August 19, 2017 at 2:32 pm #3938Rana GoodmanKeymaster
At the SCA board meeting in July I made a suggestion that the shuttered restaurant space be opened and the residents and clubs be allowed to use it. This would be at least until the GM and BOD decided if it would or would not be leased.
It is a beautiful spot to sit, enjoy the view, a glass of wine, have Happy Hour, even hold a membership drive. I checked with the city of Henderson and found that we don’t need a business license or liquor license so long as it is not advertised to the public. Many of us thought it would be a WIN-WIN since the board has told us many times it costs the association $4,000 per month to keep the place closed. That is an expensive dead space. Why not enjoy it, at least as a respit for those of us that pay the tab?
Rex Weddle held a work shop for the residents to talk about temperary use but forbid clubs from participating and presidents from attending. Community Lifestyle club representatives were to contact all club presidents to survey how their clubs felt about using the space. How did that turn out?
From what I have been told 34 club presidents were contacted, 27 presidents showed “some interest” so president Rex dropped the idea. Well, this club Vice President has an issue with that for this reason; there are 60 clubs and the LifeStyle Committee stated at their last meeting that they would hold a workshop for the clubs to talk about this, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Did the club presidents that WERE contacted survey their membership? I am VP of the Entertainment Club and our president did not, she was waiting for the Lifestyle Committee to let us know the meeting date. I’d bet many others are too. That adds up to approximately 600 residents who most likely may want to voice an opinion…..
And some people wonder why there is unreasonable with our leadership!August 21, 2017 at 5:18 pm #3942Rana GoodmanKeymaster
Between Ron Johnson’s blog and David Berman’s blog today I read two comments that were so silly normally I would just ignore them. However, they are a perfect example, in MY HUMBLE OPINION of why there is so must discontent in our beautiful community.
First Ron’s blog comes out with a quote from Bob Burch titled CRIME: What did director Bob feel was the crime, the fact that some bloggers, (I guess that would be Dick Arendt and me) didn’t and don’t attend the finance committee meetings. To quote, “it reflects their lack of interest in the financial facts of SCA.” I wonder if Mr. Burch understands that both Dick and I have associates, some that have served on that committee and others that attend those meetings, each and every one, that fill us both in on the financial facts regularly. No one has to attend each and every meeting to know what one NEEDS TO KNOW. There are many ways to do that.
As for David Berman’s comment later this morning; before I quote that, let me pose a question to anyone reading this. If you were an executive of a large corporation, let us say in the HR department and you received a petition of complaint against another executive signed by a very large number of employees, hundreds of them. Although you didn’t feel the complaint warranted dismissal of the other executive would you place the petition in their permanent file, after all, that is a substantial number of unhappy employees. Or would you just toss it in the trash?
Because the 800 plus residents who signed the petition against Sandy Seddon David believes it should just be tossed in the trash since the signers are a small percentage of the total residency of SCA. Why them do we need an ARC review to approve 1 home owners plans, that is a smaller percentage of the 7,144 homes here? If the opinion of opinion of 800 plus residents don’t count enough to even CONSIDER the boards discussion with the GM why is that number even ABOVE the requirement for a recall election of board members in the first place? It obviously is not a “nothing number” as David Berman thinks!
No wonder there is so much discontent in SCA!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.