Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8523
    James N Mayfield
    Participant

    Stern’s website is nothing more than a platform for his personal, sometimes uniformed views.  Plus it does not easily allow allow readers to post comments on it.

    As an example of his uniformed views is his discussion on reserves.

    Opinions about the level of reserve funds often ignore the purpose of reserved funds. The purpose of reserves funds is to insure that funds will be available to fund the repair, update and replace of assets in the reserve asset base. Contributions to reserve funds should provide that current home owners contribute amounts needed to repair, update and replace the portion of reserve assets due to deterioration and obsolescence that occurs during their annual periods of ownership.

    The SCA Board (not the attorney, the reserve specialist, nor the CAM) should set policies and annual contributions
    to insure that owners are not charge too much or too little to accomplish the above purposes. Allowing the percent of funding of reserves to fluctuate within a conservative range, established by Board policy, is consistent with the requirements of NRS 116. The range of percent of funding that is nationally recognized is >80% and <95%.

    His comments about the current Board’s blind abdication of its authority to management and expert advisors is spot on. So is his comment on the Board members now serving as de facto employees of the “COO” and exercising insufficient oversight of her performance that represents the best interests of SCA HOMEOWNERS . The solution to many of SCA’s problems is to insure that candidates for the Board have experience in governance, not management, and that time requirements for a Board member reflect governance, not management, duties.

    #7780
    James N Mayfield
    Participant

    Since completing my terms of service on the SCA Board, I have refrained from attending board meetings.  Yet, I attended the January meeting of the SCA Board to see and hear the presentation on the 2022 year-end financial statements.  As I stated at the meeting, I found the financial statement presentations contained the right amount of detail and were in a format that a non-accountant could understand.  I also found the CFO’s oral comments helpful and displayed a knowledge of “details behind the numbers”.

    Once the independent audit for 2022 is complete, a comparison of the unaudited 2022 financial statements and the audited financial statements will validate the accuracy of the unaudited 2022 financial statements presented in January.  Furthermore, the independent auditor’s report on internal controls will serve as a benchmark of the reliability of the SCA accounting process.  Because of the work of the Audit Committee and the Finance Committee, I expect the auditor’s reports will validate both the financial statements and reliability of SCA internal controls.  Until the 2022 audit is complete, I suggest keeping doubts about the unaudited financial statements or the capability of the CFO on hold.  SCA has bigger fish to fry.

    I agree with the criticism regarding “title inflation” at SCA.  The responsibilities and work performed by SCA’s “CFO” are more consistent with those in a job description for a controller (aka chief accounting officer). But, it is unfair to blame the CFO or criticize her for the deficiency.  Instead, the Board should be held accountable for the lack of a personnel policy that includes an independently developed staffing chart with appropriate job titles.  It is nonsense that an inflated title is necessary to attract a qualified person to manage SCA accounting and reporting operations, particularly at SCA’s compensation levels.

    Criticism needs to be more carefully aimed to hit the target.  As in many case, the SCA Board of Directors should be the target.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)