) transparency.
Have no concerns they tell residents – tune out the blogs, forget the truth, ignore the obvious and listen (and trust) only the SCA Board.
Judge Judy said it all: Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
You agree or disagree? This blog welcomes all comments and opinions.
Dan,
Agree 100%! What a joke!
I have multiple experiences with SCA Board where they have flat out lied.
It is amazing to me this Board would make such empty accusations against community members with blogs. Though I agree in the case of the sad little man (berman).
Further the “lies” or false statements by this group during their bid for election is pathetic.
Plus to make such statements about Rana and your blog is truly sad; suggesting not to listen to their former president. These 6 Board members are clueless and inept.
Peter Brown
Having residents apply in the first place was a thoughtless and rude maneuver on the part of the Board. Folks take the time to send in a request to be considered and be interviewed and vetted and then told to “forget it”. I have to wonder if the excuse of the “timing” is just a means to refuse everyone because in the minds of the current Board members none of the applicants fit their image of the “yes man/woman” they had in mind. It was despicable to put residents through this only to turn around and select no one.
I know that one of the applicants previously ran and had already been vetted and received considerable votes and is extremely knowledgeable about many facets of this community including some areas that NO ONE on this Board has the same level of expertise – certainly that applicant would’ve been a perfect individual to appoint. Since the Board doesn’t believe in reading blogs I can tell you that I think they’re all a waste of time and oh yeah – they have done a great job on the restaurant survey too !!
Judge Judy Was Right
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.