SOA Board of Director Officers for 2020

Following the Somerset Owners Association (SOA) Board of Director (BOD) elections, the new Board met and selected the following as officers for 2020.

President  –  Tom Fitzgerald
Secretary  –  Terry Retter
Treasurer  –  Simon Baker
Vice Presidents  –   Craig Hanson and Joe Strout

BOD Incumbents Tom Fitzgerald and Terry Retter maintain the same positions they have held for the past year.  Newly elected BOD member Simon Baker replaces Incumbent Joe Strout as Treasurer.  This is a good move considering Mr. Baker’s experience as Treasurer for major corporations and may help alleviate the concerns of Mr. Strout being Treasurer for both the SOA and the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC). Given pending issues between the SOA and the SGCC, many felt that holding both these positions could present a conflict of interest problem for Mr. Strout. Newly elected BOD member Craig Hanson also has a strong financial background, who along with Mr. Baker and Mr. Strout provides the SOA Board with significant financial expertise.  Perhaps leading the SOA into a more favorable financial position.

2019 SOA BOD Election

The Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Director (BOD) election ballots were counted at the Annual SOA Homeowner Meeting on Monday, November 18th. Four candidates were running for the two open BOD positions. Vote count results were as follows:

  • Simon Baker  –  566
  • Craig Hanson  –  541
  • Frank Leto  –  458
  • Kathryn Wild  –  409

As the two highest vote getters, congratulations to Simon Baker and Craig Hanson on their election to the Boarrd. Also, kudos to Frank Leto for his service on the SOA Board the past two years, and Kathryn Wild for her unselfish interest in serving the Community.

Also, given that there was not a quorum of owners present, or via proxy, to vote on the SOA’s 2020 Budget, it was automatically deemed ratified.

Once again, it appears that the 2019 BOD elections were not a high priority for most, as only about a third of all unit owners submitted a ballot.


SU Negativity?

In a recent circulating email from a Country Club member (Bonnie Hughes), Somersett United (SU) has been accused of creating negativity at “every meeting and online”. Not sure what negativity she is referring to, but assume it relates to SU Posts and Comments regarding the Somersett Golf and Country Club (SGCC).

Well, if the so-called negativity relates to opinions and comments opposing any financial support to the SGCC from the Somersett Owners Association (SOA), then I guess we are guilty as charged. It is no secret that this Blog site, along with many of our Commenters, are opposed to any SOA financial support going to the SGCC. SGCC supporters like to quote that Somersett is a “Master Planned Golf Community”, alluding that it is so described in the Association’s Governing documents. Therefore, there is an implied doctrine that all Association members are obligated to insure the success of the SGCC. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nowhere in the Somersett Planned Unit Development (PUD), the CCR’s or the Bylaws is the term “ Master Planned Golf Community” used. In fact the only reference to the private Somersett Country Club in the PUD is found on page 2.50-51 under the heading “Golf Courses” , which with regard to the Somersett Country Club simply states:

The golf courses will be a major component of the open space system. Vistas within the subdivisions will be opened to the golf courses and views will be provided to non-golf frontage residences. The 9-hole course will be privately owned and operated by the SOA. The SOA may determine that the 9-hole course can be open to the public. The 18-hole course is privately managed.”

In addition, the SOA CC&R’s under Article VII, Section 5 “Ownership and Operation of Somersett Country Club” states the following:

Declarant, Association and Somersett Country Club owner make no representation or warranties with regard to the continuing existance, ownership or operation of the Somersett Country Club, if any (including whether the Somersett Country Club will be public or private), and no purported representation or warranty in such regard by any person, either written or oral, shall be effective.”

Further under CC&R Article VII, Section 6 “No Right to Use”:

“Neither membership in the Association nor ownership or occupancy of a Unit shall confer any ownership interest in or right to use the Somersett Country Club”

Therefore, in SU’s, and many others, mind, it is clear that the SOA was to have no obligation in any way to provide financial or any other assistance to the SGCC. So why do some SGCC members get their feathers ruffled when owners object to any such arrangements and hence, become inappropriately labeled as being “Negative” or “Anti-SGCC”?   In reality, it has little to do with being Negative or Anti-SGCC, simply a belief that SGCC members need to recognize that they alone are responsible for their own destiny. This rather than adopting an entitlement attitude, quoting questionable property value impacts, and that, as owners, we are all in this together (read financially if it should come to that).

It is also clear that many Somersett owners fear that, due to continued financial stress, the SGCC may attempt to dip into the SOA’s “Financial Well” again with SOA Board support. True, there is no evidence that this is currently being considered (the Rockery Wall liability issue or future Water Facility maintenance activities not withstanding). However, the SGCC could alleviate these fears by publicly acknowledging their responsibilities and that they have no intentions of seeking any sort of financial relief from the SOA in carrying them out. This would go a long way in suppressing the so-called “Negativity” by others.

Perhaps the SOA Treasurer, Joe Strout, who is also the treasurer of the SGCC can speak on this issue at an upcoming open Board meeting.

As always, SU welcomes any opposing viewpoints, or challenges as to where we may have misstated the facts.

Rockery Wall Lawsuit Appeal

On November 8th, the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) sent the following “Rockery Wall Lawsuit”  Memo (dated November 1, 2019) to Assoiation members via email:


“Dear Somersett Homeowner:

On October 2nd, 2019, Judge Elliott Sattler ruled against the Somersett Owners Association on the Rockery Wall lawsuit. On October 21st, 2019, the Board met with Michael Schulman and Bradley Schrager from Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP to discuss the judge’s ruling and options available moving forward. The following are bullet points of some of the key items discussed and the responses provided by counsel.

      • Cost to Appeal – Wolf Rifkin has agreed to charge the Association a flat fee for the Appeal Process of $15,000.00 plus nominal court costs. This is a heavily discounted cost provided by our law firm. In the event the Association would prevail and the case be remanded to district court, the Board would be able to negotiate a hybrid contingency fee structure that would limit out of pocket costs for the Association in the future.
      • The Notice of Appeal was filed within the 30 days required after the early-October court ruling. It was noted that filing the Notice of Appeal reserves the Association’s right to appeal, however, we are not locked into the appeal and could withdraw from the process at several junctures in the future.
      • The expected timeline for the appeal process is anticipated to be 18 to 24 months. The first step would be the Supreme Court Mediation process which comes at no cost to the Association. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, briefing would commence at regular intervals for the parties, and we would expect oral argument and a decision to take somewhere in the neighborhood of two years.
      • Bradley Schrager would represent the Association in this appeal. He has handled many Nevada Supreme Court appeals and has argued before the justices on more than a dozen occasions.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned information, the Board feels spending $15,000.00 to possibly win millions, or at least to avoid millions in rockery wall repair costs, is worth the risk, and therefore voted to move forward with the appeal process. Michael Schulman, the Association’s lead attorney, will be available to answer questions at the Board of Directors meeting on December 12th. The meeting will take place at 5:30 pm at The Club at Town Center.

Thank you,

The Management Team”

The above formalizes what was made known (without details) to Association members in late October. However, it still raises the following questions/comments:

  • What is the basis for the appeal? That is, what material facts that resulted in the summary judgement “as a matter of law” are in dispute?
  • The $15K flat fee seems reasonable, and described as a “heavily discounted cost”, but discounted from what? Given all the legal fees collected from the SOA, perhaps pro-bono for the appeal process would have been in order.
  • If we win the appeal, and the case goes back to trial, what would this cost the SOA? What is meant by, “the Board would be able to negotiate a hybrid contingency fee structure that would limit out of pocket costs for the Association in the future”? Bare in mind that the SOA has already incurred approximately $400K in legal fees, without even going to trial. Are we looking at another $400K or more? In the spirit of NRS 116.31088 SU believes Association members are entitled to an updated total cost estimate.
  • How does this affect the Tolling Agreement between the SOA and the SGCC, which put on hold (until December 31st, 2019) litigation against the SGCC for $680K in Rockery Wall repair costs? Something the new Board will have to consider?
  • Given the 30 day deadline to appeal the October 2nd Court ruling, and with the Board not meeting in executive session until October 21st, it is clear the appeal had to be filed before the next open Board Meeting, thereby precluding any owner input/comments and Board voting in public. One might question as to why the Board did not meet on this issue in early October in time for inclusion within the October 16th open Board meeting, or perhaps call a special meeting, which in SU’s opinion would have been the right thing to do.
  • If a formal Board vote was required, how was it accomplished and documented? What was the discussion and how did the individual Directors vote? This is certainly not confidential and should have been addressed in the above memo. That said, it is fair to assume voting was documented via the signing of a written consent document as was used in initiating the original lawsuit. If a quorum of 66% was required, and Director Roland recused himself as previously, then all of the other four Directors (Fitzgerald, Strout, Retter and Leto) would have had to vote for the appeal.

Perhaps all of these and additional questions can be answered at the December 12th Board meeting where the SOA Attorney will be available to address them. As noted in the above memo, “we are not locked into the appeal and could withdraw from the process at several junctures in the future”.


Sierra Canyon Board Meeting Agenda Item

The following Post submitted by Nancy Chantos – Sierra Canyon Owner

Sierra Canyon Homeowners and Residents,

On the agenda for the November 13th BOD Meeting is the ‘Appointment of a Board Member’ once they accept the resignation of Steve Gudarian.

Just as Margaret & Rob have adamantly objected to in an email to the BOD and in a post on Nextdoor Somersett, I also am opposed to the board appointing a director to fill the current open position resulting from Steve’s recent resignation.

There is absolutely no reason that would benefit the community by filling this open position this late in the (election) year.

  1. We still have a quorum for voting on all issues even with this vacant position.
  2. Including the November meeting, there are only 3 meetings left before the new BOD takes over. The December meeting will either be cancelled, or be an open forum with Neoma Jardon — our Ward 5 Councilperson — meeting with us … not official business as usual.
  3. The appointment of a Director for this short remainder of Steve’s term would represent an ‘endorsement of a candidate’ for the upcoming election by the current, seated Board. The appearance of a prejudicial move would be evident.
  4. The appointed Director could then run in the upcoming BOD election as an incumbent, thus giving this individual an unfair advantage in the election.
  5. The BOD can appoint anyone they select – regardless of qualifications – for any reasons.
    BIG QUESTION: Why was this position not advertised to the community and interviews held similar to how all open Committee positions are handled?

What can you do as a Sierra Canyon Homeowner? Please attend the November 13th BOD meeting scheduled for 5:30 PM in the Sierra/Tahoe Room. Complete a form to speak and turn ii in prior to the start of the meeting. Simply state that you are opposed to the Board appointing a Director for the remaining 3 months. Also, if you are the ‘designated appointee’, simply refuse for all of the reasons stated above.

BOD Candidate Craig Hanson Q&A

Posted by Craig Hanson SOA Board Candidate

 SU Note:  Due to prior commitments, Mr. Hanson was unable to attend the “SOA BOD Candidate Night”.  Therefore, he is taking this opportunity to provide responses to the questions asked of each candidate by the SOA Moderator.

Candidate questions (paraphrased)

(1) Are you prepared to spend many hours on board duties?  Yes

(2) Do you have outside influences which would cause you to recuse yourself?  No

(3) Did you access social media to prepare for candidate night?  Was not at the night but I have reviewed our law suits, NRS 116, CCRs and budget documents.

(4) What is the top issue you want to address?  Resolve the budget issues facing the Association particularly the golf course expenditures.

(5) What committee are you interested in?  Budget/Finance and Aesthetics

(6) How long been in community?  2.5 years. I provided a statement on why I was running. Basically to get the Association fiscally sound and less onerous.

(7) Have I reviewed the budget and reserve study?  I have looked mainly at the budget. Reserve will be next. The best resolution is to reduce our debt by examining our current loans which is the bulk of our debt and finding ways to liquidate them via sales of assets. Then you zero base the budget and eliminate any unnecessary items. These amounts are not very large compared to the loan payments. Review of staffing needs would also be reviewed.

(8) Do I understand the sub associations and why they exist? Yes. They exist as cost centers to ensure costs associated just with the sub Association are charged to them alone. This question also asked how I would use the sub associations to create cohesiveness. I would ensure they know what is happening in the common area cost arena so they are not caught unaware.

(9) Do I understand the CCRs and my role as a Board member?  Yes

(10) Are you aware of the aesthetics committee?  Yes but know little of their make-up or duties. I do know of their effects on community relations and believe they should be toned down a bit. It is a careful balance between what looks pleasing and oppressive rules.

(11) How would describe the connection between the Country Club and Somersett?   Strained. The two entities used to be largely separated until the purchase. Now it has become a bit onerous with ever increasing liabilities. The largest expenditures for Somersett are the golf course and related operational liabilities. This has strained community resources and virtually eliminated any new initiatives.

Somersett Golf Country Club Fact Sheet

The Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC) has recently sent a Memo to all its members entitled “Somersett Golf & Country Club Fact Sheet”, a copy of which may be accessed by clicking on the quoted title. What is the purpose of this memo? To educate its members? Doubtfull. To provide some “Talking Points” for their members when addressing others in the community? Most likely! Why? Perhaps to gain some support for the SGCC whose image has been tarnished somewhat by the ongoing controversies over Rockery Wall liabilities, Water Facility maintenance and Board Member conflict of Interests.

With regard to the document as written, SU has no quarrel with the “Facts” as stated therein. However, whereas they may be factually correct, for every Fact there can be a supplementary discussion. Therefore, let’s discuss some of these Facts presented in the Memo.


  1. Yes, Somersett was designed to be a “Master-Planned Golf Community”, but it consists of separate entities (e.g., the SOA, the SOA Sub-associations, the Public Parks, the Town Center Retail Buildings, the SGCC) all with different relationships. With respect to the SGCC, there is no question that it was originally established as a private entity completely separate from the Somersett Owners Association (SOA), who had no rights of ownership, operation, usage or responsibilities related thereto (see Article VII Sections 5 & 6 of the CC&R’s). This changed somewhat when the SOA purchased the SGCC’s Land, Water Rights and Water Facilities and leased it back to the SGCC. However, the basic tenant of its operational relationship with the SGCC has not (see item 2 below).
  2. Yes, SGCC is a separate business entity owned by its Equity members. The Purchase Agreement only covered Purchase of Land, Water Rights and Water Facilities, not the SGCC Business or its assets, nor the Clubhouse or the parcel of land on which it sits. Therefore, the SOA has no responsibility or obligation for supporting the aspects of its operation. However, as owner of the Land and Water Facilities, the SOA does have the responsibility to ensure that the SGCC is maintaining them in accordance with the lease provisions of the Purchase Agreement.

Purchase Agreement

  1. Yes, in 2014 the SOA owners voted (by a large margin) in favor of the ill-conceived (SU opinion) Purchase Agreement, after being told there would be no impact on assessments and would help to ensure the financial stability of the SGCC.
  2. The statement that “The only allowed use for this purchase is for operating a private, member owned country club” is a SGCC lease requirement and does not apply to the SOA should the land revert back to the SOA.
  3. The statement “The SOA has not provided any one-time payment nor provides any ongoing fiscal support to the SGCC” is true, but only since 2015 when the $2.75M was paid to the SGCC in fulfillment of the Purchase Agreement. In the three years prior to 2015 the SOA provided approximately $1.24M in funding to the SGCC via owner assessments. Primarily to offset its operating deficits. From 2016 to 2018, the SOA’s operating deficit has increased from approximately $53K to $108K. The concern by many being if this trend continues can the SGCC continue to meet its obligations. Will the SOA Board again permit the SGCC to dip into the SOA Well?
  4. The Memo quotes a 50 year lease, but there are two 20 year renewal options at the sole discretion of the SGCC.
  5. The Memo states that “The SGCC pays an annual lease to the SOA…”, but does not mention that this annual fee is only $2200.
  6. Yes, Non-resident members of the SGCC are permitted use of TCTC under Article VII Section 8 of the CC&R’s. This subject to the payment of dues as is required by all other Somersett owners (except for Sierra Canyon). The SOA does not bill these members individually. The SGCC collects the required payments and remits them to the SOA. This does not a represent a significant revenue to the SOA, as it only involves approximately 30 members.

Water Facilities

1. The Memo accurately describes the SGCC’s responsibilities for operating and maintaining the Water Facilities. However, it emphasizes doing so at “NO fee to the SOA”. A little disingenuous seeing as how they are paying practically nothing (i.e., only $2200/year) in leaseback fees.
2. The Memo accurately describes the SGCC’s operational and maintenance responsibilities. These are not in question as they are clearly established under the Purchase Agreement. The concern here is will SGCC have the necessary funds to properly maintain them. This as a result of their improper maintenance of the well providing most of the SGCC’s irrigation water, which has apparently resulted in over pumping of the Truckee River water rights and a concern over how long this can continue.

Rock Wall on Hole 5

  1. The SGCC acknowledges the lower Rockery Wall failure on SGCC leased land adjacent to hole 5 resulted in roughly $680K in damages
  2. The SGCC contends that they are not responsible for these damages because of hillside instabilities resulting from drainage problems along the upper wall on SOA property, which subsequently caused both walls to fail.
  3. The SGCC rejects the SOA commissioned CME engineering report that concluded the lower wall failed first causing the upper wall to fail. However, the SGCC has offered no counter report to substantiate their position.
  4. The Memo states that the SGCC, via the Tolling Agreement, is making a good faith $500/month payment to cover the interest on the loan taken out by the SOA to pay for the upper and lower wall repairs. These repair costs were included within a consolidated 15 year $6M loan at 5% interest. The repair cost portion for the lower wall being $680K. How does this calculate? $680K at 5% for 15 years would result in a payment of $5,777/month. Averaged over the 15 years results in $3,777/month principal and $1,600/month interest. However, we know that the interest portion is usually much higher in the beginning (i.e., starting at around $2800/month). Therefore, the $500/month payment certainly falls way short of covering the interest payment on the $680,000. One could question as to whether or not this constitutes a good faith payment.

Food for thought –  Rather than engage in litigation over the $680K, why not reach a negotiated settlement wherein the SOA and the SGCC agree to divide up the costs?  For example a 50 – 50 split would result in the SGCC paying the SOA $2,888/month toward the loan payment. The SGCC could recover this simply by raising Equity member dues by $10/month.  Perhaps an additional $10/month to accrue some reserves for Water Facility repairs.

It is most likely clear to our readers that SU, among others as demonstrated at Board meetings and social media comments, are opposed to any future SOA financial support to the SGCC. Many, especially some SGCC members, equate this to being anti-SGCC and anti-Community, which is an unjust conclusion and just fuels the “us vs them” narrative.

SOA to Appeal the Rockery Wall Lawsuit Summary Judgement

As previously reported on this website, the Washoe County District Court on October 2, 2019 issued a Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants in the SOA’s lawsuit for a Chapter 40 Claim for Damages pertaining to the SOA Common Area Rockery Wall Failures. This was reported on in the following Post:

Rockery Wall Litigation Update (6)

The question at the time being, what would the SOA do, if anything, with reagrd to a follow up action? This has now been answered with the SOA Board deciding to appeal the Courts ruling, which was based on the SOA not filing a claim within the six-year Statute of Repose. The six-year period beginning with “Substantial Completion” of the project. The SOA Attorney argued that this period began with the date of Board turnover from the Developer to the Somersett Owners, which occured in Janurary 2013, therefore, well within the six-year period. In issuing his ruling, the Judge rejected this premise.

So what is the basis for an appeal? Apparently this was discussed/decided at the October 21st Executive Session. In this regard, the SOA General Manager has advised that a document outlining what took place at the Executive Session would be released sometime next week. Hopefully this document will address the following:

  • Basis for continuing the lawsuit
  • Was a formal vote by the Board required? If so, who voted Yes, No or Abstained. (it is fair to assume that Board members Fitzgerald, Strout, Retter and Leto voted Yes as Roland would have recused himself as before, therefore, this would have required all other Board members to vote in favor).
  • Attorney fee estimates to file and defend the appeal, and if successful, the amount to retry.

It has been speculated that the recently passed Assembly Bill 421 will somehow now come into play, as this extends the Statute of Limitations and Repose to 10 years. The Legislative Summary of AB 421 is quoted as follows:

“AN ACT relating to construction; revising provisions relating to the information required to be included in a notice of a constructional defect; removing provisions requiring the presence of an expert during an inspection of an alleged constructional defect; establishing provisions relating to a claimant pursuing a claim under a builder’s warranty; removing certain provisions governing the tolling of statutes of limitation and repose regarding actions for constructional defects; revising provisions relating to the recovery of damages proximately caused by a constructional defect; increasing the period during which an action for the recovery of certain damages may be commenced; revising the prohibition against a unit-owners’ association pursuing an action for a constructional defect unless the action pertains exclusively to the common elements of the association; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”

For the complete text of AB 421, click on the following:

AB 421 Text

With regard to AB 421: To what extent is AB 421 retroactive to the SOA’s Chapter 40 Claim for Damages? Since AB 421 was passed before the Court’s ruling, to what extent did the Judge consider its relevance? Given that Statutes of Limitations and Repose start from the “substantial completion” date of the project (not changed under AB 421), and that the Court rejected the premise that the Developer Board turnover date equated to the substantial completion date, would a 10 year period under this ruling now suffice? Doubtfull, as the date of substantial completion, as adressed in the Court’s ruling, most likely occured more than 10 years ago. For those interested, a reading on the substantial completion date as defined by the Court is contained within the following document:

Order Granting Defenant’s Motion for Summary Judgement

Obviously, a very controversial decision by the Board, will the results be the same? Does this action affect your vote on the on-going Board of Directors election?  If so, perhaps one should wait for the appeal information document to be released next week by SOA management before voting.

Who to Vote For?


Good question! What are you looking for in a SOA Board Director? Financial Expertise? Prior HOA Board Service? Administrative Experience?, Diversity?, Sub Association Affiliation? Active in Community Affairs? Other?

For those who attended the Candidate Night sessions you certainly heard a lot to assist you in making up your mind. This via Candidate responses to questions dealing with: 1) qualifications and relevant experience, 2) time available to devote to the position, 2) outside influences and/or conflicts of interest, 3) individual priorities, 4) SOA Committee participation preferences, 5) purpose for running, 6) familiarity with SOA’s governing documents, 8) Somersett Golf & Country Club relationship and other pertinent questions. These as well as the Candidates opening and closing statements.

However, only a small minority of Somersett owners attend these sessions. Therefore, if you did not have the opportunity to attend, how do you decide who to vote for? In the past, videos of the Candidate Night sessions were made available for all homeowners to view. Not so this year, apparently the SOA management staff (FirstService Residential) did not see fit to provide the resources to do so. An unaceptable action, or lack of action, in our mind!

Therefore, what other avenues of information are available to our owner voters? Obviously the Candidate statements contained within the Ballot mailing package, which provide the source that many will rely upon. However, this source is limited, therefore, talk to your friends and neighbors to gain their perspectives. Also, for those of you who want to voice your support for a particular candidate or candidates, and why, consider social media such as this website, Somersett Nextdoor or the SOA’s Facebook Page (not sure what restrictions would apply here).

SU has chosen not to endorse any of the Candidates, feeling they are all qualified to serve. We will leave that to others, and as mentioned above, reader comments, pro or con, on any of the Candidates are always welcome.  This includes postings and comments from our Candidates as well.  In this regard, SU would like to acknowledge and appreciates those submitted by Board Candidate Craig Hanson, and the candidness in which he addressed his position on community issues.



SOA and the SGCC

With all the discourse going on, (i.e., on the SU website, Somersett Nextdoor and at Board Meetings) with regard to Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC) members serving on the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (Board) and accusations related thereto, perhaps some facts, opinions and comments are in order:


  1. Any Somersett owner in good standing can serve on the SOA Board if duly elected, regardless of their associations with other entities (e.g., the SGCC).
  2. For the two SOA Board seats up for election this year, none of the four candidates are SGCC members.
  3. The current SGCC members serving on the SOA Board, Joe Strout and Terry Retter, seats are not open for election, so baring any resignations, they will continue to serve for at least another year, maintaining the two SGCC member representation on the SOA Board for 2020.
  4. Board Members Joe Strout and Terry Retter, were first elected to serve on the SOA Board in November 2018.
  5. With regard to past Rockery Wall failure actions undertaken by the SOA Board, given that Retter and Strout first took office in November 2018, they could not have been a party to the approvals of: 1) The SOA lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et al; 2) The securing of the loan to pay for Rockery Wall repairs, including the SGCC portion; 3) The approval of the $1200 assessment; or 4) The Tolling Agreement that put litigation against the SGCC on hold. All of which occurred before they took office. Therefore, there is no basis for accusing them of violating any NRS Statutes on fiduciary responsibilities or conflict of interest for these events.
  6. With regard to the SGCC’s Water Facility Maintenance responsibilities, the SOA Board has not yet put forth any proposition or taken any actions that would directly benefit the SGCC financialy or otherwise. That is, actions that could present a conflict of interest on the part of Board members Strout and Retter.


  1. For those who feel that SGCC membership on the SOA Board should be limited, a reasonable position given the consequences, then perhaps they should arrange for more non-SGCC candidates to “Throw Their Hat Into The Ring”, and support them accordingly.
  2. SU does not believe that there is any current basis for believing that Board members Strout and Retter have violated any NRS Statutes to date with their service on the Board.
  3. It would appear that many are aware of the above, and it is not what Board members Strout and Retter have done, but what they might do in the future.
  4. There is a valid concern over the SGCC’s ability to: 1) Pay back the SOA for the Rockery Wall repairs on SGCC leased property; 2) Perform necessary repairs to Water Facility equipment as required under the 2014 Purchase Agreement; or 3) Continue to meet their operating expenses. That under these circumstances the SOA Board might put forth a proposition to pass some or all of these liabilities (as they have done in the past) on to the Somersett membership at large.
  5. Per the SOA By-laws, a quorum for the transaction of business is 66% of the Directors, this would equate to four members, as three out of five is only 60%. Therefore, any proposition that comes before the SOA Board for approval that benefits the SGCC financially or otherwise, if the SGCC members recused themselves from discussions and voting, as they should, the proposition could not pass for lack of a quorum (probably welcome by most). Not recusing themselves would most likely assure passage.
  6. It is the fear that SGCC Board members will not properly recuse themselves from SGCC related issues that concern many. Is there any basis here? Board member Strout, when running for the Board stated he would recuse himself as required and has not, to SU’s knowledge, stated anything to the contrary. However, Board member Retter has equivocated on this issue. At the October Board meeting, he improperly interrupted a Somersett owner who was stating his opinion on the recusal issue by saying, “not so”, an argument ensued, wherein the Board President shut down any further discussion between the two.  (Note: Shutting down the argument was the right thing to do, but not admonishing Board member Retter for his interruptions and not letting the homeowner to continue with his comments, was the wrong thing to do).
  7. It is SU’s opinion that Board member Retter, does not believe recusals for voting on SGCC related propositions are required, and will do whatever he believes is best for the SGCC with an argument that whatever is best for the SGCC is also best for the SOA. This regardless of its financial impact on SOA homeowners (perhaps Mr. Retter would like to respond to this opinion, and any basis for disagreeing with such). With regard to Board member Strout, SU has no basis for forming an opinion on what directions Mr. Strout may or may not take.

Bottom line here is that, apparently the SGCC continues to experience its financial woes, and that something has to give, if not this year, then in the not to distant future.