|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Jul 2, 2021 18:46:17 GMT -7
GLA Sued By 3 Directors Lawsuit Seeks to Dissolve or Separate The Association On June 23, 2021 another lawsuit was filed against the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) in the 6th District Court. This lawsuit was brought by three current South Glastonbury GLA Directors, a former GLA President and their spouses. The secession lawsuit seeks to either dissolve the GLA or separate it into two boards; one for North and one for South Glastonbury.
You may download the Secession lawsuit here. The signed petitions and addendums are included. The three current Directors who are behind the lawsuit are John McAlister, Jerry Ladewig and Andrea Sedlak. The former GLA President bringing the lawsuit is Dennis Riley. A former director and husband of Andrea Sedlak, Mark Seaver, is also named on the lawsuit. Petition sheets containing 30 landowner names who own 45 parcels are attached to the lawsuit. About 5% of the names did not match Park County land records and thus may be invalid. At least 51% of all 416 parcels would be needed for a resounding decision by the Court.
The idea of separating North and South Glastonbury was first introduced in 2014 by the Glastonbury Landowner's for Positive Change (GLFPC). The idea of dissolving the GLA was addressed by a previous GLA Board headed by President Alyssa Allen when the blizzard of O'Connell lawsuits caused the cancellation of the Association's legal liability insurance policy.
The secession lawsuit reads like a response to the Brozovsky/Mizzi (B/M) lawsuit which was recently filed against the GLA. However the Forum is told that the Secession group had no advance notice of the B/M lawsuit. Both groups worked independently on their respective lawsuits since last winter.
A few weeks ago a draft copy of the secession lawsuit, a question and answer document and a petition sheet was circulated in the community along with a request for donations. A current director asked the secession group how many signatures were gathered. He also inquired as to how much money was raised by donations. The group refused to provide any numbers for either question. He was told that if he signed the petition and donated $100.00 the donation amounts could be provided. He declined their offer.
The lawsuit includes three addendums that consist of personal landowner letters. The Forum asked all three letter writers if they gave permission to the secession group to use their personal correspondence to the GLA Board and the Montana Attorney Generals office as exhibits. They all answered "no". None of the three signed the secession petition either.
The GLA will have to respond with an attorney to the secession lawsuit. The Legal Committee will review options and make a recommendation to the full GLA Board. Directors Ladewig, Sedlak and McAlister all serve on the Legal Committee and will have to recuse themselves. That leaves the decisions up to Director Brozovsky, Dirkers and Mizzi. At some point landowners should be presented the opportunity to make their opinions heard so the 6th District Court can hear all sides of the arguments.
Responses from landowners have been strong. A long term North Glastonbury resident thought the idea of dissolving the GLA was long overdue. Another landowner voiced concerns for North Glastonbury because the current board members have a dual loyalty with Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). He gave the example of how CUT roads in North Glastonbury get maintenance and plowing even though they are not platted. He feared that without the non-CUT members from South Glastonbury, North would revert to total CUT control.
A long term CUT member spoke about how Glastonbury was founded as a Community of Ascended Masters. She spoke passionately of the "Spiritual Dome" that connected North and South Glastonbury. If the GLA was dissolved the dome would be shattered along with the dream of a community of Ascended masters. This was a common concern voiced by the faithful old timers.
The Forum has asked Regina and Walter Wunsch, who both signed the petition to dissolve the GLA, to elaborate on their reasoning. They both understand the spiritual and secular aspects of Glastonbury and have served the community for many decades. If they respond we will post their comments.
Another landowner stated that she felt betrayed. "I voted for two of the three directors who want to destroy the GLA. I trusted them to make sound decisions that would strengthen and serve our community. Now they want to dissolve the very Board they were elected to serve on". Many landowners faulted the GLA Board for allowing Ed Dobrowski, who "resigned at the end of the year" in 2020 to continue serving on the board. Others cited the endless "postponement" of the 2020 Annual Election and were visibly angry that their votes were never counted. Still others bitterly complained that GLA Board President Newman Brozovsky forged the 2021 Snow Plowing contract so his employer, CUT, would get their private roads plowed at landowner expense. Feelings ran high and anger towards the GLA Board was often on display.
The Forum has found that separating North from South Glastonbury has far more support than dissolving the Association. A majority of landowners in both North and South Glastonbury that we spoke with, supported separation. They felt the community was too large for an all volunteer board to manage. They also believed that the road network was vastly different in North and needed better long term planning and funding. A few landowners noted that normal spring road maintenance was postponed for all of Glastonbury until September.
Ironically a few of the secession directors that own homes accessible by Arcturus Drive are trying to schedule GLA road grading for Low South in July of 2021.
Sources tell the Forum that the Secessionist's lawsuit has cost $10,000.00 to date. A local attorney stated that the combined cost to the GLA and donors could easily top $100,000.00 and take several years to settle via a trial. Just to get a trial date may take 12 to 18 months as the courts are severely backlogged due to the Covid crisis. He added that since the Annual Election is addressed by both the B/M and Secession lawsuits that the 2020 and 2021 Annual Elections will be postponed. That means that current directors will continue to serve until they resign or both lawsuits come to a conclusion and the court rules on the postponed Annual Elections.
The Forum is working on gathering opinions from current and previous GLA Board members regarding the Secession Lawsuit. We hope to bring that article to you in a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Ladewig on Jul 2, 2021 19:47:10 GMT -7
As usual, Tim ahd made up "facts" where he deems it ueful to his agenda.
1. There is no cost estimate and costs are not public information.
2. Tim is guessing on trial dates.
3. Tim is guessing on postponement of the GLA 2020 and 2021 eledtion dates.
4. It is a LIE LIE that any dissolution director is attmepting to get favored road grading treatment. I did not attend the June 28, 2021 meeting where road was an agenda item.
Tim, wash your filthy mouth out.
5. A Landowner feels betrayed? Is she just now waking up to reality? There is no association. It exists in name only. Why don't youn have her call me.
6. Facetious comments-Tim, you fail to address the deadlocked votes on Ed's resignation. You do no service to "your" consituents when you do not tell the whole truth.
7.The dissolution suit is not a response to the Brozovsky/Mizzi suit. It was conceived months ago.
8. Tim is incorrect about ownership by the signatories. Only landowners have signed the petition to dissolve.
It is unfortunate that Tim represents himself as a voice for the people. He is only a voice for himself, beleiving he has a following, just as the CUT cult does. Some people I have talked with have caught on to hin and do no believe his nonsense. To believe hi means you are misled. HE is outside the realm of both the dissolutin suit and the Brozovsky/Mizzi suit.
I am happy to supply the facts-historical and ongoing. you won't get the truth here.
And Tim will just be waiting for another opportunity to verbally stab me in the back as he has done so many times, and to other people right after he tries to give them a complement. Tim in no way warrants your trust.
|
|
skeptique
New Member
Ten days and the silence is deafening
Posts: 11
|
Post by skeptique on Jul 3, 2021 11:08:36 GMT -7
Fight nice, children
|
|
skeptique
New Member
Ten days and the silence is deafening
Posts: 11
|
Post by skeptique on Jul 5, 2021 6:41:59 GMT -7
It appears that the GLA Treasurer, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit requesting dissolution of the GLA, is sending assessment invoices to the membership. Caught between a fiduciary responsibility and reality. True rock v hard place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wendy Riley on Jul 5, 2021 15:18:33 GMT -7
Hi all:
I am one of the petitioners in the lawsuit that Tim (Poor Richard) refers to in this post. I would be happy to answer questions and ensure that people have accurate information about this lawsuit.
First, this lawsuit has been filed because of the extreme lack of effectiveness of the Glastonbury Landowner Association (GLA) board. The board has been deadlocked for months, the annual board election scheduled last November still has not been held, and there are numerous other issues as spelled out in the lawsuit.
This lawsuit would be better referred to as a Dissolution lawsuit, as it seeks to dissolve the GLA rather than to secede or withdraw from the GLA. Note that the title of the lawsuit is “Petition for Judicial Dissolution of NonProfit Corporation.”
It is important to know that the petitioners are filing for Dissolution because that is the only remedy that the law provides. But Dissolution is not the likely outcome, because the law says that the judge must consider reasonable alternatives. In the lawsuit, the petitioners have suggested the reasonable alternative of separating North and South, which would result in two smaller landowner associations. And as Tim relays in his post, many people would be supportive of separation.
While it is true that it would be impactful to the Court if there was support from 51% of all parcels, that is not the bar that needs to be met. The statute calls for 50 members or 5% of the voting power, whichever is less, which in our case is 5%. The lawsuit refers to 414 parcels, as that was the number of assessment invoices sent out at the beginning of the year, and 5% of that is 21 parcels. The lawsuit petition signatures of 44 are over double the signatures needed. Further, the petitioners and others are continuing to collect signatures and will file an addendum to the lawsuit with the additional signatures.
I would also like to clarify about the conversation between a board director, Tim, and the petitioners. I sent Tim an email on June 25 in response to questions he asked of Jerry Ladewig about the lawsuit. I provided a lot of information about the lawsuit to Tim but also held off answering certain questions. I did not answer his question about the number of signatures because, at the time, I did not yet have confirmation that the lawsuit had been filed. As it turns out, it was filed on June 23, so now the petitioners are fine with sharing the number of signatures.
Additionally, Tim asked about the amount of money being raised. By way of background, the petitioners are asking for donations of any amount to help pay the legal fees for this lawsuit. The petitioners will not be sharing financial information publicly, but we will be sharing financial information with those who donate. In my reply to Tim, I said, “We’re telling people they can donate any amount but would appreciate if you’d start with contributing $100, along with signing the petition.” Please note that there is no requirement for $100. I also went on to explain to Tim that the financial information will be shared with those who sign the petition and donate, but donors’ names will remain confidential.
I hope this helps. I will check the Forum regularly to answer any questions that may come up.
Thank you,
Wendy
|
|
|
|
Post by O'Connell on Jul 9, 2021 1:43:40 GMT -7
Why Splitting Apart North and South Glastonbury is Legally Prohibitive
Splitting up North and South Boards in half would cause many more legal problems, liabilities and add a great financial burden, or irreparably harm all landowners for the follows reasons:
As of a 1983 complaint and settlement agreement between Park County v. CUT; this prior settlement agreement requires that all roads in both North and South Glastonbury are to “remain private roads.” This legally binding agreement allowed all GLA members from both North and South Glastonbury to have a perpetual easement to use all roads in both North and South Glastonbury, even though all roads are located on top of private properties owned by each and every landowner upon which their road portion is located. As such Covenant 8.01 (a) says, “The Association and all of the Landowners and their guests have the right to use any of the platted road easements opened by the Association and upon which developed roads and/or trails have been placed;…” For example, our family owns a portion of Taurus Rd that is private property, but this road portion is also a road easement used by all GLA members maintained by the GLA Inc.. All GLA roads located on such private property have a member use easement that allows all GLA members to use any platted road in Glastonbury. To split North and South GLA Boards in half with separate jurisdictions would be a violation of this settlement agreement resulting in an unlawful taking of all private property road easements that are all used or shared by all members in both North and South Glastonbury.
Also, there are 4 total parcels called “common use land” in the GLA subdivisions (North and South). These parcels are listed in the GLA Covenant 7.01(a) as “Parcel Nos. 96 and 102 of Certificate of Survey No. 616-A (Glastonbury South) and Tract No. 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 1173 (Glastonbury North)” and a 20 acre parkland track (next to track 22 in North Glastonbury) added later. These four “common use” properties are all used (for recreation purposes and add to the property values of all GLA members in North and South who own them. To split North and South GLA Boards in half with separate jurisdictions would require a taking of all these private properties away from all members; which would be considered legally prohibitive as an unlawful taking of four shared member properties owned by all GLA members.
Also, Covenant 8.01(a) allows all GLA members to use trails along such roads and creek easements. To split North and South GLA Boards in half with separate jurisdictions would also result in an unlawful taking of all private property rights to all such creek easements.
For example, Covenant 7.02 also allows all GLA members in both North and South or “All Landowners in the [GLA] Community and their families shall have the right to use the area along both sides of portions of Fridley Creek [in North Glastonbury], Dry Creek and Golmeyer Creek [in South Glastonbury] for lateral recreational access. A nonexclusive perpetual easement and right of way is hereby reserved for this purpose within twenty (20) feet of the exterior banks along both sides of said creeks, for the use and benefit of Landowners and the Association…”. To split North and South GLA Boards in half with separate jurisdictions would be an unlawful taking of all such creek easements on private property shared by all members in both North and South Glastonbury.
Also, GLA Covenant 11.02 (in part) requires, “The assessments levied by the [GLA] Association shall be used for the operation, maintenance, repair and improvement of roads, trails, easements, common use land, security entrances, ditches, canals, drainages, machinery, vehicles, equipment and other facilities serving the [whole] Community; for snowplowing; for structures, improvements and added services on the roads and trails, the common use land or elsewhere within the Community which are for the benefit of [all] Landowners; and for such other uses and purposes which are contemplated in these covenants …” There is no feasible legal way to split up the member assessments to maintain the roads, trails, common use property, and other easements all used by all GLA members. In other words, to split up such assessment funds due to splitting up North and South Boards in half with separate jurisdictions is legally prohibitive, because about two thirds of all assessments collected by the GLA Association are used for this shared purpose to maintain shared roads, trails, common use property, and other easements used by all GLA members.
Also, by sharing such assessments in both North and South Glastonbury shares the maintenance costs for maintaining all shared roads, trails, common use property, and other easements used by all GLA members. The other expenses include shared insurance costs, shared management/employee costs, shared taxes and licenses costs, shared liabilities and road equipment (for road maintenance, snowplowing/sanding) shared sand storage facility (located in North), and all other shared member support services. This saves all landowners in the GLA Association considerable expense by sharing such costs, so that all GLA members each pay less assessments as a result of these shared expenses. Plus, contractors who maintain our shared roads charge less money by having shared buying power. This means that road maintenance and snow plowing our GLA private road system is much less expensive with such combined maintenance/buying power (which road maintenance alone is a considerable cost per year of about $80k). But to split up such assessment funds due to splitting up North and South Boards in half with separate jurisdictions is legally prohibitive, since, it would take away all these shared expenses and take away combined buying power; which is cost prohibitive adding a new and unexpected financial burden for every landowner.
Finally, splitting up North and South Boards in half with separate jurisdictions is legally prohibitive, because it would create new legal liabilities (named above) and likely more unknown liabilities to the Association that all landowners would be forced to pay and be financially harmed as a result. This includes a reduction of members services that a 12 member Board currently provides would be untenable for just 6 Board members to accomplish the same member services–like project reviews, member complaints, member document requests, billing services, and other member services provided by the Board. Such a fantastic change in the GLA Board would also certainly entail a change in the governing documents as to rendered them void; which is grounds for any of the 414 parcel owners to sue the GLA and/or the Court.
Thus for all the reasons above, splitting up North and South Boards in half would cause much more legal liabilities that would irreparably harm all members, their property values, and rights while also adding unnecessary burdens and expenses against all landowners (which division of the GLA Board was not contemplated when every landowner bought their properties here in Glastonbury). Those three Board members (John McAlister, Andrea Sedlak, Jerry Ladewig) who filed the lawsuit against the GLA Association demanding to split up the Board failed to mention all such likely results above in their lawsuit. They also failed to mention that their primary demand to dissolve the GLA Association would cost every member more property taxes just to let the County maintain our roads; which County roads are the worst maintained roads. Thus, it appears that three GLA Board members’ lawsuit would harm everyone and not serve the best interests of the members. There is no good reason to file such a lawsuit due to all the reasons above. As Ladewigs letter above admits, her beef is directly in opposition to church members on the GLA Board. So their/her lawsuit smacks as just another attempt to destroy this Glastonbury community or anything else supported by church members.
Sincerely, Val O'Connell
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Jul 9, 2021 7:53:28 GMT -7
Val O'Connell Threatens to Sue The GLA On July 9, 2021 at 3:11 AM Val O'Connell sent an email to the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) stating "This is my formal member complaint against the GLA Lawsuit Filed by GLA Board members-McAllister, Ladewig, Sedlak, and other non-board members.
This complaint and demand letter hereby demands that you–GLA Board Plaintiffs retract your lawsuit (DV 2021-101) by July 22, 2021, or else I may take legal action to counter-sue you".
Val then posted a lengthy letter that she also posted on the Forum in the above post.
All GLA directors are indemnified which means that their legal expenses from any lawsuit will be paid for with landowner assessment funds. O'Connell was declared a "vextatious litigant" by the court as outlined in an article on the GLA website. That ruling may prevent her from filing any lawsuit against the GLA.
O'Connell has also asked the court to allow her to join the Mizzi/Brozovsky lawsuit against the GLA. The court has yet to rule on that request.
|
|
|
|
Post by Debbie Newby on Jul 12, 2021 18:54:34 GMT -7
GLA Landowners,
Poor Richard is correct: unbeknownst to me, Addendums 3-2 and 3-3 in this lawsuit (written by me Feb 2021 to the MT Attorney General) were included without my knowledge and without my permission; I was surprised to see my letter included as part of this lawsuit! This gives the impression I am in support of this lawsuit, which I am NOT. Facts:
- I did not sign the petition circulated by this group of 6 GLA landowners.
- Dennis Riley personally inquired of my husband to sign the petition and received my husband's "No" response prior to the lawsuit filing.
- Board Members Sedlak, Ladewig and McAlister likely violated GLA Rule 2.01, implemented by the GLA in Nov 2019, that states any GLA information not required to be released by MCA 35-2-906 are confidential and cannot be released without the approval of the Board. I would like to see that Board Motion and vote approving release of the copy of my letter I submitted to the GLA Board.
The last GLA Board Meeting minutes posted on the GLA website are from July 2020; an entire year since the GLA saw fit to distribute meeting minutes to landowners. To the best of my knowledge, it has been a full six (6) months since the GLA held a normal monthly board meeting in January 2021. However, I am sure there have been many motions made amongst the GLA Board by email since then. I challenge ANY current board member to create a log of the actual text of each and every motion made since July 2020 (email or otherwise) along with the voting record of each and every board member on all those motions for distribution to all landowners. If a courageous Board Member would do this, it would greatly enlighten the landowners as to what actually has been transpiring behind the scenes in the GLA over the past year. And which Board Members were involved - or not - in "postponing" (as Charlotte Mizzi announced) the in-person voting portion of the Nov 2020 Annual Election.
On June 24, I sent out the following email to a handful of my friends and neighbors, in which I question the lawsuit and explain why I do not support it. Since the 6 GLA landowners chose to use my attorney general letter to bolster their lawsuit, I choose to make the email I sent to my friends and neighbors public here on the Forum for consideration by all GLA landowners. Think carefully and ask questions before you sign their petition!
24 June 2021 "Hello GLA Neighbors,
There are requests circulating for signatures and financial support of a GLA Petition to split South Glastonbury from the GLA. Several of the principals promoting that petition are GLA Board members.
Before you sign the petition, consider the Board's determination NOT to fill 3 vacant seats over the past year, as the Governing Documents require. Those 3 seats were all vacated in 2020 due to resignations of board members. The Board also determined NOT to hold the November 2020 Annual Election, also required by our Governing Documents. To my knowledge (since we have not been given Board Meeting Minutes for many months now) those 3 board seats remain vacant, leaving a Board of 9 members.
There is much talk about a "deadlock on the board". However, a deadlock cannot occur with an odd # of Board Members. One resigned board member has been allowed to continue to attend and vote in 2021 as tho he were still a Board Member! He should be cut off if he attempts to participate on the Board and vote at any 2021 meeting; His votes should not be counted. Why are the Board Members who are promoting the Petition allowing that to go on? Another lawsuit is NOT necessary to enforce a resignation! The remaining 9 members cannot deadlock to act by virtue of their odd number. The resigned board member has a Conflict of Interest in any actions by the board against him and consequently cannot participate in any vote regarding his attempted, continued participation on the board.
I will not support the petition because the Board Members promoting the petition chose to pursue legal avenues rather than uphold the governing docs and fill empty Board seats that would resolve any "deadlock". Those Board Members are in a position to fill the 3 vacant seats at any time. They apparently have decided they don't want to. Ask them Why Not? They are not representing the landowners in the matters of the Board such as: 1) filling vacant board seats and 2) holding an Annual Election. Rather, they are promoting their own interests and desire to split South Glastonbury from the GLA.
The straightforward, simple solutions must be pursued first, with lawsuits a last resort - not the other way around. Filling the 3 vacant seats would give the GLA new blood and allow it to function again. The current 9 member Board has the power to fill those 3 seats immediately - outside of an election! What are they waiting for? What have they been waiting for the last year?
Sincerely, Debbie Newby, SG 39D"
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Jul 17, 2021 10:43:21 GMT -7
O’Connell does not want everyone to know the Courts decision can easily solve all the problems pointed out above.
A Court division of North and South can address the issue of the Park Count V. CUT to keep the roads private and allow use of Common Use land by simply including a statement something like “Glastonbury Landowners, and their guests, rights to use the roads and common use lands in North and South, and all rights described in the 1997 Covenants are not impacted or reduced by this Decree.”
O’Connell do not seem to realize that land use rights described in easements may be “WITHHELD” or “GRANTED”, but either way the Lot owners rights within the easements would not “taken” since they have already been withheld/conveyed by the easement. Taurus Rd easement, and all other Platted Road Easements, were withheld by CUT not granted by landowners. Thus, Landowners rights are subject to CUT’s rights for management as described in the covenants. Even if the easements were granted by individual Landowners, those landowners make their rights subject to the rights they convey in an easement they grant – i.e. manage and control roads.
Annual assessments and use of funds as described in the 1997 Covenant 11.02 can also be continued by the directions written into a Court decision.
It is inaccurate to assume that GLA obtains reduced rates based on there being more road mileage if both North and South roads are combined. Since GLA does not seek bids for road maintenance that assumption is simply wrong.
Maintenance of GLA’s easement on the soccer fields is the only expenditures toward Common Use Lands that I’ve heard of in the 15+ years I’ve been in Glastonbury. I call the soccer fields an easement since the deed contains language dictating uses and management of the fields along with a recessionary clause returning full ownership to CUT.
The benefits of a 12-person Board is not a true issue since for years (likely decades) only 4-5 Board members have done all the work and the remaining 7-8 only vote on Board and Committee issues. All the issues presented by O’Connell are actually a smoke screen, just like the other arguments listed.
The closing statement and all arguments against splitting North and South by O’Connell does not recognize the Court can eliminate the liabilities and all other “assumed” problems with simple wording in the directions to split North and South.
Evidently O’Connell is not aware that property values in Glastonbury have already been greatly reduced due to the reputation Glastonbury has from past, and especially current, mismanagement by the Board.
How the Court will address all the issues remains to be seen and assumptions on what will happen are risky.
Debbie Newby presents many good questions about the actions of the Board, especially the resignation of Ed. The attorney suggesting Ed may still be considered a director appears to forget that he gave an opposite opinion concerning Ron Price withdrawal from running for the Board. In the Price advice he stated that once notice is given and accepted by the Board, that decision cannot be rescinded. The Board accepted Ed’s resignation when Landowners were notified they would need to vote on one more Director position than was listed in the request for candidates.
Debbie’s challenge for the Board to present a “log of the actual test of each and every motion made since July 2020” is partially addressed in State statute 35-2-906 (5)(c) “resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations, and obligations of members or any class or category of members”. Unfortunately gaining access to those email votes would involve another lawsuit.
I believe the Board is in violation of Bylaw VI(F) when they vote on issues not presented to landowners, with landowners having an opportunity to comment. The critical text of VI(F) reads "Directors’ Meetings. All Board meetings, other than about confidential matters, shall be conducted in meetings open to Members and invitees.”
I challenge any Director to explain how the making of any motion and voting on it is not an official meeting of the Board. Black’s Law dictionary states a meeting “A single official gathering of people to discuss or act on matters in which they have a common interest:” and “is the event of their being assembled to transact business:”
How much the two lawsuits will it cost Landowners is not known, but very scary.
Landowners have been kept in the dark and not allowed to see what the Board is doing for far to long. |
|
|
|
Post by my name on Aug 7, 2021 6:56:58 GMT -7
It is unfortunate that Ms. Newby ignores the facts. She is not sitting in a Director chair. You cannot MAKE people do your bidding. The board has objected to Ed's position but he has support from 4 other Directors and will not self-remove. She alleges we support this-NOT true. The 5 offending directors, Ed, Charlotte, Gerald, Aija-mara, and Newman obstruct all efforts at fairness, especially when it comes to gov-docs enforcement. Ms. Newby insists things be done her way and condemns those who do not do her bidding. The other 5 are not in charge and cannot break the deadlocked vote.
AND it is Mr. Brockett who is violating 2.01 consistently, with his divulging of GLA board information in this forum. Ms. Newby supports him and fails to see her favored position, while accusing the other 5.
The dissolution individuals seek a solution to an ongoing problem created by 5 corrupt directors. The election debacle is only 1 item in a long list of control lissues by Charlotte and her sheep, attemptin gto retain the associatin as a puppet of the church,
|
|
|
|
Post by debbien on Sept 2, 2021 7:33:55 GMT -7
Ed resigned yet again in the August 2021 Board Meeting and Director Brockett took swift advantage of it by making successful motions to replace President Newman with Sedlak, and to replace Secretary Mizzi with Director Claudette Dirkers. Unfortunately, our new President Sedlak is saddled with a HUGE conflict of interest being in a position of leading the GLA as President, while at the same time promoting dissolution/separation of the GLA in this lawsuit! (Sound familiar? Newman when he was President did the very same thing.)
Now that the deadlock on the board has been resolved (with Ed's resignation), the GLA Board is in a position (with proper leadership) to move forward on essentially every issue before it (holding monthly Board Meetings, filling vacant board seats, completing the in-person voting portion of the 2020 election, etc.). The very basis of the Sedlak/Ladewig/Riley/McAllister lawsuit - the deadlock that prevented the board from acting on anything - has evaporated! Sedlak/Ladewig/McAllister along with Brockett and Dirkers have the power to enact anything the 5 of them can agree on. Sedlak, Ladewig and McAllister are now in the controlling faction and time will tell if they make use of that power and withdraw their lawsuit to get back to landowner business OR if their real agenda is to destroy the GLA? Even now? Who needs a lawsuit when you control the majority?
P.S. The unknown guest commenting in this string Aug 7 at 7:56 am, ignores the fact that Ed would not have been able to vote on the status of his own resignation - a Conflict of Interest; 5 directors prevail over 4. I listened in to the August Board Meeting - you owe Tim Brockett thanks for essentially single-handedly overcoming the deadlock with 1) a motion to obtain legal opinion on Ed continuing as a Board Member after his 12/31/2020 resignation and 2) to fill the 2 board seats that have been vacant for many, many moons. Those two motions in themselves would have resolved the deadlock, even if Ed had not resigned yet another time later on in the meeting! I have high hopes our new Secretary Dirkers will be getting those Board Meeting minutes out to landowners soon, so we will all know how that came down. So, YES I whole heart-edly support Tim Brockett for what he has done to resolve the deadlock. And YES I am VERY glad for this Forum and the information he posts to promote transparency among the landowners. (We all know Rule 2.01 was specifically put in place to attempt to block information from the Board to Landowners when Brockett became a Director.)
|
|
montana
New Member
why selecting a board member in north is important
Posts: 30
|
Post by montana on Sept 2, 2021 16:19:20 GMT -7
Ed resigned yet again in the August 2021 Board Meeting and Director Brockett took swift advantage of it by making successful motions to replace President Newman with Sedlak, and to replace Secretary Mizzi with Director Claudette Dirkers. Unfortunately, our new President Sedlak is saddled with a HUGE conflict of interest being in a position of leading the GLA as President, while at the same time promoting dissolution/separation of the GLA in this lawsuit! (Sound familiar? Newman when he was President did the very same thing.) Now that the deadlock on the board has been resolved (with Ed's resignation), the GLA Board is in a position (with proper leadership) to move forward on essentially every issue before it (holding monthly Board Meetings, filling vacant board seats, completing the in-person voting portion of the 2020 election, etc.). The very basis of the Sedlak/Ladewig/Riley/McAllister lawsuit - the deadlock that prevented the board from acting on anything - has evaporated! Sedlak/Ladewig/McAllister along with Brockett and Dirkers have the power to enact anything the 5 of them can agree on. Sedlak, Ladewig and McAllister are now in the controlling faction and time will tell if they make use of that power and withdraw their lawsuit to get back to landowner business OR if their real agenda is to destroy the GLA? Even now? Who needs a lawsuit when you control the majority? P.S. The unknown guest commenting in this string Aug 7 at 7:56 am, ignores the fact that Ed would not have been able to vote on the status of his own resignation - a Conflict of Interest; 5 directors prevail over 4. I listened in to the August Board Meeting - you owe Tim Brockett thanks for essentially single-handedly overcoming the deadlock with 1) a motion to obtain legal opinion on Ed continuing as a Board Member after his 12/31/2020 resignation and 2) to fill the 2 board seats that have been vacant for many, many moons. Those two motions in themselves would have resolved the deadlock, even if Ed had not resigned yet another time later on in the meeting! I have high hopes our new Secretary Dirkers will be getting those Board Meeting minutes out to landowners soon, so we will all know how that came down. So, YES I whole heart-edly support Tim Brockett for what he has done to resolve the deadlock. And YES I am VERY glad for this Forum and the information he posts to promote transparency among the landowners. (We all know Rule 2.01 was specifically put in place to attempt to block information from the Board to Landowners when Brockett became a Director.) |
|
