The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that cover Home Owner Association (HOA) activities do not provide for owner dissent to Board actions/activities. As a voice of dissent, anyone who challenges the Home Owner Association Board of Directors within their community is given various, and not very flattering, labels. To oppose a Board action from inside the confines of the HOA is risking isolation and ridicule. However, when the Board does not act in the ‘best’ interests of the community, there should be a way to have a meaningful dialogue with the entire community aware of the actions, both positive and negative. That is what a minority voice does to inform the others and ask that they make an informed decision.
What’s this got to do with ArrowCreek?
We are being asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on revised CC&Rs and Bylaws. Indeed the President of the HOA has provided a position on voting ‘yes.’ That position, stated in a response to an arrowcreek411 member (identified only as “vote no”) comment (not of my hand), indicates that the accounting controls and ‘prohibitions’ of the ArrowCreek Governing Documents and NRS would prevent a future Board from contracting with the Non-residential area (Golf course) owner to provide HOA funds to support operations of that corporation. However, a close evaluation of the President’s response reveals the following facts:
1.) Internal controls of the ACHOA are absolutely consistent with sound accounting policies and practices. They are also consistent with the current governing documents but may need some minor tweaking to accommodate approved changes. These do not restrict the Board’s power to issue or engage in contracts (certainly direct cash transfers are prohibited by numerous laws and accounting practices).
2.) The revised Governing Documents add a new purpose, and responsibility, to the ACHOA and consequently the Board of Directors. That new purpose is “When such action would benefit the community and the purposes of the Association, the Association may take such action to cooperate with Nonresidential Area Owner for any purposes detailed in this Declaration or NRS 116.” This is a vague and unlimited additional purpose of the HOA and most definitely fits within the Articles of Incorporation as an additional purpose, so there’s no conflict or restraint on the Board if this is approved.
3.) NRS 116.3102 & .3103 define the power of the Unit Owners’ Association and of the Executive Board. Within these sections of the NRS is found the power of the Board to issue contracts within and for the community’s interests. What’s pointed out is a conflict of interest clause. However, the ACHOA attorney has narrowly defined a ‘conflict of interest’ as a person having a direct financial interest in the action to be taken. Since no member of the Board is a ‘stock holder’ in the corporation that owns the golf course, there would be no conflict of interest ruling should a contract be let to provide services for the benefit of the community.
As this is a minority opinion, you are being urged to think carefully before voting ‘yes’ and encumbering your property with potential future dues increases or special assessments. If you voted prior to the redline document being made available, you are entitled to change your vote, one time.
Thank you for reading and trying to understand a ‘minority’ opinion and do VOTE!!