The Norman McCullough Public Hearing

It could have been a circus …but it wasn’t.

It could have been tumultuous …but it wasn’t.

It could have been disrespectful …but it wasn’t.

Instead, residents attending the August 26 monthly Board of Directors meeting were observers at a rare public hearing of charges brought against a resident for alleged violations of Sun City Anthem governing documents.

Resident Norman McCullough, defending himself against the charges, elected to have his hearing conducted in public, and he also exercised his right to appear with his attorney and a woman I presume to have been a court reporter to record the hearing.

Throughout the entire hearing, the Board, Mr. McCullough and his lawyer conducted themselves with dignity and professionalism. The audience of residents, several of whom spoke on behalf of Mr. McCullough during the member comment period that preceded the hearing, also exercised complete respect and courtesy, with no interruptions or outbursts of any kind.

The hearing began with Board President Jack Troia reading the charges against McCullough, indicating that an alleged incident in which McCullough approached former Community Manager Caren Carrero after the conclusion of the May 27, 2010 Board meeting and poked Carrero in the back from behind, constituted a violation of SCA’s governing documents.

As testimony unfolded, it appears that some sort of incident between McCullough and Carrero arose over Mr. McCullough approaching Carrero to complain that he should have been allowed a second opportunity to speak during the second Member Comment Period, after he had already spoken once during that period. McCullough’s claim was that because statute allows unit owners to “discuss” the comments made by other speakers, “discussion” means there should be more than one opportunity to speak. The matter McCullough indicated he wanted to discuss was a comment by another resident who had recommended that Villas and Pinnacle residents not be allowed to choose their own representatives for advisory councils that were to be formed.

After Board President Troia recited the charges and governing-document citations concerning Mr. McCullough, he read into the record three affidavits in which the affiants described what they saw and heard. The affidavits were from Caren Carrero, Administrative Assistant Skyler Jewell, and Board Member/Treasurer Dan Forgeron.

The affidavits are similar but not identical. Due to their similarity, however, I have chosen to include only one audio clip, in which you will hear Jack Troia reading Caren Carrero’s affidavit.

Caren Carrero Affidavit

 

Following the reading of the three affidavits, Mr. McCullough was invited to speak. Dressed in suit and tie, he placed his family bible on the lectern and delivered a prepared statement in which he gave his version of the incident and, among other things, stated he had no recollection of touching Caren Carrero in any way. Even if he had, he said, the touching would have been incidental and without malicious intent.

Here is the audio of Mr. McCullough’s statement:

Norman McCullough Statement

 

Following this, the Board was addressed by McCullough’s attorney, Ryan A. Hamilton, who was also respectful and non-confrontational in his comments. Among other things, Attorney Hamilton echoed his client’s comment that even if there had been a touching incident, it would have been innocent in nature and would not have reason to the level of constituting an assault.

Hamilton played a recording of the relevant portion of the May 27 Board meeting, taken from McCullough’s recording device, including comments exchanged between Carrero and McCullough. After which Hamilton asserted that the recording showed no evidence of the touching incident as alleged.

Attorney Hamilton claimed that some of the governing-documents citations given by Board President Troia at the beginning of the hearing were invalid due to the fact that the cited provisions had been deleted from Sun City Anthem’s Rules and Regulations about a year earlier.

Hamilton also requested that three directors recuse themselves from the post-hearing deliberations for the following reasons:

• Dan Forgeron, because he is one of the three people who submitted an affidavit.
  
  
• Roz Berman, because her husband is pursuing a civil lawsuit against Mr. McCullough.
  
  
• Jack Troia, because he was involved with the Reserve Study look-back group where Mr. McCullough frequently appeared to make complaints about past reserve-study issues.

Here is the audio clip of Attorney Hamilton’s presentation on behalf of his client:

Atty Ryan Hamilton Statement

 

Following the completion of the full Board-meeting agenda, the Board went to a room backstage to deliberate the charges against Mr. McCullough, resuming its executive session which had been suspended earlier in the day. Dan Forgeron and Roz Berman recused themselves and left the building while the deliberations were underway.

Jack Troia stated that the results of the hearing will be mailed to Mr. McCullough, and this reporter expects that I will not be able to report the results until Mr. McCullough has received his letter and has shared the information with others in the community, meaning that I will pick it up second-hand.

---------------

Reporter’s Comments: I am giving my personal impressions because I am certain that the deliberations have been completed, and thus I cannot influence the outcome.

It appears that this was a weak case. There may not have been convincing evidence that Mr. McCullough had an intent to assault or even touch Ms. Carrero. If it cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault was committed, or anything beyond a touching, it makes for a speculative case, and our Association should not punish based on speculation.

It also appears, based on my own research, that most of the governing-documents references McCullough’s attorney claimed are no longer operative, are in fact no longer in effect, although Section 3.6 of Sun City Anthem’s CC&Rs, cited in the statement of charges, is currently in effect.

I could envision one of three possible outcomes affecting Mr. McCullough.

• He is found not to have committed the alleged act.
  
  
• He is found to have committed the alleged act but is let off with just a strong warning.
  
  
• He is found to have committed the alleged act and is the recipient of a relatively mild sanction, certainly not a cash fine as allowed under our governing documents.

If the four Board members who considered the evidence find that there was an officious touching of a paid staff member by a resident, even if not intended to do her harm, then the Board might be faced with the challenge of a punishment that sends a message while not being too extreme. But even if Mr. McCullough is completely exonerated or let off with a light sanction, it would still serve as an admonition to residents regarding their interactions with staff employed by RMI Management.

Comments

[MARILYN LINDEMULDER]

It may be that Ms Carrero was touched on the back to gain her attention but it does not rise to the extent of assault. I suggest that RMI hire staff more sensitive to the interactions often encountered with seniors who often touch one another to get their attention. Especially in a room with many people talking at once. I have been tapped on the shoulder myself at noisy events and never considered it an assault even when it was a stranger.

[BeverlyD]

I know you seem to always take what I say as nasty David, but this is not meant to be so. I have read our CC&Rs several times since this was first reported and can find nothing addressing it since the "code of conduct" was set aside. I really don't believe Mr. McCullough would have been guilty of anything under a "code of conduct" violation from what I heard at the meeting. His tone was not rude and Caren did not sound upset at all.

[David Berman]

Beverly, are you suggesting that you read Section 3.6 of the CC&Rs and didn't pick up the applicable language?

You might want to read it one more time. I'm not saying I know whether Mr. McCullough did or did not violate that provision, but it would certainly form the basis for charges to be brought. The outcome of the charges remains to be seen.

While we're on the subject of violations, I've done a little research myself and can't find anything from you commenting on the fact that Roz Berman and Roger Cooper were completely exonerated after Frank and Stebbins charged them with criminal acts. Do you have any thoughts on that important subject that you can share with us?