SCA’s NEW BOARD MUST TERMINATE ADAM CLARKSON

[Rana Goodman]

SCA’s NEW BOARD MUST TERMINATE ADAM CLARKSON (CLG)

By Forrest Quinn

For the past five years or more, every elected SCA Board member promised a version of transparency, openness, full disclosure, accountability, etc. Yet, despite SCA’s residents voting year after year for transparency and openness, SCA’s attorney, Adam Clarkson, worked to undermine those promises. Recently, Clarkson is a lobbyist/proponent for SB 417 which is revision to Nevada common interest community law (HOAs).  It restricts the SCA’s residents’ desire for transparency by:

1. Eliminating free access to the association’s electronic documents and records.
2. Blocking access to SCA employee salaries and hours worked.
3. Treating free speech as unlawful bullying/harassment.

See: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/Bill/10426/Text

The accounting records are unclear, but SCA has paid about $1 million in various CLG legal fees over time.   If the governor signs SB 417 pushed by Clarkson, SCA homeowners will have fewer rights, and he can generate more fees. Some gratitude, huh?

The three noted changes above suspiciously benefit SCA’s staff. Consequently, SCA’s Board should investigate whether SCA’s staff had any role in this legislation that reduces our rights. For example, did staff advise or consult with an attorney, lobbyist, trade association, legislator, etc., to pass SB 417? If they did, they should be terminated.

I previously noted the COO doesn’t work 40 hours at the office and that her employment contract is an Association document available to residents. SB 417 seems tailor-made to protect the COO from my observations. Really, how many other Nevada HOA managers have massive and controversial employment contracts? (See the changes to NRS 116 below: removed text in red, blue is added text).

NRS 116.31175 (4)   The provisions of subsection 1 (unlimited access to documents) do not apply to:

4. (a) The personnel records of the employees of the association, except for those records relating to the number of hours worked and the salaries and benefits of those employees;] including, without limitation, employment contracts, information regarding the salaries and benefits of employees an any other information concerning the employees of the association;

One reason SCA transitioned to self-management was because the previous management company would not disclose onsite employee salaries. So, wouldn’t it be ironic if our staff worked behind the scenes to thwart an intended benefit of self-management?

Finally, two more items the Board should disclose:

1. Did any SCA Directors help pass SB 417?
2. Did SCA directly or indirectly fund the process in any manner to develop, draft or pass SB 417?

[Author]

Posts