April 7, 2008 by admin.

In the previous AV post we accused the Board of Violating NRS 116.325:
http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/03/dixon-and-berman-are-wrong-again/

Today, that was proved 100% correct!  Positive confirmation was received from an attorney present at the legislative approval of NRS 116.325, and from witnesses to NV Speaker Barbara Buckley’s related statements, that confirm there can be no question that the SCA Board violated law when it voted at the last Board Meeting to disregard the statute within SCA.

Our rogue board majority was so far out of bounds that it did not even have its own attorney’s support to back up their violation.  Our association attorney, John Leach, stated at the CC&R workshop in March that NRS 116.325 was the controlling direction, and that it was to be interpreted as allowing the display of multiple signs by homeowners–for all kinds of campaigns involving the whole community.

Since this has been a flagrant attempt to directly influence the outcome of the current campaign, some SCA members are considering this to be yet another reason for calling for an “accountability/removal” election of two or three of the offending board members.

Posted in Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules | Print | 2 Comments »

April 7, 2008 by admin.

David Berman said on his blog:

“Readers may recall that a few weeks back I published the faxed response to a question I asked of homeowners-association expert/newspaper columnist Barbara Holland regarding the campaign promise of a Board candidate (John Briggs) to change our rules so that homeowners would have to vote to approve a dues increase as part of the annual budget ratification.”

“My purpose in asking the question was to confirm that Briggs is making a promise he cannot keep because it would be illegal.”

Untrue. As usual, DB distorted the issue, created a false straw man, and shot down his own incorrect assumption.

Facts: John Briggs has proposed that SCA CC&Rs be updated to comply with changes in the NRS 116 where it only requires 50% plus one member voting to REJECT a budget during the month of the annual meeting. This would be a change from the current 90% of members showing up at an annual meeting to reject a budget. John’s change would only require a simple majority vote to reject a budget via a mail ballot. So, if the majority of homeowners have not elected to reject a budget via ballot, they have agreed to its approval.

John has also proposed that the (draft) annual budget and a ballot be sent to homeowners at least one month before the annual meeting. The budget would include a pro statement from the Finance Committee and con statement(s) from homeowners–similar to local and state government propositions.

John’s approach would require a CC&R change–not a law change. This would provide the honest opportunity for each SCA member to participate in the annual budget ratification process.

So, when John Briggs is given an opportunity to explain why he is in favor of homeowners being allowed to approve or disapprove dues increases, he says that the point is to bring our CC&Rs into line with state law in this area.

This would have the net effect of allowing the majority of homeowners to choose to say little or nothing, and thereby ratify the budget through their silence, or to return a ballot to reject the budget. Either way, the majority would rule, and that is the way it should be.

Posted in Truth Squad, Community Affairs | Print | 2 Comments »