SOA Board Member Resignation

Board Member Craig Hanson has resigned his position on the Somersett Owners Association Board of Directors with the following statement (reprinted with Mr. Hanson’s permission):

After careful consideration about the recent Board actions to transition the association to Self Management I feel it is in the best interests of the Somersett Association for me to resign from the Board effective immediately. To achieve a successful transition it requires full and unanimous Board commitment which I cannot and will not give. While I truly believe there is merit to convert to self management for fiscal savings, I cannot support the unilateral selection of the consultant and extremely likely appointment to Association manager by a single member of the Board. I suspect there will be many future “sole source” hires, purchases and contracts which I cannot ethically or professionally support. 

I also want to express my gratitude to those who voted for me and ask their forgiveness for leaving my term prematurely.  With the current three vote block of the Board, I am afraid my ability to promote any measure is severely limited and impotent. 

I wish the Board luck and success in their efforts to improve Somersett.

Respectfully 

Craig Hanson

SU can empathize with Mr. Hanson’s position, not because of an opposition to assessing whether or not self-management would be beneficial to the Association, but due to the apparent disingenuous manner in which the Board President has approached this issue.  More on this when SU publishes it’s recap of the April 14th Board meeting Minutes.

Mr. Hanson’s voice of reason on the Board will be missed.

7 thoughts on “SOA Board Member Resignation

  1. Craig, I just read your resignation letter here on Somersett United. As you may know I was one of its founders and I still keep up with it although no longer living in Sierra Canyon.

    It saddens me that you had to resign. Certainly being outvoted is not fun.

    I remember our breakfast years ago at which I urged you to attend Finance Committee meetings and hopefully join it. I supported your board candidacy.

    I wish that an effort would be undertaken to recall the board members whose actions are harming the community. A recall is quite easily accomplished as spelled out in NRS 116.31036. Perhaps you could lead the effort.

    Thank you for your hard work and time. JGB

  2. It’s becoming crystal clear with each passing month that this new President and his two amigos are ‘in control’ of the SOA, and have had a personal agenda in mind since before their election. Their pretense to act in best interest of the Association and all homeowners is disingenuous. The smoke and mirrors they employ with every mandate they have made beginning with the SGCC settlement, gutting of the AGC (and subsequent revisions to its charter to support their action), the snack bar lease, and now the pre-meditated move to hire a resident without seeking additional applications, to support their mission to remove Professional Management of the Association, is becoming more worrisome to say the least. The fact the board had said they would present three options for management of the Association when in fact they only presented details pertinent to shifting to ‘internal management’ is more smoke and mirrors. The president of First Service was in attendance at the April 14 meeting and was never introduced. Why? Craig hanson is to be applauded for speaking his mind and not just going along with the President’s directive. I predict the Board will once again act unilaterally and appoint someone to fill the vacancy who is an ally. And no doubt, the Board’s response will be ‘because we can’ . This is again worrisome particularly if their goal of ‘internal management’ is validated by their ‘independent’ consultant and they are given the free rein and authority to GOVERN as THEY DESIRE.

  3. As the new suggested Bylaws were not voted into effect… The position should be put out for a special election, or left vacant.

    I enjoyed working with Boardmember Craig (and Terri) on the Ad Hoc Rules Committee and I would personally like to thank Craig for his tireless service to the comunity.

    With the resignation of one member of a 5 member Board, this makes a good argument for increasing the BOD to 7 members, so if one is lost (for any reason) … various executive duties can be easily shuffled around.

    Sierra Canyon has 7 Board members.

    1. So totally agree Geoffrey. 7 would be a better number. NRS allows appointment for an interim member but with the current optics a special election is a far better option.
      Craig’s professional experience was quite obviously ignored over his tenure.
      Ethics are a funny thing, aren’t they?

  4. With respect, 7 is too many. Many HOA’s with 5,000 plus members have only 5 member boards. Besides not only one member may resign at the same time so a high total number matters little.

    Where board work is extra heavy the board can appoint a non-voting board member to help, e.g. an assistant treasurer.

    Board members need to realize being on the board is a full time job and little can be delegated. Too much work? Don’t run for the board!

    Also, committees made up of association members and one or two board members (yes, board members are also association members) need to be really dedicated and active. Too much committee work gets pushed from board meeting to board meeting with little accomplished.

    1. Tim

      I am a member of a 126 Unit Coop Building in San Francisco…We are “internally managed” by an employee GM and we have a 7 member Board. It all works very well.

      Unlike Somersett, there are few amenities (just a Meeting Room/Library and A large protected outside landscaped deck area), no TCTC with swimming pools and gyms…

      Given that Somersett’s Board has folks from Sierra Canyon on it; I believe that it would be pertinent to have more Board members so that the TCTC – perhaps the “jewel of Somersett” (at least to Realtors) is given as much attention as golfing. Sierra Canyon’s Board is responsible for the Aspen Lodge. The Villages Board is responsible for their swimming pool…etc.

  5. I want to thank Mr. Hansen for his service on the SOA BOD and providing a voice of reason.

    I share his concern on the process for hiring a consultant. it smells like a classic sweatheart deal. An alternative might be to appoint 3 SOA homeowners to volunteer to serve on an ad hoc committee to research the issues. It would save the cost of this expensive consultant and be independent of the BOD’s biases.

    There is no rush to get this done. FSR’s contract can be extended for a year or even 2 to make sure this is done properly. Fakonis rushed to buy the SGCC with virtuallhy no input from the community,. That has not worked out well for SOA homeowners,

    The current BOD’s operatiing model seems to be to shoot the arrow at the wall, draw a bullsye around it and then decalre victory.

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