“Premature” to Explain a Dangerous HOA Weapon, Claims NRED
Yet that is how Nevada’s HOA regulator responded when asked to explain the new health, safety and welfare regulation.
FOX5 News in Las Vegas asked the Nevada Real Estate Division to discuss R091-25. NRED declined the interview, saying it would be “premature” to comment while the regulatory process remains pending before lawmakers.
That deserves an explanation. The Commission already held what NRED itself called the September 9 “Adoption Hearing.” It considered R091-25 and voted to approve the regulation. NRED’s own website continues to identify September 9 as the adoption hearing for R091-25. Read more: A Dangerous New HOA Weapon — and Owners Are the Target
So what exactly is premature?
The Policy Decision Has Already Been Made
NRED led developing the rule. The Commission debated it, changed it and voted to adopt it. FOX5 News then asked NRED to explain to Nevadans what that language means, and the answer was that commenting would be “premature” because the matter remains pending before lawmakers.
When did “pending before lawmakers” become a reason for the regulator to stop explaining its own work?
Lawmakers are not being asked to rewrite the regulation or substitute their own policy judgment for the agency’s. Their upcoming role is limited by law. Under NRS 233B.067, the Legislative Commission reviews an adopted regulation to determine whether it conforms to the statutory authority under which it was adopted and whether it carries out the Legislature’s intent in granting that authority. It is not a second rulemaking body invited to improve the language because members might prefer a different policy result.
If the Legislative Commission objects, the regulation is returned to the agency. Under NRS 233B.0675, it is then the agency that must revise the regulation to conform to statutory authority and legislative intent and resubmit it for review.
Calling comment “premature” sounds like NRED wants the benefit of legislative approval before it has to publicly defend the regulation it already chose to adopt.
Nevada HOA Owners Deserve an Answer
If regulators are not prepared to publicly explain and defend the language after voting to adopt it, why were they prepared to approve it?
The health, safety and welfare provision is not an academic exercise. If it becomes effective, HOA boards may use it to impose enhanced fines on owners. Owners have asked what limits board discretion. They have asked who decides whether conduct meets the HSW standard. They have asked what protections exist when a board gets it wrong.
And now FOX5 has asked the regulator responsible for the rule to explain it. The answer should not be: Too soon.
After an agency has solicited public comment, defended its proposal through multiple hearings, changed the language and voted to adopt it, explaining what it approved is not premature.
It is accountability. And accountability is the issue running through many of Nevada’s HOA problems.
When regulators decline to answer whether a board had the authority it claimed, that is an accountability problem. When “advice of counsel” becomes a reason not to examine whether the law was followed, that is an accountability problem. When owners are told they have rights but must spend thousands of dollars trying to enforce them, that is an accountability problem. And when regulators approve a rule giving HOA boards extraordinary discretion, then decline to publicly explain what they approved, that too is an accountability problem.
Nevada does not simply need more HOA laws. It needs people inside the system willing to explain, enforce and stand behind the laws and regulations already in place.
________________
Related Readings:
Nevada’s HOA Regulators Have Abandoned Owners (coming soon)
