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.

14 thoughts on “BOD Fairness Doctrine Answered!

  1. You, and the other handful of people like you will NEVER be happy with an outcome that in your minds results in something positive for the country club, no matter whether there are 1000 opposing views put forth or none.

    Also, OF COURSE the board of directors is recommending approval of the purchase. I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but the BOD recommended the purchase, negotiated the purchase, and believes in the purchase. Why wouldn’t they recommend it?

    So, with a 3 to 1 approval rate so far, apparently the majority of the community agrees with the BOD and the agreement itself….

    1. Barry: “you and a handful….?” You are flat wrong & are part of the problem. Your comments reflect your own bias so don’t go citing statistics w/no accurate basis in fact! “3:1 support the BoD?” Nonsense as you will soon find out. I want the Country Club & Golf Course for ALL Somersett’ers who deserve the opportunity to use it, but my personal experience as a strong golfer, community supporter through far too many SAD’s I inherited, speak to the arrogance, aggressive actions taken by a few of your consorts in “The Club” to protect your passion & interests without regard for the interests of the community you chose to be a part if. You can not carve off privileged access to the Club for you & the alleged 200 members at the expense of the many (2,300). Play by the rule of law or you jeopardize the entire value proposition for the SGCC.

    2. Barry

      As usual you miss the point in attacking those who may differ from you. First of all it is not about what is “positive for the Country Club”, but what is positive for the association. Also, no one questions the right of the BOD to recommend approval, but it is also their responsibility to distribute opposing viewpoints in a timely manner.

      BTW – As a former country club member, I seek no vengeance against the Club as you always like to imply. To bad I cannot say the same for your type.

    3. Barry, it does not matter if the vote is for or against the ballot measure. It is the process that is taking place that is in question. The BOD is clearly in viloation of Nevada law when they refuse to disseminate opposing views. How can it be legal to count and disclose the voting process before the vote is concluded. I bet if the vote was trending against the passage of the ballot measure the results would not be shared before the voting deadline. I personally am totally discused with the current BOD and will be running for the board in this election cycle to try to bring some honestly and integrity to this board.

      1. Bob

        Please run

        You will get my vote

        We need some independence form the developer and private country club.

        Homeowbner Boards work for all the residents –
        they are not developers,
        they are not investors in GolF Clubs and
        they are Not Developers

        If the country club were really concerned about bringing the community together, they would be offering 1 free round of golf to each Somersett resident and please eat at our restaurant and use our facilities – giving all residents a 30%. Community appreciation. What do we get – residents pay $65 a round, yet on Living Social you only need to pay $45 – and you dont have to live here.

        That’s arrogance for you – Barry are you reading this?

        We all have to live, work and play together, to be together.

        ReTired of Somersett

      2. Bob:

        I am so happy to hear that you are interested in running for the BOD. You appear to be be a person who is intent on following the rule of law and will not be swayed by personal interest groups. We would welcome and support you.

    4. Barry, it is obvious that the BOD did not do their do diligence when thay supported the expenditute of $2.75 million for the golf course. As today Arrow Creek Golf Course and Country Club just sold out of Bankruptcy for only $925K. This is a much larger facility and has a country club. With this as a representive price of what a golf course is worth, we should be able to purchase the Somersett course for less than $1 million. Why should we over pay for this golf course let it continue to operate as is less our $15 monthly subsidy . If it can not make it on its own the SOA can buy it out of Bankruptcy for 20% of what they are trying to sell for now. As far as I can see this will never be a profitable course. We can buy the land out of Bankruptcy and utilize it for the benifit of the whole association not just a few who think they are entitled.

  2. I don’t live in Somersett f-t, but my family does and while I am an avid golfer I am so deeply disturbed by what I’m reading on this Somersett United site about this entire process as to force a clear “NO” vote against the proposal. It pains me to think this lovely golf course & club house could so polarize the community, yet I think the core issue are the BOD and I would like to know WHO on the BOD has pushed this one-sided, illegal conduct, particularly given the upcoming vote for new Board members. Do we know?

  3. Thank You so much b/c I keep looking for the area where I can read the Argument/Rebuttal/Pro/Con and to date I cannot find this information! Then of course, more importantly, I cannot locate the place where I can actually cast my “No” vote!

    1. Voters who do not wish to send in their ballots by US Mail can hand it in at The Club at Town Center Reception Desk right by the front entry.

      1. Monica and others, Effective September 29 there is also a ballot box at the Lodge in Sierra Canyon. Any member of the Somersett Owners Association can deposit their ballot in it.

  4. The voting is undemocratic.

    Robert’s Rules of Order were adopted by the Association to govern procedures. The Rules of Order include a procedure for the conduct of a written ballot. A written ballot maintains the secrecy of how an individual voter casts their vote. The ballot for this vote requires voters to identify themselves on the ballot, thus violating one of the most basic requirements of a written ballot. The proper procedure to ensure that the ballot box is not “stuffed.” is to have voters identify themselves on the outer of two envelopes, and secure the inner (unidentified) envelope until voting is completed and the ballot envelopes are opened and counted by the inspectors of election.

    At their Aspen Lodge presentation the Board President claimed the Board had voted to adopt modifications to some of Robert’s Rules, but he refused to identify when this was done, or provide copies of the modifications. The Board does not have authority to modify Robert’s Rules when they are adopted by the Association members.

    Perhaps this matter can be added to the complaints being argued in the Restraining Order action.

  5. Let’s talk facts

    The purpose of the agreement with the golf course is to purchase 220 acres of land and approximately 440 acre feet of water rights. The only reason to purchase this is so that if the golf club every goes belly up, We, Somersett homeowners, NOT a developer, will decide what to do with the property.

    If you do not believe this, Vote No

    If you are concerned that someday the golf club could go belly up (two other courses in the area have gone belly up and Arrow Creek is in trouble) and you believe that Somersett homeowners should decide the fate of the land and water rights, not some developer Vote Yes.

    In his opposing viewpoints, John Kerwin wirtes:

    (1) DROUGHT IMPACT “water rights required to irrigate….would be the first to be curtailed or eliminated by the water authority” FALSE THERE IS NO WATER AUTHORITY that has control to curtail or eliminate what we pump from our wells.
    (2) COMMON USAGE PROBLEMS. “could constitute a significant Homeowner Nuisance factor” FALSE if we the homeowners controlled the land not the developer, we would do what was best for the community. We cannot be sure what the developer would do.
    (3) DEFAULT BY SGCC. The statement is correct BUT IT IS A SCARE TACTIC. This could never happen unless we as Somersett homeowners (50% plus 1) voted for it.
    (4) $2.75M PURCHASE PRICE … IS A BAD DEAL. This is not a financial deal. This is a deal to protect us Somersett homeowners IF the golf course ever goes belly up.
    (5) VOTING NO SHOULD DECREASE ASSEESSMENTS. This is a fair statement but again the amount is wrong since the debt payment per homeowner would be $ 8 per month if the purchase is approved.

    I believe that everyone should be able to express their opinion and have the right to get others to agree with them BUT I believe that especially as neighbors and friends, we should do so using facts, not misstatements and scare tactics.

    Mike Slattery

    1. Mike,

      The following in response to your Let’s Talk Facts comment, wherein you imply Mr. Kerwin’s opposition statement contained false statements:

      DRAUGHT IMPACT – Your statement that “THERE IS NO WATER AUTHORITY that has control to curtail or eliminate what we pump from our wells” is in itself false. In fact, Nevada water, whether above or beneath the surface of the ground, belongs to the public and is subject to Nevada Water Law, which is administered and enforced by the Nevada Division of Water Resources. I quote – “The mission of the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) is to conserve, protect, manage and enhance the State’s water resources for Nevada’s citizens through the appropriation and reallocation of the public waters….” I suggest you visit the NDWR website at and educate yourself on Nevada Water Law.

      COMMON USAGE PROBLEMS. Could or could not be a nuisance factor, depending on future (albeit undefined) usage. Therefore, not a true or false issue. Developers are controlled by commissions (I suspect you are satisfied with what the developer did within Somersett), whereas, we cannot be sure what a BOD would do, based either on personal objectives or financial constraints.

      DEFAULT BY SGCC. Not a scare tactic, but a reality. If the SOA were to acquire the Country Club land, costs would have to be incurred to maintain it for whatever. This is not in the current SOA budget, therefore, can only come from homeowner assessments. Your suggestion that whatever the BOD decides to do with the acquired land would require a 50% + 1 vote of all homeowners is just not the case. Suggest you read the financial powers granted to the BOD by the recent CC&R Amendments.

      $2.75 M PURCHASE PRICE IS A BAD DEAL. You state that this is not a financial deal. I believe a $4M commitment (with interest) most certainly is. I look at it as $4M insurance policy, that if enforced will encumber homeowners to additional costs. If not enforced, we loose $4M of SOA assets. The only question is whether or not one considers this a good or bad financial deal.

      VOTING NO SHOULD DECREASE ASSESSMENTS. You apparently agree here. However, you dispute the $15/mo figure, instead referring to an $8/mo figure based on a $2.75 loan debt payment. What you did not consider is that the $15/mo of assessments currently directed to the existing SGCC Lease Agreement will come to an end. Leaving it available for a corresponding assessment decrease.

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