- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
By: Robert Stern
Greetings Homeowners,
First of all, Mr. Berman supports Michelle Sharples for the Board. Why can’t I support Ms. Sharples?
In my lunch with her preceding the 2025 election she denied any financial interest relating to Masterpiece Cuisine. That turned out to be untrue, and her disclosure statement did not present any potential conflicts. The SCA attorney admits that fact. She, at that time actively withheld that information.
Another 2025 candidate at the time made the same allegation. SCA has POLICY and PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY. Among other things it states:
- “A Candidate Must, in Good Faith. Disclose Any Financial, Business, Professional, Personal Relationship or Interest That Results or Would Appear to a Reasonable Person to Result in a Potential Conflict of Interest for the Candidate”
The Policy further states “a candidate statement that did not include disclosure of the same, the candidate’s failure to disclose shall be considered willful/intentional and not in good faith.”
Many homeowners distrusted Ms. Sharples and still do. She has not and will not act in their best interests as homeowners. If you read the policy on the website there is a lot more that disqualifies her as a candidate which requires the Board and CAMs to not allow her name to appear on the ballot nor serve on the Board. In NRS 116. The SCA attorneys confirm that law. Based on the facts, she is currently ineligible to serve.
The Board in its mishandling of this matter for purely political reasons would have you believe that SCA counsel properly addressed that issue and concluded that she was eligible.
In a letter to me dated February 11 counsel Gregory Kerr doesn’t even mention the SCA Candidate Eligibility policy. He only mentions NRS116. After reading his wrongful conclusion I sent him a response pointing out him his error. Now believe me if he thought I was wrong he would certainly sent me a follow-up telling me I was wrong. He didn’t. And he was and is still wrong. The Board wants to tell you the lawyer blessed Ms. Sharples in good faith. That did not happen.
I was so convinced of the wrongdoing that I requested on February 3rd that Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), notorious for doing nothing to protect homeowners, go to court for an injunction consistent with NRS116 because a violation consequence is imminent. It has been clear from the beginning that this Board and this lawyer will not follow the law. And as anticipated that is, in my opinion, exactly what happened on Thursday.
Much to my surprise today, February 27, NRED’s Deputy Administrator emailed me a letter providing the pathway to an Injunction by asking me to file a properly sworn NRED form affidavit with supporting documentation and providing SCACAI(SCA) a certified copy.
They are ready for the notary and will be mailed Saturday. Will NRED follow through? I’ll be shocked if they do. The one-way homeowners can protect themselves is exercising their right to vote. It’s as easy as 1,2,3 and ballots come out later in March. I’m voting for candidates #s 1,2,3. And unlike David, I do not support Ms. Sharples.
Our governance has issues and is flawed, but this is the best approach for this election cycle. I hope you will join me and spread the word. It’s as easy as 1,2,3. Please vote and get 1 other neighbor to vote. It’s a mess but it’s our mess and only we can fix it or minimize the damage. That choice is yours. Spread the word…1,2,3
Robert
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.