A controversy appears to be brewing over SOA Board member O’Donnell’s suggestions on revamping the Aesthetic Guidelines Committee (AGC) process and responsibilities, which were tabled at the December Board meeting to allow time for other Board members to digest his recommendations (See SU Post of December 21st “December 17th BOD Meeting Recap, item 7.m). This brings us to the January 13th Board meeting, wherein the only Agenda item related to the AGC is Item 8.d. entitled “Appointments to the AGC”. Therefore, one could properly assume, that under this Agenda item, the Board will only be taking action on who will be serving on the AGC and not any other AGC issues as, per NRS statutes, the Board cannot take action on items not identified on the meeting Agenda.
Regarding AGC membership, perhaps some background information is in order:
The AGC is the only SOA standing committee established by the CC&R’s, whose requirements must therefore be adhered to. Pertaining to membership, the CC&R’s, under Article VI, Section 1, state the following:
“The Committee shall be composed of not less than three (3) nor more than seven (7) members, to be appointed by the Board, at least one of whom shall be a qualified member of one of the allied physical design professions (i.e., civil engineer, architect, land planner, etc.). Committee members shall be subject to removal by the Board, and any vacancies from time to time existing shall be filled by appointment of the Board, except that the Committee need have no more than three (3) members. A quorum of the Committee shall consist of the lesser of a majority of committee members or three (3) persons. A decision may be rendered by a majority of committee members at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Committee members need not be Lot Owners or officers, directors or employees of the Association.”
As one can see, the CC&R’s grant the Board considerable leeway on make-up of the Committee. However, the AGC also has a Charter, approved by the Board (the latest in January 2020), that supplements the CC&R’s, under which the Committee’s purpose, responsibilities and organization are defined. The current Charter is available for viewing via the following link:
Note that the AGC Charter states “The Committee shall be composed of seven Board appointed members: two Board member and five qualified members of allied physical design professionals (civil engineer, architect, landscape architect) who are independent professional service providers. A quorum of the AGC shall consist of a majority of members. A decision may be rendered by a majority of members at a meeting at which a quorum is present.”
So what is the point here? The current AGC only has five members (i.e., the two board members and three design professionals listed below), so they are currently in violation of their own Charter (but not the CC&R’s). Therefore, the Board needs to either appoint two more design professionals to the Committee or once again, revise its Charter. In this regard, SU questions the need for five design professionals on the AGC and would encourage re-instatement of unit owner membership, whose participation was eliminated by the previous Board.
AGC Members as of January 2021
Mark Capalongan – Board Representative
Bill O’Donnell – Board Representative
Mike McNamara – Landscaping, paid professional – Chair
Seth Padovan – Engineer, paid professional – Co-Chair
Mike McGonagle – Architect, paid professional
Perhaps, when published, the January 13th Board Meeting Packet, will address Agenda Item 8.d in more detail.