(REVISED on August 31, 2010)

On August 28, Forrest Featherolf’s article on the Anthem Today Blog asked if the Board Hearing held during the August 26, 2010 Sun City Anthem (SCA) Board Meeting was a “Charade”?  Here is the link you can copy into your browser:
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2037&start=0

While the board did perform a “ridiculous pretense” of an honorable hearing, the board actions certainly were NOT entertaining. Instead of calling it a charade, pretense or fiasco, perhaps a better question might be, “Did the Board commit a “fraud” by holding (and proceeding to completion) the unjustified and unauthorized hearing? A partial definition of fraud that might apply to this case could be: “an intentional deception made to damage another individual”.

Board President Jack Troia read his opening statement for the hearing by accusing Norman McCullough of violations of the SCA Rules and Regulations Section IV, A. paragraphs 3, 5, and 8 and Article III, Section 3.6 of the Declaration (CC&Rs).  Click on following file name to hear Troia’s statement of violations:
[1] Troia’s Charges

But, when reviewing the following files containing those cited sections, it is plain that they do not contain rules related to such member misconduct and/or assaults on SCA community property.  It should also be remembered that Board VP Roz Berman was the 2009 President, and Caren Carrero was 2009 Assistant CAM, when ALL of the member code of conduct rules were removed from our governing documents.  They can not deny knowing that there was no basis for the assault charges in the SCA governing documents.  This appears to be a possible case of “intentional deception” and willful abuse of association resources against Norman McCullough and SCA members.
[2] Section 3.6 of Current Declaration
[3] SCA 2009 Rules & Regulations, Section IV, A

At various times during the meeting, certain members and Norm McCullough’s attorney advised the Board (and the attending RMI/CAM, the Board’s Director-Attorneys, and the Association Attorney) that nothing could be found in the SCA governing documents to provide a legal basis for the charges and the hearing.

The following files contain (1) former Director Bob Frank’s written challenge to the board’s authority (during the first member comment period) to conduct a hearing and punishments on cases of “assault and battery”, and (2) Forrest Fetherolf’s reminder (during the final member comment period) to SCA’s director-attorneys (Ann Small and Jerry Gardberg) that “intent” was a critical element in the evaluation of assault cases by law enforcement. Forrest had pointed out during his statements that Ms. Carrero did not claim to have suffered any kind of injury, she did not claim to believe that Norman intended to assault her, and she did not file a police report.
[4] Frank’s Statement
[5] Featherolf’s Statement

Also, the two witnesses for Ms. Carrero (Assistant RMI/CAM Skyler Jewell and Director/Treasurer Dan Forgeron) did not report on, or suggest they observed any “intent” by Norman McCullough to assault or hurt Ms. Carrero. In other words, no one was alleging that Norman was truly intending to conduct an assault.

By the end of the hearing,
(1) there was significant doubt that Mr. McCullough ever touched Ms. Carrero,
(2) there was no perceived intent for Norman McCullough to assault Ms. Carrero,
(3) the board’s rationale for holding the hearing and charging Mr. McCullough was bogus, and
(4) the board appeared to be abusing its power, wasting SCA resources, and apparently retaliating against Norm McCullough for complaining for over 3 years about board mismanagement of the Villas contract and the SCA Reserves Funds. If confirmed, that would be a clear violation of NRS 116.31183.1 and would allow Norman to recover his legal expenses from the association under the authority of NRS 116.31183.2.

In summary, it appeared that the Board, RMI and the participating director-attorneys were willfully violating NRS 116 and SCA governing documents by conducting an illegal “hearing”. Because of the attorney time and efforts needed by both sides to prepare for the hearing, tens of thousands of dollars of member dues were wasted on an unjustified/unauthorized legal process.

Was this an example of fraudulent conduct, or just an old-fashioned case of gross negligence? Either way, it appears that board misconduct on this matter may have created potential liabilities for all those involved, and for those who failed to object when they knew better.

We believe the community should consider this affair to be a very significant ethical failure by the Board President, fellow directors, RMI, and the association law firm. Certain individuals should be held accountable–so that it never happens again.