Board Says "NO" to Campaign Signs
To return to Today's Anthem View, use your brower's back button or Click here: http://www.scaview.org/pages/Today'sAnthView.htm
In the "Leave a comment" space provided below, residents are invited to comment on the article, Board Delivers Blow to Personal Property Rights, Saying "NO" to Some Political Signs. This article may be viewed on our website by Clicking on this Link: http://www.scaview.org/CampaignSigns.html
Sorry, I mistakenly left out a key sentence that states that Ron Johnson had already said it all in his lead article to this blog area. NRS is the controlling direction. End of discussion.
During the last Board Meeting, Mike Dixon, Roz Berman and their board majority and the CAM manager declared that the SCA ARC rules limiting homeowners to one political sign per yard was the final word for this campaign year. They have been proven wrong--AGAIN!
Here is what candidate John Briggs has reported that NRS 116.325 says about political signs:
"NRS 116.325 Right of units’ owners to exhibit political signs in certain areas; conditions and limitations on exercise of right.
1. The executive board shall not and the governing documents must not prohibit a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit from exhibiting a political sign within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner or occupant has a right to occupy and use exclusively if the political sign is not larger than 24 inches by 36 inches.
2. The provisions of this section establish the minimum rights of a unit’s owner or an occupant of a unit to exhibit a political sign. The provisions of this section do not preempt any provisions of the governing documents that provide greater rights and do not require the governing documents or the executive board to impose any restrictions on the exhibition of political signs other than those established by other provisions of law.
3. As used in this section, “political sign” means a sign that expresses support for or opposition to a candidate, political party or ballot question.
(Added to NRS by 2005, 2585)"
Note: more than one independent candidate has previously cited Mr. John Leach's recent comments during the CC&R workshop about this particular statute section. Leach also mentioned that the law did not intend to restrict a homeowner to only one sign per yard.
If after reading this quote anyone still thinks that the ARC guidelines over-ride this law, I would like to see the explanation.
Otherwise, this law section provides the end of the debate on political signs.
Ron,
I agree with what you wrote about the candidates' signs. During the BOD meeting I went to Lorraine who is the head of the election committee and complemented her for standing up for the truth and her convictions.
Was I ever wrong about our president when I voted for him last year. In spite of all his protestations that he is doing what he is doing for the best of our community, this is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. We are not fooled by this emperor. We can see that he has no clothes. Mike is undermining our community. All he had to say is that John Leach said that the issue is ambiguous and therefore let it go until it could be dealt with at a later date.
Mike Dixon in my opinion, squandered an opportunity to bring some healing to the divisive atmosphere in this community.
Rivka Wolf
Rana Goodman asked that I post her comment since she is having difficulty logging on.
This issue of the signs is really one of a dog chasing its tail. It’s a foolish exercise of spite as I see it. Because based on our president’s own words at the meeting on the 27th, he was merely attempting to prove the point that HIS interpretation, of NRS 116.325, and the Community Wide Standards is correct.
When Mrs. Dickey stood up in resident comment time, breaking Robert’s Rules, and jumping in on her two minutes, he asked where she heard that the compliance dept. would be sending notices to homes displaying more than one sign. Is this not the normal procedure? If not, why was the issue raised in the first place? If so, let’s look at that for a moment…. How much time would it take in man hours for RMI to locate the addresses of homes supporting and displaying signs for more than one independent candidate by posting their sign in their yard? Add the cost a of sending a notice to that resident, time taken to mail the complaint, wait for a reply.. GEE, I think the 30 days is up and the signs are down, ELECTION IS OVER. So what is the really all about? Once again we have wasted time and money and the ONE MAN WHO OPINION HAS NEVER BEEN IN DOUBT THE OUR BOARD UNTIL NOW, JOHN LEACH, our association attorney, said that the term “A” sign DOES NOT signify a quantity.
That said, the board is right in one respect, ARC needs to revisit this issue, but NOT in the middle of the election. The argument that the community will be overrun with homes displaying dozens of signs per lot is nonsense since there are never more than 4 open seats on our board. 4 signs should even suffice in a National election, such as we have now.
And bottom, bottom line, when you have a board of 7, with 6 declared supporting specific candidates, they cannot in all good conscience vote on this issue, in our community wide standards or not. This debate come under the auspices of the Election Committee and that is where it should have stayed. MICROMANAGMENT ONCE AGAIN! We have a super Election Committee; let them do their job unabated for once.
Rana Goodman