The Trumpets Workshop.

A quite large number of residents turned out for the two board workshops on Trumpets, demonstrating broad community interest and concern over the board's intentions and options in acquiring a restaurant operator.

Rather than conveying to us what the board members were thinking about what should be done following Boulevard’s withdrawal, we were presented with a number of options, from self-management, contract management, leasing, to converting the space into alternate use. These options were presented by designated board members as much for discussion purposes among the board rather than as hardened advocates for the positions they were presenting, although that distinction was not always clear. David Berman in his David's Anthem Journal provides a very helpful and informative summary: The Trumpets Workshop

Carl Weinstein, speaking more as an advocate for the lease option, led us to believe that all he needed was a go ahead and he already had a potential lessee to our liking who was virtually waiting in the wings ready to sign on as our new restaurant operator. Roz, however, stressed that the board had made no decision on the matter of how the board would proceed in this matter.

Bob Frank took a different approach, presenting in some detail a well thought out identification of the terms and conditions of a service contract management approach to restaurant operations. To read Bob's comprehensive proposal, Click Here.

Speaking on the lease option at the beginning of the workshop, Roz Berman attempted to allay homeowner concerns raised first by John Briggs in his letter to Boulevard and then by me in my July report. Instead of putting this matter to rest, however, I believe it is fair to say that Roz Berman was actually feeding the smoldering fire with fuel. If I understood Roz correctly, she told the audience that she had already answered my July repeat of Briggs’ objections in her email blast to the community on June 5th and that there was no need to respond further. In other words, Roz had nothing further to contribute, let alone any legal support to offer for her conclusions that she had adequately addressed the Briggs issue. In the end, I concluded that Roz Berman was merely blowing more hot air.

Anyone reading that Berman email blast will quickly discover one central thing: President Roz Berman failed to discuss, let alone mention, or even allude to the problem raised by John Briggs. The Briggs problem, the one NOT addressed in Roz' email blast, was the application of NRS 116.3112 to board actions that would convey the use of certain common element property from the Association to a lessee for the operation of a restaurant. Roz mentions other NRS sections, but somehow avoids the key section on homeowner approval that Briggs had raised in his letter to Boulevard. Why would Roz not address the central issue of securing homeowner appoval raised by Briggs?

Among other unrelated use issues, Berman’s email blast also dealt with the right of the Association to lease, an issue NOT raised by Briggs in his letter to Boulevard Group. Neither Briggs' letter nor I have disputed the right of the Association to enter into a lease. Strangely, Roz' email blast addresses the right of the Association to lease. But no one, least of all Briggs in his letter to Boulevard, was challenging that right. One is tempted to conclude that Roz believes that if she can convince enough people that she had successfully addressed the Briggs issue by telling us so, homeowners will soon begin to believe her. I do not believe were are that stupid or dumb witted.

The issue raised by Briggs and NRS 116.3112 addresses an entirely different issue from the one Berman alluded to in her comments to the audience at the board workshop. While I had addressed the Briggs issue in my July report, prompting Roz' statement to the audience on leasing, Roz completely avoided the Briggs issue by citing her prior email blast as support for her erroneous contention that she had already addressed the issue raised by Briggs. Roz Berman did not then nor did she do so at the Trumpets Workshop.

If the Association wants to lease, that’s fine and leasing is permitted under NRS and our CC&Rs. The only thing Briggs addressed was the apparent need, pursuant to NRS 116.3112, for the Association to obtain homeowner approval in order to lease. Roz' email blast did not address that issue, nor did Roz address that issue when she raised the leasing issue at the Trumpets Workshop. The key and unanswered question is: Was Briggs correct in pointing out what he claims the state governing statutes require of planned communities? If not, why not?

Perhaps our Association’s attorney John Leach has already answered that question. If so, why is Roz Berman refusing to divulge the legal opinion she claims to have received on this issue?

Is Berman that confused? That's highly doubtful. On the other hand, is she being devious, as was Joseph Gobbles during WWII, in attempting to mislead others into believing something that is simply not true? Tell a big enough lie often enough and you may recruit converts to your cause, or your point of view.

If, on the other hand, Briggs was wrong, why not share a legal opinion that demonstrates to us all the error in his thinking.

Ron Johnson, 24 August 2008

p.s. For those like me who are legally challenged, I prefer to rely on how terms are defined in a legal dictionary when attempting to understand how such terms are used. For example, Black's Law Dictionary takes a half page to define the term "conveyance." Among the definitions included in the dictionary are the following: "The voluntary transfer of a right or of property." Further along, a "primary conveyance" is defined to include a lease: A primary conveyance is "a conveyance that creates an estate. Examples of primary conveyances include feoffment, gift, grant, lease, exchange, and partition." From the 7th edition of Black's Law Dictionary: Click Here to see all definitions of the term "conveyance."