Board’s “Kangaroo Court” Thursday, 6 PM, August 26

According to the Board Meeting Agenda item VII. for 6 PM on Thursday, August 26, there will be a “Public Hearing”.  That is all it says.  No mention of who, what, or why.

Such a notice is a flagrant violation of NRS 116.31083.5 which says “5.  The agenda of the meeting of the executive board must comply with the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 116.3108.”  NRS 116.3108.4 says:

“4.  The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of:

      (a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, including, without limitation, any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any fees or assessments to be imposed or increased by the association, any budgetary changes and any proposal to remove an officer of the association or member of the executive board.

      (b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.”

After investigation, it was discovered that the target of this secret “hearing” is SCA member, Norman McCullough.  He was previously notified by the former Community Manager, Caren Carrero, of her allegation that he had “physically assaulted” her on May 27, 2010.  See this letter for the details.
Carrero Allegation

After reading the above letter and interviewing Norman McCullough, we have learned the following:

1.  Ms. Carrero claims to be writing on behalf of the SCA Board of Directors about her personal (criminal?) complaint that a hearing would be held by the Board and that action would be taken by the board “based solely upon the information before it on the day of the hearing.”  But, such a letter exhibits a clear conflict of interest and should never have been sent.
2. Norman McCullough denies that any kind of physical assault or confrontation occurred.
3. The letter requires Norman McCullough to submit his defense in advance of the hearing, but does not require the complaining person to submit detailed allegations in advance of the hearing.  How could anyone prepare for a prosecution by the Board if the allegation details are not provided prior to the court hearing?
4. As a result, Ms. Carrero’s allegation failed to cite any specific details of the alleged “physical assault”, failed to cite any statute or SCA governing document paragraphs that Mr. McCullough is alleged to have violated, and failed to cite any witness statements to substantiate her allegation.
5. To schedule a hearing without allowing the accused to know the details of the allegation, and without allowing the accused to  review the witness statements, without allowing the accused to submit rebuttals to the allegations prior to the hearing,  is a gross violation of basic due process by the Board and the Community Manager.
6. It is doubtful that the SCA Board of Directors has any jurisdiction over a criminal complaint of “physical assault” on SCA property.  And, since the Board did not require Ms. Carrero to file her complaint with the Henderson Police Department, the hearing process appears to be bogus.
7. After extensive searching, no member of the community can be been found who observed any kind of physical confrontation during that day, or any other day, between Norman McCullough and any other human being.  Norman has a reputation of being a deeply religious man who never gets involved in any kind of physical confrontations with men or women.
8. Norman has a digital recording of the board meeting that did not get shut off until after the alleged assault period of time.  If someone had been physically assaulted, one would expect loud yelling, complaints, and much commotion to be heard.  But, it is claimed that nothing of the sort can be detected.
9. The letter notifies the board will deliberate in secret after the hearing and announce its judgment afterwords.  The letter also threatens that if the board determines “a violation occurred“, the board would notify him in writing and that for “this type of violation (of the unstated rules or statutes) there may be monetary or other sanctions.”
10. The notice concludes with “IF YOU FAIL TO PAY ANY MONETARY PENALTY IMPOSED AGAINST YOU, THE ASSOCIATION MAY ELECT TO COMPEL YOUR COMPLIANCE BY RECORDING A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY OR BY TAKING OTHER LEGAL MEASURE TO COLLECT THE MONETARY PENALTY.”

So, we have to ask, is this not a classic case of a KANGAROO COURT?  Who would Norman McCullough appeal to if the judgment is unfair or illegal?  (Answer: no one.)

Is this another example of the failures by attorney Ann Small and former attorney Jerry Gardberg?  Have they forgotten their legal educations?   Do they have no sense of justice, fairness or due process?  Could Norman McCullough or some other member consider this to be a candidate for a Nevada Bar Ethics complaint against Director/Attorney/Former Judge Pro Tem Small?

A definition of the term “kangaroo court”is found on the Internet under wikipedia.org:

“A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead court-martial, refers to a sham legal proceeding or court. The colloquial phrase “kangaroo court” is used to describe judicial proceedings that deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one’s own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal. The outcome of a trial by “kangaroo court” is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all. “

This entry was posted on August 25, 2010 at 00:44 and is filed under Ann_Small, Truth Squad, SCA Board, Community Affairs, Laws & Rules. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

| Print