Should Such a Law Become an Official Sun City Anthem Rule ?

What is AB 395...and How Will It Affect Sun City Anthem Residents ?

Let me begin this article by stating these are opinions. Not being attorneys, this is not intended to give a legal conclusion; these are practical interpretations, and are not to be construed as legal advice.

With the permission of Anthem Today forum owner, Rana Goodman, we would like all of you to be aware of a Nevada law that could have a substantial impact on the residents of Sun City Anthem, in addition to, so many others who reside in our state.

This law has to do with HARASSMENT.

Whether you believe this is GOOD law, or a BAD law, is immaterial.

The fact remains, IT IS THE LAW...as of October, 2013.

Following Rana's article on Anthem Today, we have our own comments, and want to ask yours as well.

Here is a condensed version of that law.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Chapter 116 of NRS is hereby amended by adding
 thereto a new section to read as follows:

A community manager, an agent or employee of the
community manager, a member of the executive board, an officer,
employee or agent of an association, a unit’s owner or a guest or
tenant of a unit’s owner shall not willfully bully, intimidate,
threaten or otherwise harass any other person who is the
community manager of his or her common-interest community or
an agent or employee of that community manager, a member of
the executive board of his or her association, an officer, employee
or agent of his or her association, in his or her common-interest community.

or

...another unit’s owner in his or her common-interest community or a guest or tenant of a unit’s owner in his or her common-interest community.

A person who violates the provisions of subsection commits a public nuisance and shall be punished as provided in NRS 202.470.

As used in this section, “bully” means to willfully act, or engage in a course of conduct which is not authorized by law,which exposes another person one time or repeatedly and over time to one or more negative actions which is highly offensive to a
reasonable person and which:

(a) Is intended to cause or actually causes the person to suffer
harm or serious emotional distress;

(b) Places the person in reasonable fear of harm or serious
emotional distress; or

(c) Creates an environment that is hostile to the person.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Comments from Rana Goodman (within the article):

At the last legislative session AB 395 was passed and it will go into Nevada law in October. At last night's board meeting I was told that Dan Forgeron suggested that the law be placed as part of SCA's rules and regulations. It is my feelings that he made this suggestion to protect the board and staff from harassment, and that is fine but I would caution that it can be a double edge sword. In effect, we would have our "code of conduct" back, but with more severe penalties. How would something that the state considers a misdemeanor also fall into our rules? Additionally, from what I have heard, the courts are having issues with this law since it might balance closely on free speech issues. 

This brings to mind, although in retrospect, Norman McCullough, Doris Vesico, and currently our resident monitors claims of a "hostile work environment."

 In my opinion, a double edged sword indeed!

--------------------------------------------------------

This article was analyzed by Forrest Fetherolf, our Mr. Fix-It.

Forrest, prior to owning his own construction company, was a Los Angeles Police officer for a number of years, before being forced into retirement due to suffering severe on-the-job injuries. 

These are Forrest's opinions.

Another thought regarding AB395... If the Board should elect to incorporate this bill into our governing documents and an incident occurred resulting in a criminal prosecution and a guilty charge, could the SCA Board be held liable for failing to take action as part of their fiduciary duty to enforce our rules and regulations?  Can  SCA be held liable if they choose to sanction someone and later discover the criminal prosecution was dismissed or found not guilty? If this law had been in effect when an elderly citizen was suspended from Anthem Center usage for six months and forced to pay a fine based on governing documents rules that were not in existence, I believe he would have had  grounds to file both civil and criminal charges. Posting on blogs and emails containing derogatory or threatening comments constituting “bullying” and “harassment” should also  carefully consider the broad effects of AB395. Both those who identify themselves, and those faceless names might wish to cease spewing "trash talk" without supporting evidence.  and may be identified through a subpoena process and prosecuted for such actions. It may be possible that blog owners are also included in the prosecution process for allowing this crime to be committed (Aiding and Abetting). The parameters to enforce this law will come in time after case law can be used as a reference.  Until then…who knows how far one can go before they are prosecuted and found guilty of SB395.

Anthem Opinions general commentary:

It has been said that the "road to hell, is paved with good intentions", and that appears to be the case here.

Is the intent of the law... good?

We believe it is, and if that was the extent of the legislation, we would whole heartedly support it.

...but as all of us know...."intent" is a debatable subject, and the role of "free speech" under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, would also enter into the legality of this law, if tested.

We believe that these issues must be fully examined before being enacted by our board of directors...because they too, as individuals, may also face action...without insurance coverage to protect them.  No insurance policy covers an illegal act. 

Remember...this law pertains to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

We have a difficult time in believing a board of directors should hold the power to penalize an individual under a criminal act....that is what we pay a police department to do; rather, we believe they should report it to the proper LEGAL authorities and allow them to make the determination as to whether or not to go forward in any way. 

So...would it stifle free speech...would it solve the problem of rude commentary on blogs...should it be tested in court before we deem it a part of our community official rules and regulations...or should we abandon the entire idea?

We don't have the answers...but we'd like to hear your opinions.

Just click on the "comment" section, or if it's easier, send us an email.

We'll gladly post it for you.

Allen Weintraub & Dick Arendt