Previous posts on this website (September 17th and 24th) questioned if the SOA Board of Directors was fairly administering the “Equal Space” requirements of Nevada Law with regard to the proposed Country Club Purchase Agreement. SU believes this question was answered in the September 24 article as NO, and their actions to date have amplified on this conclusion.
- The BOD was requested, by a homeowner group, to include an opposing viewpoint within the initial Ballot mailings, they refused
- Following the Ballot mailings, the BOD was asked again to disseminate an opposing viewpoint to all homeowners as required under Nevada Law. They refused this request citing what they perceived to be some inaccuracies in the submitted opposition statement. These perceived “inaccuracies” were essentially insignificant and without merit for refusing to disseminate the opposition statement. One could also question the “accuracy” of statements contained within the BOD publications, which the opposition statements addressed. Apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
- Nevertheless, minor changes were made to the opposition statement, which was again submitted to the BOD for dissemination. Whereas the BOD subsequently agreed to disseminate, to date this has not yet been accomplished.
The BOD’s process states that opposition statements will be disseminated in a “reasonable time”. It has been a month since the Purchase Agreements were mailed out containing the BOD views, opinions and recommendation for approval, with no such mailings containing opposing views or opinions. Does this represent a “reasonable time” frame? We think not.
As previously stated, 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.
In the interim, the Country Club has initiated a Door-to-Door campaign to encourage an Approval vote, which is their right to do so. However, in the absence of the aforementioned opposition statements, voters are encouraged to not vote until you have received these and both sides have been reviewed and considered. 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.
The actions undertaken by the current BOD in handling opposition statements, show a complete disregard for those who may differ with them. Three BOD member terms (Fakonas, Lee and Chan) expire in November. If they chose to run for re-election, one should consider their actions discussed above before voting to re-elect. That is, do you want BOD members who will represent and consider all homeowner viewpoints, or just their own personal agenda?