Revenge Addiction
Board Decision Authorizes Vengeance
November 2, 2025
On October 20, 2025, the 175 Delaware Pl. HOA Board of Directors adopted Resolution 11, which authorizes management to spend time and resources to “review and analyze mailing addresses from fraudulent letters…to compare with the HOA’s mailing list“. This investigation concerns a controversy stemming from a letter the board president, Scott Timmerman, sent to owners as a private individual at his “own expense as a fellow owner.” By using his position as board president to introduce a motion that authorizes HOA resources for a personal grievance that he should be handling privately risks projecting a clear abuse of authority, prioritizing personal retribution over essential community duties.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
COMMUNITY COST
THE VENDETTA VOTE: WHY MANAGEMENT HAS TIME FOR REVENGE
On October 20, 2025, the Board of Directors passed Resolution 11. The resolution authorizes management time to investigate addresses related to the alleged “forgery” and “mail fraud by identity theft” board president, Scott Timmerman, reported.
The issue is simple: the alleged fraud targeted a private communication from Timmerman. He explicitly stated he sent the letter at his “own expense as a fellow owner.” He filed his complaints privately with the Chicago Police Department and USPS Postal Inspectors. Yet he then used his official board authority to initiate a follow-up investigation using HOA funds. This action converts a personal matter into a community expense.
COMPROMISED ETHICS
When A Private Grudge Becomes A Public Priority
The resolution was championed by some of Timmerman’s strongest supporters. They called the underlying actions “appalling” and “immature, unnecessary and awful behavior.” But no one could demonstrate actual harm to the Association or what would be gained by adopting the motion.
During discussion, one board member challenged the motion and openly questioned the mandate, asking a simple question: “What are we going to gain by this?”
In response, not a single member was able to define a quantifiable benefit to the Association as a whole. Instead, the justifications offered revealed motivations rooted in emotional satisfaction and revenge, mirroring the compulsive nature of addictive behavior.
The Science of Revenge, by James Kimmel Jr. (a professor at the Yale School of Medicine), argues that revenge lights up the same area of the brain activated by drug addiction.
“It turns out that your brain on revenge looks like your brain on drugs. Grievances cue the brain to crave revenge in much the same way that stress and anxiety, or seeing drug paraphernalia or places of drug use, cue the brains of addicts to crave narcotics.
Being harmed or treated unfairly, or experiencing anger, disgust, guilt, or shame, is painful and activates the brain’s neural ‘pain network.’ Getting revenge, or even just fantasizing about it, is rewarding, releasing dopamine and activating the brain’s pleasure and reward circuitry. This produces feelings of pleasure that temporarily cover up the pain, making us feel better. For a while. Like drugs and alcohol, the effects wear off quickly and almost always lead to greater pain and suffering.”
Learn more at his interview with NPR and appearing on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s podcast. Or better yet, buy his book.
Here are some of the key reasons provided by members who voted in favor of the resolution:
Justification Based on Popularity: The president offered a subjective assumption as justification for spending HOA resources to benefit him personally. He claimed the reason the perpetrators chose to forge his name was because they “still assumed that most owners are happy with Management/Board, so they chose to forge my name.” Researchers note that the pursuit of revenge often begins with the individual feeling persecuted or wronged.
Vague Goals: One member asserted the investigation’s benefit was to “ensure this doesn’t happen again” but was unable to describe how that outcome was possible.
“Sending A Message”: One of Timmerman’s strongest supporters angrily framed the resolution as necessary to address “immature, unnecessary and awful behavior.” They argued the motion was one way the Board could take a step forward to say “this is enough.”
“Putting Our Foot Down”: one member insisted the Board needed to “put our foot down” because “we can’t have people fiddling with our elections.”
The board’s legal duty is to act in the Association’s interests, not pursue vendettas. Revenge activates the brain’s pleasure centers like addictive substances: short-term satisfaction, long-term damage. One member strongly objected, highlighting that the board’s obsession with payback without any demonstrable gain was harming all owners.
PRIORITIES MISPLACED
How Time Spent On Anger Could Be Better Used
Management time and resources are a zero sum game. The time authorized by Resolution 11 for investigating the president’s private mail issue is time lost to the community’s general welfare.
The Board’s decision to pursue the president’s personal grievance occurs while management could spend that time delivering missing key services:
- Window Washing Notices: Residents lack notification when window washers will be by their unit. This leaves owners vulnerable to exposure, preventing them from having to “get out of the shower and see the window washers watching you!”
- Renovation Notifications: Residents lack notification when an adjacent unit will begin renovation work approved by the board. This notice would be a huge benefit for owners to manage extreme noise during those time periods.
The board is spending community time on the president’s personal grudge because revenge feels good. This choice puts emotional gratification ahead of their fiduciary responsibility to govern responsibly.
TOXIC RETRIBUTION
THE ADDICTION OF “JUSTICE”
The Board’s decision to pass the resolution projects its willingness to prioritize personal gratification over fiduciary duty.
The institutional failure, however, extends beyond misplaced priorities; it reflects a community choosing a cycle of pain that places the entire Association at risk.
Instead, the Board opted for the “Vendetta Vote,” defining their aggressive pursuit of the alleged perpetrators as necessary to pursue the matter “to the further extent of the law” at any and all costs.
The swift, unrecorded voice vote meant that there was no documentation of members’ positions, despite the recorded objections and stated concerns. The vote happened so quickly, it was impossible to even discern which members voted against.
Is this how you would define a board that acts in the best interests of their members?
