“Action For: Election Committee, SCA Board of Directors, and SCA Community Manager

Attached are my original flyer files (color and greytone versions) sent to you on Feb 11, 2010, and my replacement flyer (color and BW versions) sent to you on April 16.

They are all in PDF format which supposedly can not be corrupted. You can see that the files sent to you were in perfect condition. But, as the fatally flawed ballot package proved, some one or some thing caused my flyer to be corrupted in the center of the first page. How did an even minor change/flaw happen?

I hereby request an investigation into exactly when, and under whose responsibility, the original flyer was damaged. We need to know this information because I am sure we all want to be assured it will never happen again in future election cycles. Once campaign material is committed to final copy, the Election Committee and CAM are legally required to protect such very high value materials from loss and/or corruption. The fact that even small amounts of corruption can creep into such an archival record is quite alarming.

Attached is my replacement flyer (color and greytone versions). I must insist that my replacement flyer be included in the second ballot package mailing this month since (1) the whole ballot package is being done anyway, (2) my flyer was mysteriously corrupted in the first ballot package, (3) the facts are correct, (4) my personal opinions are “not defamatory, libelous or profane” and (5) NRS does not allow the association to prohibit or to interfere with this type of reasonable request because:

NRS 116.31034.12 “An association shall not adopt any rule or regulation that has the effect of prohibiting or unreasonably interfering with a candidate in the candidate’s campaign for election as a member of the executive board, except that the candidate’s campaign may be limited to 90 days before the date that ballots are required to be returned to the association. A candidate may request that the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association send, 30 days before the date of the election and at the association’s expense, to the mailing address of each unit within the common-interest community or to any other mailing address designated in writing by the unit’s owner a candidate informational statement. The candidate informational statement:

(a) Must be no longer than a single, typed page;

(b) Must not contain any defamatory, libelous or profane information; and

(c) May be sent with the secret ballot mailed pursuant to subsection 11 or in a separate mailing.”
Of course, although Statutes limit the association’s responsibility to distribute a “candidate informational statement” to 1 page, it was SCA’s previously stated policy in 2010 to include 2 pages per candidate. The Real Estate Division Compliance Section has advised me that 2 pages are acceptable as long as all candidates are rigorously treated equitably.

Of course, I have no objection if you decide to offer all candidates an equal opportunity to submit revised flyers for this second ballot package. But, under the extremely tight 2-week re-voting period, it is essential that my revised flyer be included in the second ballot package, and not be mailed separately–as authorized by statute.

Please initiate your completed action promptly and confirm that my revised flyer will be included in the second ballot package mailings. Your revised voting deadlines might need to be revised once again if you continue to delay in honoring my respectful request per NRS 116.31034 and NRS 116.31175.

I am confident we all understand that the SCA board election process can be subject to many kinds of external reviews and possible revisions to ensure fairness and equitable treatment of all candidates. Let’s pull together, treat people equitably, and get the ballot and voting process done exactly right–this time around.

Sincerely,