This is davidinnv's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following davidinnv's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Interests: Live and breathe for the Boston Red Sox.
Recent Activity
Thanks for your comment, Rana. I imagine you are correct, but you must understand -and I say this for the benefit of those who think I am privy to information that no one else has- that I can only go on what I am able to learn as an ordinary resident. At the time I made my initial inquiry as any resident could, I assume the information I was given was the same information available to anyone, which was that there were no complaints pending at that time. I'm sure you know of complaints being filed because complainants might have told you that, but in the absence of official notice, such as confirmation by management or the Board, I am forced to rely on what I was told. I will certainly update the information when I get it officially. I would also consider it "official" if any complainants should choose to provide me with actual copies of their filings.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Carol. When the next election cycle rolls around, I think it will benefit the community to remind our residents of your profound insights.
Very interesting comments in this thread. I think M responded more than adequately to Tom Strange's comment. The key is that Tom said "if 2,501 households vote," whereas a more accurate reference to what I said would be "if 2,501 owners vote to REMOVE." As most know by now, we have 7,144 households in SCA. The first criterion is that 2,501 of those must vote, period. If fewer than 2,501 ballots are submitted, we can save a lot of ballot-counting money by simply not counting the ballots and declaring that the election is over and has failed. But if more than 2,500 ballots ARE submitted, then they must be counted. From that point on, it becomes a contest for which side gets the most votes, but only if the removal side gets at least 2,501 of them. Let's say that 4,500 ballots are submitted, which would be a record for any SCA election related to Board seats. Then let's say the result is 2,499 votes for removal of any director and 2,001 votes against removal. In that case, the removal advocates will have won "the popular vote," but they will still fail because the second criterion is that regardless of the total vote number, at least 35 percent of our 7,144 households, or 2,501, will not have voted for removal. That's what the law requires, and that's why it continues to baffle me as to why the removal advocates didn't take the statistically easier route of just waiting for the normal election cycle to roll around, when they can run candidates and help them win without a minimum-vote requirement. About my forthcoming poll: I have NEVER pretended or alleged that it was a neutral exercise conducted in a vacuum. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that a solid majority of my readers support my views and reporting on SCA-related matters. The outcome of THIS poll, however, may not be as one-sided as we might have ordinarily predicted. As I looked at the names on the petitions, there are many of my blog subscribers on the list whom I believe signed the petitions not because they are fans of Mr. Arendt, but because they have their own issues that have caused them to be unhappy and decide that they want to make a statement, one example being their feelings about the Foundation Assisting Seniors-Community Service Group issue. I also fully expect that a sufficient number of ballots will be submitted to trigger the count, because our volunteer opposition group is working hard to encourage members to vote against removal. Mr. Arendt thinks my blog is little more than a rehash of Association announcements and the like, but I believe my readers understand and appreciate the research and thoughtful writing that goes into many of my articles, and that is something that keeps me going. The history of this blog is that it is often the first to provide readers with news and information on important topics that you see here first and frequently not anywhere else. He also suggests that I am a gate-keeper who doesn't permit contrary views on my blog. The fact is that I am exactly the opposite, encouraging diverse opinions and moderating with only the lightest of hands to encourage civility and avoid personal attacks. That's different from Arendt's model, where the "news" he publishes rarely comes from first-hand knowledge, as he does not generally attend meetings or do original research. Ironically, he also practices a form of censorship in which comments must first go directly to him before he will allow them on his blog, and in which even when there is an expression of views that differs from his, he must strike back at the contributor instead of just allowing their views to stand on their own. I have documentation of a number of instances in which Arendt told a would-be contributor that he would not publish the contributor's comments because they simply didn't agree with Mr. Arendt's world view. This is also a factor in why those who bother to read his blog are presented with a monolithic, generally singular view of our wonderful community, which in his eyes seems to be a stinking cesspool of corruption and condescension..
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Rana, and I'll make sure Pam see your comments. You'll be happy to know that Pam has TWO of those cute little dogs to keep her company, and she said she can tell that they miss having Bill there.
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2017 on Passages: William J. Way at David's Anthem Journal
Gene, you make a very important point, and these are the points I want to make back to you. In the long run, despite what the removal advocates rant and rave about, comparisons of salaries are not very relevant. That's really why I referenced what Mark Twain wrote. What IS relevant is whether the salary is appropriate for the person doing the job HERE in Sun City Anthem. What IS relevant is the fact that a responsible third party, the qualified executive search firm, laid out for our Board what would be required to get one of the HOA mangers they ranked at or near the top of the heap. What IS relevant is that fact that SCA's financial situation has not been imperiled by the money the GM makes. What matters to me is whether she's getting the job done and whether we can afford it. If we can afford the thousands it's going to cost for the removal election, I think we can afford it.
John: That's a great analogy. It's amusing to see the folks on the other side railing against Sandy's compensation, I guess they know more about such things than the executive search firm that told the Board what it would take to get her. As the many years prior to self management and Sandy demonstrated, we did get what we paid for. Jim H: We can't vote to remove the removal advocates, but I do think a successful NO vote on all four directors will leave the removal advocates in a diminished position, as it will serve as a referendum on the targeted directors and the GM.
That's an excellent description of the process, which is exactly what we experienced after starting it.
I was told that a Solera member observing the ballot count asked that question, and the response was that the cost of the removal election had not been fully calculatied as of this time. It would certainly be interesting to eventually learn the figure, though there might be so many variables between the processes employed by the two communities, even allowing for Solera's smaller size, that the figure would not be especially relevant. Due to their size if nothing else, of course, I can't imagine their cost coming anywhere close to what it's going to cost SCA. I've asked some directors how our eventual cost will be paid for, and the consistent answer is "We don't know."
Favil was a co-founder of the Foundation, is the Foundation's president for life or for as long as he wishes, remains a resident of SCA, and is involved in the removal-election process. A number of members have told me the petitions they signed were proffered by Favil.
Regarding the commentaries about national politics, please make every effort to stay on topic. Regarding the fractious behaviors in HOAs, it is not a joke. Former SCA community manager Arnie Snow could tell you about an incident at an HOA in another state, years ago when he was fairly new in the business, that involved a resident shooting and killing a Board member during a meeting.
I know some people have seen the petition forms, Rana, but I have not at this point. I assume that the form includes a box for the signer's street address, so if someone owns more than one home, signing multiple times with the different addresses should not be a problem. It DOES illustrate, in my opinion, the difficulties and the delays which might have occurred if we had taken this process in-house and used resident volunteers to do it. Conducting a removal election is uncharted territory, at least for SCA, so I think it was wise to leave it to professionals.
It is not moot, Kathleen, as they only needed 715 valid signatures per targeted Board member to trigger the removal election. Regardless of how many members cast ballots -and we'll be encouraging everyone to vote- they need to kick up the affirmative removal number to at least 2,501, which is a very tall order. If fewer than 2,501 ballot envelopes are submitted, SCA will save a lot of money because without at least 2,501 submitted envelopes, the CPA firm won't even need to open the envelopes and count the ballots. The removal proponents seem to think that there is a groundswell of discontent that will propel them to victory, but I think it is the opposite.
Actually -and this is the truth- I mimed what I thought your reaction would be when Jon and Dany made it to bed. That's what you wanted. They will have to deal with the reality that she is his aunt ....but on this show, anything goes.
Toggle Commented Aug 28, 2017 on Did You See It? at David's Anthem Journal
John Briggs moved out of Sun City Anthem not long after losing his SCA Board election bid. He specifically blamed Rana Goodman for his loss because, he alleged, she helped to water down the ticket by running herself. According to Wikipedia, Briggs is still alive at age 87, but I don't know where he is living.
Toggle Commented Aug 28, 2017 on Val Lapin’s Lie at David's Anthem Journal
S, I think it is significant that the community was presented with no suggestions for conducting the removal election and no information about what the advocates thought should happen next. As for Mr. Arendt, I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to wake up every morning with such hate in his belly and then have to carry it with him for the rest of the day. I find it striking that several residents who know him have told me almost the identical thing: In all their lives, they have never know anyone as obstinate and rigid in his views as he is. It certainly is not helpful to the "getting along" process so important to enjoying life in a homeowners association. As for his obsession, it sort of reminds one of Inspector Javert in "Les Miserables."
Thank you for the clarification, Linda. I have tweaked the article so that it more accurately reflects the situation. Fair is fair.
Carol, it would be very hard to give you all the information you want in one or two sentences. What I CAN tell you is that this will be a needless, expensive and unnecessary removal election which is likely to fail. What I can also tell you is that those of us who have organized to oppose the removal will be reaching out to the community to explain in detail why the whole thing is a bad idea.
If I'm going to QUOTE you, Rana, I'll put it in quotation marks. You know, the more I am learning about Nona and her apparent war with many elements of SCA, I'm inclined to publish her entire written threat against me, which reads from start to finish like the work of someone who has gone completely off the tracks. I was fervently hoping that she'd follow through with her promise to file an IA against me so that I could sit across the table from her and go through her screed, paragraph by paragraph. I was wrong to compare her to Bob Frank, which she took exception to even though she said she doesn't know him. I should apologize to her, because she goes way beyond Bob. It is a great risk to go onto a Board with the philosophy that only you know the answers and you are going to educate everyone else. Looking back on our history, doesn't that sound familiar?
On the face of it, Barbara, your statement is simply not true. I would think that even Rana Goodman, who has declared that she is going to weaponize her boyfriend's magazine to go after SCA, would tell you that it is not the only way. Maybe she'll even put us on the cover.
YOU are correct, John, as Clarkson did say "tens of thousands of dollars," so I am correcting it in the article. Your $50,000 possible figure may be too low, as I am hearing a number much higher.
If he was there, he was disguised as an empty chair. Most of Mr. Arendt's articles about SCA meetings are based on what others tell him. I take no joy from such things as the removal election and the action against Nona Tobin. I'd much rather be spending my time celebrating all the wonderful aspects of living in Sun City Anthem.
Former SCA resident Harriet Wise, now living in South Carolina, shares her personal eclipse experience: "We did see the eclipse in all its glory. "Mt Pleasant is a suburb of Charleston, SC and despite some clouds here and there we got to watch it as it moved over the area ...first about 1:30PM it started its journey....Then by 2:45-2:47PM it went dark...sort of as dusk settles in. "We could watch it then without our special glasses I bought from Amazon. The temperature did drop and the lights went on in the parking lot of our apartment complex. It was sort of magical. "Sorry to hear Vegas didn't get quite the same experience. I have put my glasses away until the next one in 2024. Not sure where that will be, but I heard somewhere in the U.S."
Toggle Commented Aug 24, 2017 on I Saw The Eclipse! at David's Anthem Journal
While your suggestion may have merit, Michelle, it probably wouldn't work in practice. Reason: The removal election will be conducted by secret ballot, so there would be no way to know how someone voted unless voters declare what they did. It's a similar situation with the petitions themselves. While you could assume that those who signed the petitions went ahead and voted for removal, some may have changed their minds and others may have not signed the petitions but voted for removal. Unfortunately, if the cost of the removal election requires a special assessment, I think we will all have to pay it. I also don't believe there is a legal mechanism in our common-interest community to levy a special assessment on one group of unit owners but not on another group.
Carl, I know of a number of instances in which he told people he wouldn't publish their comments either because he didn't like the person or didn't like what they had to say. And when there is a rare case of someone disagreeing with him but he allows the comment to be published, it is ONLY so he can jump all over those folks with his verbal attacks on them. My blog is the only one that allows its readers to express themselves as they see fit, whether they agree with me or not. I have very few people blocked. and have actually unblocked more people in the past year than I have blocked any. While I may debate the comments of some who post here, it is only for the purpose of advancing the discussion and not to denigrate them as individuals. I simply do not believe that's how mature adults should talk to each other.
John, you are right, of course, but there may be some hypocrisy involved here. After the results were announced in some past elections, Dick Arendt rejected the results as not being a mandate because, he said, such a large percentage of members had not voted. He suggested it was just as valid to assume that the non-voters didn't approve of the winners as it would be to say that the community had, in effect, endorsed the winners. So if you wanted to say that the nearly 89 percent of those who did not sign the petition against Seddon approve of the job she is doing, it might not be statistically accurate, but it would be the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that Arendt has made in the past.