|
|
Post by Yoda on Sept 29, 2020 12:12:43 GMT -7
Emergency Election Committee Meeting
The Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) Election Committee held an emergency meeting on Monday September 28th. The main issue was to determine the validity of all Nomination Forms submitted by potential board candidates. Discussion focused first on Nomination Form submission rules and then drifted into errors and omissions committed by potential candidates.
It was revealed that there are seven candidates for four vacancies in North Glastonbury (NG) and six candidates for five vacancies in South Glastonbury (SG). The NG candidates are Joe Bezotsky, John Carp, Claudette Dirkers, Donna Lash-Andersen, Jordan Schreiber, Sandra Schreyer, and Michael Villeneuve. The SG board candidates are Cynthia Blocker, Marshall Haley, John McAllister, Andrea Sedlak, Erica Stone, and Tim Sweeney.
Six candidates, Bezotsky, Dirkers, Lash-Andersen, McAlister, Sedlak and Stone, followed the Nomination Form directions and submitted their forms directly to the GLA Board by the September 25th deadline. The other candidates hand delivered or emailed their forms directly to Director Newman Brozovsky, Director Charlotte Mizzi or GLA employee Karleen McSherry. The Nomination Form instructions require that the forms be submitted to the full GLA Board via email, fax or US Post.
Five of the six candidates who did not follow nomination submission rules are from non-landowners who have been appointed by institutional landowners, such as a Trust or LLC, to seek board election on their behalf. They are Blocker, Carp, Haley, Schreiber. Sweeney and Villeneuve. Several of them are legal representatives for land owned by Church Universal and Triumphant or affiliates.
Discussion from the Chair of the Emergency Election Committee, Director Jerriy Ladewig showed that the Election Committee believed that the written board-approved election policies and board-approved nomination form directions would be followed by all candidates.
GLA employee Karleen McSherry explained that she had asked Mizzi and Brozovsky to receive the nomination forms in her absence (knowing that she would be out of town when the nomination forms were due) and get them to her. McSherry also stated that while she would normally sort and arrange the forms before sending them to the board, this time she sent the forms to the board “raw”. McSherry said that because she sent “raw” information to the board, there was actually more transparency with the nomination process than usual.
Anonymous sources state that part of that raw information revealed that CUT email addresses and employees were involved in assisting nominees. One email from President Newman Brozovsky showed collusion between CUT, himself and Timothy Sweeney by assigning specific CUT properties for Sweeney to represent. Another showed Alan Shaw, a high-level CUT employee soliciting a CUT member who owned property in South Glastonbury to assign Marshall Haley as her legal representative.
Mizzi said that most forms were received by the deadline, Friday September 25, 2020, and that all board members were fully informed of all nominations by September 26, 2020, the day after the deadline.
Some of the Nomination forms were incomplete. One listed an incorrect parcel number. Some forms were missing one or more of the required signatures. Haley's and Sweeney's form were not backed up by on file Legal Representative forms.
At the beginning of the emergency meeting, McSherry clarified with emphasis that all board nominations were filed on time, and that it has always been possible for candidates to submit their forms to herself or to board officers. McSherry, an employee for GLA for about four years, stated that Election Committee Chair Jerry Ladewig was wrong to expect otherwise. McSherry also stated that Ladewig’s perceptions and statements about the nomination process were not accurate and were slanderous.
Ladewig countered that no one told her, or the Election Committee, that the usual nomination process would allow candidates to hand-deliver or email their nomination forms to board officers. Ladewig also said it was not right to bypass established election policy (namely that all forms are to be submitted to the board) and keep both the Election Committee and the board in the dark about the list of candidates until after the filing deadline.
It is also noteworthy, that the yelling, over-speaking, and repeated interruptions of different speakers at the emergency Election Meeting, made it nearly impossible for landowners who were listening to the phone meeting, to know who was speaking or understand what was said.
By consensus, Ladewig and committee members Mizzi and Sedlak, agreed to ask the board to hold a special meeting to review and decide the validity of each of the 13 potential board candidates. As Sedlak observed, the committee was conflicted and unable to make any recommendations to the board on the validity of the board candidates.
A special board meeting, is scheduled for Thursday October 1, 2020 at 7 PM at Liberty Hall. It was called to review and validate board candidates for the annual board election on November 14, 2020. It is expected that the board will announce the official candidate list in a mailing to landowners on October 5, 2020.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Sept 29, 2020 16:02:37 GMT -7
I listened in to the “Emergency” meeting and was amazed at how contentious things were between Ms. Mizzi and other Election Committee members.
While I served on the Board most Director’s focused on how to improve the election process and especially how to change Landowners feelings that the elections were rigged or manipulated. Those concerns centered around last minute changes in the process and/or modifications to forms.
I had hoped, and still do, that the Board will hold all candidates responsible for having complete forms submitted by the deadline. After all, everyone had the materials and knew of the deadlines at least 30 days prior to the deadline.
I find it surprising that so many of the candidates are “Representatives” for others and that they do not seem to be actual landowners -i.e. people with skin in the game and are not influenced by outside sources such as CUT. This really makes me wonder about the future (or returning to the past) of GLA.
Ms. McSherry was not involved in the election process of 2015, 2016 when I monitored the elections or in 2017, or 2018 while I was on the Board. So I do not know where she got all her historical experience.
I believe Ms. Ladewig was very accurate in her responses countering McSherry assertions of the way things have been done in recent elections. McSherry may have been relying on Ms. Mizzi’s long history on the Board (though Mizzi had no actual involvement in the 2 elections while I was involved as Co-Leader with Ms. Murphy).
Due to the over-talk, I could not follow who had not signed or submitted all the forms by the deadline. Allowing after the fact signing or submission of documents in the past is what created Landowner mistrust of the process.
I understand that 3 separate signatures are required, which may seem unusual until you think of why they are required. When signing the forms you are legally swearing to what is shown is accurate and complete and each form requires different information. That may not be critical on the Bio-Form, but sure is on the other two.
I truly hope the Board follows the intent of past Boards to not allow last minute changes and requires that all required forms were submitted by the deadline. I was not surprised by Ms. Mizzi’s attempt to prevent Directors running in 2020 from voting on issues of other candidates. She portrayed a “Conflict of Interest” exists. However, there is no conflict between Directors in South from voting on issues for North Candidates. If Mizzi’s desires were followed, then only 3 directors could vote and that is below the minimum required for a legal board action.
It sure looks like CUT is working really hard to regain control of the GLA Board - why I wonder?  ?
This will be an interesting election and I hope everyone helps GLA move forward rather than backward to the days Mizzi longs for.
Leo
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Sept 29, 2020 20:03:39 GMT -7
Six Nomination Forms are Invalid Note: The following copy was given to us by an unnamed source. We are told that it was also presented to the GLA Board and may be considered at the Thursday GLA Special Meeting at Liberty Hall, North Glastonbury at 7 PM.
Six people who do not own land in Glastonbury have filed Nomination Forms with the GLA. In North Glastonbury they are:
John Carp, Michael Villeneuve, and Jordan Schreiber.
In South Glastonbury they are:
Cynthia Blocker, Timothy Sweeney and Marshall Haley.
Why are people who do not live in Glastonbury allowed to self nominate for the GLA Board?
The 2019/2020 Election Procedures state that a person must be "a member in good standing" in order to "file as a candidate for any Board or Ombudsman position". Our Bylaws Section 6C state the same. Why?
The GLA Governing Documents only give rights and responsibilities to members of the GLA corporation. To be a member, you must own land; living here is not enough.
A member of the GLA can nominate themselves for a position on the Board as long as they are in good standing per our Bylaws. Someone who is NOT a member has no LEGAL STANDING in the GLA. They cannot legally nominate themselves for a position on the GLA Board because the GLA governing documents only convey rights, to members.
However someone who owns land here, is in good standing and has their land under a trust or corporation; a legal entity, can nominate someone who does not own land in Glastonbury, to be their legal representative. First they must file a Legal Representative form with the GLA. Then the member must fill out an official GLA Nomination Form that nominates their legal representative. Of course both forms must be received by the GLA Board by the deadline using one of three possible delivery systems; email, fax or US Mail. GLA members did not fill out the Nomination forms submitted by the six potential candidates listed above. People from outside our community filled those forms, signed and submitted them.
Legal representatives are allowed to voice concerns, file complaints and even vote for the member legal entity they represent. However the GLA governing documents state that only members may file nomination forms.
The six people mentioned above: John Carp, Michael Villeneuve, Jordan Schreiber, Cynthia Blocker, Timothy Sweeney and Marshall Haley all personally filled out Nomination Forms and nominated themselves. As non-members of Glastonbury they did not have legal standing or a legal right to self nominate. Therefore their forms are all invalid.
What should have happened is the members who wanted the above individuals to legally represent their trusts, etc should have filled out Legal Representative forms and then Nomination Forms that nominated the individual named on the legal Representative form. Since that did not happen all six nomination forms should be deemed invalid by the GLA Board at the Special Meeting on Thursday. |
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Sept 30, 2020 9:48:35 GMT -7
Put another way and with GLA Bylaw excerpts...
The Restated 2020 Bylaws say:
The Bylaws VI Section C ONLY allows members to file Nomination forms. Which makes sense. Membership in the GLA confers specific rights and responsibilities to members. Rights include voting, running for office, filing complaints, access via a maintained road to their property, etc. Responsibilities are mainly the paying of assessments and abiding by the rules set forth in our Governing documents. Of course our governing documents only apply to members and parcels that are under the legal jurisdiction of the GLA. So someone who lives in Pray cannot demand that we plow his road. Nor can he legally run for office in the GLA. Except...
There is one exception; when a GLA parcel is owned by a legal entity any human can be assigned as a Legal Representative.
The Bylaws address that in:
A legal representative is the human "voice" of the legal entity that owns the land. The conversation is limited to the GLA. A legal representative cannot sell the land, enter into contracts, etc on behalf of the parcel owner. That requires Power of Attorney.
Again, the legal representative is a voice only and certain rights are allotted by the GLA Bylaws for that voice to be heard. They can vote, file complaints, and even run for office. But, they do not have full membership rights and are NOT members in the GLA Corporation.
Since the Bylaws state clearly that only members can file nomination forms, then it logically follows that non-members and non-member Legal reps cannot file Nomination forms.
Yes, legal reps can run for office and that is why our Nomination forms allow members to nominate non-members who are Legal reps.
The only non-members that can run for and hold office are ones who have signed and submitted Legal Representative forms. Because they are not members they do not possess the right to self nominate. They must be nominated by a member in good standing to run for office. |
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Sept 30, 2020 13:55:49 GMT -7
A Hypothetical Example Legal Reps are allotted certain Rights via our Bylaws so the parcel owner or member's voice may be heard. Legal reps are NOT given full membership rights and are NOT members of the GLA. They are just reps and a voice.
So how do they get nominated for office? The member entity who asks the non-member person to be the Legal Rep must nominate them. That is why our Nomination form allows non-members to be nominated.
As a hypothetical example.
IBM corp owns a parcel that is within the jurisdiction of the GLA. IBM is a legal entity so it cannot speak or engage in conversations like a human does. So the BOD of IBM asks Joe Shmoe in Pray to be their "voice" for dealing with the GLA Board. So IBM files a GLA Legal Rep form. Joe signs it and he becomes their "voice" for interactions with the GLA.
IBM later decides that they want Joe to run for the GLA BOD. Joe agrees. But Joe does not have full membership rights in the GLA. The Bylaws state that only members can file Nomination forms. So Joe cannot self nominate.
IBM has full membership rights in the GLA. They are allowed by the Bylaws to nominate Joe. So the President of IBM with the consent of his BOD fills out the Nomination Form and submit it per the instructions. If IBM is a member in good standing and followed the submission instructions correctly, Joe can now run for the BOD. |
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Oct 1, 2020 8:58:00 GMT -7
I fear for the future of GLA and have just sent the following e-mail to the Board;
Sent to info@glamontana.org at about 9:45 AM 10/1.
I am cc'ing Richard and Donna as I recall them from the Special Election Committee meeting.
I had thought of attending the Special Board Meeting tonight but have learned that in past meetings few, if any, wore a mask. Many of you know I am considered at extreme risk and if I get COVID, I’m gone. Rather than see the faces of all those demonstrating they don’t care if they kill me, I’ll express my concerns in this email – which I hope could be read during the landowner comment period if every Director cannot verify they have read this email.
My concerns began after hearing all the contentious arguing during the last Election Committee meeting and learning how many “Representative” nominations came in at the last minute, with many not having all “COMPLETED” documents in by 5:00PM.
The number of “Representatives” running demonstrates that CUT mustered up candidates that will do as told. I fear those Representatives, if elected, will only be place holders that resign quickly to enable a biased Board to elect other biased Directors as was done so often during what I (and many other landowners) call the “Dark Ages.”
This displays an organized attempt to take over the Board and return it to the days when Landowners mistrust of the Board was extreme.
That mistrust centered on the displays of “Last Minute” control of past elections; Board filling vacancies with surprise candidates rather than the well qualified candidates that had submitted paperwork; Board minutes being withheld from Landowners (literally stamped CONFIDENTIAL) and documented displays of favoritism in Project Review approvals ignoring covenants for select people.
After the discussions in the Special Election Committee meeting, I question what process you all will follow. 1. Will you acknowledge the efforts to rebuild trust and follow strict adherence to the election process that took 3 years to develop? 2. Will you realize that when accepting an application that the receiver takes on the responsibility to insure all requirements are met – including sharing a complete application with the rest of the Board within the required timelines. Note – Any landowner assisting another landowner in the application process fails their friend if they do not ensure all requirements are met – including Directors and the President. 3. Will you acknowledge the limited methods or receiving an application, all of which provide date stamps, and the purpose of the date stamp?
Unfortunately, I heard Karleen present herself as an expert on the process, yet I do not recall her participation in any of the Election Committee meetings developing current procedures. I doubt she is aware of the numerous discussions about rebuilding confidence in the Board through strict adherence to written policies and closely following the Bylaws and Covenants pertaining to Membership, Representation, and who are Members In Good Standing.
GLA can not afford being drug into court again because the Board failed to do a thorough review of every candidate’s nomination package.
Thanks for your time. Leo
|
|
?
