THE TARNISHING OF PARADISE-PART ONE

Home/Topics/THE TARNISHING OF PARADISE-PART ONE

THE TARNISHING OF PARADISE-PART ONE

Home Forums Where I Stand THE TARNISHING OF PARADISE-PART ONE

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3402
    MARCIA KOSTERKA
    Keymaster

    Anthem Today has been watching with great interest for some time each successive Board of Directors of SCA make rash decisions fueled by purely selfish reasons, ineptness and often sheer stupidity, that had adversely affected the homeowners residing here who are the financial backbone of this community.  Unless there is a radical change in the majority of members elected to the board, this erosion will continue with severe consequences for all.

    Yesterday was the first opportunity for the community to see and view the candidates running for the board in our upcoming community election process.  For those who chose not to attend, you missed a great opportunity to view “up close and personal” the contrast between “more of the same” who seemed to blame others for ongoing faux pas in governance which were clearly in their jurisdiction and those who have fresh ideas, who felt that homeowners have been disenfranchised, and demonstrated backgrounds that could greatly improve governance in our community.                                                    

    There were many controversial questions asked of candidates and some answers, especially from incumbents as well as new candidates, were eye opening to say the least.  The following are some of the subjects addressed in question form:

    1.   The conflict between The Foundation Assisting Seniors and the Community Service Group.

    2.   The wording on the SCA Assessment Coupon Booklet does not conform to the SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy.

    3.   The admission that our legal counsel bills are very high.

    4.   The continued blame placed on our former management company for things that have gone wrong.

    5.   The poor training given to employees who give incorrect information to homeowners on issues.  (often differs depending upon which employee you ask)

    By now, after reading the above, you might be asking yourself, “who is she to be making this assessment of what transpired at the Candidates Forum?  I have never seen her name on any standing committee. Allow me to make this perfectly clear. I was on an HOA board in Illinois for many years and was president for a very long time.  Rana Goodman, owner of this web site, was also on an HOA board here in southern Nevada as well.  We both have never seen decisions made in such a cavalier manner by  HOA boards as here in SCA.  These are OUR OPINIONS based on our past experience as well as relations with choosing contractors, abiding by state laws and allowing homeowners the right to be included into the decision making process, especially if the issue affects THEM!

    Allow me to go back to the four issues I have highlighted above.  The conflict between The Foundation Assisting Seniors and the Community Service Group should NOT have been mediated by the current BOD.  An outside mediator should have been brought in who has “no axe to grind” to fairly and impartially mediate their differences.  BOTH groups provide valuable services to this aging community.

    Item two is clearly spelled out in NRS 116A.640, section 8 and was brought up yesterday.  The answer from an incumbent candidate was incorrect and not repeated with how it was written or any evidence that the candidate understood the law.

    As far as huge legal bills are concerned, many, including Rana and myself, have publicly and privately commented that it is long overdue to hire legal counsel who does not issue advice on what he thinks the BOD wants to hear, but what is clearly spelled out in state laws and what is good for the community.  To add insult to injury, no BOD has ever explored the concept of putting legal counsel on retainer.  The HOA in Illinois where I was a board member and president, was fortunate to find legal counsel who was instrumental in writing state laws protecting homeowners and not a BOD.  The retainer included legal advice given to the board and other simple items.  If he had to appear in person or write legal documents, then he would charge for those items in addition to his retainer fee.  NEVER did Mr. Jordan Shifrin (our legal counsel) give us answers to legal questions based on what he thought we would want to hear, but based on legalities and what was fair and best for our association.

    Item four is a no-brainer!  To quote President Harry S. Truman, “The buck stops here”!  Either the contracts with our former management companies were severely flawed, and/or each board did not demonstrate a modicum of common sense by realizing it was THEIR responsibility to oversee the management companies under contract to ensure that they carried out their defined duties honestly, correctly and to the letter of their responsibilities. 

    Item five is a reference I made yesterday in a question to all the candidates regarding a homeowner here in SCA. The property is owned by a husband and wife. Recently a brother became a permanent and legal resident within their home. He is severely physically handicapped but has all his mental faculties in tact. One of the owners went into the SCA office and asked if he could obtain an SCA ID card and was told that he would have to live here a year before obtaining the card. When this was told to me, I went into the office and confronted an employee about this issue. She denied that this was said to the homeowner, and I said it was most certainly said!  She then explained that he could purchase an ID card for $25.00 a year as the third party living in the home.  I relayed this information to the homeowner.  This clearly shows that employees often give conflicting information to homeowners.  This is but one instance that I have uncovered of incorrect actions being taken by employees.

    Lastly, I want to point out that some of the culpability of the degradation of governance in SCA lies with the MAJORITY of homeowners WHOM DO NOT  VOTE in elections in SCA.  Their laissez faire attitude of non-involvement as to how this association is run, certainly adds to the maelstrom of continued poor leadership and decisions being made.

    I urge all residents to take the time to meet the current BOD candidates at other forums to be offered and ask them questions, both collectively and individually, regarding their stand on issues that plague this community.  An informed voter is an intelligent voter!

    As other issues surface, especially during election season, Anthem Today will address them.

                                                                                    

     

     

                                                   

     

    #3425
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Marcia;

    I have received a letter (Dated Feb. 22, 2017), from The Nevada Attorney Generals Office regarding the “Kangaroo Court” hearing our Board of Directors conducted when I was accused of violating a Non-existent Code of Conduct by former Board member Jack Troia. The letter informed me that my complaint has been forwarded to an investigative unit and I am continuing to furnish that Office with additional evidence. The excessive legal costs you mentioned may soon be tripling. I am continuing to contribute additional evidence from my files. If the Nevada AG finds cause, the case may involve our Community Manager and the Legal staff and a failed Mediation attempt.

     

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.