The High Cost of Speaking Out

Introduction

Many Sun City residents are all too familiar with the widely acclaimed BBC series from Granada Television called Prime Suspect, in which the internationally acclaimed actress Helen Mirren stars as tough-talking Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison. Prime Suspect is seen locally on PBS’s Masterpiece Theatre, actually tonight, Sunday at 9:00 p.m.

While Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison helps to protect the innocent by solving crimes in Prime Suspect,  Sun City residents must rely on a different mechanism for their protection against charges of abuse or harassment. For Sun City, any redress from such allegations is dolled out by our Board of Directors in the form of corrective or punitive action pursuant to the filing of a charge of a Code of Conduct violation. Typically, upon a guilty finding, a fine may be assessed and, or there may be a denial of member privileges.

While the Board may sit as an arbiter when there is a dispute between residents, too frequently the Board is prosecutor, jury and judge when the Board is the one that is initiating a charge against a resident. A Board finding or determination on the merits of the charge can be made only following a hearing, as the Association's attorney John Leach has written. The purpose of a hearing is to develop and disclose the facts, facts that are designed to bare on the merits of the charges being alleged. Without a hearing, there can be no such determination.

As we will learn below, protecting the innocent is not what the Board is all about.

Here is What Happened in a Nutshell:

• Nelson Orth files a Code of Conduct violation against Favil West.
• The Board files a Code of Conduct violation against Nelson Orth.
• The Board summarily dismisses Orth’s charge against West.
• The Board refuses to provide requested records.
• No hearings will be held on any of the violations being charged by either party.
• After almost four months, the Board determines that it will “not pursue the alleged violations by Mr. Orth.”
• Incredibly, in that final settlement letter from the Association’s attorney, the Board declares through their legal counsel that Orth has not recently engaged in “additional violations,” leaving the unmistakable impression that Orth was guilty all along of having engaged in the violations originally charged, which on its face is improper, absurd and without foundation.
• Even more incredibly, the Board then goes on to declare that since the violation of serious threats of harm to one or more Directors has now abated, a charge that was never alleged in this case, the Board can only now agree “not [to] pursue the alleged violations by Mr. Orth.”

Lessons Learned

What are the lessons learned? As I view the matter, the lessons are many and represent a very sad turning point for our Community.

• An innocent person can be unfairly harassed by the Board.
• If you are innocent, there can be no expectation for a hearing on the merits since a hearing would expose the basis for the charges being alleged and could challenge the authority of the Board. And if there is hearing, remember that the Board does not sit as an impartial arbiter as one might have in a third-party dispute forum.
• If you seek legal counsel, expect the Board to drag the process out as long as possible until you are willing to settle the case without a hearing that the Board does not wish to hold for any number of reasons.
• Expect the Board to find you guilty by innuendo even though the Board’s legal counsel writes that no such determination can be made in the absence of a hearing.
• Some believe that if you decide to represent yourself in this type of situation, you can expect the Board to ignore you and any pleadings you might make since the Board believes they are not bound by due process and procedural guarantees afforded under law. While that may not apply in all instances, the charged resident can expect a quick resolution along with a guilty verdict, and a fine and, or a denial of membership privileges.  

Nelson Orth Files a Code of Conduct Violation Against Favil West

Having alerted the Board to a matter of personal concern and believing he had been targeted for harassment by a fellow member, Nelson Orth then files a Code of Conduct violation against Favil West for the incident that Mr. West had filed with the Henderson Police Department. 

Mr. Orth must have felt reasonably confident in taking this action since our Rules are intended to protect us from such abuse. In the Code of Conduct section of Article IV, it states that “members will not physically or verbally abuse, harass or accost any resident, guest or staff member.” If filing a police complaint on a resident without cause does not constitute a form of harassment, I would be greatly surprised. Especially, as in this instance, when the sequence of critical events in pursuit of the alleged holiday greetings culprit was, as they say, ass-backwards.

Had Nelson become a true pain in the ass to Favil West prior to the Christmas holiday season, Favil might have had an inch of rope to go on. But, no, Nelson became a real thorn in Favil’s backside after the holiday season. It was at the 23 February Board meeting when Mr. West presented the results of the SCA Traffic Study Report. Here we have Mr. Orth rising to the mic not merely to oppose the findings of the Report and the Survey's validity, but to say that he has communicated his views directly to officials of the City of Henderson. We learn that it was only after these free-speech, open mic events by Mr. Orth that Mr. West decided to file a police report and finger Nelson Orth as a likely suspect in the alleged holiday caper that happened four months earlier.

Ten months after the alleged crime, we learn from the Association’s attorney in October of 2006 that the Christmas holiday greetings caper, that might be considered by some as nothing more than black or gallows humor (sick, morbid or macabre) rather than posing as any real threat to anyone, had apparently risen on the scale of alleged criminality. According to Mr. Leach, the Board now claims that the holiday greetings caper constituted “serious threats of harm both to person and to property” committed against “one or more [members] of the [Board of] Directors.”

However, in the context of the June '06 "verbal abuse" case against Mr. Orth, the raising of that issue for the first time stands out as quite bizarre since there was never anything developed that linked Mr. Orth to the sending of those offensive holiday greetings.  

The apparent seriousness of the holiday threat was not apparent to Mr. West until after Mr. Orth spoke at the 23 February Board meeting in opposition to the Board's intention to send their "stop sign" request letter to the City. One must assume that the holiday greetings incident was of trivial consequence at the time, but became a "serious threat" in hindsight following the filing of a police report four months later. If the authorities had understood the threats as "serious" when the incidents were reported four months after the fact, they did not indicate that by their actions since dismissal of the case was recommended upon submittal of the police incident report.

I happen to know that as the publisher of The SCA View-Journal, some of our valued subscribers on occasion find fault or disagree with this or that editorial or opinion. Even Mr. West will let me know when I'm wrong. While some have taken the time to let me know what they think of me, which I appreciate, most who disagree are silent, preferring either to ignore me or to express their displeasure in other perfectly acceptable ways, like sharing their thoughts with their spouse or others.

Mr. West has a similar problem but for far different reasons, except that the extent of dislike by some residents has reached an extreme level. I hope that no one will be surprised to learn that Favil West has for some time been a polarizing lightening rod in the Community, with strongly held views held at both ends of the spectrum. As a result, he faces a constant challenge to be ever so responsible in making decisions that can have an affect on other members of our Community.

Following the police investigation, which case was requested closed by the intake officer pending further developments (that did not materialize), Nelson filed his Code of Conduct complaint against Mr. West on 15 May, hoping, naively I believe, that the then current (old) Board would be able to take action. The timing, however, could not have been worse for Nelson since Favil West was now on his way to become the President of the Association. The 4 May election results were already in and Mr. West would soon have a majority on the Board and the Association’s presidency by the end of the month when the new Board would meet for the first time.  

With that complaint already on record, at least Mr. Orth would be assured that a hearing would be scheduled and the facts would come out, right? Wrong! To the dismay of Mr. Orth, there would be no hearing. The Board, it seems, had summarily dismissed the complaint on the basis that they “did not find any validity with the complaint.” Apparently it did not occur to the Board that the "validity" of the complaint could not be determined without a hearing. Or, if it did occur, the Board did not care to hold a hearing on the merits of the complaint, thereby summarily dismissing Orth's complaint. Talk about due process. Writing for the Board, Community Association Manager states that “The fact that Mr. West has filed a police report is in the opinion of the Board of Directors no way a form of harassment.”

That decision was made in Executive Session on 25 May by the newly elected Board of Directors. However, it was not communicated in writing to Mr. Orth until the 12th of June.

Round Two—The Board Retaliates Against Nelson Orth

If you do not recall my final thoughts in Part I on the future fate of Nelson Orth, I’ll repeat them here:

"If Nelson thought he had been unwarrantedly targeted by Mr. West, he had only to wait and see what being targeted was all about when the power of the Association was subsequently brought to bare against Mr. Orth."

By certified letter dated 7 June, apparently based on that same Executive Session on 25 May, Mr. Orth is advised of a Code of Conduct violations against him. The violations is based on the following:

“your use of verbal abuse to Board Members during the homeowners’ open sessions.”

A Hearing date was scheduled for 22 June. While the holding of a Hearing is one thing, the consequences of such a Hearing should not be dismissing lightly. As Mr. Snow relates in his letter to Mr. Orth, “If you were to be found in violation a fine could be assessed and/or other sanctions could be imposed.” I assume Mr. Snow in referring to “other sanctions” was referring to the possibility of losing certain membership privileges. 

While honest people may differ, I and a number of others in attendance, did not see Nelson’s use of the open mic at the 27 April BoD meeting as constituting a “use of verbal abuse to Board Members.” While Mr. Orth, at least in my mind, was rightly upset and concerned about what had recently transpired as a direct result of Favil West’s police complaint, he was remarkably composed under the circumstances and took great care in the manner in which the information was presented concerning his recent encounter with the police.

Most folks charged with any type of administrative rule violation would find themselves particularly vulnerable and ill equipped to effectively respond when accused of a Code of Conduct violation. Some residents faced with such a charge, guilty or not, may feel resigned not to pursue the matter for any number of reasons. Others may feel they can adequately represent themselves in a Hearing environment, relying on whatever the outcome as likely being “fair” under the circumstances.

And then we have those persons who are unwilling to be intimidated by a Board-initiated charge of a violation. But why might someone want to challenge the authority of the Board? After all, in bringing the Code of Conduct charge in the first place, hasn't the Board already made up their mind? One's belief in their own innocence, of course, might be a good reason. Another reason might be the realization that the Board, in a Hearing on a Board-initiated charge of a violation for “verbal abuse” of the Board, might not be the fair or impartial arbiter one is looking for to dispose justice. In such a situation, who would doubt the potential bias of the Board and the likelihood that the outcome of any hearing would a foregone conclusion.   

So, it would be no surprise that Nelson Orth sought legal assistance to address the many issues that were raised by the accusation of his having been engaged in “verbal abuse to Board members . . . . ” 

Mr. Orth happens to believe, and I tend to agree with him, that were it not for that legal advice he so dearly paid for, his fate left solely in his hands and the hands of the Board would have turned out quite differently and he would have suffered even more than he did in round one with that unwarranted police investigation. 

Having been accused of “verbal abuse,” one would assume the Board, RMI, or at least the Association’s attorney John Leach for that matter would know what constituted  “verbal abuse” in this instance. But when Nelson’s attorney asked for that bit of information and much more prior to the June Hearing date, the anticipated flow of requested information failed to materialize. In fact, there never would be a response from the Association to the request for information, as noted by Nelson’s attorney who reminded Mr. Leach of his client’s failure to respond when she wrote Leach on the 17 of October.

Faced with a failure to respond, one might conclude there was nothing to the charge of “verbal abuse” in the first place. As the attorney for the Association, Mr. Leach may have concluded, the Board’s charge was much to do about nothing, or conceivably, that any attempt to enforce such a charge in a Hearing situation under NRS would be difficult. The Association may have been faced with a different problem as well. One theory suggests that if the  Association had gone forward with a Hearing and that process had failed to sustain their charge on the record, the Association might be faced with an adverse precedent that it may not wish to live with in future hearings on similar Code of Conduct violations.

Checking with NRS, there is no such thing as a definition of “verbal abuse” per se. And when the term is defined in state statutes, it is defined only within the context of “verbal and mental abuse.” And when so defined, it is defined only within the education regulations related to disabled persons and to various medical-related regulations. This does not mean that the term lacks any meaning, but that meaning, if limited to how that term is defined under NRS, could pose certain problems for the Association to demonstrate that “verbal abuse” actually occurred in this or in similar cases. As shown below, the term can refer to “utterances that are intended to cause and actually cause severe emotional distress.” Another variation under NRS is that the term refers to “verbal intimidation . . . of a person without a redeeming purpose.” Applying either of these definitions, the Association would be very hard pressed to sustain a charge that any resident committed a violation of “verbal abuse.” While the Association might wish to construct their own definition of “verbal abuse,” such an effort could prove troublesome in view of how the legislature has already defined that term, even if under different circumstances.

Here is how NRS defines “verbal and mental abuse.”

NRS 388.526  “Verbal and mental abuse” defined.  “Verbal and mental abuse” means actions or utterances that are intended to cause and actually cause severe emotional distress to a person. NRS 433.548  “Verbal and mental abuse” defined.  “Verbal and mental abuse” means verbal intimidation or coercion of a person without a redeeming purpose.

Does this mean that residents can get up to the podium and say whatever they please to the Board or any member, as long as there is some “redeeming purpose” to his or hers verbal harangue or tirade? Possibly, at least to the extent that the Association would be required to rely on the meaning given to that term by the NRS and in particular to NRS 433.548, but you may need an attorney to support your position. Under one theory of law, one can only derive the meaning for the term “verbal abuse” as the Nevada legislature has defined that term.
Given the potential problems raised by the existence of those statutory definitions, does this mean that the Board will not charge anyone in the future with a violation of “verbal abuse?” Don’t count on it. The experience of the Board in attempting to enforce Code of Conduct violations does not tell us that the Board is especially interested in being guided by Nevada statutes. In this instance, the Board has avoided that issue by agreeing not to pursue the charge against Mr. Orth.

The Saga Continues

Now that I’ve managed to get off point and have lost some of you in the process, where are we with the continuing saga of Nelson Orth and the Board? With no progress on holding an evidentiary hearing, a fault that belongs with the Association, and no resolution on the outcome in sight, the parties are at a standstill.

We move into September, or a full three months after this process got started, but now with both parties expressing an interest in a arriving at a mutually agreeable settlement, preferably one without a finding of a violation, or at least a dismissal of the charge. So what does the Board want? While some may disagree, I believe the Board is anxious for a way out while at the same time avoiding a hearing that would likely prove embarrassing. And what does Mr. Orth want? Vindication that the “verbal abuse” charges had no merit in the first place. How will this play out in the end? The Board will call the shots.

In Closing the Case, the Board is Vindictive

Did the Board and Mr. Orth eventually come to an agreement? Not really. At best, we can say the parties agreed to disagree to put the (very costly) matter behind them.

While the Board had the option of taking the high ground in bringing a close to Case No. 560, they chose to follow a different path. How do we know that? We know that because the Association’s attorney John Leach tells us so in his letter of 11 October to Nelson Orth’s attorney. What did Mr. Leach write in behalf of the Board?

While advising that the Board will not pursue the alleged violations against Mr. Orth, Mr. Leach incredibly and unbelievably goes on to write the following, with some of our added thoughts included:

• For reasons that are not readily apparent, Mr. Leach falsely alleges that Orth’s attorney was responsible for repeated delays in holding a hearing; placing the blame on Orth’s attorney was an apparent attempt to take the obvious onus off of the Association for their failure to hold a hearing on the merits of the case; such delays and the failure to produce records took their (desired?) toll.
• Mr. Leach notes that the Board has not observed Mr. Orth engaging in “additional violations” of the type allegedly attributed to him in the original notice of a hearing;
• In the above, what does “additional violations” mean? Since there was no finding of “any” violations in this case, it entirely improper for Mr. Leach to refer to the absence of “additional” violations. Here the Board has wrongly and unacceptably suggested that Mr. Orth was guilty of the violations originally charged but without the benefit of a hearing that would have established whether the charges were credible or had merit in the first place;  
• After three months into this process, Mr. Leach brings up for the first time a potential violation that was not raised in the original notice of a hearing. In so doing, Mr. Leach has suggested that, like the original violation charged, this new potential violation has also apparently abated, thereby making unnecessary the “need for a subsequent hearing.”
• In the above, what, pray tell, is this new potential violation? The haunting specter raised by the introduction of this new potential violation should create very serious concerns in the minds of residents about the direction being taken by our Board of Directors. How so? Consider that the original and sole charge against Mr. Orth was and I quote:

“ . . . a Hearing has been scheduled . . . concerning a code of conduct violation regarding your use of verbal abuse to Board Members during the homeowners’ open sessions.”

Given the above sole violation that was charged, how would you understand the relevance and purpose being served by the following statement by Mr. Leach on 11 October 2006:

“Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that one or more of the Directors have been the target of serious threats of harm both to person and to property, the Board of Directors has determined that if Mr. Orth was in fact the perpetrator, the violation has abated and there is no need for a subsequent hearing. Thus, please be advised that the Board of Directors has determined that it will not pursue the alleged violations by Mr. Orth.”

So, if I understand what the Board is saying today through their attorney, if Mr. Orth did the dirty holiday greetings deed ten months earlier, that newly announced violation has apparently abated, thereby allowing the Board to not pursue the alleged violations against Mr. Orth.

Conclusion

I find it terribly sad to see how our Board in ostensibly bringing this tragic matter to a close has gone out of their way to renew their vendetta against Mr. Orth by twisting and convoluting matters (as described above) to reflect scenarios that bare no resemblance to reality.

It’s very disappointing for me to relate that the only purpose I can see by the Board’s engaging in such tactics was to further tarnish and smear an otherwise innocent member of the Community for his initial “crime” of speaking his mind on matters of Community concern. Is that what membership on the Board is all about?

But what can one say about the Board's actions in this case? More than fifty years ago, when commenting on Chairman McCarthy's cruelty and recklessness, Joseph Welch may have said it best when he asked, "Have you no sense of decency?"

Leaving us with a sense of despair, is this how our Board would like us to know them as we move into the new year?

Ron Johnson, 19 November 2006

_____________________________________________________________________________

The High Cost of Speaking Out

During the brief period my wife Olga taught elementary school, she had five mostly very reasonable and understanding principals, leaders she was proud to work for and who provided the staff with a rich and worthwhile educational & working experience. And then there was that one principal, a real gem of an administrator who was not embarrassed in the least to tell his staff that he had no use for you if you did not agree with him, declaring that “you are either with me or against me.” And when Olga refused to cooperate and inform on her teaching colleagues as she was asked to do, she quickly rose to the top of the principal’s enemies list.

There are many ways to get on someone’s enemies list. In Sun City you can do so by speaking out, being contrary, even by publishing a Community website. Enemies lists abound and are nothing new in our western heritage, dating back to Imperial Rome and before. So it should be no surprise to anyone that certain Sun City folks manage to get themselves onto someone's enemy list. For example, if I’m not number 4, or 14 or somewhere down the list of persons who are on Favil West’s enemies List, I would be greatly surprised.

Being on that List is not a sought after or hallmark achievement, especially for residents who would prefer to be able to speak their mind while at the same time staying out of trouble with the Association and certain powers on the Board. In disclosing the real tragedy that happened to Nelson Orth, it is hoped that you will gain some insight into what can happen to just about anyone in Sun City who decides to speak out on Community issues or in defense of their right to do so.

I recently wrote about Larry Cole who spoke out recently at a Board meeting. He did so in a vigorous and persistent manner about his search for and the absence of certain Trumpets financial records, records that should have been but were not being maintained. While the Board saw nothing wrong in acknowledging the missing records, Mr. Cole was rightly outraged. Mr. Cole and others like Larry who may wish to have their voices heard on this or that subject matter might benefit from knowing what can happen when he or she is on that enemies List and wishes to have their voice heard at a Board meeting. While Larry may not be the future target of an attack against him by the Association, one can never really be sure when or who will be the next target of an Association initiated charge of a Code of Conduct violation.

The story I am about to relate tells us what can happen to a fellow resident who has been very outspoken and was clearly on the wrong side of Favil West’s friends and enemies Lists.

The Case of Nelson Orth

Nelson Orth is an outspoken person who can on occasion be irascible and rub people the wrong way. Nelson can be quite opinionated on matters of concern and he is fearless, perhaps to a fault, in calling a spade a spade, at least as he sees the matter. As such, Mr. Orth’s bluntness readily offends rather than enlightens or mitigates a point or an issue that may be in dispute, however major or minor. Few would disagree that Mr. Orth can easily become a thorn in one’s side. Favil West would be no exception.

Now let us fast forward (or go back if you prefer) to early 2005 and the issue of the day, which was the speed limit on our Anthem loop “speedway,” then 45 mph. In February the Anthem Compendium conducted a speed limit survey. In March Mr. West announced his efforts with City officials to slow down excessive speed while at the same time making our major roadways “golf cart legal” by lowering the speed limit to 35 mph. In May the City implemented a 90-day trial period of 35 mph. Following the trial period, both the City and the Association conducted a survey the residents on whether the speed limit on the Anthem loop should be 35 mph or 45 mph. While some residents did not care, many were sharply divided on the issue of safety and speed and what the speed limit should be. In Sept. the Henderson Citizens Transportation Advisory Board made their presentation and conclusions to the community—45 mph. The Association conducted survey had been delayed and was not available to the CTAB. At the February ’06 Board meeting, Favil West finally presented the results of the Association’s survey, along with a proposed letter to the City reporting the survey results and suggestions to control speed on our parkways. So what, you are wondering, does all of this have to do with Nelson Orth?   

As it happened, Nelson Orth had rather strong opinions on the traffic matter issue, as did other residents. So strong, in fact, Mr. Orth confronted the Board during this period about the position they were taking, with Orth favoring 45 mph rather than the “golf cart legal” speed of 35 mph. Mr. Orth found fault with the survey as well as with recommendations for numerous stop signs that would impede the flow of traffic. Not that Nelson was alone in his opposition. He just happened to be more vocal and persistent than others, telling the Board on one occasion that he would oppose their efforts by going to the City. Later in the same month, Mr. Orth followed up his promise to the Board by sending a letter to a City official suggesting that they disregard the Association’s proposals for any further traffic related changes.

While Favil West had been aware from others of Nelson’s somewhat disagreeable disposition, he became more acutely aware of what some may view as his bulldog determination not to be ignored, at least on the issues of traffic, speed and stop signs in Sun City.  

Having just covered much of 2005 and early '06, we need to move back in time a couple of months to the just concluded Christmas holiday season. While many residents are exchanging joyful holiday greetings during this period, at least one unidentified person, presumably an unhappy resident, was sending out some dark, sick and creepy holiday greetings to Favil West. For those who may not recall, this was the year Mr. West had reportedly taken a long break from engaging in certain Board-related activities. This resulted in a very long delay in getting Trumpets negotiations back on track, as well as the failure of the Board to achieve a close, positive, working harmony among Board members. Mr. West, it seemed, was not disposed to cooperating fully with the then new Board. As some of the Board's efforts languished, Mr. West was not above dismissing and dissing the accomplishments of the ruling Board majority team of Dave Weil, David Berman, Lyndall Ruiz and Bob Sansing, also know by some as the gang of four.

Moving forward to April, Favil is actively campaigning for Kay Dwyer and Elaine Berg to become new Board members. Apparently Mr. West had not forgotten Nelson's reproach on the traffic matter he received two months earlier. Perhaps someone in the City shared Nelson's written concerns with Favil. We don't know. What we do know is that four months after the sick holiday greetings caper, Mr. West decided to file a formal complaint alleging he had received a threat with the Henderson Police Department. But without a potential suspect to track down, however, the police would have nothing to do other than to take a report and close the matter for possible future reference. The matter would have ended there.

So what did Mr. West do? While the culprit initiating the threat was unknown, Mr. West was able to “identify” for the record a possible suspect. In fact, there was only one possible suspect identified. That possible suspect would be Nelson Orth.

But why Nelson Orth? That’s not really clear and would it not benefit anyone to speculate on why Mr. Orth (and not another) was identified as the one who was possibly involved in the incident. Perhaps, just as Al Capone was considered Public Enemy Number One, Nelson Orth, in a similar fashion, could have been considered by Favil West as his enemy number one. We don’t know.

As a result of the complaint, Mr. Orth would then became the subject of a police investigation. But did Nelson actually commit the dirty deed? Could it have been someone else. The problem, it seems, was that Mr. West did not know who was responsible for the harassing holiday greeting cards. What Mr. West knew, of course, was that Nelson Orth had opposed his position on traffic issues in the prior year and had actively campaigned against West’s position with the City of Henderson earlier in the year. Despite Mr. West’s many accomplishments for the Community, it was widely known that Mr. Orth did not hold Mr. West in high esteem. And it was true that Nelson Orth was a thorn in Favil’s side.

When Mr. West filed his threat/harassment complaint against Nelson Orth, there was a lack of evidence tying Mr. Orth (or apparently anyone else for that matter) to the crime. So without any evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Orth was a viable suspect, the Police Department was obliged to drop the case. But, having been investigated in such a manner and for such an incident, the “damage” to Mr. Orth had already occurred, as it would have occurred to anyone else subjected to the same accusation of being a suspect in a crime.

Any Sun City resident being investigated by the police for a crime allegedly committed against another, let alone against the Treasurer of the Association of which you are a member, would be deeply bothered and more than a little upset. In Nelson’s case, I suspect he was enraged, as anyone might be, especially if one is not guilty of the crime being alleged.

After learning from the police who had filed the complaint against him, Mr. Orth was not disposed to just sit back and accept Mr. West’s assault by proxy on his well being and liberty in such a manner. Nor was Mr. Orth willing to accept what he perceived to be an effort by a member of the Board to intimidate him into silence or to punish him for speaking out on Community issues.

So how did Nelson Orth respond? During the open mic period at the April 27th Board meeting, Mr. Orth attempted to explain the troubles he had recently experienced with the Henderson Police Department. As best as I can recall, I think Mr. Orth was asking, if not pleading, for the Board to look into the matter of why the police had contacted him at the direction of a Board member. After all, as Nelson viewed the matter, here was a fellow Board member of theirs who had singled out resident Nelson Orth for some alleged crime he said he did not commit and for the sole purpose of punishing or intimidating him into silence for his past “crimes” of challenging and opposing Favil West on matters of Community concern. It was my impression in listening to Mr. Orth that he was rhetorically asking the Board, "was that a fair and proper act for a Board member to do to a member of the Community?"  

With a few minor substitutions of characters, is sounds like we just went through the same scenario quite recently with Mr. West. As most will recall, Favil West in his capacity as the President of the Association, and long after the fact, took punitive steps against the Business Development Club for their alleged “crimes” of failing to heed warning calls about discussing Trumpets, even though the Board, ironically, had allowed those programs to proceed. Mind you, the warning calls were nothing more than whispers in the night foretelling, like Chicken Little, that the sky would fall down, when no such Trumpets event or disaster was ever contemplated. Negotiations proceeded and were concluded to the mutual satisfaction of the parties despite a few more residents becoming more informed about the Trumpets leasing arrangements. But I’ve digressed.

Mr. Orth had two additional thoughts to relay to Mr. West on this calm and measured occasion, who by now more than ever and quite understandably had become Nelson’s nemesis. Mr. Orth, after reading from a recent newspaper article that had quoted Mr. West, wanted Mr. West to understand that when he’s talking to the media about Sun City, he was not representing his (Nelson’s) views. Regarding what Nelson perceived as an effort to silence, intimidate and punish him, Nelson refused to be intimidated, proclaiming to Mr. West that he had “picked on the wrong man.”  No threat, just a simple statement of fact. No, Mr. Orth would not retreat, be silenced, nor would he be intimidated.

While attempting to defend himself, little did Nelson know what Mr. West would eventually have in store for him next. If Nelson thought he had been unwarrantedly targeted by Mr. West, he had only to wait and see what being targeted was all about when the power of the Association was subsequently brought to bare against Mr. Orth.

In the following months, there would be Code of Conduct violations filed, incredibly resurrecting those unsubstantiated harassment charges that had been readily dismissed by the Henderson Police Department, there would be costly legal expenses incurred by the Association and by Mr. Orth, a hearing scheduled, and a conclusion that, not unlike Alice stepping in through the looking glass, will confuse and bewilder you—all to satisfy who and to what end?

Please stay “tuned in” for Part II, coming soon, where you will see how our new Board was working (in the case of Nelson Orth) to serve the interests of the Community.