Copy of James Haar Memo to the SOA Board of Directors dated 7/9/13.
As I understand it, a liaison committee consisting of Board members Fakonas and Kirby was set up to negotiate amendments to the current Lease & Management Agreement. This has now been placed on hold pending resolution of the “Complaint” before the Attorney General’s office. These two Board members are now serving on a more formal Country Club Committee whose main purpose appears to be to negotiate with the SGCC to defer construction of the 2013 amenities and to maintain the “status quo” pending resolution of the “Complaint”.
[SU comment: the “Complaint” being the SGCC Lease Agreement alleged violation of law currently being prosecuted by the Nevada Attorney General’s office]
It has also been reported that a proposed settlement for the “Complaint” would involve formulating a new SGCC agreement and submitting it to a vote of all eligible unit owners. One could logically assume that the current Country Club Committee Charter would be extended to negotiate the new agreement and that Mr. Fakonas and Ms. Kirby would be the negotiators. In this case, I have the following comments.
- Mr. Fakonas and Ms. Kirby were acknowledged supporters of the existing Lease Agreement and therefore their objectivity could be in question.
- It is obvious that Mr. Lee, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Chan could not serve on this committee due to a direct conflict of interest.
- In consideration of items 1 and 2, would it not be preferable to form a non-Board member committee, as has been done with all other committees. Homeowners who have applicable experience not only on the subject matter, but in negotiating contracts.
- This is not to say that Mr. Fakonas and Ms. Kirby cannot serve as advisors/counselors to the committee as is the case for other SOA committees.
Given the probable bias (no disrespect intended) associated with the existing Board members with regard to Country Club agreement negotiations, I believe it prudent to appoint a committee of non-Board members, or as a minimum, one whose makeup consists of a non-Board member majority.
Another suggestion is to let the Country Club take the primary responsibility for formulating the new agreement, truthfully acknowledge it purpose (e.g., the SGCC needs community dollar support to survive), promote its merits to the homeowners and pay for the voting process with their own funds. It is the needed community dollar support for the SGCC that is the real issue here and not new amenities for the SOA. Therefore, the SGCC should lead the charge in taking it to the community, not the SOA.