Complaint and Recommended Solutions Jan. 11th Board Meeting
Jan 17, 2016 4:41:10 GMT -7
Admin and zorro like this
Post by Dorothy Keeler on Jan 17, 2016 4:41:10 GMT -7
Dear GLA Board members,
My husband, Leo, and I arrived at the Jan. 11, 2016 board meeting and were surprised to be handed a slip of paper entitled, "Meeting Decorum."
I recently discovered that the GLA president had created and authorized the distribution of this document without showing it to or discussing it with any of the 4 board members that were present at the Communications Meeting held on Jan. 14, 2016. The board members who confirmed they had no prior knowledge of the new "Meeting Decorum" rules are; 1) Dan Kehoe; 2) Ross Brunson; 3) Charlene Murphy; and 4) Dennis Riley.
I believe this is violation of the GLA Covenant Bylaw Article VI (B) General Powers and Duties stating “Such Directors shall in all cases act as a Board …. and shall act by majority vote of those members present at a meeting,” and (F) Directors’s Meetings. All business of the board other than confidential matters (in the discretion of the Board) shall be conducted in an open meeting.”
The "Meeting Decorum" document “rules”, and my comments to each point, follows:
Rule #1 - Each landowner will be allowed to speak for 3 minutes either at the beginning or at the end of the meeting.
I offer the following observation - Although choosing a time limit is reasonable, requiring a landowner to choose between one 3 minute opportunity, either at the beginning or the end of the meeting, is essentially a gag order. At the beginning of the meeting, obviously, nothing on the Board's upcoming agenda has been discussed, so the landowner has yet to hear any conversation that he/she might want to comment on, clarify, or correct. Preventing landowners from adding specific, pertinent, and valuable information just before a motion under consideration is voted upon is essentially creating a gag order, and for ethical, moral, and legal reasons, should never be allowed.
Requiring a landowner to speak at the end of the meeting is pointless, as discussion, decisions, and votes have been cast by the Board members without having the opportunity to hear all the facts.
Therefore, I suggest that the Governing Documents be changed to guarantee that landowners have a specific right to add pertinent and valuable information to the discussion just before a motion under consideration is voted upon, without limit. If the landowner’s comments are not pertinent to the matter, or do not add valuable information to the discussion, he/she can then be rightfully called “out of order” and requested to relinquish the floor.
Rule #2 - During the Project Review section of the meeting, if the Board needs additional information, the Board may ask the applicant, his representative and/or immediate neighbor to speak.
It is my opinion that this requirement is clearly an attempt to silence opposition, enforce a gag order against opposing views, and prevent landowners, whose property values and rights to quiet enjoyment of their property will be affected by decisions made, from having a voice.
Again, I suggest that the Governing Documents be changed to guarantee that landowners have a specific right to add pertinent and valuable information to the discussion just before a motion under consideration is voted upon, without limit. If the landowner’s comments are not pertinent to the matter, or do not add valuable information to the discussion, he/she can then be rightfully called “out of order” and requested to relinquish the floor.
Rule #3 - Otherwise there will be no landowner comments during the meeting.
I believe this rule exposes the GLA to liability in future lawsuits. There are currently over 100 + written comments to the Board that have gone unanswered for weeks, even years. If written comments to the Board are ignored, how can the landowners exercise their right to maintain the value of their investment by challenging uninformed and unwise decisions made by the Board? This policy is creating lawsuits between neighbors, whose only option to enforce the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions is by taking the issue to court.
According to Parliamentarian Expert Ann McFarlane ( www.jurassicparliament.com/about-us/about-ann-macfarlane/ )"oversight bodies wish to see evidence that a nonprofit board has exercised proper due diligence. A board has legal, financial and moral responsibility for the organization it leads. If questions arise about the legality or propriety of an organization’s actions, it can be important to determine how much the board of directors knew about those actions, and when they knew it."
I suggest that the Governing Documents be changed to guarantee that landowners have a specific right to add pertinent and valuable information to any matter before the Board, without limit. If the landowner’s comments are not pertinent to the matter, or do not add valuable information to the discussion, he/she can then be rightfully called “out of order” and requested to relinquish the floor, as mentioned above.
On another topic, after unilaterally submitting these rules of "Meeting Decorum," the president specifically and intentionally attempted to further impose a "gag order" on the landowners present, including the members of the Project Review committee. She did so by repeatedly using the following techniques.
1) Repeated interruptions while the landowner was speaking during his/her allotted 3 minutes.
I observed that my husband, Leo, was interrupted by President Charlotte Mizzi at least 3 times during his comment period, effectively reducing his time to speak. She did so even after he told her he was not willing to waste his 3 minutes by engaging with her.
Another landowner, a female who spoke after Leo, encountered the same technique, and she courageously told president Mizzi to keep quiet during her 3 minutes. Ms. Mizzi, unfazed, interrupted her again, after which several members of the Board instinctively burst out and told her (Ms. Mizzi) to keep quiet.
2) Asking questions of the landowner during his/her allotted 3 minutes.
Again, I observed that my husband, Leo, was asked several questions by President Charlotte Mizzi during his comment period, further reducing his time to speak. She did so even after he told her he was not willing to waste his 3 minutes by engaging with her.
3) Attempting to draw the landowner into a debate during his/her allotted 3 minutes.
I observed that my husband, Leo, was baited by President Charlotte Mizzi into starting a debate with her during his comment period, further reducing his time to speak. She attempted to interrupt him two more times after he firmly told her he was not willing to waste his 3 minutes by debating with her. When she continued to interrupt, he just ignored her and continued speaking.
The GLA president also repeatedly interrupted and changed the subject with fellow Board members who did not agree with her agenda, effectively shutting them down. Board members Gerald Dubiel and Kevin Newby were silenced and steam rolled by Ms. Mizzi when they voiced objections before the vote to approve the NG 33-B Michael-George Workshop project application. Having been denied the opportunity to hear valid legal concerns from both the present landowners, all of the Project Review Committee Members, and Board members themselves, the remaining Board members were steam rolled into voting for the approval that could have easily been postponed until GLA liability questions could be properly researched and addressed.
My husband, Leo, is a member of the Project Review Committee. He was a Real Estate Specialist with the US Forest Service for 19 years. Being a humble man, he does not flaunt the fact that he was called upon and testified as an Expert Witness representing the US Forest Service during the Exxon-Valdez oil spill trial in Alaska, on issues specifically related to land use.
President Charlotte Mizzi prevented a professional of that caliber from adding his opinions and legal concerns to the discussion concerning the approval of the NG 33-B Michael-George Workshop project application. Had he been allowed to speak, I am certain the Board members would have tabled the decision to vote to verify the status of their legal liability. As a result, the Board has, once again, exposed the GLA to an upcoming lawsuit, the need for which they are responsible for creating.
Again, according to Parliamentarian Expert Ann McFarlane ( www.jurassicparliament.com/about-us/about-ann-macfarlane/) the behavior described above "is absolutely forbidden under Robert's Rules of Order." Although the GLA Board has repeatedly said they do not “strictly” follow Robert’s Rules of Order, the actions of the Board are scrutinized under the basic premise of those rules. All Board members have a responsibility to prevent Board actions from becoming the base for legal action.
According to Ms. McFarlane’s web site, the president of the Board has the duty to keep folks in line, including herself.
An example from McFarlane's web site of problem behavior and the recommended solution follows.
www.jurassicparliament.com/how-to-stop-rude-behavior/
"You can stop rude behavior. Here are some sample exchanges:
1. Jasmine is explaining her position, when suddenly John interrupts:
John interrupts: Jasmine, you don’t realize that the rules have changed! We can’t do what you’re proposing.
Jasmine: Excuse me, John, I was speaking. Under Roberts Rules, when a member has the floor, another member may not interrupt. Now, as I was saying
2. Suppose that Jasmine is a timid soul and not used to speaking up for herself? In that case, the chair of the meeting must stop the rude behavior and defend her right to speak.
Chair: John, Jasmine has the floor at this time. Interruptions are not allowed under our rules of order. Kindly wait until being recognized by the chair before speaking.
3. Later, Peter gets the floor and explains his views, and Michael jumps on him.
Michael: Peter, honestly, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard you say this year! It doesn’t make any sense.
John: Mr. Chair, I believe that under our rules of order, personal attacks are not allowed during discussion.
Chair: That is correct. Members will refrain from any attacking language.
4. Or, if Peter is so confused he doesn’t know what to say, the chair takes the initiative:
Chair: Michael, personal attacks of that nature are never allowed. Members will kindly observe the rules of our council and show courtesy and respect to one another at all times."
The web site adds, “While we wish it were otherwise, there will always be some people in meetings who throw their weight around and try to dominate others. You have the duty and the right to defend yourself. And the chair, president, or mayor has the duty of keeping those folks in line.”
Members of the GLA Board – none of you can deny that President Charlotte Mizzi threw her weight around and succeeded in dominating almost every person who attended the Jan. 11 Board meeting. She is clearly unable to fulfill the duties of president.
If that were not enough, it has also come to my attention that Marius Michael-George has made large donations to The Church Universal and Triumphant fund raisers, which is a conflict of interest. That fact alone should have been sufficient reason for the President, as a Minister of the Church Universal and Triumphant, to recluse herself from controlling the discussion and voting on the NG 33-B Michael-George Workshop project review application.
May I repeat, President Charlotte Mizzi is incapable of following Robert's Rules of Order herself, let alone perform her duty as chair.
President Mizzi used her power as President to muzzle opposing views and manipulated members to vote in favor of her "pet project." She did not consider it a conflict of interest to ram through the approval of Marius Michael-George’s Workshop project application, who is one of her financial supporters. Thereby, she exposed the GLA to liability for yet another upcoming lawsuit.
She failed as President by arbitrarily creating a “gag order” that was neither discussed with nor approved by the rest of the Board. This “gag order” was successful in hiding pertinent and valuable facts needed before the Michael-George application vote. And, specifically because of her successful attempt to silence the landowners that were members of the Project Review Committee, President Mizzi failed to comply with the due diligence requirement. That leaves the Board currently liable for adverse decisions the Board made.
Therefore, I implore you to remove her from the office of President and elect Dennis Riley president. Dennis lost the vote for the position by only one vote after three attempts, and is the logical choice to replace the current incompetent, self-serving, and mean-spirited president.
Since I can safely assume that most of the landowners who attended the Jan. 11, 2016 board meeting have the same outrage over the actions described above, I request that you ask President to resign immediately or add the request for President Charlotte Mizzi be removed from office to the Official Agenda at the next GLA Board Meeting.
Most Sincerely,
Dorothy Keeler
My husband, Leo, and I arrived at the Jan. 11, 2016 board meeting and were surprised to be handed a slip of paper entitled, "Meeting Decorum."
I recently discovered that the GLA president had created and authorized the distribution of this document without showing it to or discussing it with any of the 4 board members that were present at the Communications Meeting held on Jan. 14, 2016. The board members who confirmed they had no prior knowledge of the new "Meeting Decorum" rules are; 1) Dan Kehoe; 2) Ross Brunson; 3) Charlene Murphy; and 4) Dennis Riley.
I believe this is violation of the GLA Covenant Bylaw Article VI (B) General Powers and Duties stating “Such Directors shall in all cases act as a Board …. and shall act by majority vote of those members present at a meeting,” and (F) Directors’s Meetings. All business of the board other than confidential matters (in the discretion of the Board) shall be conducted in an open meeting.”
The "Meeting Decorum" document “rules”, and my comments to each point, follows:
Rule #1 - Each landowner will be allowed to speak for 3 minutes either at the beginning or at the end of the meeting.
I offer the following observation - Although choosing a time limit is reasonable, requiring a landowner to choose between one 3 minute opportunity, either at the beginning or the end of the meeting, is essentially a gag order. At the beginning of the meeting, obviously, nothing on the Board's upcoming agenda has been discussed, so the landowner has yet to hear any conversation that he/she might want to comment on, clarify, or correct. Preventing landowners from adding specific, pertinent, and valuable information just before a motion under consideration is voted upon is essentially creating a gag order, and for ethical, moral, and legal reasons, should never be allowed.
Requiring a landowner to speak at the end of the meeting is pointless, as discussion, decisions, and votes have been cast by the Board members without having the opportunity to hear all the facts.
Therefore, I suggest that the Governing Documents be changed to guarantee that landowners have a specific right to add pertinent and valuable information to the discussion just before a motion under consideration is voted upon, without limit. If the landowner’s comments are not pertinent to the matter, or do not add valuable information to the discussion, he/she can then be rightfully called “out of order” and requested to relinquish the floor.
Rule #2 - During the Project Review section of the meeting, if the Board needs additional information, the Board may ask the applicant, his representative and/or immediate neighbor to speak.
It is my opinion that this requirement is clearly an attempt to silence opposition, enforce a gag order against opposing views, and prevent landowners, whose property values and rights to quiet enjoyment of their property will be affected by decisions made, from having a voice.
Again, I suggest that the Governing Documents be changed to guarantee that landowners have a specific right to add pertinent and valuable information to the discussion just before a motion under consideration is voted upon, without limit. If the landowner’s comments are not pertinent to the matter, or do not add valuable information to the discussion, he/she can then be rightfully called “out of order” and requested to relinquish the floor.
Rule #3 - Otherwise there will be no landowner comments during the meeting.
I believe this rule exposes the GLA to liability in future lawsuits. There are currently over 100 + written comments to the Board that have gone unanswered for weeks, even years. If written comments to the Board are ignored, how can the landowners exercise their right to maintain the value of their investment by challenging uninformed and unwise decisions made by the Board? This policy is creating lawsuits between neighbors, whose only option to enforce the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions is by taking the issue to court.
According to Parliamentarian Expert Ann McFarlane ( www.jurassicparliament.com/about-us/about-ann-macfarlane/ )"oversight bodies wish to see evidence that a nonprofit board has exercised proper due diligence. A board has legal, financial and moral responsibility for the organization it leads. If questions arise about the legality or propriety of an organization’s actions, it can be important to determine how much the board of directors knew about those actions, and when they knew it."
I suggest that the Governing Documents be changed to guarantee that landowners have a specific right to add pertinent and valuable information to any matter before the Board, without limit. If the landowner’s comments are not pertinent to the matter, or do not add valuable information to the discussion, he/she can then be rightfully called “out of order” and requested to relinquish the floor, as mentioned above.
On another topic, after unilaterally submitting these rules of "Meeting Decorum," the president specifically and intentionally attempted to further impose a "gag order" on the landowners present, including the members of the Project Review committee. She did so by repeatedly using the following techniques.
1) Repeated interruptions while the landowner was speaking during his/her allotted 3 minutes.
I observed that my husband, Leo, was interrupted by President Charlotte Mizzi at least 3 times during his comment period, effectively reducing his time to speak. She did so even after he told her he was not willing to waste his 3 minutes by engaging with her.
Another landowner, a female who spoke after Leo, encountered the same technique, and she courageously told president Mizzi to keep quiet during her 3 minutes. Ms. Mizzi, unfazed, interrupted her again, after which several members of the Board instinctively burst out and told her (Ms. Mizzi) to keep quiet.
2) Asking questions of the landowner during his/her allotted 3 minutes.
Again, I observed that my husband, Leo, was asked several questions by President Charlotte Mizzi during his comment period, further reducing his time to speak. She did so even after he told her he was not willing to waste his 3 minutes by engaging with her.
3) Attempting to draw the landowner into a debate during his/her allotted 3 minutes.
I observed that my husband, Leo, was baited by President Charlotte Mizzi into starting a debate with her during his comment period, further reducing his time to speak. She attempted to interrupt him two more times after he firmly told her he was not willing to waste his 3 minutes by debating with her. When she continued to interrupt, he just ignored her and continued speaking.
The GLA president also repeatedly interrupted and changed the subject with fellow Board members who did not agree with her agenda, effectively shutting them down. Board members Gerald Dubiel and Kevin Newby were silenced and steam rolled by Ms. Mizzi when they voiced objections before the vote to approve the NG 33-B Michael-George Workshop project application. Having been denied the opportunity to hear valid legal concerns from both the present landowners, all of the Project Review Committee Members, and Board members themselves, the remaining Board members were steam rolled into voting for the approval that could have easily been postponed until GLA liability questions could be properly researched and addressed.
My husband, Leo, is a member of the Project Review Committee. He was a Real Estate Specialist with the US Forest Service for 19 years. Being a humble man, he does not flaunt the fact that he was called upon and testified as an Expert Witness representing the US Forest Service during the Exxon-Valdez oil spill trial in Alaska, on issues specifically related to land use.
President Charlotte Mizzi prevented a professional of that caliber from adding his opinions and legal concerns to the discussion concerning the approval of the NG 33-B Michael-George Workshop project application. Had he been allowed to speak, I am certain the Board members would have tabled the decision to vote to verify the status of their legal liability. As a result, the Board has, once again, exposed the GLA to an upcoming lawsuit, the need for which they are responsible for creating.
Again, according to Parliamentarian Expert Ann McFarlane ( www.jurassicparliament.com/about-us/about-ann-macfarlane/) the behavior described above "is absolutely forbidden under Robert's Rules of Order." Although the GLA Board has repeatedly said they do not “strictly” follow Robert’s Rules of Order, the actions of the Board are scrutinized under the basic premise of those rules. All Board members have a responsibility to prevent Board actions from becoming the base for legal action.
According to Ms. McFarlane’s web site, the president of the Board has the duty to keep folks in line, including herself.
An example from McFarlane's web site of problem behavior and the recommended solution follows.
www.jurassicparliament.com/how-to-stop-rude-behavior/
"You can stop rude behavior. Here are some sample exchanges:
1. Jasmine is explaining her position, when suddenly John interrupts:
John interrupts: Jasmine, you don’t realize that the rules have changed! We can’t do what you’re proposing.
Jasmine: Excuse me, John, I was speaking. Under Roberts Rules, when a member has the floor, another member may not interrupt. Now, as I was saying
2. Suppose that Jasmine is a timid soul and not used to speaking up for herself? In that case, the chair of the meeting must stop the rude behavior and defend her right to speak.
Chair: John, Jasmine has the floor at this time. Interruptions are not allowed under our rules of order. Kindly wait until being recognized by the chair before speaking.
3. Later, Peter gets the floor and explains his views, and Michael jumps on him.
Michael: Peter, honestly, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard you say this year! It doesn’t make any sense.
John: Mr. Chair, I believe that under our rules of order, personal attacks are not allowed during discussion.
Chair: That is correct. Members will refrain from any attacking language.
4. Or, if Peter is so confused he doesn’t know what to say, the chair takes the initiative:
Chair: Michael, personal attacks of that nature are never allowed. Members will kindly observe the rules of our council and show courtesy and respect to one another at all times."
The web site adds, “While we wish it were otherwise, there will always be some people in meetings who throw their weight around and try to dominate others. You have the duty and the right to defend yourself. And the chair, president, or mayor has the duty of keeping those folks in line.”
Members of the GLA Board – none of you can deny that President Charlotte Mizzi threw her weight around and succeeded in dominating almost every person who attended the Jan. 11 Board meeting. She is clearly unable to fulfill the duties of president.
If that were not enough, it has also come to my attention that Marius Michael-George has made large donations to The Church Universal and Triumphant fund raisers, which is a conflict of interest. That fact alone should have been sufficient reason for the President, as a Minister of the Church Universal and Triumphant, to recluse herself from controlling the discussion and voting on the NG 33-B Michael-George Workshop project review application.
May I repeat, President Charlotte Mizzi is incapable of following Robert's Rules of Order herself, let alone perform her duty as chair.
President Mizzi used her power as President to muzzle opposing views and manipulated members to vote in favor of her "pet project." She did not consider it a conflict of interest to ram through the approval of Marius Michael-George’s Workshop project application, who is one of her financial supporters. Thereby, she exposed the GLA to liability for yet another upcoming lawsuit.
She failed as President by arbitrarily creating a “gag order” that was neither discussed with nor approved by the rest of the Board. This “gag order” was successful in hiding pertinent and valuable facts needed before the Michael-George application vote. And, specifically because of her successful attempt to silence the landowners that were members of the Project Review Committee, President Mizzi failed to comply with the due diligence requirement. That leaves the Board currently liable for adverse decisions the Board made.
Therefore, I implore you to remove her from the office of President and elect Dennis Riley president. Dennis lost the vote for the position by only one vote after three attempts, and is the logical choice to replace the current incompetent, self-serving, and mean-spirited president.
Since I can safely assume that most of the landowners who attended the Jan. 11, 2016 board meeting have the same outrage over the actions described above, I request that you ask President to resign immediately or add the request for President Charlotte Mizzi be removed from office to the Official Agenda at the next GLA Board Meeting.
Most Sincerely,
Dorothy Keeler
