Is “Equal Space” Fairly Administered by the BOD?

Somersett United
Somersett United

In the SGCC Purchase Agreement Ballot mailing, the BOD included a six page summary document wherein they described the elements of the proposed SGCC Purchase Agreement. In which they included statements favoring its approval.

What they did not include in the Ballot mailing was any opposing viewpoints or opinions.  This is disturbing because a homeowner group had specifically requested that the BOD include their opposition statement within the Ballot mailings. The BOD refused to honor this request.  Instead they acknowledged this right could be accomplished via a mailing subsequent to the Ballot mailings.

What is wrong with this approach? It is that Homeowners receive ballots along with a biased for approval viewpoint. Most likely with the hope that the ballots will be mailed in before receipt of the opposition documentation.

This is also punctuated with actual wording on the Ballot itself which states: “The Board of Directors of the Somersett Owners Association (the “Association”) has proposed that the owners approve a proposed transaction …..”.  Such wording is not normal to and has no place on the Ballot itself.  It is just another attempt to influence the voting process.

This is a very important measure for the Somersett Community. Whereas the BOD has the right to express their opinions in the Ballot mailing documentation, they also need to be fair and balanced by also including documentation from those with opposing viewpoints.

Having violated the “equal space” provision of Nevada law during the CC&R vote, the BOD has apparently learned one lesson as evidenced by the “equal space” request statement included at the bottom of the Ballot. However, It is contended that this is still not sufficient to comply with the law (NRS 116.31035 1. &.2), which states:

  1. If an official publication contains any mention of a candidate or ballot question, the official publication must, upon request and under the same terms and conditions, provide equal space to all candidates or to a representative of an organization which supports passage or defeat of the ballot question.
  2. If an official publication contains the views or opinions of the association, executive board, a community manager, or an officer, employee or agent of an association concerning an issue of official interest, the official publication must, upon request and under the same terms and conditions, provide equal space to opposing views and opinions of a units owner of the common–interest community.

Whatever the interpretation of the law, the BOD had a request to include an opposing viewpoint within the Ballot documentation, which was refused. This does not constitute fair play!

11 thoughts on “Is “Equal Space” Fairly Administered by the BOD?

  1. This just goes to show that the BOD thinks they are above the law and can do as they please. Also are they going to count the votes and publish the results before the ballot measure vote is concluded? Do they also think they can keep extending the ballot close date until they get what they want. Also from what I have read and researched the lease for the Golf course ends December 31st weather the vote is concluded or not. We all need to think about removal of the current BOD and get a board that looks after the owners of Somersett not their own special interest.

  2. Equal Space Issue

    To your comment Bob, it is really no big surprise that the Board is not giving consideration to every Home Owners rights with the exception of the Country Club Members. It is unrealistic to think that would change the Boards position basically is “What are they going to do about it” The arrogance is offensive and yes they will keep going until all the needed votes are in. We have a lot of apathy among the Somersett Home Owners there are very view of us that actually care and take notice and try to fight for our rights and what is fair and beneficial for the rest of the community.
    Removing the BOD and having a fair election is all but impossible there is to much going on behind the scene, ongoing developers influence, Builders holding lots casting their votes which is a conflict of interest and people that will not take the time to check out the candidates and what they actually stand for and whom they represent.
    For us that truly care it would help to get a mailing out to all Home Owners stating the bare facts and get people thinking before they vote on the purchase of the Country Club that really only benefit a few but put every Home Owner on the hook for 2.7 mill. which is a lot to pay for green grass.
    Patti’s post from a couple of day’s ago said it all “How about what the rest of the community would like to see a indoor heated pool and walking trails etc. sounds pretty good to me there are a lot of things that could be done with 2.7 mill. that the rest of the community would benefit from.
    For us that are willing to fight for our rights the goal should be raising awareness and creating interest in what’s going on in our community.

    1. Removing individual board members or the complete board is fairly easy to do under Nevada Law. However, I think we should “hold our horses” as the seats now held by three members (Fakonas, Chan, and Lee) are up for election in November. Easier to vote them out (if they choose to run again) than to recall them.

    1. Terry –

      Why doesnt the Board mail out “Don’t Vote until you have all the facts” from this web-site???

      This presents fairly, I believe, in your opinion as well – the pros and cons

      I posted my comments to this – where I tried to summarize the “very difficult” decision we residents are facing.

      Vote Yes – if you expect the private CC to fail

      Vote No – if you believe the private club is going to succeed

      I just have not been given enough information about this extremely complex investment opportunity which would alow me to make a decision one way or the other…

      As I understand it Private Golf Clubs and Homeowner Associations are both run as businesses – However an association is not generally speaking in the private club business, or should be investing green in it – unless there are compelling reasons which make sense. I believe that there maybe, but there is so much opinion and very flew hard facts…

      …one example – asked by many Somersetters – what is the private country club going to do with the money – and what is their current financial condition…especially as a YES vote seems anticipate failure. It is a reasonable question, which deserves an answer.

      Green Grass of Home

    2. Terry,

      Surely you must be kidding, or just acting as a BOD and/or Country Club “whatever” This website has always posted comments from others regardless of their opinion. What is wrong with expecting the BOD to comply with the “Equal Space” laws? That way we can listen to all arguments and vote accordingly.

  3. The BOD willfully delayed implementing a process to present opposing views in direct violation of NRS 116. They wanted as many CCR ballots cast as possible before having any opposing views presented to SOA members.

  4. We have the Canyon 9.. rather than the HOA taking on debt and operating a PRIVATE golf course, bring back Blake Smith. He did a fine job on developing our community. He wouldn’t have enough water rights to make the golf course all houses, so some of it would probably be green anyway.

    1. Hmmmm….

      I thought that we were trying to get rid of him (Blake Smith) – that’s what the $2.75 million for.

      Rumor has it that he is a non-resident member of the Country Club and a trustee…

      Trying to figure out what kind of “green” he really is interested in…

      However, if the 18 hole golf course fails – We have voted down the “big $ spend” – He gets it back, we can be sure that he will develop it tastefully with lots of green to make lots of “green”. I am sure that Blake will keep the Canyon 9 watered (for an old golfer or two and kids) to enhance future sales.


      Green Grass of Home

      1. Sounds sensible, to me.. I don’t care if he gets it back, as long as the rest of us can be free of the elite golfers expenses and obligations..I wouldn’t run for a board position with the responsibility of the golf about time consuming..

  5. I am just moving into Del Webb and think this situation needs a lot more real information and dialogue before any vote is cast. From what I am reading I certainly would not vote to do this.

    I don’t know yet where the golf course is, who uses it and if Del Webb has access to any of this property. Someone needs to get serious about putting some real, logical, and informative information where people have access to it instead of having to read back and forth and between the lines and still not understand what’s going on! I have not moved in and can’t come to meetings. Why isn’t that the first thing we see before we start reading “comments”? I have several degrees and can read, write and do logic and this is not it!

    When did it start? Who decided to buy the property? Why? “because of water rights… ” Where is the contract with details everyone can read?

    This is way to scatted and someone needs to make sure everyone who lives at Del Webb is informed. I already know they are not because I’ve ask several neighbors.

    I’m moving to Del Webb for a relaxed life style not something I need to be worried about paying for in the future to buy “water rights”.

    It may be a great idea but it is certainly not being presented as such!



    This just isn’t right!

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