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:
- 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.
- 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!