BOD Member Conflict of Interest??

An issue regarding a potential “conflict of interest” by a Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board Member raised its head when the Sierra Canyon Association (SCA) President, Loren Farell, opined that SOA Board Member Jason Roland should resign or take a leave of absense from Board duties until the SOA’s lawsuit against the Somersertt Development Company (SDC) is settled. This based upon Mr. Rolands wife being enployed by SDC. In this regard, Mr. Farell submitted a letter to the SOA Board (i.e., on behalf of the SCA Board) formalizing their request for Mr. Roland to take leave of absense. A copy of Mr. Farell’s letter may be accessed via the following link:   SC President Statement

Mr. Farrell’s letter to the SOA Board obviously required a response, subsequently provided via a “To Whom it May Concern” memo from the SOA Attorney, which basically stated that there is no valid reason for Mr. Roland to take a leave of absence. A copy of the SOA Attorney memo may be accessed via the following link:  To Whom it May Concern

Editorial Note:

As stated in a previous Blog Article, SU concurs that the request by SCA Board members for Mr. Roland to take a leave of absence is unwarranted. All Somersett Owners in good standing have a right to serve on the SOA Board when duly elected. If conflicts of interest arise it is then the responsibility of the Board Member to recuse himself/herself from all activities pertaining to the source of the conflict, as Mr. Roland has appropriately done. Given the SDC Rockery Wall litigation will most likely take years to resolve, a leave of absence would result in a SOA Board with only four members for an extended period of time (not good for getting majority votes) and deprive the SOA community of a BOD Member they elected to serve. Unacceptable!

Nevada Law under NRS 116.31084 addresses abstention from voting by HOA Board Members, which is quoted below for reference:

NRS 116.31084  Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.
1.  A member of an executive board who stands to gain any personal profit or compensation of any kind from a matter before the executive board shall:
(a) Disclose the matter to the executive board; and
(b) Abstain from voting on any such matter.
2.  A member of an executive board who has a member of his or her household or any person related to the member by blood, adoption or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity who stands to gain any personal profit or compensation of any kind from a matter before the executive board shall disclose the matter to the executive board before voting on any such matter.

Clearly, Mr. Roland has not violated the above with his recusals and no evidence to the contrary, even though his obtaining any personal profit from the lawsuit settlement is highly questionable. The SCA Board should have recognized such. So why their request? Perhaps just a frivolous offshoot from the ongoing SCA disatisfaction with the SOA on the whole Rockery Wall issue!