Board Kills Charter Club

We all have a sense of what fair play is all about. Even governments have a pretty good understanding of what they can and cannot do when it comes down to issues of life, liberty and property. This is no less true when talking about local governments. But when we get down to association government and Sun City in particular, the issue of fair play become somewhat blurred for reasons that remain unclear.

Most of you will be surprised, if not shocked, to learn that our Board recently voted to kill one of Sun City's charter clubs. There is no other way to explain the actions of the Board on the 18th of August when they advised the Business Development Club that they could no longer meet. There was no call to discuss matters, nor was there any invitation to investigate the facts or to attend a hearing. Simply stated, the Board killed the Business Development Club by taking away the only thing that makes any club here meaningful—their right to meet as a charter club.

The recent actions of the Board relating to the Business Development Club raises a number of very troubling issues, one of which I will address here. That issue is one of due process, a procedural guarantee well understood and practiced at all levels of government. The fundamental precepts of due process consist of reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, ordinarily before a fair and impartial decision maker. These reasonable procedures are based on the concept of "fundamental fairness," a concept, by the way, that goes back to 1215 in the Magna Carta.

Here in Sun City we would all like to believe that our Board would practice due process when dealing with our charter clubs. After all, the Board followed a certain proscribed due process when giving life to a charter club. That they should do so when taking that life away would seem no less reasonable, if not mandated. As applied to our charter clubs, due process should include at a minimum the club’s right to be adequately notified of any charges or hearing involving the club, as well as the opportunity to be heard at a hearing prior to the Board making any decision affecting the fate of a club. As I will explain, that simply did not happen in this instance. Sadly, due process was not merely ignored, it was trampled on by the actions of the Board.

Sun City residents, especially those belonging to a chartered club, would like to be assured that before the Board considers taking any punitive action against their Club, the Board will afford their Club a hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In the recent case of the Business Development Club, however, the Board did exactly the opposite. They first killed the Club, then they called for a hearing.

The Board killed the Business Development Club (BDC) by denying the Club their right to hold meetings. Without the many benefits that are available to all chartered clubs, the BDC could not really function in Sun City, at least not under the protective umbrella of the Association. That the Board took this action without due process is evident by their initial letter to the Club, dated 18 August. In that letter, Board President Favil West could not have been more clear when he wrote as follows: [See Favil West's letter, dated 18 Aug.]

“The Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc. Board of Directors is hereby canceling all meetings of the Business Development Club effective today, August 18, 2006.”

The Board’s action in denying the BDC the right to meet without a hearing goes to the heart of the issue—whether any Sun City Charter Club is at risk of being denied due process prior to the Board taking some type of adverse or punitive action against the club.

I believe the Board’s action in terminating the right of the BDC to hold future meetings was an abuse of discretionary power. While there are other procedural and process issues involved in this matter, I am focusing on the one act that effectively killed the BDC. I say this not from a legal perspective, but from a common sense perspective since the Board’s action was accomplished without any regard for due process.

As such, the Board’s action against the BDC raises the unseemly specter of the Board having taken an arbitrary and capricious action since there was no prior hearing scheduled to bring forward the Board’s concerns, the facts on the issues, or the Club’s response. The Board, acting as the judge, jury and executioner, prejudged the outcome of any hearing. Ask yourself this question, “Was the Board’s decision the type of decision the Board should make without affording a charter club a hearing?” While the answer is obvious to me, “No,” regardless of how you may answer, the question for Sun City residents is whether this is an example of how we would like our Board to operate in this or in similar situations when the Board gets piqued, concerned or upset at your Club for whatever reason?

But, you may ask, did not the Board call for a hearing that I say now was denied the BDC? And wasn’t that hearing held on the morning of the 15th of September? Yes, there was a hearing on the 15th but that hearing, at least in the mind of the Board, was designed to deal only with the Club’s charter and was limited to the single issue of showing cause why the BDC charter should not be revoked. That first event (West's letter cancelling all BDC meetings that was sent almost 30 days earlier) had a much more profound and real impact on the Club's life by denying them the right to function as a charter club (since they could no longer hold any meetings), while the second, hearing event dealt with a procedural matter of the Club’s charter. However, from the Club's perspective, both issues were addressed by the Robert Frank's legal counsel at that hearing on the 15th of September, as reported in David Berman's Anthem Journal article (see P. S. below).

To those of you who are looking between the lines and attempting to distinguish between these two events, you will come to notice that the Board by their action in canceling the BDC meetings without due process essentially made moot or unnecessary their call for a hearing on the Club’s charter. What this means is that Board does not really need to hold a hearing on the Club’s charter, let alone the need to come to any consensus or decision on the matter, since they have already, by fiat and without a hearing, denied the right of the Club to hold future meetings as a charter club. In other words, the Board can sit back and do absolutely nothing, having already effectively accomplishing what they had set out to do—to kill the Business Development Club. Regardless of where you may stand on the matter of the BDC, the Board's actions and denial of due process is a real threat to us all.

In closing, please consider this. Since the Board cannot take away a Club’s charter without due process, should the Board be able to accomplish the same thing through another means without affording the Club that same measure of due process? Clearly not, but that’s exactly what happened here. While due process is intended to protect against arbitrary governmental actions and prevent abusive governmental power, Sun City’s governmental actions in this matter carry with it the stigma of being both arbitrary and abusive and should not be embraced or tolerated.

What can you do as a concerned resident? If you are concerned about the denial of due process in this matter, or the plight of the Business Development Club, you can show your support by attending a previously planned very special event of the BDC that was subsequently cancelled by the Board, but is now resident underwritten, that is open to and should delight all Sun City residents. The "So You Want To Be A STAR" event with Jaki Baskow, Las Vegas' top talent agent and one of the world's top ten star brokers, will take place at the Anthem Center this coming Monday evening on the 25th of Sept. at 7:00. Your support of this event will be greatly appreciated. To see an informative flyer for this event, CLICK HERE.

For disclosure purposes, I am a member of the Business Development Club, which I, like others, joined for business related matters, in my case, in connection with my operation of a nonprofit corporation consisting of this website.

P. S. For additional information concerning this matter, you may read a companion article reprinted here from David Berman's Anthem Journal. Companion article., as well as the letter to the Board from Robert Frank's legal counsel. Legal counsel letter.