Sign Fiasco Evidence of Campaign Violations?

April 3, 2008 by THE VOICE.

Are the deceptive and disruptive actions by Mr. Dixon, his cooperating board members, the CAM, the Election Committee, and DABerman concerning political signs just evidence of stupidity, or are they guilty of serious campaign violations?

This massive group of SCA leaders have claimed that SCA ARC rules on political signs trump NRS 116. 325. Read it for yourself–they are clearly wrong!

Here is what John Briggs and Ron Johnson have cited from NRS 116.325:

“NRS 116.325 Right of units’ owners to exhibit political signs in certain areas; conditions and limitations on exercise of right.

1. The executive board shall not and the governing documents must not prohibit a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit from exhibiting a political sign within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner or occupant has a right to occupy and use exclusively if the political sign is not larger than 24 inches by 36 inches.

2. The provisions of this section establish the minimum rights of a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit to exhibit a political sign. The provisions of this section do not preempt any provisions of the governing documents that provide greater rights and do not require the governing documents or the executive board to impose any restrictions on the exhibition of political signs other than those established by other provisions of law.

3. As used in this section, “political sign” means a sign that expresses support for or opposition to a candidate, political party or ballot question.

(Added to NRS by 2005, 2585)”

Why did our Election Committee and Mr. Dixon not acknowledge that NRS 116.325 is the final word?

Does this not look like a campaign violation by these leaders against the independent candidates?  What other common sense reason could they have?  Does anyone still wonder why some in our community feel there is some sort of conspiricy among these people?

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs | Print | 3 Comments »