Board of Director Elections

Somersett UnitedSomersett homeowners will soon be receiving ballots for the election of three members to the SOA Board of Directors (BOD). The obvious question you will face is, which of the seven candidates should I vote for? For those of you who attended the “Meet the Candidate Nights”, viewed the videos thereof, read the candidate statements and/or have personal knowledge, you may a have a sense of the candidates and perhaps made your decision.  For those of you who have not, SU would like to share our recommendations.

Based on Meet the Candidate Night Q&As, candidate statements, and acquired knowledge, SU is recommending a vote for the following to fill the three open BOD positions. To view their candidate statements simply click on their name.

Patricia Brooks – Ms. Brooks will bring a breath of fresh air to the BOD. She is an outspoken opponent of using SOA funds to shore up the Country Club via the proposed purchase agreement. She states that “Homeowners Boards are not developers, not buyers of land, not managers of golf courses; they should focus on keeping our community looking pristine and managing our assets”, and if elected, “will work to re-focus our community on doing what a homeowner association should be doingadding and managing amenities that are actually needed, as developers add another 1200 dwellings to our community”.

Robert Perkins – Mr. Perkins is a candidate without any pre-conceived agendas who believes: Serving on the Somersett Board of Directors will provide the opportunity for me to participate in community matters while at the same time representing all homeowners”. His BOD interests include: 1) establishing better communications between the Sierra Canyon and Somersett BODs (Mr. Perkins is a Sierra Canyon resident), 2) formation of new SOA Landscape and Safety Committees, 3) putting the Country Club issue behind us, and 4) promoting a more transparent and open door policy by BOD members.

Joe Fadrowsky.Mr. Fadrowski is a unique candidate having served as a director on numerous HOA BODs as well as participating on HOA committees. In this regard, he certainly brings a wealth of experience to any BOD, especially on financial and budget issues. Being a current member of the Sierra Canyon BOD, one might question if he will be able to devote sufficient time to both BODs. This was the subject of questions put to him at both candidate nights, which we believe he answered in a positive way and to the satisfaction of most.

SU believes the above candidates will bring fresh ideas, are not beholden to any special interests, will perform in the best interests of the association, be transparent in all matters, and hence a welcome addition to the Board.

NOTE:  As a convenience to voters, Ballot Boxes are available adjacent to the reception desks at both The Club at Town Center and Aspen Lodge.

5 thoughts on “Board of Director Elections

  1. Can Ms. Brooks explain why she didn’t disclose her conflict of interest regarding her husband’s complaint filed against the SOA on her candidate form? The complaint was filed on October 7, 2014, candidate forms were due October 16, 2014 and the Meet the Candidate nights were the following week. She failed to ever mention this issue at these meetings or on her numerous fliers floating around the community. As a board member she would be informed of all legal issues and strategies which clearly violates a conflict of issue guideline. I find this to be totally unethical, devious and low-handed. She would be untrustworthy as a board member if this is any indication of her behavior. What a disappointment.

    1. What is the complaint? A bit disingenuous of you to supply very little information. Especially for those of us who do not know her. Let me make my own decision based on facts, not supposition. More importantly for me, I put very little stock in information from someone unwilling to identify him/herself. If elected, she can simply recuse herself if this “complaint” is discussed.

      1. Geoffrey Brooks is one of the people who filed the lawsuit against the HOA seeking an injunction against recording the amendment to the CC&R’s which was approved by 1,270 votes one week before Pat Brooks (his wife) signed the statement that she had no conflict of interest.

  2. Hi Mike

    We were away during the “voting season”, so just to answer the question you raised on the CCR’s…

    We are supposed to be transitioning from a “declarant” controlled community to a homeowner operated concern. The CCR’s are quite specific in what a HOA is supposed to do, that is to manage the assets (common areas) they possess to enhance their value by mnanaging them efficiently – as an example would be keeping the beautiful landscaping along Somersett Parkway – beautiful. Unfortunately, our Board’s attempt to “modernize” our CCR’s, making them relevant to our owner controlled Homeowners Association, forgot to change over 40 of the CCR’s where the declarant still (apparently) maybe involved. Based on the past actions of the Developer controlled Board, – still being challenged by the AG and the Real Estate Division, over the diversion of a $1million plus of our money to a private country club – we believe that they do need changing!

    The changes proposed, seemed to me (and others) to be a “money power grab” by the Board to “spend, spend, spend…” (not unlike the politicians in DC). The beneficiaries of their munificence with our money would be a private country club, builders and developers selling new houses. Ostensibly they were to set limits on spending without a vote (except for leasing, an error we were told)…As everyone knows, once spending limits are suggested, “people in power” always want to spend “other peoples money”!

    The other change was to the voting – written in an obtuse manner; so obtuse, that Tony Fakonas could not explain it properly at a “townhouse meeting” at Sierra Canyon, – which could make a majority of quorum of 20% the norm for spending all that money… Why wasnt it written in English?

    What does that mean? It gives effective control of our community to a private country club to spend our money for us on.. golf… and the give the developers an opportunity to enhance their profitability based on spending the unit owners association dues! –
    So between the private country club (350 members/boosters) and the developers (250 + votes) there is a solid 600 voting block – a quorum only needs 540 votes (based on 2015 proiected 2700 units).

    The private country club is actually excluded from Sommersett in our CCR’s – ironically no changes were proposed to the CCR’s to remedy just this example of continuing declarant control.

    I have protested the ad hoc nature of the changes to CCR’s since they were first announced over a year ago. 80% of the votes were collected prior to any opposition comments being publicized (as required by the NRS, NV law). I realise that many consider this a quixotic gesture on my part (my wife does), but I believe that all opinions – even those that say we should re-do the CCR’s make ALL the changes necessary should be placed fair and square in front of our community. The Board failed to provide the platform necessary for proper discussion as required by law.

    My wife, if she had been elected would have stood up for our “independence” from the profligate activity of the current Board; which is serving the developers and private country club better than most of the residents. I am not sure where the conflict would have been.

    The future of golf in Somersett is best served by the private club going public (Stead does very well) and not living on asset sales and subsidies!

    Like you, we both believe that the scenic natural beauty of Somersett should not only be maintained, but enhanced!

    Geoffrey Brooks

    1. Geoffrey,

      Civility does not always rule the day. Unfortunately, there are those who, rather than address opposing viewpoints in a civil and objective manner chose to result to personal attacks and veiled threats. When I filed the complaint with the NRED Ombudsman office alleging that the current Country Club Lease Agreement was illegal and in violation of our CC&R’s by not obtaining a homeowner vote, my wife and I were not only abandoned by our Country Club friends, but received nasty emails as well. The fact that my complaint was subsequently upheld by the Nevada Attorney General’s office has made no difference, as the Country Club’s primary objective is simply to obtain association funding by whatever means with little tolerance to those who may object to the process or the need. However, it is hard to fault the Country Club for seeking association funds. In my opinion the fault lies with our BOD’s (past and present), in how they have accommodated them.

      Your comments on the changes to the CC&R’s are well taken. No attempt was taken by the BOD to properly amend them with regard to modifying or eliminating Developer provisions. Rather, the only changes were to allow the BOD to purchase, lease or annex real estate into the association. An obvious amendment solely written to support the purchase of the Country Club land and water rights. There was no need to rush this amendment through (while stifling opposing viewpoints as you point out) while not addressing other necessary changes as well.

      A positive result of this whole Country Club funding issue is that, as a result of complaint filings, a majority vote of all Somersett owners is now required for ratification of the proposed Country Club Purchase Agreement.

      Jim Haar

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