Former Sun City Anthem
President
Questions Legality of
Recent Board Executive Session
On July 20, 2017 we learned that Favil West sent an email to Sandy Seddon, questioning the legality of a recent executive session of the Sun City Anthem Board meeting.
He requested the email be forwarded to
members of the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors for review and
clarification.
According to his correspondence, Mr.
West noticed a formal notice was sent to members of
the Association at 12:38pm regarding a meeting
that was to be held at 12:15pm on the same day,
July 13, 2017.
Having had experience as a former
member of the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors, he questioned the content of
the meeting, citing the purpose of the notification
was...
"to discuss to a legal letter concerning
employee liability".
West questioned whether such an issue
would fall under the purview of an executive session under NRS 116, politely
requesting what section of the Nevada law applied.
He also asked for a copy of the "legal letter" under which the Board held the
meeting.
The Board itself,
did not respond.
Why didn't the Board respond to his reasonable and
legal request?
Subsequently, he received an email from
the association attorney stating NRS 116.31085(4)
justified the meeting.
Anthem Opinions researched this section
of the law.
It
reads:
"An executive board
shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of
governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged
violation requests in writing that an open meeting be conducted by the executive
board. If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests
in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the
person:
(a) Is entitled to attend all portions of the hearing related to the
alleged violation, including without limitation, the presentation of evidence
and the testimony of witnesses;
(b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards, adopted
by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the
right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present
information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing
panel; and
(c) Is not entitled to attend the deliberations of the executive
board.
Just exactly what does this section of
NRS 116 have to do with Mr. West's REASONABLE
REQUEST?
In what way DOES IT
APPLY to his question?
Did the Board NOT have a legal basis for conducting the meeting, and then
scramble by contacting the association attorney AFTER THE FACT, hoping the attorney might come up with
one...
...spending
association funds to cover their tracks?
Perhaps that might have been the reason
for The Board's lack of response.
Note these three allegations specifically summarized in the Removal Petitions:
Holding secret meetings without agendas, public notices, and
excluding Members from observing Board
meetings
Making decisions at
these secret meetings
Incurring excessive attorney fees
Incurring excessive attorney fees
Are these accurate allegations of board activity?
To all our readers, we
ask you to ask yourselves, are we as unit owners, being legally MANEUVERED in
order to justify acts that we wholeheartedly believe are both ILLEGAL and
UNETHICAL by a group of individuals whose main objective is both CUNNING and so
DESPERATE, that they will stop at nothing to maintain their corrupt
system?
Still looking for a
reason to Remove Weddle, Nissen, Waterhouse, and Burch from the Sun City Anthem
Board?
This is just another
one.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
Want to sign the Removal
Petitions?
Send your request to the
Removal coordinator, Robert N. at:
Robert N.
Coordinator
Got a comment on this
article?
Send it to us
at:
scaopinions@gmail.com
-
Mr. West,
Thank you for posting your article on this blog. I've signed the petition and hope by doing so I won't be targeted by the names on the petition(s) in the future.
What I wonder, Mr. West, is how we can get the message out to the full complement of residents, should the petition prove fruitful and the recall happen. The Board, as we have already seen with the Treasurer's (incorrect in much) email, can easily reach out to everyone. Should there be a movement to send out a direct mail to all the residents I would personally be glad to donate to postage, but is there no other way?
Once again thanks for standing up.
Mr. West,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting your article on this blog. I've signed the petition and hope by doing so I won't be targeted by the names on the petition(s) in the future.
What I wonder, Mr. West, is how we can get the message out to the full compliment of residents, should the petition prove fruitful and the recall happen. The Board, as we have already seen with the Treasurer's (incorrect in much) email, can easily reach out to everyone. Should there be a movement to send out a direct mail to all the residents I would personally be glad to donate to postage, but is there no other way?
Once again thanks for standing up.
Lawrence Peterson