SOA and the SGCC

With all the discourse going on, (i.e., on the SU website, Somersett Nextdoor and at Board Meetings) with regard to Somersett Golf & Country Club (SGCC) members serving on the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) Board of Directors (Board) and accusations related thereto, perhaps some facts, opinions and comments are in order:

Fact:s:

  1. Any Somersett owner in good standing can serve on the SOA Board if duly elected, regardless of their associations with other entities (e.g., the SGCC).
  2. For the two SOA Board seats up for election this year, none of the four candidates are SGCC members.
  3. The current SGCC members serving on the SOA Board, Joe Strout and Terry Retter, seats are not open for election, so baring any resignations, they will continue to serve for at least another year, maintaining the two SGCC member representation on the SOA Board for 2020.
  4. Board Members Joe Strout and Terry Retter, were first elected to serve on the SOA Board in November 2018.
  5. With regard to past Rockery Wall failure actions undertaken by the SOA Board, given that Retter and Strout first took office in November 2018, they could not have been a party to the approvals of: 1) The SOA lawsuit against the Somersett Development Company et al; 2) The securing of the loan to pay for Rockery Wall repairs, including the SGCC portion; 3) The approval of the $1200 assessment; or 4) The Tolling Agreement that put litigation against the SGCC on hold. All of which occurred before they took office. Therefore, there is no basis for accusing them of violating any NRS Statutes on fiduciary responsibilities or conflict of interest for these events.
  6. With regard to the SGCC’s Water Facility Maintenance responsibilities, the SOA Board has not yet put forth any proposition or taken any actions that would directly benefit the SGCC financialy or otherwise. That is, actions that could present a conflict of interest on the part of Board members Strout and Retter.

Comments/Opinions

  1. For those who feel that SGCC membership on the SOA Board should be limited, a reasonable position given the consequences, then perhaps they should arrange for more non-SGCC candidates to “Throw Their Hat Into The Ring”, and support them accordingly.
  2. SU does not believe that there is any current basis for believing that Board members Strout and Retter have violated any NRS Statutes to date with their service on the Board.
  3. It would appear that many are aware of the above, and it is not what Board members Strout and Retter have done, but what they might do in the future.
  4. There is a valid concern over the SGCC’s ability to: 1) Pay back the SOA for the Rockery Wall repairs on SGCC leased property; 2) Perform necessary repairs to Water Facility equipment as required under the 2014 Purchase Agreement; or 3) Continue to meet their operating expenses. That under these circumstances the SOA Board might put forth a proposition to pass some or all of these liabilities (as they have done in the past) on to the Somersett membership at large.
  5. Per the SOA By-laws, a quorum for the transaction of business is 66% of the Directors, this would equate to four members, as three out of five is only 60%. Therefore, any proposition that comes before the SOA Board for approval that benefits the SGCC financially or otherwise, if the SGCC members recused themselves from discussions and voting, as they should, the proposition could not pass for lack of a quorum (probably welcome by most). Not recusing themselves would most likely assure passage.
  6. It is the fear that SGCC Board members will not properly recuse themselves from SGCC related issues that concern many. Is there any basis here? Board member Strout, when running for the Board stated he would recuse himself as required and has not, to SU’s knowledge, stated anything to the contrary. However, Board member Retter has equivocated on this issue. At the October Board meeting, he improperly interrupted a Somersett owner who was stating his opinion on the recusal issue by saying, “not so”, an argument ensued, wherein the Board President shut down any further discussion between the two.  (Note: Shutting down the argument was the right thing to do, but not admonishing Board member Retter for his interruptions and not letting the homeowner to continue with his comments, was the wrong thing to do).
  7. It is SU’s opinion that Board member Retter, does not believe recusals for voting on SGCC related propositions are required, and will do whatever he believes is best for the SGCC with an argument that whatever is best for the SGCC is also best for the SOA. This regardless of its financial impact on SOA homeowners (perhaps Mr. Retter would like to respond to this opinion, and any basis for disagreeing with such). With regard to Board member Strout, SU has no basis for forming an opinion on what directions Mr. Strout may or may not take.

Bottom line here is that, apparently the SGCC continues to experience its financial woes, and that something has to give, if not this year, then in the not to distant future.