In late 2018 the Sierra Canyon Association (SCA) Board of Directors (BOD) enacted a new SCA Policy entitled “RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SIERRA CANYON ASSOCIATION CONCERNING BULLYING AND UNAUTHORIZED INTERFERENCE WITH ASSOCIATION CONTRACTORS OR EMPLOYEES”, to be incorporated within the SCA Policies, Rules and Guidelines.
A copy of this document may be accessed via the following link: “SCA Bullying Policy”.
It appears that the purpose of this document is to incorporate the provisions of Nevada Law NRS 116.31184, “Threats, harassment and other conduct prohibited: penalty”, into a formal SCA policy document, along with some added provisions and penalties. For reference NRS 116.31184 states the following in its entirety:
1. A community manager, an agent or employee of the community manager, a member of the executive board, an officer, employee or agent of an association, a unit’s owner or a guest or tenant of a unit’s owner shall not willfully and without legal authority threaten, harass or otherwise engage in a course of conduct against any other person who is the community manager of his or her common-interest community or an agent or employee of that community manager, a member of the executive board of his or her association, an officer, employee or agent of his or her association, another unit’s owner in his or her common-interest community or a guest or tenant of a unit’s owner in his or her common-interest community which:
(a) Causes harm or serious emotional distress, or the reasonable apprehension thereof, to that person; or
(b) Creates a hostile environment for that person.
2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Added to NRS by 2013, 2529)
The SCA policy document incorporates the above NRS provisions (with some minor editing). It also adds the following provision (c) to item 1 above, along with extending its applicability to SCA vendors and contractors:
(c) Interferes with any work, service or action being performed by or on behalf of the Association by any third-party individual or entity acting with the Association’s authorization or under any contract with the Association.
The policy document does not contain any reference to NRS 116.31184 Article 2, but does incorporate a Section 2 that outlines the penalities associated with perceived violations of the policy, which include: prohibiting voting on SCA matters, prohibiting use of facilities/amenities, and the imposition of fines (for details, access the above “SCA Bullying Policy” link).
One might ask the question why the SOA BOD chose to incorporate a Nevada Law into a SCA Policy document, as the Nevada law speaks for itself. It would appear because the BOD wanted to incorporate “Interfering with work” as a prohibited activity and to establish penalties and fines for doing so.
This new policy has raised its ugly head in a recent disagreement with a SC owner, who has been threatened with a $1000 fine. Lots of dialog on this issue within the Somersett “Nextdoor” social website regarding a perceived unfair application of this policy, which will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that complaints regarding the policy reflect the following sentiments:
- Given the existence of NRS 116.31184, this policy document is not necessary
- Owners were not consulted on or properly advised of its existence.
- The Policy is meant to stifle opposition to BOD proposals or decisions.
- Penalties and process are harsh and not consistent with other SCA controlling documents.
- Policy oversteps the power that the Board should have with respect to the conduct of members.
- The BOD is accuser, judge and jury. What protects SC members from BOD Bullying?
Obviously the SCA BOD had its reasons , hopefully admirable, but questionable to many, for enacting this policy. Perhaps a SCA Board member would care to comment on these reasons and address the above sentiments.
Likewise, as SU has no access to SCA Board or Committee Meetings, we are not completely informed as to what may or may not being done to address the policy in general, the above sentiments and current violations. Therefore, comments from SC owners are encouraged and welcome.