The following article posted by Joe Bower, SC Owner & SOA Member:

What’s up Doc? Who knows? Something going on related to the private Somersett Golf and Country Club?

Homeowner associations are corporations. The homeowners/unit owners are the members of the corporation. The thrust of Chapter 116 of the Nevada Civil Code aka Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) which governs associations is to have business of the corporation conducted as openly as possible. Accordingly, most association business is conducted at open session board meetings to which members may attend.

NRS 116.31085 permits some association business to be conducted behind closed doors, i.e. in executive sessions, due to its sensitivity and to protect the individual privacy of association members. Routine executive sessions are held every month. Emergency executive sessions are seldom held.

To paraphrase NRS 116.31085 the ONLY topics allowed for executive sessions are:

(a) Consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation;

(b) Discuss the character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a community manager or an employee of the association;

(c) Discuss a violation of the governing documents, including without limitation, the failure to pay an assessment;

(d) Discuss the alleged failure of a unit’s owner to adhere to certain schedules relating to the design, construction, occupancy or use of a unit or its improvement;

(e) Hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted.

Which of these would any private golf club matter fit into. Maybe (a) or (c)???

Any matter discussed in executive session must be generally noted in the minutes of the open session. That means the topic excluding any names and addresses of persons involved. So Doc, we’ll wait and see.

SU Editorial Note: Mr. Bower seems to believe that the emergency session may relate to a Somersett Golf & Country Club issue. However, SU has no information in this regard. Perhaps something related to the Rockery Wall lawsuit, where motions by both plaintiffs and defendants for summary judgments have been recently filed with the Court.  Since the meeting announcement did not address any subject matter, only time will tell!


  1. To begin, I have to say that I share Joe’s concerns relating to the Golf Course. It’s no secret that they’re hurting for money. I think my feelings are supported by a vast majority of Somersett owners, and that it is, I don’t want to have “ANY” responsibility for the golf courses well being. It’s a known fact that they continually lose money year after year. Why support something that is obviously mismanaged ? As the old saying goes … why flush money down the toilet ?

    When I first viewed the notification of this “private” meeting, it brought to mind two thoughts … 1) why in the world are they telling us that there’s an emergency meeting when we’re not invited, and 2) what is this concerning ? If it has something to do with actions that impact our community or the funds that the two HOA’s consider their’s, then we should be informed.

  2. Mr. Bower has a long, and well documented history of promoting speculation, innuendo, and conspiracy theories that divide neighbors and neighborhoods; which of course is his right. He is both bright, and articulate and it is my sincere wish is that he could redirect his considerable talents, and derive more satisfaction from uniting others and drawing attention to their strengths.

  3. Whatever the meeting is about, I hope the BOD holds up their fiduciary duty to the homeowners they represent. Keeping the SGC financially afloat at all costs is not necessarily in the best interest of the homeowners.

  4. Mr. Bower brings up some excellent points concerning the fiduciary responsibility of the Board and management company to the member homeowners.

    An emergency meeting causes panic and concern

    What could it be that it is a secret but potentially alarming to all?

    Possibly the need for another special assessment to pay for the repairs to the SGC controlled waterworks

    No resident is happy when they are repeatedly being dinged for more $ (and more)

  5. Now that the “Emergency” Executive Meeting has transpired, which conjures up all kinds of negative speculations, perhaps a follow-up SOA “Somersett Happenings” email will explain things. If not before, then certainly at the June 26th Open BOD Meeting. Association members are owed an explanation to this somewhat alarming notification. Could it be really nothing of significance, only a reason to get together and discuss things?

  6. Not sure why Mr Bower has such a paranoid attitude toward SGCC. The board meeting that was call for Friday had to do with some administrative issues initiated by the AGC (which are confidential for the most part) that had some potential legal ramifications The issue was resolved withing a few minutes and there are not other entities involved. So relax Mr Bower. There is nothing underhanded going on. And the fact that Somersett United propagates these statements of misinformation makes me wonder about their objectives as well.

    1. Mr. Retter ……… Joe is absolutely correct in questioning this meeting. The Somersett and Sierra Canyon HOA’s work for us, the Home Owners. The money they spend comes from us, the Home Owners. We should all be questioning what they do. If they’re going to have an Emergency Private Meeting, just say so and then indicate what the topic is that’s being discussed. No secrets ! Remember the old saying …. Question Authority. Again, they work for us !

    2. Terry

      I think that most residents understand the need for confidentiality (per NRS) – but undefined emergencies are a cause for concern.

      SU is a forum which provides easy to access information pertaining to SOA events, concerns, plans (like the rockery wall work, swimming pool work, East Park, NAB5 meetings). If one tries to use the SOA site to ask questions make comments, in my experience they have been ignored. (And logging in is a nightmare – to many older folks such as myself!)

      The fact that you are commenting on SOA messages to the members who use SU, just shows you that the SOA’s ability to host forums, respond to comments, whether whacky, wrong or just a simple question (even if the answer is unknown) is not work working!

      If you wish to make claims that SU commentators have “sinister objectives” and are perhaps propagating mis-information please be specific. Joe Bower only quoted from the NRS, where is the hidden agenda here? As far as I can tell it was factual.

      It would be helpful if you responded to mis-information appearing on the SU member forum, so all can see where the NRS or our CCR’s are being incorrectly interpreted.

      At one time Steve Guderian (a former Board member) was very meticulous in answering questions and politely providing comment where appropriate.

    3. Thank you Terry for hitting the nail on the head about being paranoid and in my opinion sometimes negative. And of course they sometimes hid behind anonymity too.

      I do think SU is trying and I do like the fact they are telling their subscribers when the meetings are and publishing the minutes etc.

  7. I do not have a paranoid attitude towards SGCC. My paranoid attitude is towards the Board. Better communication is the answer, ie. more often and more open. The way the Board’s original support for SGCC was done, i.e. taking money from homeowner dues and giving it to SGCC without homeowners knowledge is what started the paranoid attitudes of many. That followed by the Board having a community-wide election on the next support solution which the Board kept open after deadlines for submitting ballots had passed; along with a few board members counting ballots weekly so knowing where the count stood; and then putting out in-favor propaganda and not allowing anti-information to be put out (see NRS 116.31035 and 116.311(9) (a), (b), (c) and (d) (1), (2), (3), and (4), if you’d like know more), does not speak well as to how issues with SGCC over the years have have handled by the Board. How many owners realize that even today a portion of their dues to the Association goes to pay the principal plus interest on the loan the Association took out to purchase SGCC and lease it back? Somebody please correct what I have said if my understanding is a little off base. Thank you.

    1. Joe

      One of the reasons SC owners want to secede, is to “escape” from the ill advised investments made the Somersett Owners Association in the SGCC… Just now, for instance, around $250 of the $1200 special assessment is to pay for the golf course wall reconstruction.

      Most SC residents do not have a golf course lot. I believe that not enough residents will join to play golf, supporting Somersett Golf and Country Club’s quest to achieve solvency.

      However, I believe that not living on the Championship Golf Course is actually good news! The recent University of Reno study on the value of the golf courses to residents of Arrowcreek, showed that a lot on the golf course was worth 4% LESS than property not on the golf course. This is supported by studies from all over the US.

      Of course we all want to be surrounded by lots of green, take in the vibrant mountain air, whilst we enjoy retirement. We want to trust and believe in our Board and First Residential always doing the “right thing” to protect our community values

      Joe, when we read the reasons elucidated above about NRS regulations suborned by previous boards, we can understand why you are paranoid. One can only wonder what the next “surprise” will cost us all!

    2. As Terry has stated, the “Emergency” meeting (as defined under NRS 116 as just not a regularly scheduled meeting and not a cause for panic) pertained to an AGC administrative issue that apparently your Board needed to be resolved before the next scheduled AGC meeting. This is not arcane stuff – just your HOA and Management following mundane procedures outlined in NRS 116 to the best of their abilities. SGCC is NOT involved in this one!

  8. I will be monitoring SU on an ongoing basis and will post when appropriate. It is finally time to recognize SU as a legitimate forum for SOA communications. Congratulations SU!

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