BOD Fairness Doctrine Answered!

Somersett United
Somersett United

A previous post (September 17) questioned if the SOA Board of Directors was fairly administering the “Equal Space” requirements of Nevada Law. Their actions to date have clearly answered this question.  Consider the following:

 

  •  The BOD was requested to include an opposing viewpoint within the initial Ballot Mailings, They refused.
  •  The BOD was subsequently asked to disseminate an opposing viewpoint to all homeowners as required under Nevada Law. To date they have not yet responded to this request, nor disseminated anything to voters.
  •  The BOD has already started counting Ballots and publishing results on the association website, knowing full well that, without opposing viewpoints, voters only have the BOD’s recommendations to follow, hence the majority of early returns will most likely be for Approval. The special interest groups favoring Approval will also most likely submit ballots early.

All the above is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the BOD to influence voters. This is also substantiated by wording on the Ballot itself, which recommends an Approval vote.

Fortunately, the BOD was forced by Nevada Law to establish a majority vote (i.e., 50% +1) of all homeowners for its approval or disapproval. This in lieu of the majority vote of a 20% quorum of homeowners they so desired.

Is this the type of integrity you expect from your BOD? Hopefully not!

Whether the agreement is approved or disapproved is not the issue here. As long as the voters have access to not only arguments for, but arguments against as well, and the voting process is fairly conducted, we can all live with its results.

The obvious answer to whether or not your BOD has fairly administered the voting process is a resounding NO.

All voters are encouraged to not vote until you have considered all sides, then vote accordingly, but please do not abstain, as the BOD will just continue to extend the voting deadline as they did for the CC&R vote.