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.