Board Meeting 1/11/2016 had many problems and concerns
Jan 12, 2016 23:16:54 GMT -7
Admin, chris, and 1 more like this
Post by leokeeler on Jan 12, 2016 23:16:54 GMT -7
After I gained control of my anger at the gag order process for Member participation in Board meetings, combined with interruptions from the President during the short 3 minutes we are allowed, I developed the letter below. I hope there are members of the Board that ask for fair leadership from the President, rather than accepting the current process.
To GLA Board of Directors
cc: To provide for broader Member awareness, I am sending this to: info@glastonburylandownersforpositivechange.wordpress.com; nghilltopgroup@gmail.com; theirishpossee@gmail.com, glastonburylandownersgroup@gmail.com
I am wondering if the President is aware that at the December 7th meeting the Board passed a resolution establishing the saying of the pledge of allegiance and moment of silence, not a silent prayer. I believe continuing to reference a silent prayer is an open violation of the Board process and will increase Members concerns and further decrease their trust in Board actions.
For those not aware, I have been seeking documents since November 9th to check the legality of 1) the Board freezing interest due on assessment debts; 2) entering into payment plan contracts that in fact are zero per cent (0%) interest loans, as well as; 3) to identify donations the Board may have made to individual Members by removing liens without full payment of debt and; 4) to find any other impacts to Members from their not collecting unpaid assessments since 2000 or earlier.
At last night’s Board meeting, Charlotte expressed a lack of knowledge and requested that I provide more information related to the questions and concerns I presented to the Board. Since I was on a 3 minute deadline, I did not have time to discuss or debate the issues I felt the Board should consider. I hope the information below is understood and appreciated. I also hope the documents I am requesting will be provided.
First of all, I’ll address Board members Mark and Paul. You two might not have heard everything, and could not see the anger on the faces of those in the audience over the gag order implemented by the President unilaterally setting criteria for audience and Committee Member participation.
Limiting landowner participation to three minutes either before or after the committee meeting is not reasonable, especially since such sensitive and far-reaching decisions were being made. I ask for 1) the Board, as a unit, to expand the 3 minute rule to 5 minutes, once before and once after the meeting; and 2) Allow committee members to offer information pertinent to the discussion.
Below I am presenting the Board with the specific information that Gerald tried to get the Board to understand regarding GLA Road Standards as shown under Governing Documents on the web. Unfortunately, he was ignored as he talked about the Michael-George road. Gerald was very accurate in telling the board that GLA has a responsibility to act on road issues even when the Court and/or County are involved. Since a gag order was in place, neither I nor other Members could offer information that would have influenced the Board discussion and vote.
I am unsure if the Board will revisit the Michael-George road before the building is moved in, or in the spring before damages occur to Lot 33-C.
It has been presented that there are very few Court decided/designated easements or driveways. I personally am aware of 3 disputes and offer that with so many tenants in common land settlements since 1997, this issue will come before the Board again.
The following are the questions I asked at the meeting. More specific information is included in hopes it is beneficial to the Board.
1. I asked Rudy if he would send me the 2 documents that were displayed on the wall to the audience listing the members with Past Due assessments and any spreadsheets or calculations showing the debt per property with 18% interest applied. The Document Request form necessary for that is attached.
2. I questioned the soundness of prohibiting Committee Members from speaking during a discussion of topics under that Committee’s purview, because I had to use personal time to advise the Board of the following items.
a. I did not use my time to ask that the Board consider the time it takes to get all Committee members the information they need to participate and the need to revise the e-mail process, and/or timelines, for Committees. Specifically, I did not get any materials on the Michael-George project until the night of the phone meeting. I understand that Kevin was delayed in getting them to Committee Members because of administrative delays. I hope that project proposals going to Gerald within a day or two of receipt will help in this situation.
b. I used my time to inform the Board the Road Standards policy which is within the Governing Documents section on the web does create liability for GLA. I was running out of time and obviously was not going to be allowed to exceed 3 minutes, so I could not present that it is misleading to only read and rely on 3.0 of the Road and Driveway Standards. This section states the purpose of the Standards to be to “help Glastonbury landowners.” The Board must also be aware that 3.3 Project Review states “Before construction can begin on a road, the project must be evaluated and approved by the Glastonbury Landowners Association. The purpose for review is to insure that the technical standards and aesthetic values of the Community are uniformly administered and maintained at a minimum level for the benefit of all residents.” The technical standards are presented in the drawings and tables that followed and the Board, as the enforcement body for GLA (Bylaw Article VI(B)(9) is, in my opinion, liable for damages if water from a driveway causes erosion on adjacent property.
I felt the Board considered the Court decision related to the road across 33-C to 33-B, as removing GLA from any responsibilities on that driveway. The Court process only resulted in depicting the exact location of the road. By locating the road, the Court removed any constraints on the road grade or steepness. As usual, the Court never considered construction material, erosion control, or design standards, but left those for the area administrator, i.e. GLA, to control. Thus, the Road Standards, presented as part of GLA’s Governing Documents depicting road materials, drainage, and maintenance, do apply to the road from Mercury to Mr. Michael-George’s home.
3. I expressed concern on hearing from Regina that the GLA accounting books appeared to show 2 members as being on late payment plans, and they did not qualify to be on such plans. I did not ask the question whether or not the Board had voted on those members going onto such a plan, but ask that now. Did the Board vote to give them benefits not available to other members?
4. I was very concerned with the information Regina presented on the problems with the GLA books. I presented that her statements were critical to GLA management, as well as Member awareness, and asked that they be in the minutes. I emphasized that she should be allowed to read and approve the minutes to assure her concerns were accurately portrayed. I understand that the minutes need to be shortened, but offer that Member comments of a critical nature such as Regina’s are an important part of the record, and not including them would be hiding critical information from Members.
5. I asked the question of what level of Member participation was expected for the February 20th meeting and if Members could provide their own recommended changes to be discussed at that meeting. In a second part of this question, I asked what level of detail would be provided for Members at that meeting for the recommended changes to 11.06 interest rates. I specifically identified the need for members to be aware of the vast sum of money that would be given away to some Members if the interest rate is lowered to 6% and made retroactive. I question if it can be made retroactive by a simple change to the interest rate in the current Covenant since the debt already legally exists and must be specifically addressed case by case in a Member vote.
6. I admitted that I likely generated the 4 questions recently sent to the attorney, and I asked if the Board had voted to approve that expenditure.
7. I did not have time to ask, but do so now, why Members cannot attend the Legal Committee meetings when there is no legal case before the court and no legal counsel participation. Prohibiting Members from attending establishes a closed meeting in violation of the August 17th Closed meeting policy. Enabling members to be present will increase understanding of issues by both parties and likely increase the chance of everyone accepting an attorney opinion, and thus reduced attorney and court fees.
8. By this letter, and attached Document Request Form, I am asking for a copy of the letter sent to the attorney presenting my questions.
9. Since Dan Kehoe had left the building, it was not timely for me to ask Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Brunson if they were aware of Montana statute 31-1-107 allowing for a 15% interest rate within agreements, and if they were aware that statute upheld higher interest rates in agreements, such as our covenants.
Thank You
Leo Keeler
_
To GLA Board of Directors
cc: To provide for broader Member awareness, I am sending this to: info@glastonburylandownersforpositivechange.wordpress.com; nghilltopgroup@gmail.com; theirishpossee@gmail.com, glastonburylandownersgroup@gmail.com
I am wondering if the President is aware that at the December 7th meeting the Board passed a resolution establishing the saying of the pledge of allegiance and moment of silence, not a silent prayer. I believe continuing to reference a silent prayer is an open violation of the Board process and will increase Members concerns and further decrease their trust in Board actions.
For those not aware, I have been seeking documents since November 9th to check the legality of 1) the Board freezing interest due on assessment debts; 2) entering into payment plan contracts that in fact are zero per cent (0%) interest loans, as well as; 3) to identify donations the Board may have made to individual Members by removing liens without full payment of debt and; 4) to find any other impacts to Members from their not collecting unpaid assessments since 2000 or earlier.
At last night’s Board meeting, Charlotte expressed a lack of knowledge and requested that I provide more information related to the questions and concerns I presented to the Board. Since I was on a 3 minute deadline, I did not have time to discuss or debate the issues I felt the Board should consider. I hope the information below is understood and appreciated. I also hope the documents I am requesting will be provided.
First of all, I’ll address Board members Mark and Paul. You two might not have heard everything, and could not see the anger on the faces of those in the audience over the gag order implemented by the President unilaterally setting criteria for audience and Committee Member participation.
Limiting landowner participation to three minutes either before or after the committee meeting is not reasonable, especially since such sensitive and far-reaching decisions were being made. I ask for 1) the Board, as a unit, to expand the 3 minute rule to 5 minutes, once before and once after the meeting; and 2) Allow committee members to offer information pertinent to the discussion.
Below I am presenting the Board with the specific information that Gerald tried to get the Board to understand regarding GLA Road Standards as shown under Governing Documents on the web. Unfortunately, he was ignored as he talked about the Michael-George road. Gerald was very accurate in telling the board that GLA has a responsibility to act on road issues even when the Court and/or County are involved. Since a gag order was in place, neither I nor other Members could offer information that would have influenced the Board discussion and vote.
I am unsure if the Board will revisit the Michael-George road before the building is moved in, or in the spring before damages occur to Lot 33-C.
It has been presented that there are very few Court decided/designated easements or driveways. I personally am aware of 3 disputes and offer that with so many tenants in common land settlements since 1997, this issue will come before the Board again.
The following are the questions I asked at the meeting. More specific information is included in hopes it is beneficial to the Board.
1. I asked Rudy if he would send me the 2 documents that were displayed on the wall to the audience listing the members with Past Due assessments and any spreadsheets or calculations showing the debt per property with 18% interest applied. The Document Request form necessary for that is attached.
2. I questioned the soundness of prohibiting Committee Members from speaking during a discussion of topics under that Committee’s purview, because I had to use personal time to advise the Board of the following items.
a. I did not use my time to ask that the Board consider the time it takes to get all Committee members the information they need to participate and the need to revise the e-mail process, and/or timelines, for Committees. Specifically, I did not get any materials on the Michael-George project until the night of the phone meeting. I understand that Kevin was delayed in getting them to Committee Members because of administrative delays. I hope that project proposals going to Gerald within a day or two of receipt will help in this situation.
b. I used my time to inform the Board the Road Standards policy which is within the Governing Documents section on the web does create liability for GLA. I was running out of time and obviously was not going to be allowed to exceed 3 minutes, so I could not present that it is misleading to only read and rely on 3.0 of the Road and Driveway Standards. This section states the purpose of the Standards to be to “help Glastonbury landowners.” The Board must also be aware that 3.3 Project Review states “Before construction can begin on a road, the project must be evaluated and approved by the Glastonbury Landowners Association. The purpose for review is to insure that the technical standards and aesthetic values of the Community are uniformly administered and maintained at a minimum level for the benefit of all residents.” The technical standards are presented in the drawings and tables that followed and the Board, as the enforcement body for GLA (Bylaw Article VI(B)(9) is, in my opinion, liable for damages if water from a driveway causes erosion on adjacent property.
I felt the Board considered the Court decision related to the road across 33-C to 33-B, as removing GLA from any responsibilities on that driveway. The Court process only resulted in depicting the exact location of the road. By locating the road, the Court removed any constraints on the road grade or steepness. As usual, the Court never considered construction material, erosion control, or design standards, but left those for the area administrator, i.e. GLA, to control. Thus, the Road Standards, presented as part of GLA’s Governing Documents depicting road materials, drainage, and maintenance, do apply to the road from Mercury to Mr. Michael-George’s home.
3. I expressed concern on hearing from Regina that the GLA accounting books appeared to show 2 members as being on late payment plans, and they did not qualify to be on such plans. I did not ask the question whether or not the Board had voted on those members going onto such a plan, but ask that now. Did the Board vote to give them benefits not available to other members?
4. I was very concerned with the information Regina presented on the problems with the GLA books. I presented that her statements were critical to GLA management, as well as Member awareness, and asked that they be in the minutes. I emphasized that she should be allowed to read and approve the minutes to assure her concerns were accurately portrayed. I understand that the minutes need to be shortened, but offer that Member comments of a critical nature such as Regina’s are an important part of the record, and not including them would be hiding critical information from Members.
5. I asked the question of what level of Member participation was expected for the February 20th meeting and if Members could provide their own recommended changes to be discussed at that meeting. In a second part of this question, I asked what level of detail would be provided for Members at that meeting for the recommended changes to 11.06 interest rates. I specifically identified the need for members to be aware of the vast sum of money that would be given away to some Members if the interest rate is lowered to 6% and made retroactive. I question if it can be made retroactive by a simple change to the interest rate in the current Covenant since the debt already legally exists and must be specifically addressed case by case in a Member vote.
6. I admitted that I likely generated the 4 questions recently sent to the attorney, and I asked if the Board had voted to approve that expenditure.
7. I did not have time to ask, but do so now, why Members cannot attend the Legal Committee meetings when there is no legal case before the court and no legal counsel participation. Prohibiting Members from attending establishes a closed meeting in violation of the August 17th Closed meeting policy. Enabling members to be present will increase understanding of issues by both parties and likely increase the chance of everyone accepting an attorney opinion, and thus reduced attorney and court fees.
8. By this letter, and attached Document Request Form, I am asking for a copy of the letter sent to the attorney presenting my questions.
9. Since Dan Kehoe had left the building, it was not timely for me to ask Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Brunson if they were aware of Montana statute 31-1-107 allowing for a 15% interest rate within agreements, and if they were aware that statute upheld higher interest rates in agreements, such as our covenants.
Thank You
Leo Keeler
_
