Welcome to North Korea

[Dan Roberts]

WELCOME TO NORTH KOREA

First they claim “confidentiality” that prohibits them from disclosing the truth. Then your Board and Management decided that they must investigate and “vet” any candidate to run for the Board (and residents “wonder” why no qualified SCA person would do so – but I digress).

Then if you don’t follow their gospel, they toss you off the Board.

Then they tell residents not to read what “bloggers” write about our SCA community. And now the latest – the notification that “your” SCA Board of Directors adopted a new “Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy.”

 Beginning to see a pattern?

I admit that their actions are ones that North Korean “ Little Rocket Man” Kim Jong-un would admire. For you see, the Board is now claiming it has the absolute and sole discretion to determine whether any statement/act creates a hostile environment or constitutes harassment.

No proof is needed (not even a hearing, although Nevada law requires it – but since when is our Board bound by any state or federal law?) and they are now prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

To an overwhelming number of residents, this is yet another reason to keep their mouths shut and not get involved.

But anybody doubt that the sole reason for this new and unnecessary policy (it’s already Nevada law and a part of our SCA Rules & Regulations) is to silence any question, criticism and/or discussion of Management and the Board?

Disagree with the Board’s actions? Surely it’s “harassment” and constitutes a hostile environment to our SCA community.

Want to question how much this new policy cost SCA for the Board to consult/obtain the opinion of legal counsel (which did nothing more than add new paperwork)? Don’t push it, since it just might be harassment, and besides, such information is “confidential.”

Of particular interest and amusement is that such harassment/hostile environment can now occur not only through verbal threats or bullying tactics but via other “communication mediums.”

Certainly, that cannot means the community blogs, could it?

It is the position of Anthem Today that such SCA absurd and embarrassing policy is null, void and “dead on arrival.” We will unconditionally stand behind our First Amendment Freedom of Press right – and besides this blog, will continue to speak out and disclose the facts, and our opinions on our:

1. Weekly Vegas Voice radio show (shameless plug – every Thursday from 11-12 noon, KSHP- AM 1440), AND
2. Monthly Vegas Voice magazine, AND
3. Now always “on” our (another shameless plug) dedicated YouTube channel (YouTube.com/c/VegasVoiceTV).

I also want to make clear that I am not asking to change slander/libel restrictions or even “shouting fire in a theater” statements against the Board.

But if the Board (or its attorney) hope that this policy will silence or frighten Anthem Today and its related blogs, or my Rana from speaking/writing about the truth they, once again screwed up. And if they want to run up legal fees, by all means we would be willing to be the “test” case.” Bring it on.

Actually the timing could not be better for us. My PILL (partner in love & life) started her new Vegas Voice YouTube segments – Rana’s Rants. Just last week, she asked me what she should discuss. And now….

I also want to remind the Board/Management that “Hell hath no fury and there is nothing more frightening than a determined Rana Goodman.”

By the way, the last person to challenge her on her right to speak “truth to so-call people with power” was a private guardian. By all means Board members, feel free to check with April Parks to verify my claim. Visiting hours are from 1-4 pm on Tuesdays.

I have now been a SCA resident for nearly 9 years, Rana 18 years. We both love living here, including our lifestyle, neighbors and now friends. And to quickly alleviate any push-back, it’s not Sun City Anthem that we are trashing, but the Board. Just shameful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elizabeth Breier]

Well the good news for you is that you posted this before April 1. So unless they change their policy and say it’s retroactive, you’re in the clear. Keep writing and informing the people about  what is going on. The word must get out.
PS – Will book burning be next?

[Dick]

A great article, Dan, and your comment  about book burning, Liz, should not be taken lightly.

This time the envelope has been pushed past the point of common sense and decency. 

It violates freedoms each American is guaranteed in the US Constitution, both speech and the press, and it will accomplish nothing other then alienation among those who once called themselves friends.

To those who believe such action is justified, remember the British tried this same tactic in the mid-1770s.  It cost them their colonies. 

The dates have changed, but the true American ideology has not.

Freedom was the basis on which this nation was  built, and when any force or individual in history tried to take it from us, we fought, and WE WON. 

Those who believe that not to be the truth, history will prove you WRONG and you will LOSE. 

Americans are a tough breed and we can be pushed only so far before we will act. 

Freedom is an American right and the American dream.  Removing it, removes the spirit of it’s core of beliefs.

To those who were responsible for making this travesty a reality, they should lose  the respect of every individual in Sun City Anthem who calls themselves an American.

As Thomas Paine once said, “These are times that try men’s souls.”

If this isn’t enough reason to strongly suggest IMMEDIATE termination of any relationship with the association attorney who drafted this damning document, as well as,  NOT RENEWING the contract of the  CEO when it renews in 2022, in addition to possibly RECALLING any of the directors who will remain on the Board after May, 2021 who believed such action should become the law of our the land,  then our community will do little other than contribute to the destruction of America as we know it.

Do such individuals deserve to have any part of our community governance?

People, if this is allowed to stand, and we as a community stand by and allow it, it will be a matter of time…a short time…before our community morally disintegrates.

 

 

 

 

[Rana Goodman]

Quite a few of my friends and neighbors have expressed a reluctance to comment on these new harassment rule with fear that the board will retaliate by fining them or anything the new policy allows.

That is extremely sad to me since this policy was pushed for by a club president who created the most hostile environment our community has ever had….. The SCA attorney convinced the board majority to “cave into” his demands rather than calling his bluff.

We most assuredly we need the board to  “grow some stones” and hire a new attorney….. We don’t need an attorney who thinks he is the 8th board member in my opinion!

[shawnhicks]

My first reaction to the Anti-Harassment / Anti-Discrimination Policy was that I did not like it either.  After researching the subject with other HOAs, I don’t think it is quite that simple.

There are some relatively new HUD (Housing and Urban Development) anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules that went into effect October 2016 which significantly impact HOAs.  Although many HOAs and their management dislike these new rules (See, e.g. https://advocacy.caionline.org/hudwhitepaper/), it is important for HOAs to be aware of these new liability traps. The kicker is that an HOA may be liable if they have the power to exercise control over harassment/discrimination, but fail to do so. One way to avoid the liability trap is to adopt anti-discrimination / anti-harassment policies, and to judiciously enforce them.

A legitimate (and mandatory) area for enforcement is quid-pro-quo and hostile environment cases.  Quid-pro-quo is “this for that” which applies when someone says “I will help you with X in exchange for sex.”  The hostile environment cases do seem to be already covered by NRS 116, at least to a degree, but only to a small degree.

I read NRS 116.3118, which prohibits threats and harassment, but the harassment under that statute must be so severe that it “causes harm or serious emotional distress” or “creates a hostile environment.” Those are pretty high burdens.  When a person violates the statute, the remedy is a misdemeanor charge.  A misdemeanor is a crime, which means it takes the police to enforce it. The police, however, don’t want to get involved in HOA or neighbor quarrels. They view those quarrels as a civil matter.

What about cases where a member is overtly hostile to and curses at a staff person, and maybe even uses an offensive racial epithet? What if a member repeatedly does the same to their neighbors? What if clubs excluded membership based on race or religious beliefs? What if a member of the ARC said they would approve a plan in exchange for sex? What if a Community Patrol member offered security in exchange for sex? What if a person did an Andrew Cuomo, who without consent placed their hands on a woman’s face, and lower back or butt, and asked for a kiss? What if a person did an Al Frankin, who without consent put his hands on a woman’s breasts? What is wrong with issuing fines for these activities?

You pointed out that the policy is a “Can O Worms.” You have a point.  Much of the policy is vague.  What is “verbal abuse,” “intimidation,” “bullying,” “profane language,” and “unwelcome conduct”? Those words seem vague to me.  Could I get a fine for swearing? Could I get a fine for being critical of a board or a management decision? Could I get a fine for reading Dr. Seuss in public?

Who will be issuing the fines – management? Who will hear an objection to the fine – Covenants?

I do agree that neighbors should be neighborly.  We should not curse at our neighbors. We should be respectful to all SCA staff, even when we think they made a mistake.  We should not berate someone because we do not like the political sign in their yard.  We should not harass people.

HUD is forcing HOAs down this road.  There is much to be worked out with this new policy and the HUD requirements.  I hope enforcement is light-handed.

[Rana Goodman]

Shawn, I love and agree with the following examples, especially Dr. Suess,………

What is “verbal abuse,” “intimidation,” “bullying,” “profane language,” and “unwelcome conduct”? Those words seem vague to me.  Could I get a fine for swearing? Could I get a fine for being critical of a board or a management decision? Could I get a fine for reading Dr. Seuss in public?

However the rule that was in the Spirit insert is overly broad reaching and yet vague on some points. By stating that it includes “other communication mediums.” Do they plan on infringing on my constitutional rights to publish commentary in our magazine, The Vegas Voice, or my Vegas Voice You Tube channel feature, Rana’s Rants which would push on Freedom of Speech and the right as media to publish editorials and commentary??

I am not talking about foul language, or anything else which is inappropriate, however I do reserve the right to express my opinion. I once contacted an attorney to assist me in getting a restraining order against a blogger who was attacking me on a regular basis. I was advised “you have a blog, he has a blog so you both put it out there. It is called freedom of speech and expression.” 

The very idea that our BOD is putting fear in residents with this resolution, is, in my opinion, also creating a hostile environment in our community. The resolution needs to exists, I agree but should be more clear in it’s wording. No insult to you Shawn, since I know you are an attorney, but the BOD’s attorney has written this document leaving me with a feeling that his foot in on the head of us all….. THAT is not acceptable to me.

[Author]

Posts