SCA is Vetting candidates Because????

[Rana Goodman]

UPDATE 2/10/21: I have been referred to the Real Estate Division’s investigator to check the legality of this “vetting.” When I receive a reply I will post it here.

———————————————————–

I am at a loss to understand why the SCA board of directors believes it is necessary to have the board’s attorney “vet” the members wishing to run for the board of directors. Nevada Revised Statutes make it very clear what is required by members wishing to volunteer for this job and prior to the hiring of attorney Adam Clarkson I cannot recall any time that this “vetting” was done.

With the huge amount of expenditures SCA has had over the past couple of years, I am questioning the excessive amount we pay, far and above what is budgeted for legal fees, yet at “the drop of the hat,” or rather let’s say not bothering to “trust but verify” what a lawyer tells them. 

All one needs to know regarding the qualifications to serve as a board member is published and up-dated after each legislative session, I will even supply the link to make it easy for them to find it in the future. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Legal/LawLibrary/NRS/NRS-116.html#NRS116Sec31034

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 116.31034 states the following:

 Election of members of executive board and officers of association;  eligibility to be candidate for or member of executive board or officer of association; required disclosures; 

Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5 of NRS 116.212, not later than the termination of any period of declarant’s control, the units’ owners shall elect an executive board of at least three members, all of whom must be units’ owners. The executive board shall elect the officers of the association. Unless the governing documents provide otherwise, the officers of the association are not required to be units’ owners. The members of the executive board and the officers of the association shall take office upon election.

The term of office of a member of the executive board may not exceed 3 years, except for members who are appointed by the declarant. Unless the governing documents provide otherwise, there is no limitation on the number of terms that a person may serve as a member of the executive board.

 Not less than 30 days before the preparation of a ballot for the election of members of the executive board, the secretary or other officer specified in the bylaws of the association shall cause notice to be given to each unit’s owner of the unit’s owner’s eligibility to serve as a member of the executive board. Each unit’s owner who is qualified to serve as a member of the executive board may have his or her name placed on the ballot.

 If, at the closing of the prescribed period for nominations for membership on the executive board, the number of candidates nominated for membership on the executive board is less than the number of members to be elected to the executive board at the election, the executive board may fill the remaining vacancies on the executive board by appointment of the executive board at a meeting of the executive board held after the candidates are elected pursuant to subsection 5.

Any such person appointed to the executive board shall serve as a member of the executive board until the next regularly scheduled election of members of the executive board. An executive board member elected to a previously appointed position which was temporarily filled by board appointment pursuant to this subsection may only be elected to fulfill the remainder of that term.

If, at the closing of the prescribed period for nominations for membership on the executive board described in subsection 5, the number of candidates nominated for membership on the executive board is greater than the number of members to be elected to the executive board, then the association shall:

      (a) Prepare and mail ballots to the units’ owners pursuant to this section; and

      (b) Conduct an election for membership on the executive board pursuant to this section.

Each person who is nominated as a candidate for membership on the executive board pursuant to subsection 4 must:

      (a) Make a good faith effort to disclose any financial, business, professional or personal relationship or interest that would result or would appear to a reasonable person to result in a potential conflict of interest for the candidate if the candidate were to be elected to serve as a member of the executive board; and

      (b) Disclose whether the candidate is a member in good standing. For the purposes of this paragraph, a candidate shall not be deemed to be in “good standing” if the candidate has any unpaid and past due assessments or construction penalties that are required to be paid to the association.

 The candidate must make all disclosures required pursuant to this subsection in writing to the association with his or her candidacy information. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the association shall distribute the disclosures, on behalf of the candidate, to each member of the association with the ballot or, in the event ballots are not prepared and mailed pursuant to subsection 5, in the next regular mailing of the association. The association is not obligated to distribute any disclosure pursuant to this subsection if the disclosure contains information that is believed to be defamatory, libelous, or profane.

[Rana Goodman]

Comment 2/11/21

WHAT HAPPENED TO KISS???

So?  What if a candidate refuses to be vetted by the SCA attorney?  Can my attorney vet the existing board members since the were never vetted by SCA counsel?

What a croc!!  Can a candidate be kept off the ballot for refusal to answer questions of Counsel? Perhaps a law suit should be filed to reign in those who fear from the responsibility of their actions…
Spending frivolous dollars to seemingly try to cover their asses in case some future board member goes off his rocker or is a deceiver…Perhaps vetting by A psychiatrist would be more appropriate…

All joking aside…It’s like the fox guarding the hen house, like; “you really need to follow my rulings if you want to be an acceptable board member” Or any other innuendo you want to take from the vetting…

SCA owner past 17 years…

———————————————————————————————————————

Why does it require an expensive attorney to “vet” an applicant for a BOD position? When did they change the rules to make that a requirement, and should that require a vote?

How many billable hours does the attorney estimate it will take to vet each and every candidate? IMHO it would be more practical and money smart to set standards and then have a private investigator or trustworthy person check the biggest vote getter prior to appointment. A PI or background research company would be MUCH LESS per hour than an attorney PLUS the Board attorney should not be used due to potential conflict of interest.

Gary K.

———————————————————————————————————————-

UNBELIEVABLE! They WANT TO “VET” candidates?  Interesting. And yet, renter move in and out of community, Do they “VET” them?  Apparently not, as I live next door to one of those homes that has a revolving door. We have an on sight mgr that makes a ridiculous amount of $$$, can’t imagine what the other “staffers” make.   They do virtually nothing as far as I am concerned.  Just voicing my opinion

J.K.

[Martin Winger]

Is this the “new norm” to vet the members of our community before they serve?  Who and why did this occur?

Does the SCA community coffers have so much money they need to find places to spend it?

It is not only disgusting, but appalling that the “cancel culture” has intruded into the SCA lifestyle.

Is it appropriate to let us homeowners how much “these” legal fee’s cost?

So sad to read this.

 

[Rana Goodman]

Marty,

You have the right to request the documents, you just have to submit in writing that you want the legal fees paid and in what year.  The one time I did that several years ago John Leach was the boards attorney and most of the data was redacted…… But it is worth a try.

In the interim I have written to the legislative counsel to see if this is even legal since it is, in a way, interfering with an election process which is NOT LEGAL.

Rana

[Author]

Posts