Readers: Now that the Henderson Mayor and members of the City Council –some of whom have communicated with me on the subject- have received and discussed the letter sent to them regarding Rana Goodman, I am acting on the suggestion of several friends who recommended publication of the letter.
As any reasonable person will see, the letter is moderate in tone, factually accurate, does not seek Ms. Goodman’s removal from her position on a City advisory commission, and is definitely not a petition.
The Mayor and each City Councilor received their own copies of the letter. Unlike the actions of those who operate in secrecy or operate in the shadows, I believe this document deserves to be shared. Please understand that as the letter points out, it is not a freedom-of-speech issue, but rather a matter of what is appropriate behavior for a person appointed to a City advisory commission which is supposed to speak for the interests of all Henderson senior citizens.
One of the decisions I did make in conjunction with sending of the letter was to not provide it to a number of local media outlets as originally intended.
---------------
November 30, 2010
Dear Mayor and Councilors:
The undersigned signatories are all residents of Sun City Anthem (SCA), and the purpose of this letter is to express our concerns over what we believe to be unacceptable behavior by fellow SCA resident Rana Goodman, an appointed member of the Henderson Senior Citizens Advisory Commission.
Ms. Goodman owns and publishes one of several online blogs/forums that serve our SCA community. Her blog is titled Anthem Today, and its Internet address is www.anthemtoday.com. As the owner and publisher of this communication channel, Ms. Goodman holds ultimate responsibility for the content posted on her publication, including the authority to remove or delete offensive or inappropriate material.
In a community such as ours, with 7,144 homes and about 13,000 residents, it is inevitable that differences of opinion will arise over the policies and decisions of our elected HOA leaders. Most of our residents are fully capable of expressing their differences in a respectful, responsible manner, and they demonstrate this capability when they have strong opinions to share with our elected leaders and their fellow residents.
As is their right, Ms. Goodman and the vast majority of those posting to her blog are quite vigorous in opposing SCA management and operational decisions. This is an ongoing expression of their collective freedom of speech, and they are breaking no laws in doing so.
But Ms. Goodman has recently allowed articles to be posted on her blog which are so extreme as to anger a wide segment of SCA, especially those of the Jewish faith but also many of other faiths. Specifically: She permitted an article to be published which, in expressing disagreement over the temporary suspension of our SCA community website message board until a method of moderating the messages can be devised, compared our Board of Directors' action to the murder of millions by Adolf Hitler in The Holocaust. The article was illustrated with a cartoon showing Nazi soldiers beating Jews in the street and two photographs of concentration-camp prisoners.
Several residents who lost family members in The Holocaust were among those who were outraged by the article.
After a firestorm of protests ensued, with Ms. Goodman refusing to remove the offending article, the writer of the article removed the images and instead changed the slant of his writing to compare our Board's actions to McCarthyism, illustrating the revised article with several images from the McCarthy era.
Ms. Goodman did not write the offending articles, but she has, on a continuing basis, tolerated these types of written attacks which diminish the level of discourse in our community and refer to community leaders and residents who disagree with her viewpoints on many issues in the most vile and near-defamatory terms.
You might ask why we are putting our names on this letter to you (reverse side). It is not a petition, and we are not asking that Ms. Goodman be removed from her volunteer position on the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. Rather, we want to put ourselves on record as believing that as a member of a body that is supposed to be sensitive to the issues and concerns of Henderson's senior citizens, her tolerance of such divisive behavior is not sending the right message about what our wonderful city and its dedicated volunteers and elected leaders stand for.
Ms. Goodman's partner Richard Arendt writes that the letter defames her, but in his typical superficial fashion does not give even one example of anything in the letter that is defamatory.
If Ms. Goodman believes she is defamed, she has the right to do what I did when I was defamed, which is to sue for defamation. Since she shows no interest in face-to-face discussions, there is nothing I'd like better than to put her through the legal discovery process, as I have nothing to hide myself.
Arendt also rails about the fact that I did not publish the names of those who added their electronic signatures to the letter. Aside from the fact that I had no authority to publish the names, this is typical hypocrisy from the man who made a case for not revealing the names behind the failed effort at a Board of Directors removal election.
But then, Arendt was never one to apply the same standards to himself that he demands of others.
Posted by: David Berman | December 11, 2010 at 07:52 AM
We have lived in SCA for 11 years now and truly enjoy the community and what it has to offer us at this time of our life. We have lived in many other communities where there was an HOA, but not like this one. One would think that during the retirement years, one would want to enjoy life for the time each of us has left here on earth. Unforthunately, there still remains a select few who are unhappy souls and have to find fault in something and them make a big deal of it. I do not appreciate the negativity that these kind of people generate and choose not to get involved with the likes of them. Thank you David for remaining fair and balanced in your reporting the issues and facts. It is greatly appreciated.
Posted by: Marla | December 11, 2010 at 07:52 AM
Thank you, Marla, for your thoughtful comments. Hardly a day goes by when I don't meet residents who express their pleasure -even their joy- at living in such an enviable seniors community.
And in Board election after Board election, the silent majority ratify their feelings by voting for stability and, in the process, marginalizing the hostile minority.
It is a blessing, in my opinion, that "they" refuse to comprehend the fact that those who moved here for our unparalleled lifestyle don't respond well to insinuations that the community they brag about to their friends and family is ridden with crime and malfeasance. Any advertising/marketing expert would tell you that if you have literally bought into something you like, even love, suggesting that you made a mistake does not sell the product they are marketing.
Our community is not perfect, but then, neither is life itself. But we will always be on the plus side as long as we have volunteers who approach issues without bias and are willing to work cooperatively on the challenges that arise.
Posted by: David Berman | December 11, 2010 at 08:24 AM
I know you will slam me for saying this David but even if the letter was NOT defamatory, it WAS mean spirited and although you did not ASK to have her removed from the commission from which she was appointed many feel that was the intention of the letter. I'm very glad I did not add my name and contrary to what you said to me before, I was thinking about doing so based on the pictures, but did not feel SCA business should be taken outside of our community.
Posted by: Harvey1965 | December 11, 2010 at 08:46 AM
If I were to slam you, Harvey, I would not be true to my pledge to welcome differing opinions as long as they are expressed in a civil manner. Therefore you may THINK you know I will slam you for your opinion, but you are wrong.
Your observation about not taking SCA business outside the community is worth thinking about if you take the time to honestly consider that "going outside" is the methodology of the Goodman/Frank/Stebbins/Orth, etc. crowd. One or another of them, over a period of several years has gone to the media with distorted and false accusations that wound up in newspapers or on television. Some of them have gone to the IRS, the police, the FBI, the Attorney General, etc.
In addition, they have actively reached out to interfere with process in order to attack and demean others.
Let's use Favil West as an example. When Favil was a candidate for appointment to the City Council, some of them wrote letters to the Council attacking Favil and giving their reasons why he should not be appointed.
More recently, Nelson Orth appeared at a meeting of the Commission for Common Interest Communities and Condominiums, on which Favil sits as a member -a meeting broadcast over the Internet- and stated during citizen comment period that Favil conducted a "reign of terror" when he was President of the SCA Board of Directors.
How do you feel about that, Harvey? What frustrates me sometimes about the criticisms of well-meaning folks like you is the lack of even-handedness and proportionality when addressing the issues that concern you. If you want to take me on with what I'm sure you believe are constructive comments, why aren't you commenting about the behavior of others in other forums, too, across the board?
The Rana Goodman situation is a singular case in which the letter-signers and myself believe her membership on an appointed City commission makes notification to the City Council of her behavior in the community a valid thing to do.
And how can you say you believe the "intention" of the letter was to have her removed from her commission, when the letter EXPLICITLY states that it is NOT the intention? Could we have been any clearer than that? You are being unfair in the extreme if you impute an intention when the document goes out of its way to state the opposite. If you want to say you don't believe me, despite what the letter says, then I guess I just can't win where you are concerned.
I was directly asked by one City Councilor, before she had seen the letter, if we were seeking Rana's removal from the Commission, and I replied that the letter specifically states that we are not. But I would hope that Rana would not seek reappointment when her term is up later in 2011, and if she does, I would hope that her divisive behavior would cause her not to be reappointed.
From a political standpoint alone, don't you think it would be counter-productive to put elected City officials in the awkward position of having to consider removing someone when the better route is to let her serve out her term and then act on a possible reappointment?
Bottom line: I respect your opinions on the subject, but I am disappointed at your lack of even-handedness.
There is a misconception among some that I hate Rana Goodman. I don't hate her at all, though recent actions of hers, which I have not written about, make it clear that she hates me. Rather, I feel sorry for her in the sense that a person with so much to give has also done much to squander the good will she once had. She lobbied for creation of a standing committee and then proceeded to help sabotage and destroy it. Her attacks on others have diminished the good will toward her from the Current Events Club and the Women's Club. She draws lines in the sand with an uncompromising approach that allows hostilities to fester and spread. And she fails to understand the difference between free speech and responsible free speech, with the result that she causes hurt and pain to others. -- But I always remain optimistic that no one is beyond redemption, even Rana Goodman.
Posted by: David Berman | December 11, 2010 at 09:30 AM
Let's see the reverse side of the letter.
Posted by: Tim Futrell | December 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM
The reverse side of the letter contains the names of the signatories. I do not have permission from the signatories to release their names. They can do so on their own if they wish, and I imagine that, one way or another, this information would eventually find its way into print.
End of story.
Posted by: David Berman | December 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM
It seems to me to be somewhere between unfair and improper to release a "letter" without divulging the names of the signatories to the letter. Reading the signatories is part of the way that neutral parties judge the bonafides of the letter.
So you are saying that the signatories gave you permission to release the letter, but not their names?
How cunning on their part!
How gullible or culpable on your part!
Posted by: Tim Futrell | December 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM
That's pure hogwash, Mr. Futrell. If you don't think the letter stands on its own merits, for better or worse, than you are incapable of evaluating its contents for yourself. I published the letter because (1) the Goodman/Arendt group made an issue of my not doing so; (2) those whose judgments I respect suggested that I do so; and (3) I first confirmed that all the addressees had received it and read it.
Arguing over who signed it is a smokescreen. The "bonafides," as you call them, are in the text of the letter, and if you want to dispute those facts, I'd be happy to engage you.
If several of the signatories are Jews who were deeply offended by the Holocaust comparisons in the offending post that triggered their angry response, why should they expose themselves to more abuse just because you have a belief that they should do so? That's what the Goodman/Arendt crowd does; they are incapable of having rational discussions about issues, but instead spend their time attacking individuals who dare express different opinions from theirs. Who are you to pass judgment on them, or on their sincerity? The Mayor and City Councilors received the letter with names included, and it is what THEY think that matters, not what you think. But as I've often said to folks I believe are unreasonable, go and start your own blog and run it any way you wish. That's what freedom of speech is all about, even when practiced by Goodman and Arendt. Basically, who signed the letter is none of your damn business as far as my releasing the names is concerned. Sorry it displeases you so. Meanwhile, I will continue to serve my 3,000 readers who seem to appreciate being informed about our community.
Posted by: David Berman | December 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM
I'm starting to see some comments and e-mails that are personally offensive to both me and Rana Goodman. If that's how some of my readers want to play this, I will have to consider cutting off the discussion. I will not allow personal attacks on either of us, as that is not the subject of this thread.
One person included a sexual innuendo, which may be tolerated on other blogs but not here. This person used a phony e-mail address, which also indicates that it is probably a well-known person pretending to be someone else.
As further evidence of how far some will go to interfere with others, there were some recent nasty comments appended to one of the videos posted to my YouTube account. I have deleted those comments, blocked the senders, and notified YouTube's fraud and abuse department.
Posted by: David Berman | December 11, 2010 at 02:50 PM
A section of an article on www.zdnet.com on WikiLeaks. I found this to be a rather apt description of some of the events occurring in our own community. Read, reflect and become inspired:
------------------------
Coincidentally, I saw a TV program last evening: The War You Don’t See made by John Pilger, a British war correspondent. It talks to the way in which media is manipulated, whether overtly or otherwise. Media comment is interesting:
Pilger’s starting point is that all governments are shysters whose only interest is economic and all journalists are witless dupes. My own suspicion is that the reality is more nuanced: that self-delusion is an abiding principle of the human condition. Politicians convince themselves they are acting within a moral framework even when they clearly aren’t and journalists believe they are telling an objective truth; so the narrative that emerges is a collusion of mutual self-deception.
Posted by: RoseAnn Hill | December 15, 2010 at 10:45 AM