Sign Fiasco Evidence of Campaign Violations?
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?
3 Responses to “Sign Fiasco Evidence of Campaign Violations?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 4, 2008 at 13:36
I have one thing to say to all of you residents that think our SCA Board of Directors elections are political……They are NOT. The signs appearing in resident front yards are supporting candidates to a company Board of Directors, NOT a political office. Therefore our ARC guidelines stand. One sign per yard, period. If you don’t like it, then go to the ARC Committee meeting on Thursday and request that they change the guideline regarding signs in yards.
Just because our enthusiasm for our candidates of choice seem like a political campaign doesn’t make it so.
Regards,
Bob Sansing, (who won with no yard signs)
April 5, 2008 at 00:05
Mr. Sansing,
Your (and Favil West’s) silly arguments that SCA Board Elections are not “political” campaigns are bogus.
NRS 116.325.3 states: “As used in this section, “political sign” means a sign that expresses support for or opposition to a candidate, political party or ballot question.”
There can be no doubt that the statutes were carefully written to NOT restrict the definition of a “candidate” to any specific campaign or election or vote.
Your obvious misdirection is seen as yet another callus attempt to unduly influence SCA election–as you have been widely known to do in past years.
By the way, concerning your claim winning with no yard signs: it is said that you promptly lost your re-election bid the following year because you arrogantly refused to campaign, and your own Pinnacle Village homeowners provided the margin of your defeat. Would that be true?
April 8, 2008 at 12:53
Dear Voice ???
My arrogance in not campaigning was brought on by being the only Board Director who was also running a million + dollar business full time while serving the community. My 19 vote loss could have come from any village. My wife was the happiest person in SCA with the results, and frankly, so was I.
By the way, as a stock holder of many public corporations I am asked to vote each year for various Board of Directors candidates, and not once have they been characterized as political. What makes SCA different???
Please be courteous enough to identify yourself when disparaging me in the future.
Regards,
Bob Sansing