SOA CC&R Ballot Solicitation Letter

Somersett UnitedThe SOA Board of Directors has issued yet another letter to those unit owners who have not submitted ballots on the proposed CC&R amendments.  For a copy of this letter click on the following link:

 Your Vote is Urgently Needed

Regarding this latest letter it is important to point out the following:

In their cover letter the BOD points to a “Key Impacts of Proposed Changes” comparison table to support an approval vote. In this table they continue to mislead (or show ignorance) on what the proposed changes will accomplish with regard to the purchase or annexation of real property into the association.

The letter states that in the current CC&R’s there is no limit specified on the BOD to purchase or annex property before a homeowner vote is required, and that the proposed change will establish limits in this regard. Their statement, “This proposed change defines stricter limits on the power of the BOD than the current CC&R’s require”, is totally misleading in that the current CC&R’s do not grant the BOD any authority in this regard. Hence, no authority to limit.  (Note: the BOD only has the authority granted to it by the association’s governing documents and no other!). This primise has been upheld in that the SOA attorney has gone on record saying that if the proposed CC&R amendments do not pass, any subsequent vote on a Country Club purchase agreement must also include a CC&R amendment.  That is, the current CC&R’s do not grant such authority (See previous post entitled “SOA Attorney Legal Opinions”).

In their letter the BOD emphasizes that the vote is currently running 2 to 1 for approval while continuing to promote the case for more approval votes.  SU considers this to be disingenuous for the following reasons:

  • Soliciting more votes so this issue may be closed is an acceptable action, but to disclose the existing vote count before the voting deadline is not, and their motives are to be questioned.
  •  In reporting on the current vote count, they do not reveal the demographics associated therewith (which they have access to).  For example, the early vote count may be heavily weighted by Country Club Member and Builder votes, who have a vested interest in approving the CC&R changes so that a Country Club Purchase and/or a Subsidy Agreement may be approved by a unit owner quorum of only 20%. as the proposed changes would allow.
  • The BOD provides no equal space for dissenting opinions on the stated merits of the proposed changes. Previous letters to the BOD requesting such equal space, or the reasons for not granting such, have gone unanswered, even though Nevada Statutes that SU believes grant such equal space have been quoted.

Rather than repeat previous editorial comments on the proposed CC&R changes, SU refers the reader to the previous article “CC&R Amendments -Setting the Record Straight”.

SU concurs that your vote is urgently needed, but a DISAPPROVAL, for the various reasons previously discussed on this website.

5 thoughts on “SOA CC&R Ballot Solicitation Letter

  1. The Somersett board is now treading close to violating the rules of fair play and using insider knowledge to influence the outcome of a secret ballot.
    (1) Board opened and counted the ballots on Feb 20 (a random date chosen by the Board), ahead of the deferred closing deadline of April 14. By opening the ballot count, they have a good feel for the profile and demographics of the votes already cast.

    (2) By publishing the vote counts as 999 “For” and 483 “Against”, the Board is using a pre-mature vote count to influence those who have not voted. In fact, the Board chose to assert their view it is a 2 to 1 outcome in favor of the CC&R changes without even hinting at the profile or demographics of those already voted, which may explain the interim outcome.

    (3) The Board is still dodging the definition of “quorum” in the “explanations” that they are sending to the would-be voters. The NRS 116 definition of “quorum” is 20% of total eligible homeowners, a drastic reduction from the current 50% of homeowners.

    Should we now:
    (a) keep the ombudsman and perhaps Nevada AG apprised on what’s going on?
    (b) mount a campaign to explain to the would-be voters the consequences of approving the CC&R changes?

    1. Speed Racer

      The Somersett board is in violation of the open and fair voting law. How can they count the ballots before the end of the voting period, post the results and try to swing the vote of the people who have not voted. This is a very shady deal. The Somersett board is also not giving the correct or full information, but slanting it for their own purpose. Tthe ombudsman and perhaps Nevada AG should be informed on whats going on here. When the voting date has arrived and there still are not enough votes will the date be extended again? If so this is not right and should be stopped.

  2. Yes! Lets get everyone to vote now. We can still get a majority “Against” vote.
    Here why:
    Total SOA homeowners = 2478; Homeowners voted = 1482 (by Feb 20)
    SOA Homeowners yet to cast their votes = 996

    The remaining votes, yet to be submitted, consist of:
    (a) homeowners who were led to believe that, by not voting they would count as opposing the CC&R changes. The Board has ruled that this is not the case.
    (b) homeowners who believe that the Golf Club supporters have a commanding lead and have given up. (It should not be a forgone conclusion bearing in mind that the builders/developers and golf club supporters would have already voted, and the remaining voters are non-partisan homeowners.)
    (c) homeowners who have not been made aware of the consequences of the proposed CC&R changes.

    To reach majority, we need 757 (=1240-483) “Against” votes.
    If we can be “evangelical” about “Doing the right thing, keeping the private golf club separate from the SOA financially”, we can swing 757 votes to do the right thing.

    Let us, each and everyone of us, talk to our friends and neighbors and get them to vote “AGAINST” !

    (When the Board opens the next ballot count, lets show them that the “Against” votes will rise more rapidly than the dwindling “For” votes.)

  3. I lived in Illinois for many years and observed the “Chicago Way”. Opening the cast ballots for the purpose on identifying non-voters to separately solicit their votes with a duplicate ballots raises red flags. How can the Board assure SOA members that someone has not stuffed the ballot box by casting votes for the identified voters? This is why there are rules for fair elections.
    The Board did not need to open the ballots. If they wanted more ballots returned, they could have sent a letter to all SOA members. Before someone says this added cost, remember this Board has been passively paying over a $1 million to SGCC for benefits of dubious value. SOA can afford a few bucks to run a clean, fair voting process.
    All ballots received after the opening should be disqualified, SOA Board would be better to conduct a new vote with honest rules than to operate un the stigma of an unethical voting process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s