NRS 116 Alleged Violation Letter to SOA BOD

SU’s previous Post of “March 27th SOA Board Meeting” addressed an agenda item pertaining to alleged violations of NRS Chapter 116 Statutes. These alleged violations were brought forth by Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Member Steve Guderian (i.e., as a concerned homeowner and not in his capacilty as the Sierra Canyon Association Board President). Mr. Guderian’s allegations deal with the SOA Community Standards Committee (CSC) and perceived conflicts of interest between SOA Board Member Jason Roland and CSC Member Tiffany Roland (his spouse). Mr. Guderians letter to the SOA Board (published with permission of Mr. Guderian) may be accessed via the link below. In addition, Mr. Guderian offers the following as an introduction:

“As home owner in Somersett I believe that the rights of all home owners to fair proceedings within the community is of paramount importance. In the Janurary SOA BOD meeting when I heard who the CSC committee members were, and what their charter said, I could not allow the violations I believe are occurring to continue. So, the attached letter is the first step I have to go through in order to file a complaint/intervention with the Nevada Real Estate Division, the Ombudsman. In my mind the only way the current situation with respect to the CSC can be rectified is a complete do over. Simply put, you cannot have board members making a decision and/or being a part of a sanction or a fine and then being involved in the appeal process too.

Steve Guderian
SOA Home Owner”

Link:         Alleged Violation of NRS 116.3103, NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31084 & NRS 116.31085

30 thoughts on “NRS 116 Alleged Violation Letter to SOA BOD

  1. Thank you for taking this issue up on our behalf. I was befuddled with the previous responses from those in authority. This is a clear conflict of interest, I believe the conflict needs to be waived by the community and not just disclosed to us.

  2. Steve,
    So the first allegation in your letter under “NOTE” is undeniably incorrect and I’m confused on why you didn’t take the 5 minutes of time prior to typing up the letter, and mailing it out, to follow your own recommendation to do a “review of the audio recording of this BOD meeting” because it will “verify” your “assertion”. (Your assertion being that Jason did not abstain from the vote on appointing CSC members.) This is an easily verifiable fact that Jason absolutely did abstain on this agenda item at the public board meeting that you attended. The minutes weren’t secretly changed after the meeting as you so deviously state. You knew your letter would have to be placed on the next board agenda for all homeowners to see and I have to think it took you a few hours to write it. So, again, why didn’t you spend 5 minutes listening to the recording to make sure your facts were straight before sending out the letter? Is it because it makes for a better story to leave the inaccurate information in the letter and fits more within your agenda?

    In addition, if you really wanted to be completely above board on this issue, you would have mentioned in your “introduction” post on this website, prior to anyone starting to read your letter, that you attached an “addendum” on page 6 that clarifies your error and sets the record straight. Instead you try to bury this very important information at the end (which is part of the definition of an “addendum”) in hopes that everyone will still read your initial salacious allegation and will believe it. You will then be able to say, “no, I added an addendum at the end that stated it was all an error”. However, very few will be reading to the end because they will have lost interest in the rest of your letter as it is essentially you copying and pasting sections of NRS 116 with your personal interpretations of the law. What the homeowners will remember is that very juicy, completely inaccurate, allegation at the beginning of your letter which seemingly appears to be the real intent of the letter. Talk about stirring the pot!

    Continuing to post this misinformation about us on this website is harassment. I’m still not sure why you guys are trying to bully Jason and me.

    Steve, you sat on the SOA board with Jason, and on the Community Standards Committee (CSC) with me, last year. You never once expressed a single concern about these items to anyone that I know of either in writing or verbally. Am I to understand you correctly that the CSC Charter you signed as the SOA Board Secretary last year, and willingly participated as a member under, did not have these purported NRS violations but the “new” Charter does? The CSC members haven’t signed the “new” Charter yet so if you could please enlighten me on what you think is different in this year’s “illegal” Charter over last year’s “legal” Charter that you signed, I would greatly appreciate it so I can make sure I don’t sign the “new” one. I’m assuming you wouldn’t have completely missed all of these egregious accusations while you were a member of the SOA Board and CSC, right? I’m sure the board could easily vote again to reverse the acceptance of the “new” Charter and revert back to the previous Charter you signed. By the way, the Charter you signed last year is still on the website if you need to review it. It’s easy for anyone to compare it against your allegations in your letter. Again, it will only take about 5 minutes of your time to verify the information.

  3. Tiffany,

    I am not going to editorialize my response to your post, rather I am just going to stick to the facts.

    The first simple fact, the SOA attorney can write a response to my complaint for the board to see…. he probably already has, and the board can vote at the next board meeting to basically ignore my complaint. If the board does this the next step is up to me. Very straight forward process.

    And, you are absolutely right I did sign a CSC charter and that charter is absolutely wrong and should never be used under any circumstances.

    And, in fact the board minutes were changed. I pulled them before the last SOA board meeting and they showed that it was a unanimous vote for the CSC members. When I pulled them after the last SOA board meeting they showed the correction. This is why the tape was pulled. The board minutes go out to board members before the meeting and the board members are allowed to make changes prior to the board meeting. Not a flawed process. The flaw comes when these changes are not reflected in the open board meeting minutes. Making corrections to the board minutes is something that needs to be done at times. But these changes should be made at the open board meeting so that the community is completely aware of ALL changes and actions.

    CSC has a very strict attendance policy, CSC members, board members and staff. Not only did I sign that charter I helped rewrite it. This is something that I should have never done because I had never attended a full CSC meeting before taking that action on the CSC charter. My experience with CSC up to this point in time was limited to assisting a SC resident at a hearing. I still remember your exact words in that hearing and would love to share them but as I said I will not editorialize…. except for maybe this part.

    I attended three CSC meetings AFTER rewriting the charter and prior to going on an extended vacation. I returned from vacation in July 2018. After returning to board activities as a board member I started sending emails to staff and cc’ing the board president regarding my concerns about CSC and at this time I started saying that CSC should be disbanded.

    In August 2018 I found out that CSC was collecting notices of violations for Sierra Canyon. The subsequent checking further into this matter revealed that Sierra Canyon WAS NOT sending these notices up to the CSC. When it was discovered how these notices were being given to CSC the process was immediately stopped. However, I still continued to fight and complain both in writing and verbally to staff about Notices of Violation going to CSC because my “interpretation” of multiple NRS sections is that this is not authorized in NRS and it is a violation of home confidentiality and due process.

    The process of the unauthorized collection of the Sierra Canyon Notices of violation started in March of 2016. I also have the list of names of the committee members in March 2016, interesting makeup of the committee when the unauthorized process of collecting SC notices of violations started.

    In the beginning of Nov 2018, I wrote a lengthy email to staff with a cc to the BOD president that pretty much covered everything in my complaint. As I was always told in the past it is being worked on. I was led to believe that with the new year changes would be reflected in a new charter and committee members change. Since I have been voicing my concern on this issue for around 8 months with no acceptable changes occurring, and the new process did nothing to address my concerns, I took the only recourse left.

    Let me also be clear on this, your relationship with Jason is not the purpose of complaint, it is simply a small, supporting, part of it. My complaint is about the unauthorized collection of home owner documents by CSC (notices of violation) and the simple fact that under the current committee makeup and CSC process the community DOES NOT have a legitimate CSC appeals process to the BOD. Even you were not part of CSC I would still file my complaint because the notice of violation collection has nothing to do with your committee membership. And under the current charter there would still be 2 board members that SHOULD recuse themselves from any appeal process leaving a process where the remaining three board members would have to agree or the home owner loses and this is not right.

    In other words, it is you, not me, that has made this all about a conflict of interest when it is actually about home owner rights given to home owner in NRS.

  4. Steve,
    Let me make sure I understand, you stated in your original letter that you “attended the Wednesday, January 23, 2019 Board of Directors meeting” and “heard the voice vote of SOA BOD on this issue and there was no abstention by Mr. Roland at that time.” A “fact” that we know is incorrect after the audio recording proved otherwise. So, you can’t hear correctly what was actually stated at a board meeting two months ago but you can remember my “exact words” from a CSC meeting that you attended 2+ years ago and “would love to share them”? You sure make what I supposedly said sound so scandalous and enticing! (Just like your incorrect “fact” that Jason didn’t abstain from the CSC member vote.) I actually have no idea what the subject is that you are talking about but I highly doubt you ever remember hearing anything that I said in verbatim at any meeting we were in together. You remember hearing what you want to hear. And you “sticking to the facts” is you sticking to the facts you want to hear.

    CSC should be disbanded? Interesting. So, is it your position the board members should perform all of the violation hearings for the master association? If that’s the case, who would homeowners appeal to for their “right to “due process” and fair hearing” as you state is the clear violation of the law under the current system? Would the homeowners make an appeal back to the same Board who already voted on the enforcement of the violation? You state that even if I wasn’t a member of CSC that “under the current charter there would still be 2 board members” (I’m assuming the board members who currently sit on the CSC committee) “that SHOULD recuse themselves from any appeal process.” So wouldn’t, under your rules, all of the board members have to recuse themselves from any appeal hearing, once CSC is “disbanded”, because the board members would have already voted on the original violation?

    Finally, how many CSC meetings are you stating you actually attended? It seems like you are remembering attending far fewer meetings than I recall you attending. (I double checked the CSC minutes to verify your attendance.) In any case, if this was all such a huge concern, why did you wait until the exact month you were no longer on the SOA Board in November 2018 to do something about it? Why didn’t you take action when you were an SOA Board member? Why didn’t you mention any of this to the CSC Committee? Why didn’t you mention anything to the entire board and not just the Board President? If all of the board members are guilty of whatever your “today’s” interpretation of the law is, aren’t you just as guilty as they are? Especially since you state you were the one who wrote the CSC Charter? Are you saying you created a Charter to set the Board and CSC members up for failure and then filed a complaint against everyone after you were off the Board?

    Does anyone else see the problem with new board members being on the board for one month and trying to rewrite Charters, Bylaws, CC&R’s and rules, to fit their personal agendas?

    As usual, I cannot follow your line of reasoning with your posts. As a homeowner you have the right to spend the Association’s (homeowner’s) money and have the attorney respond to your various lists of allegations. (Yes, I’m “sure” you are just doing it out of concern for all of the homeowners.) All I’m requesting is you cease bullying Jason and I and quit posting libelous information about us. It is you who brought our names into all of this and posted libelous information about us on social media, not me.

    1. Thank you, Tiffany, for your response. It is time we take a look at what is really in question here. I agree that the bullying must stop as well as the libelous content in posts. It’s not just happening to you and Jason, and not just on this social media site. However, it is very blatant here.

  5. Tiffany,

    If I may offer a word of caution, you should be careful on what you say in your post. You have alluded to an area that I complained the most about when I was on the SOA BOD but did not go into in my complaint about how CSC operates. And you made a number of other statements that are not favorable to your support of CSC or to the continued operation of CSC. You really are not helping your cause.

    I will say again, yes I made a mistake with Jason abstaining. I have admitted to that mistake twice here and I followed the proper protocol for correcting that mistake in the official record. What more do you want from me on this?

    Let me provide some additional information for the record. I contacted SU about 6 weeks ago asking for assistance in filing an intervention with NRED as they recently filed one on the rockery wall lawsuit. So, SU knew I was filing a complaint. When SU read the agenda and saw the topic of NRS violations they figured out that I was in the process of filing my intervention complaint. SU contacted me, and asked if I would provide them with a copy of the complaint I wrote so that the community could know what I was doing before the SOA BOD meeting. Let me say this another way, I DID NOT contact SU about this, SU contacted me. But the next fact below is what really matters.

    The complaint that SU has published will in fact be a part of the board packet that the entire community will ultimately have access to. In other words, the complaint that I filed simply got published here on SU before the SOA BOD meeting rather than after the SOA BOD meeting. So, neither SU nor myself has done anything wrong because my complaint is in fact a PUBLIC DOCUMENT. This is actually clearly covered in the last line of my complaint.

    And, just to be clear for the record again, my complaint is about how the operation of CSC is violating the NRS sections I covered and the specific areas I quoted which has resulted in SOA home owners not getting the due process NRS requires. It has absolutely nothing to do with any conflict of interest OTHERS…. NOT ME….. are pushing. I defy you and your new bestie, who obviously spun you up on this matter, to find where I have supported Mr. Farell’s actions. I have purposely remained NEUTRAL in his actions. In fact Tiffany, you can go to one of your long time FSR friends and ask them my position on what Mr. Farell is doing because I specifically told them my position 3 weeks ago.

    So, again lets be clear, YOU not me, are the one making this all about conflict of interest. My complaint clearly states that for the corrective action CSC should be disbanded….. the corrective action says nothing about removing a single person due to a conflict of interest.

    1. Steve,
      Thanks for the “warning” but I have no idea what you mean about how I “alluded to an area that (you) complained the most about when (you were) on the SOA BOD but did not go into in (your) complaint about how CSC operates”. What are you talking about? If this issue is something you “complained about the most” why ISN’T it part of your NRS 116 complaint to the board now? Who did you complain about it to? As I mentioned before, no one knew you had any complaints about CSC, or your Charter, until after you were off the SOA board except, as you say, some e-mails to the management company and Board President that I’m not sure exist. (I didn’t even know you had any complaints about CSC until I saw your recent letter to the board posted on this blog.) I honestly have no idea what you are alluding to. All I have done is ask questions about what you posted in your letter to the board and in your posts. Why aren’t homeowners allowed to discuss process and structure of CSC, or how it “operates”? There’s nothing top secret about any of it, nor should there be. We are all homeowners of this Association and we should all understand the CSC process. You threatening me with a warning doesn’t help your case.

      The rest of your post is way too cryptic for me to understand. I don’t know what you mean about “Mr. Farell” (and whatever activities you disagree with him on), my “FSR friends” or my “new bestie”. Who are they? Did they post inaccurate information about us in letters to the board or on this blog? Or are they people who have asked you not to harass/bully them? Why are you deflecting the real questions I asked and instead bringing other people into this? It appears you like being the one who asks the questions but definitely don’t like being questioned.

      The facts of why I have responded on this blog are due to Joe Bower posting inaccurate information about Jason and me. I informed him this information could be easily verified, his post was completely inaccurate and to please stop. You made a post on his post about how you agreed with him. He then apologized and we moved on.

      About a week later you then tried to double down and post additional inaccurate information through a letter to the board, and on this blog, about Jason and me that, again, was easily verified to be incorrect. I asked you to stop. That’s it. The only reason for me to speak out on your post, and Joe’s, rather than leave it to the attorneys and others to formally respond, is that each of you chose to falsely accuse Jason and me of unethical behavior that was easily verified to be inaccurate. I have no understanding as to your motives.

      As far as your NRS 116 violations, I have already stated that you have a right to ask all of your questions about a document you created and battle the attorneys, management, Ombudsman, etc. Just leave the false information about Jason and me out of your documents. Out of curiosity, what hearing/appeal process are you following now that you are on the board at Sierra Canyon? Are the board members recusing themselves from appeals as you say, “Simply put, you cannot have board members making a decision and/or being a part of a sanction or a fine and then being involved in the appeal process too.” These are just procedural questions. Nothing secretive.

      You wonder why people don’t want to sit on committees or run for the SOA board? This is exactly why.

      I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

    2. “If I may offer a word of caution, you should be careful on what you say in your post.”
      Sounds like a threat to me.

  6. Ms. Chontos,

    I respectfully request that you highlight the facts that you are using to support your position that I am bullying anybody, or Tiffany and Jason Roland specifically, in my posts here, or my complaint that is part of the public SOA agenda.

  7. To SU and the SU community, it was never my intention that this issue go this far. I believe my complaint speaks for itself and as previously stated the purpose for posting my complaint was to provide the community with specific information prior to the board meeting so the community could be aware of what I was doing and what the related agenda item was about. I have tried my best to refrain from editorializing in these posts and I will continue to try and only answer questions with facts and specific information.

    To Tiffany and Jason Roland, YES, I MADE A MISTAKE IN MY COMPLAINT ABOUT JASON ROLAND ABSTAINING ON A VOTE. This was entirely my mistake and as soon as I verified the mistake I followed the proper and established protocol for correcting that mistake. As you can see my document contains an admission of my mistake. To date nobody has been able to tell me what I could have done differently to correct my mistake since the mistake I made was discovered after I submitted my complaint to the SOA. My correction options were limited.

    To Tiffany and Jason Roland, any next steps I have to take that can have a different document, I guarantee BOTH of you that any time future documents are required they will not contain the mistake I have admitted to multiple times.

    Tiffany has asked some fair questions and they deserve a response.

    First, in Sierra Canyon the board of directors hears all complaints and holds all hearings. There is no other committee or group of people making any decision on violations other than the SC BOD. In other words, the SOA BOD CAN ALSO BE the only body holding hearings, which is what I believe the process should be in order to eliminate the due process violations every SOA home owner faces in the current procedure. In one of your post you asked who does a home owner appeal to if it is only the BOD holding a hearing. As is established in NRS, any appeals of a board decision in a hearing are handled by the Real Estate Division. This process is currently playing out in SOA, a CSC decision was appealed to the BOD, and the BOD decision was appealed to the Real Estate Division. The fact is the law makes the SOA BOD the final decision making body in ALL of the HOA areas, not the CSC on violations.

    How come I did not mention my biggest complaint about CSC actions in my complaint to the SOA BOD, in the simplest terms, if CSC is disbanded as I have requested the problem is solved. The topic of my biggest complaint that I did not go into, the proper storage and security of hard copy documents containing confidential home owner information.

    Quoting your latest post, “as you say, some e-mails to the management company and Board President that I’m not sure exist. (I didn’t even know you had any complaints about CSC until I saw your recent letter to the board posted on this blog.)” As an SOA board member at the time I was unaware that I had to answer to you or express my complaints to you. I am also unaware of any NRS section, CC&R section, bylaw section, policy, rule, guideline, resolution or parliamentary procedure that dictates how and to whom I am suppose to contact about complaints that I had when I was a SOA board member.

    PLEASE, enlighten me, SU, the SU community and the SOA community what I violated by not telling you about my concerns, and/or what I did wrong by only going to the SOA president and senior staff. I want to know what other mistake I have made and the community deserves to know what other mistake I made.

    1. Misplaced Concern, RE: Conflicts of Interest, by Mr. Guderian

      It doesn’t take a prophet to tell you that the winds of bankruptcy for the Somersett Golf Club are no longer wafts. .. Surely Mr. Guderian’s comments about Conflicts of Interest are misguided… What about the ‘sweet deals’ that previous BOD’s have negotiated with the SGC?

      Recently, take he tolling agreement? We gifted the SGC $500K at a paltry 1% interest… What collateral do we have if they declare bankruptcy? What about their clubhouse and 5 acres? Was it because there were Board members who made decisions that would be considered Conflicts of Interest? It seems like very irresponsible action on the part of past BOD’s.

      Please remember that $230 of the 2019 $1200 special assessment, financed the loan made to the SGC for their share of the rock wall failures. No collateral!!!

      There are currently golf club members sitting on our BOD (Terry Ritter and Joe Stout) that may be making decisions that fall into the category of conflict of interest far more than in the case of the Rolands, using Mr. Guderian’s logic. Surely this exposure to financial disaster is a greater concern (it will be very costly) to our community than any conflict of interest related to Tiffany and Jason Roland.

      The SU post, “SOA and SGCC Water Supply System Report” Seth Padovan – SOA Consulting Engineer estimates that $700K is required to repair the water facilities for watering the golf courses (includes the Canyon 9). This is covered by “The Water Facilities Agreement” between the SOA and the SGC agreement to transfer such in good repair. This agreement ended in December 2018, hence the Padovan report.

      As the SGC seems to be incapable of paying its way, does this mean another special assessment of $230/household?

      Most of the members of the SOA do not play golf. The membership of the private club is less than 10% of the 3150 owners… why do the 2800 have to pay for the few who play. This is the US, one should pay to play.

      I think this will go on until the Somersett Golf Course is sold to someone else who takes it public.

      Post by Peavine Profit…( I know how to spell prophet..)

      1. OH Mr. Prophet,

        You are very subtle in the wording of you posts, no bite from me.

        What I would like to say is that I agree with everything you posted about the SGCC and the water rights….. got to remember it was me who posted Seth’s report, at least I think I posted the report here too….

        I am well aware of the potential SGCC conflict of interest issues, and I will be happy to make sure that all of Sierra Canyon is also aware of it. If you think my position in this thread is over the top, wait until you see me if and when SGCC comes before the SOA BOD.

        One thing I am very proud of, there were a number of members of the previous SGCC BOD that hated me when I was on the SOA BOD. They also did not like Frank.

        One other thing for the community to think about. Every since I went public with Seth’s report I have been contacted by many home owners who believe golf courses are on the way out. We may ultimately be faced with using that land and its water rights for another purpose.

        1. Mr. Guderian
          As a matter of record, whereas you may have made the Padovan Water Facilities Report public via some media in Sierra Canyon, not so on this website. SU obtained the report from the SOA and published it in a SU Post article on March 11th entitled “Golf Course Water Supply System Report”, along with some discussion and a diagram of the various components that make up the Canyon9 and SGCC irrigation supply system.

          Also, although it is clearly evident that a vast number of Sierra Canyon homeowners have a disdain for the SGCC, not sure you will find that same level of disdain through-out the rest of the Somersett Community. One can truly appreciate what the SGCC adds to the community, without wanting to help support it via SOA assessments.

          1. Misters Guderian and Prophet

            I love the ambience of the SGC and this is why we bought in Somersett, so I agree with the SU commentary on what it adds. However…

            It is time to make up our mind if we are golfing community – where golfing activity (or non-activity) is compulsory – or not. Whether a Private Country Club – which trolls for members from all over the place, not just Somersett, is just that, a separate entity.

            Note that non resident private golf club members have the right to buy a membership to the TCTC – why not the Aspen Lodge as well? The TCTC is (We are told) over capacity for their fitness rooms and pools at weekends… and we are allowing non-resident outsiders in? Another 300 new houses residents will soon be added to the TCTC’s over-crowding.

            Perhaps all residents should be billed a $100 a month (non-accruable) credit for Food, services, use of the event rooms, bar, even golf (+ cart) as their Social Dues. Then the Private Golf Club can be a Somersett residents members amenity, for Somersett residents only.

            Just like the TCTC where ordinary Somersett residents who pay $89 a month – use it or not…

            This is one way to pay for a golf course amenity we have bought.

            1. Geoffrey,

              To answer your question regarding membership in the Aspen Lodge, no can do. Sierra Canyon is a Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) Community. In other words, because of HOPA we get to age discriminate on housing. We open up the Aspen Lodge to outsiders and we lose our HOPA designation.

              Your $100 solution is an interesting take on things. However, based on what I know of NRS and NAC, being required to give money to the golf course can only occur if the SOA BOD oversees the golf course. That is no private board.

              And, me personally, when I bought here I knew I was joining a golf course community so I have no problem with my dues structure. I would have a problem spending $1200 a year for a social membership to go and “enjoy” someplace where I believe the service and the food is such that I do not go there to spend my money. I also believe there alcohol prices are WAY TO HIGH.

              1. Steve

                If a non-resident SGC member is over 55, surely this will not affect the HOPA rating?

                Perhaps the solution, given the over-crowding at the TCTC, is not to allow the SGC to sell memberships to the TCTC; to folks living outside Somersett. It doesn’t seem right if residents and their families cannot find room at the pool in the summer to let outsiders family “join the crowd”!

                The new SGC Club building adds ambience to our community, perhaps the alcohol prices are too high to prevent failure – and the menu cobbled together from the lowest priced meats and second rate vegetables. Perhaps properly funded, the desire to provide satisfaction to Somersett residents palettes will escalate the quality of fare.

                1. Geoffrey,

                  FYI, I agree with all that you have stated about the SGC and their clubhouse. And regarding the Aspen Lodge, it has its own growing and crowded pains just like TCTC.

      2. You have clearly laid out a potential conflict of interest that is more real that any perceived conflicts for Jason Rowland. In the latter case I think Jason has ample experience on HOA Boards to conduct himself within the confines of NRS 116. That has not always been the case for SGCC members on the SOA Board. SOA paid a extraordinarily high price to SGCC for CY9 maintenance. Did SGCC members on the SOA Board recuse themselves from that process? Voting to approve the contract? One further point, the rock fall problem will not likely be the last unforeseen catastrophic cost that the SGCC will face during the remainder of the lease agreement. How will these costs be covered?

        1. I prefer the SGCC go bankrupt and the course is put up for sale. You need to know when to fold ’em, and this is long past due.

    2. Steve,
      You’re right, you didn’t owe Jason or myself an explanation per any governing document, policy, rule, law, etc. However, it just seems pretty disingenuous to state you had the presence of mind to create the CSC Charter, vote to approve me to sit on the committee and then sat silently across the table from me to conduct months’ worth of meetings while these huge purported violations of NRS hung over your head. It seems like most reasonable people would have raised their hand and stated there might be an issue so it could have been resolved. You never seemed afraid to talk about any of the other items you didn’t agree with me, or the committee, so it’s hard to understand why you held your tongue on this issue. That is the reason I asked you why you never said anything to us. Not because you were required to, but because I question the true timing of these issues and your ulterior motives.

      As you know, the Community Standards Committee is allowed per Nevada law. As you stated, NRS 116.3101 (8) says: “If the governing documents so provide, the executive board may appoint a committee, with not less than three members, to conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines pursuant to this section.”

      So, there must be a way for this committee to work with appeals and proper “due process” if it’s allowed per NRS. If there was a huge glaring issue with procedure, who was sitting on the committee, NRS violation, or some “due process” concern, it was your right, and possibly your duty, to discuss it with SOA counsel during executive session while you were on the SOA board, so it could be rectified immediately. In any case, continuing to state CSC should be disbanded to fix whatever you personally believe are illegal issues, is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and a total knee-jerk solution.

  8. This complaint that I have filed with the SOA BOD was covered last night. It is time to close this matter for now so let me give you a quick synopsis of the action the board took:

    The attorney is going to respond.

    So now I get to wait to hear what the attorneys response is going to be. FYI, I have to give the SOA BOD atty an opportunity to respond so I will wait a reasonable amount of time for a response. No response within a reasonable time frame and I will file with NRED. I say this for two reasons, first, I have the utmost respect for the SOA atty, he is a good man and a very good and smart HOA atty, IMHO. However, history has clearly shown that when it comes to responding to me, especially on this topic, SOA has not very good at getting back to me timely or at all. And, SOA is the client of the atty so he has a duty to respond to what they request. Secondly, the SOA, and by extension their atty, has had my complaint for about 2.5 weeks. Seems to me to have been plenty of time to come up with a response.

    No matter whether or not you agree with me or disagree with me on this issue, I do raise some fair questions about the process that have to be addressed.

    I also have something very important to say about Tiffany and Jason Roland. We have always been respectfully and polite toward each other despite our philosophical SOA differences. We have had many conversations and a few laughs. As other home owners in our community I have a lot of respect for them and what they have accomplished. Tiffany did not reach her job status by making bad decisions. Which is why I am very surprised by her posts in this thread. In my humble opinion this is not the Tiffany Roland I have spoken with and worked with in the past

    Quick examples, last post Tiffany asks if there is anything that can be negotiated on this. Let’s be honest this should be the first post not the last. Two questions, after all of the posts in front of the last post why would I want to even consider to negotiate anything? And, given the initial posts, for me to even consider for a moment any negotiations wouldn’t that call into question my reasons for filing the complaint as well as my character?

    What I have seen from Tiffany is that she does care about the community and she does work hard for the community, I have never questioned that. However, as a CSC member and representative of the BOD in this area, she did not present the best possible vision of CSC or the SOA BOD in her posts. And I know that she was being sarcastic when she said she would consider my warning. But the simple fact of the matter is that she provided me with a lot of supporting information to present to an NRED investigator if my complaint is followed up.

    Tiffany does not make mistakes like this so what happened now? In my humble opinion there was an outside influence that did not allow her to think things through before she acted.

    The second thing I need to close out is with Ms. Chontos. I need to make a declaration, I withdrew my complaint so confidentiality no longer exists.

    Ms. Chontos, your silence to my request for what facts you were using to support your claim that I was bullying and being libelous to Jason and Tiffany speaks volumes. So I would like to present things in a specific fashion.
    Fact, Tiffany is on CSC.
    Fact, Jason is on the SOA BOD.
    Fact, Tiffany on the CSC is one of the people who makes decisions on sanctions to home owners.
    Fact, if the home owner wishes to appeal he must go before the SOA BOD.
    Fact, Jason being on the SOA BOD will be sitting in judgement of a decision that Tiffany was part of.

    So please Ms. Chontos help me understand how stating these facts in a public document is bullying and libelous?

    So having in essence covered these facts in my complaint I basically ask the question, how can a SOA home owner be guaranteed an unbiased decision from the SOA BOD given the relationship between Jason and Tiffany?

    It is a simple question. So, again, please help me understand how asking this question based on the facts I have outlined is bullying and libelous.

    1. I wish Steve Guderian would spend half this much time on the conflict of interest with golf club members sitting on our BOD, and making loans to the SGC without collateral.

      1. Give me a chance on this one. Straightforward fact, if there is no SGCC issue before the BOD, there is no conflict. In my opinion it is not right to accuse or take action if there is no issue or no action taken that creates a conflict.

        1. I think there have been issues.. what about the most recent loan the SOA took out for the SGCC portion of the rockery wall repairs? Why was there no collateral taken against the loan, like the lot the SGCC club house is on, or any equity that exists in the club house? I take it that the BOD is responsible for this, and did the SGCC members on the Board recuse themselves for decision making? And what about the irrigation repairs that the SGCC is responsible for? Will the SGCC members on the Board participate in assessing the homeowners, again? I am sure you will tell me that they could not recuse themselves, as there would be no quorum. We need more people on the Board, or less SGCC members, to avoid this continual parasitic action by the SGCC.

  9. Nice try Steve. You know I haven’t made any mistakes in my posts. Gaslighting may work on others but it won’t work on me.

    You post, “Quick examples, last post Tiffany asks if there is anything that can be negotiated on this.” I never asked if there was anything that could be negotiated in my last post. This is another easily verifiable fact. CSC is allowed per NRS. There is nothing to negotiate. I was simply pointing out how you have major holes in whatever you personally believe are illegal issues and in your flawed “solution” to disband CSC. Of course you read it the way you wanted to read it because, again, you hear what you want to hear.

    Keep posting your false allegations. Continuing to post them over and over again doesn’t make them true. It’s just harassment.

  10. Anybody, After all this, whew, how did it end up at the board meeting this week? Thanks.

    1. Joe,

      I stated above, the SOA atty is going to file a response to my complaint. It has already been 2.5 weeks since I filed my complaint, which one would think would have been enough time to file a response. I will wait a reasonable amount of time and then move forward with the intervention with NRED.

  11. Why not post your complaint here? Is it a complaint or an allegation that NRS 116 or a SCA governing document was violated?

    Looking forward to seeing the SOA attorney’s response on Somersett United. Hopefully, it won’t be marked confidential.

    BTW did you file as SC board president or as private owner?

    1. Joe,

      Steve’s complaint was posted on the SU website on a March 19th post entitled “NRS 116 Alleged Violation Letter to SOA BOD”. Also, Mr Guderian filed as a homeowner not as a SCA Board member.

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