Response To SC Bullying Policy Post

Steve Guderian, Sierra Canyon Owner and Sierra Canyon Association Board member, provided the following comment in response to the previous SU Post entitled “Sierra Canyon Bullying Policy”.

SU, ask and you shall receive. The part about having an SC Board Member respond. But, I think you knew that I would. So, I am just going to address the SU Post first and then I will address the other posts individually as separate posts. Lets start with the bullet points:

1. Given the existence of NRS 116.31184, this policy document is not necessary

My Response to this, absolutely this policy is necessary. In your opening you mentioned that subsection 2 was not included in the bullying policy….. that is because this section makes NRS 116.31184 a misdemeanor crime. So my question to SU is this how does the SC BOD enforce a misdemeanor crime…. IT CANNOT. In order to use NRS 116.31184 the INDIVIDUAL who believes that they were a VICTIM of this CRIME would have to call the police, get a police report filed and then have it reviewed by the city attorney. (NOTE: Notice my use of the term INDIVIDUAL here and not BOD.) Odds of all of this happening are not very good, which means that home owners can pretty much get away with anything if this were the only recourse.

2. Owners were not consulted on or properly advised of its existence.

My response to this, I am surprised that SU is going down this path. SU is very much aware of what GOVERNING documents require home owner input and what documents do not. This one clearly falls under the section of home owner input not needed. Taking this a little further, SU is also very much aware of NRS 116.31085 which sets CONFIDENTIALITY for the home owner unless the home owner submits IN WRITING that the hearing be held as an OPEN HEARING. So, there is no way that the SC BOD can legally discuss the need for this type of policy as that would be violation of home owner confidentiality.

3. The Policy is meant to stifle opposition to BOD proposals or decisions.

My response to this, I really have to believe that SU is now following the words of somebody else here because this claim is completely unsupported and very much out of the well thought out information the SU normally puts out. There are so many safe guards in place for this it is not even funny. The 3 minutes to speak before and after every board meeting, the right for a home owner to have an open hearing on any complaint….. Here is my position on this, if the BOD can file a complaint in order to “stifle” opposition, then anybody can file a complaint against a BOD member for being stifled. According to the SC atty any formal complaint has to be in writing. And, if the SC BOD were to stifle a home owner that owner would have cause to go to NRED for a violation of NRS 116.3103.1 and its associated sections. And, this position is flawed on its face, the BOD cannot file a complaint under this policy.

4. Penalties and process are harsh and not consistent with other SCA controlling documents.

My response here is wait, wait wait a minute. #1 above starts out with the SC BOD not following the sections in NRS and now the SC BOD is being hammered again when it specifically followed NRS. I would refer you to page 2, section 2(b) that says fines will be established in accordance with NRS 116.31031. SC BOD is still following the NRS as it should!

5. Policy oversteps the power that the Board should have with respect to the conduct of members.

My response, first how so? Refer to #1 above where is was stated that the SC BOD should be following the NRS which specifically address the topic… little bit of a conflict here, you can do it as stated in the law but you cannot do it when you simply remove one section that allows the SC BOD to actually follow the law…..On a personal note…. I would so love to be able to share with the SC and SOA community all that I have been put through and some of the documents in my possession…. but as stated above NRS.116.31085 is protecting the home owner and prohibits me from saying anything. And, I really do not care what people say or do to me. I knew what I was getting into when I VOLUNTEERED to be on the BOD. But, drag my wife into some of these things, this is going to far as she does not do anything to anybody in the community. Involve my wife and I will fight back. Let me give you an example of what the BOD faces, this was a quote taken from a post on Nextdoor, “This is BS. Why do these people have so much power. We need to start a petition and have everyone sign it. Can’t we impeach these Nazis?” Really, this person does not know me or the board members but they can judge based on a single partial story from one person. Oh and by the way, I am not filing a complaint on this and neither is the SC BOD.

6. The BOD is accuser, judge and jury. What protects SC members from BOD Bullying?

My response, this is categorically false in all aspects. The BOD cannot file a complaint under the bullying policy, only a person can. And, if a BOD member files the complaint, they will have to by other parts of NRS 116.3103 recuse themselves from the hearing. ANY HOME OWNER can file a complaint under this section not just an INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER. It is also important to keep things in perspective as the policy also includes the words/actions THREATEN, HARASS, CAUSE HARM OR SERIOUS EMOTIONAL STRESS and HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT.

Lets be clear about this, board members are also home owners and have all of the same rights as EVERY OTHER home owner in the community. Simply because they volunteered to be a board member does not make them a target for any reason. AND LETS BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, the SC BOD does not have the authority to file any type of complaint against any home owner for a violation of this policy. Only another home owner as the right to file under this policy, the fact that this home owner is a board volunteer is completely immaterial.

As I said earlier, I would love to give every home owner in our community all of the facts associated with the happenings in SC… but I cannot. My request to the community please do everything you can to get all of the facts and don’t judge a fellow home owner, board member or not, based on a single piece of information.

Respectfully
Steve Guderian.

Note:  SU appreciates the preceding response from Mr. Guderian. It is not often that either a SOA or SCA Board Member, will participate in discussions on the SU website pertaining to community issues. 

13 thoughts on “Response To SC Bullying Policy Post

    1. Actually Dusty you cannot blame this one on me as the original policy was voted on by the board back in 2016. What is your solution, follow the law and get senior a criminal record at this point in their lives? Just wondering what you would do.

  1. NRS Quotes and References – Sound Great but the fact of the matter is that we all signed and agreed to the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are location specific.
    Sierra Canyon and Summerset are in violation of the CC&Rs

  2. Steve, I have a question for you regarding your item 1 statement. Why do you think it’s “the Board’s” duty to enforce a Nevada law/statute? Is the Board an “enforcement body”? I don’t think it should be. So yes, if a person feels truly threatened/harassed, and it’s severe enough, then they should contact the police (or whomever one contacts for a bullying complaint) and file a report. In this manner, people would not be filing complaints over someone who called them a name they didn’t like. Who wants to spend lawyers fees on this? The Board/Management company have the luxury of having house lawyers behind them. That’s not a fair situation by any stretch of the imagination. But of course, that’s the intent, right?

    Also, you appoint yourselves “jury”, as well. Right? Doesn’t the Board decide guilt/innocence?

    1. Janet & Michael
      Forgive my delayed response, I have been a bit busy and I believe that your post deserve a response. First off Janet, I don’t believe I have ever used the word “duty” I believe a more appropriate term is “responsibility.” And, as I said to Dusty above, the first policy was put in place about 3 years ago. To place blame on the current board for updating what was done by a previous board is not fair.

      Addressing Michael’s point, sometimes people, or a small group of people, will not stop in their pursuits or allow you to move forward in your life. I would love to be able to tell you all about what a small group of people, who I can show are working together, have put me through over the last 14 months. Even more to Michael’s point, I can also show that they do not want to work things out. There are things happening in my village and in our community that I would love to be involved with but I cannot out of fear of being accused of bullying…. AGAIN…… Yes, I have been accused of violating this policy multiple times by the same group of people…. not a single one of them founded. At one point I even got a letter from the SOA attorney threatening me with a civil lawsuit, prosecution of a criminal offense as well as sanctions for violations of the CC&Rs. Thirty days latter I got a second letter withdrawing the first letter. All because I voiced my concerns in a PRIVATE email to a person. AND…. I was 1800 miles away from home on a business trip when my wife got a copy of the letters in the mail, sent out anonymously. Now tell me how this is not harassment & or bullying. (actually, I believe that this whole matter is a violation of NRS 116.31183. I also believe that for the most part people should try and work things our for the betterment of our community, which is why I never followed through on the 31183 violation, how would following through on this help our community?) My wife and I never use to lock our doors when we walked our dogs, we do now.

      NRS 116 is in place to protect all of the home owners. I believe the call by community members to have the police come take a report and let the criminal court system handle this are disingenuous and I do not believe that it is truly within the best interest of our community for home owners to take a criminal action. For the disingenuous part, there is no way the police of the city attorney is ever going to get involved in this matter. We all know this and/or can reasonably reach this conclusion. Anyway, you know why the criminal justice system will not get involved… they are going to say it is a civil matter and best handled through the community rules and regulations…. guess what, they are right. You see NRS allows for complete confidentiality to home owners. A criminal case doesn’t. Any piece of information that you know and/or covered in this posting was information given out by the home owner involved, not the SC BOD or community management…. why, because NRS allows for complete confidentiality (privacy) for the home owner, believe it or not, the current SC BOD, takes this responsibility very seriously because if we violate it, the community can be held responsible. NRS also allows for a home owner to waive that confidentiality and allow for a public hearing. This is a right that I will always take as I think it is important for the community to know all things possible that are going on.

      Two last things, first, I do not give out names for anything. I do not believe it is right because in SC we are all retired and for the most part all we really want to do is enjoy our retirements. If I do give out a name you can be sure that I checked with that person to make sure it was OK to do so. As I said above, I would love to tell the entire community what I have been put through over the last 14 months, technically speaking I can because I was the accused. But as I have stated, why put the community through this BS, how does airing this dirty laundry move our community forward? Besides, I can handle things without involving the community.
      Second, Janet, you statement about judge and jury…. another part of NRS talks about making the right decisions for the community and not being involved in decisions where there is a personal stake in the matter. Based on my over all board experience, myself and others have recused ourselves from matters going in front of the board when I/we had personal, first hand knowledge of the event. In this case recuse means not being involved in any part of the process.

      So the answer to your question about being judge and jury….NOPE!!!!!!!

  3. First of all, I have to admit I have not kept up to date on this bullying and harassment policy. I’ve read it, but other than that, have not kept a close eye on the uproar. One reason is that I find it unbelievable that adults are unable to conduct themselves civilly. Conversely, I find it unbelievable that adults allow themselves to be “bullied” or “harassed”, meaning, they are unable to stand up for themselves and instead, must find someone else to do it for them. I suppose when the former interacts with the latter is when problems occur. I am not naive, not everyone acts as they should and I understand that. I’m just disappointed in my supposedly mature community neighbors.

    It seems the NRS would require a higher level of proof of harassment or bullying than would an Association policy. And setting the bar lower then the NRS is the problem that I see with the policy. And, who defines what is bullying or harassment, the board. That is troubling as this is a small community. Which is why I also fear how fairly the policy would be enforced. From what I’ve read, and again I have not paid very close attention, one of the first violations charged under this policy was from a board member. And who officiates in a hearing, the board.

    1. Thanks for your perspective, Michael. I think you’ve explained the situation accurately. I doubt there are many people in this community who agree with the policy’s implementation OR enforcement.

  4. Hmmm…good points, Michael. It’s also called a “bully pulpit” for good reason and the SCA Board is abusing it to it’s advantage in my opinion. What goes along with their bully pulpit? Definitely a potential kangaroo court in my opinion!

  5. Nancy has received “bad news” as a result of her Feb 13 hearing for violating the SC Bullying Policy and has announced ”good news” to her Chair Yoga Group.

    The “bad news” is she has been banned from the Lodge for 3 months. Plus she is accused of two additional violations of that same policy and will be heard on March 13.

    The “good news” is her passion for teaching Chair Yoga will be continued at an off-site location.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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