- October 8, 2017 at 9:23 pm #4099Rana GoodmanKeymaster
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
When Ovist & Howard CPA, and perhaps attorney Adam Clarkson devised that instruction sheet and sent it out to the 7,144 plus residents of Sun City Anthem, was the idea to confuse us, have us think the mailer was junk mail so we would just toss it, or did they REALLY think they were earning the “tens of thousands of dollars” the Adam Clarkson said this was going to costs SCA?
My phone has been ringing off the hook today, as I’m sure the ombudsman’s will be come Tuesday morning, asking if I think the owners name should accompany their address, logic tells me it must since how else would the geniuses at Ovist & Howard know if the address returning the ballot is from an owner or renter who cannot vote? Sadly if this firm had dealt with it as if they lived here, they might have dealt with the instructions in a more clear fashion.
One thing I am very, very curious about is the way this accounting firm verified ownership of the properties here since my envelope was addressed to me personally. My property tax bills per the listing in the assessors office come addressed to my trust, then me as trustee. A large percentage of the homes in SCA are also in the names of a trust with the principle (s) as trustee. Did the accounting firm use the management office to verify ownership or the assessor’s office?
Owners with multiple homes seem especially confused regarding returning of the ballots, each must be returned with one ballot in the small envelope, then one placed in the large envelope marked with the name, address of one property sealed and mailed. Repeat for each property.
Taking into consideration that we are (a) a senior community (b) there are many disabled residents living here, there is absolutely no reason that our locked ballot boxes could not have been utilized for the returns since the votes will not be opened or counted until November 1st right here at Sun City Anthem. Of course it would make everything much more transparent since nothing could be hidden from view with many residents there to pay witness to their collection and opening….. but wait…. I’m on the verge of becoming cynical again!
Totally confusing page 2 of the instruction had me dizzy, how about you? The flip side of the instructions seemed to contradict its self or by the time I reached that point perhaps I was already “rummy.”
Side one said the YES votes needed 2,501 to win the recall, then side two goes on to say “example one” 2,600 votes in favor and 2,601 oppose– no recall…… 2,600 in favor 2,599 oppose recall wins
However, the law says the recall needs 35% of the voting members is that 2,500, or 35% of the members WHO RECEIVED THIS BALLOT AND DIDN’T DISCARD IT? or, 35% of the members who chose to vote
Considering the way this ballot was written, mailed and is being collected that is a huge question and in my opinion needs to be answered by an authority much more impartial than anyone here. It is my opinion that we need the Real Estate Division to step in an settle this for us. NOWOctober 9, 2017 at 5:06 pm #4105MARCIA KOSTERKAKeymaster
There is another wrinkle in the already skewed directions regarding the instructions sent along with the ballots. There are at least two homeowners who miraculously received their ballot even though the zip code addressed to them was WRONG. Their ballots were addressed as 89052 zip code instead of their legal zip code as 89044.
This is a “catch-22”. If they use the incorrect zip code (89052) on the return ballot, it may negate their ballot. If they use their correct and legal zip code (89044) the company collecting them may also negate the ballot since it does not match their list.
89044 is the legal zip code for many homeowners who bought in stage three of construction of this community. It appears on their drivers licenses, their tax forms, their real estate taxes, their trusts, etc. This was either a careless error or there are several lists out there for ballot addresses. JUST ONE MORE WAY TO DISENFRANCHISE VALID BALLOTS!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.