|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Jan 11, 2022 15:08:47 GMT -7
Court Hearing Result Regarding GLA Dissolution
Judge Gilbert Holds Off on a Decision
A Court Hearing was held on January 10, 2022 to finalize the Mediated Settlement that the Dissolution Lawsuit group and the GLA Board agreed to. The hearing was presided over by Judge Gilbert and held at the Livingston 6th District court at the County Complex. The hearing lasted for one hour and ended without a decision. The judge appeared ill-prepared according to one attendee and "unfamiliar with the settlement agreement".
Many people attended the hearing and the judge granted a one-week extension of time for attendees to write letters to the court. Verbal comments were not allowed. Reference was made to a petition containing 90+ signatures requesting that the GLA NOT be split in two. Many people signed the petition two or more times; once for each parcel they owned. Many non-landowners also signed so it is not clear how representative the petition is.
Judge Gilbert asked if scheduling a new election and prohibiting any current directors from running would solve the deadlock. Attorney Lofing answered that it might for a year or two but the cultural differences were so large that problems would end up in the court again. No one mentioned that the "deadlock" on the GLA board was broken in August when Ed Dobrowski resigned for a second time. After his resignation the board was down to nine members and the mathematical deadlock no longer existed.
Attorney Jackson speaking for the GLA, referenced the Covenants which require a 51% vote to split the GLA. No mention was made of how much work that would entail or why the GLA previously rejected that line of thought. The Covenants do not allow for the dissolving of the corporation; only the court can accomplish that.
There was also talk of poor to non-existent road service. But the roads were plowed and maintained during the entire time the board was deadlocked.
Attorney Lofing representing the Dissolution group, likened the Covenants to a pyramid. The Judge sat at the top of the pyramid and could change any of the Covenants underneath her at will.
A senior law clerk at the 6th Judicial Court, Nancy L. MacCracken, stated "At the hearing, the Judge stated that the only people that can submit letters are those that attended yesterday’s hearing and have not already submitted letters. If they fall into that category, the letters are due by the end of this week. They can send them to parkdcc@mt.gov. MacCracken also clarified "There is no “deadline” for the Judge to render a decision. It will be done as soon as possible, but there is no deadline, nor can I provide you with a timeframe by which it will be done".
For now the fate of the GLA rests with Judge Gilbert. If she approves the Settlement Agreement then the GLA will be split in two; one board for North and one for South Glastonbury. They will be two distinct boards and the GLA as we know it today, will cease to exist. The Covenants and Bylaws will apply to both boards. The change to two boards is expected to take 30-60 days once the judge makes an affirmative decision. Thus assessment invoices may not be mailed for several months.
We will keep you posted of further developments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Jan 21, 2022 15:04:24 GMT -7
Friday January 21, 2022 - No Court Decision Yet
Almost two weeks have passed since the January 10, 2022 Court Hearing. An extra 7 days were provided by Judge Gilbert for attendees to submit written comments. That deadline has now passed.
The Forum queried the court on Friday afternoon at 2:16. According to Nancy L. MacCracken, a senior law clerk for Judge Gilbert "The Judge has not yet entered a decision or order".
When a decision is finally made we will post it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Jan 26, 2022 12:09:48 GMT -7
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Still no ruling issued by the court
Over two weeks have passed since the January 10th court hearing. The Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) has mailed annual assessment statements and contracted for road plowing. They are further stymied by the court's inaction. A large backlog of Project Review problems needs to be addressed. Spring grading and road maintenance is another timely issue that is hanging in the balance. Landowners may be reluctant to pay their assessments when the future of the GLA is in question. No monthly board meetings are scheduled for 2022. Minutes have not been approved for almost two years. The last Annual Election was in 2019 and none is scheduled for 2022. A draft budget was never approved. Financial statements are suspect and the Treasurer refuses to share primary documents with directors or landowners. By most measures, the GLA is completely dysfunctional. The delay by the court adds more uncertainty at a time when the GLA sorely needs to plan ahead.
As of today at 12 noon no ruling has been issued by the court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Feb 4, 2022 10:31:43 GMT -7
Is a Court Decision Regarding GLA Dissolution Coming Soon? On Friday, February 4th at 10:11 AM the Forum emailed Nancy Mccracken, a senior Law Clerk for the Montana 6th Judicial Court. We inquired as to the status of the Riley vs GLA Mediation Settlement Hearing held on January 10th, 2022. Mccracken replied quickly and stated, "No decision is out yet". Mccracken uses words precisely and with legal sharpness. We interpret her statement to mean that a decision has been reached but has not been released yet. The legal opinion is probably in the process of being written. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that it will be edited, finalized and issued shortly. Monday, February 7th would be the on one-month anniversary and a logical deadline for a decision.
When a decision is made public we will share it with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Feb 18, 2022 14:46:15 GMT -7
The Wheels of Justice Turn Slowly
A Decision is Finally Imminent. Today the Forum spoke with Nancy Mccracken, a senior Law Clerk for the Montana 6th Judicial Court. We asked if a decision had been reached yet regarding the January 10, 2022 Settlement Hearing between the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) and the Dissolution lawsuit crew. Ms Mccracken replied in the affirmative and stated "The Judge is working on the decision and we anticipate that it will be done soon". That should be welcome news for Glastonbury landowners who have been left in limbo for almost two years without elections and with a barely functioning board.
Once a decision is handed down by the 6th District Court the path forward should be clear for the GLA and the community. When the court decision is released we will post it on the Forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Feb 23, 2022 13:02:59 GMT -7
Court Decision is "in the works" On February 23, 2022, Nancy L. MacCracken, a senior law clerk for Judge Gilbert stated "The decision is “in the works”, but not done yet". She suggested that we check back with the court around March 1, 2022.
The court settlement hearing was held on January 10, 2022.
When a decision is released we will post it on the Forum.
|
|
val
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by val on Mar 16, 2022 1:39:35 GMT -7
GLA Dissolution Case Order Excerpt is here:
On February 25, 2022, Judge Gilbert signed an Order that said:
"Further proceedings regarding the [GLA] Petition for Dissolution are hereby stayed, pending the conduct of an election for the Board of Directors...as to whether the Resolution...should be adopted by a vote of the membership." This Order also appointed Judge Swandel as "custodian pendente lite" to "facilitate the election for the Board of Directors...." The Order also ensures that all GLA members to be given a copy of this Order.
This Order means that the GLA members themselves get to vote to decide to keep the GLA together. This also means that the GLA Petition to Dissolve the GLA was seen as unfounded-except for the lawsuit Petitioner's ability to petition for a new election for such purpose.
This Order is also good news to have appointed Judge Swandel to oversee GLA elections, because he already has a through history of the GLA & lawsuits. While he is yet being paid with GLA funds (as costly), at least those funds will help ensure a fair election and likely put to rest any future attempts by the Board to divide the GLA.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Mar 17, 2022 12:02:09 GMT -7
Val is wrong and possibly purposefully misleading, about what the Court has found.
Nothing in the Dissolution lawsuit (DV 21-101) asked for a new election, and if the case was unfounded, the Judge would have dismissed it instead of issuing a “stay order” which allows for future processing. The call for a new election was only in Charlotte and Newman’s lawsuit against GLA (DV 21-52) which was not properly filed and never proceeded, but still cost GLA money.
Can/Should our election of directors require that all candidates have an ownership interest in GLA lands to run for the Board? Should they have “skin in the game” so to speak?
The 2021 lawsuits and all related problems were caused by the efforts of Newman, Charlotte, and others to get non-landowners (I believe all were CUT members) to run to be on the for a Board seat in 2020. If elected, CUT members would have once again dominated and regained control of the Board, which was something Charlotte reportedly gave a sermon about accomplishing.
The GLA minutes from 1997 until 2016 show CUT dominated boards giving favoritism toward selected landowners. This includes ignoring building constraints for a major CUT donor, ignoring landowner damages to GLA roads (by a CUT Keeper of The Flame,) and ignoring setbacks – such as in 2013, by certifying the meeting of setbacks to build a 3-car shed/garage one foot from the property line instead of the 50 feet required in the Master Plan, which was somehow justified for a current CUT and (former) Board member.
I, and many I talk to, are not concerned with representatives voting a single (or multiple) property interest that addresses activities impacting the lands they represent. But we are all very concerned about non-landowners making Board decisions that impact all lands in the community.
Should landowners registered as "Legal Entities" be allowed to name Representatives that are not landowners to sit on the Board? I believe ending this process will prevent future lawsuits caused by non-landowner directors voting as they are told by the (CUT) member(s) responsible for getting them to run.
I believe the 2020 Bylaws and GLA voting process can be improved if there are 3 classes of “Representatives” in the GLA Bylaws.
1. Proxy Representative For All Landowners – may vote for 1 year from the date their Proxy Form is accepted by the Board. This person, who need not be a landowner, can vote the landowners desires on GLA issues presented to the Membership for a vote, including voting for candidates for Director.
2. Legal Representative For Legal Entities (an LLC, Trust or Corporation) – may vote for three years from the date their Designation is accepted by the Board. This person, who need not be a landowner, is named on a GLA “Designation of Representative for Legal Entity” form can vote the landowners desires on GLA issues presented to the Membership for a vote, including voting for candidates for Director.
3. Legal Partner For All Tracts of Land - may vote the property interest and may run for the Board of Directors. The person must be recorded in Park County Records as a co-owner, recorded partner, or member with authority to dispose of assets, enter legal obligations, and/or enter into contracts using the property as collateral.
I believe this change can and should be done by a mail-in vote prior to the next election. If that election is imminent, a ballot to cast a vote on this issue can be sent out with the call for nominations with a return required within 30 days. The ballots can then be counted before nominations are ratified and a valid candidate listing is sent out for an election.
If this is not implemented for the Swandel election, I hope the new Board(s) will use the simple process of a mail-in vote to change the Bylaws.
Leo
|
|
val
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by val on Apr 12, 2022 23:07:44 GMT -7
WHAT IS LEO REALLY SAYING?
We all know what it feels like to be emotionally manipulated. It can be extremely effective, which is why some unscrupulous individuals do it often. Some may use a classic manipulation tactic called Gaslighting — often accusing you of behaviors-such as lying that they are engaged in themselves. Some hog the conversation by writing long drawn-out justifications as to why they are right and you are wrong. They may also play with readers' emotions by manipulating others into believing something different then what was said or intended or turn it around as a negative. Gaslighters are typically very skillful as emotional manipulators in this way.
Other gaslighting tactics include: pitting you against others; working to align others against you; telling others that you are crazy, unstable; or may present “evidence” or takes facts and manipulates them by conveniently leaving out facts when badmouthing you. The gaslighter also uses social media as a way to accuse and deflect from their own behavior. They accuse you of lying or deceit because they are projecting — one of their most commonly-used defense mechanisms: they can’t own up to their behavior, so they put it on you-accuse you of lying and deceiving others.
Whatever the origin of the gaslighter’s accusatory behavior, they are still 100% responsible for it. Treat all cases of accusations toward you or others as what they are — accusations, not facts. There is no need to spend extra energy trying to defend yourself; it will never be good enough. Instead, take a hard look at whether the behavior the gaslighter accuses you of is actually something they are doing. Don’t let smoke and mirrors get in the way of uncovering the gaslighter’s behavior for what it is — manipulation of others by way of accusation and distraction. I am usually bored with and ignore Leo's accusations and lies. But, I hope others will learn from this and follow these healthy ways of dealing with gaslighting–from a therapist: (https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/how-to-deal-with-gaslighting
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Apr 13, 2022 16:45:48 GMT -7
I am not sure if Val is accusing me of gaslighting because I speak of past favoritism by past Boards or if Val is gaslighting by saying "This also means that the GLA Petition to Dissolve the GLA was seen as unfounded-except for the lawsuit Petitioner's ability to petition for a new election for such purpose." What is really being said by this statement and why is it so convoluted.
Past GLA Boards have provided digital copies of all the minutes of record from 1997 to at least 2018 to members requesting them.
I recommend Val and others obtain them, review them and make their own decisions on when and where favoritism has occurred. It is not hard to find.
Many people I have talked to wonder if enough (12) members who actually own land in Glastonbury will run for the Board and if not, will Swandle's past court cases guide him to prevent non-landowners from running for the Board.
We just have to wait and see if GLA moves into the future or back into the past practices and problems.
Leo
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Apr 13, 2022 22:08:55 GMT -7
The Forum has GLA Board Minutes from 1997 to 2019.
They are downloadable as searchable PDF files here.
You will not have to look far to see favoritism either. Favoritism and corruption are alive and well on past and current GLA Boards. |
|
