Get to know the beliefs of some your GLA Directors

I don't understand how this is "low" or an "approach to diminish." The website of the Church organization and the opinions of other sources have been included. It seems simply factual and unbiased, with many different perspectives. Of course, the first amendment does cover religious freedom, and it also covers freedom of speech. The speech in this article does not seem degrading at all. On the contrary, it seems more caring to provide some resources for people to learn more about the history and people's beliefs. It's really helped me to learn more. Thanks for posting! 

I am a new landowner in Glastonbury and have met many great people here. I am a Spiritual person, not a religious person and I appreciate learning more about Church Universal and Triumphant. So thank you for posting links to various sites.

I am beginning to learn about CUT beliefs and what it takes to participate in the Church. I do not understand the believe system or hierarchy that influences Church member actions. I do understand people well enough to know that everyone enjoys activities with those sharing likes, dislikes and religious belief. I also understand the fear of being an outcast or of other reprisals groups can impose on pier members or underlings. But that fear seems extremely high in this community.

Though the Glastonbury lands were originally settled by only Church members I hear it is now 60% non-church, which causes me to question why the Board appears to be 75% Church members. Are non-church members not participating as Board members because they came here to retire and get away from management stress and hussle bussle of city life? I for one have had enough of being told what to do or accomplish and of telling others what their duties and responsibilities are.

Ross asks if you will be posting more information about all the Board members, including non-CUT members. I'm eager to learn more about them and think this website is helping me a lot. However I do recognize there is a one sided view being presented and I hope I will see more of the other side.

At the March 14, 2016 board meeting certain directors questioned whether or not I would be impartial and objective as a landowner member of a committee.  Their fears are unsubstantiated, and I now find it necessary to point out that a majority of the directors are not impartial or objective in their duties due primarily to their affiliation with CUT.  As an example of this hypocrisy I offer this link to the GLA board president's LinkedIn page:  President Mizzi's LinkedIn page.

Pay particular attention to this entry:

Fundraising
Community Wealth Development
July 2014 – Present (1 year 9 months)Economic Empowerment

Helping the community to be self sustainable and creating jobs. Presently working on a geothermal greenhouse. Goal is to build housing that is within 25 miles of a proposed healing water spa. Also to organize a Food Coop in the community.

These are worthy goals but I believe that they prevent impartiality and objectivity as president of the GLA and as especially as Chairperson of the GLA Community Property Committee.

Posted in the interest of full disclosure.

Just me - Guest,

I'm sorry to say but you are the one who is waaaaaay incorrect. This is a Corporation and must therefore follow corporate law first and our covenants second. The figure used has been provided by our board so your question should be directed to them. Secondly, it doesn't matter what is "actual assessment amount" and "interest and penalties" are. They are both due if assessments are not paid. The interest amount in our governing documents states 18%, therefore 18% has to be charged because it is a stated amount. It has been stated that 18% is illegal, that is not true. It may not be supported but it is not illegal. The GLA landowners who have paid their assessments have incurred interest payments on our road load in part to make up for monies not collected from the landowners not paying their assessments. The length of the road loan could have been shortened had they been making their payments in a timely manner as the rest of us have.

Until there is a change in the covenants landowners will be charged, or should be, as the documents suggest, interest and penalty included. Assessments have already been collected, this year, that were charged the 18% interest rate. Any other rate offered to other landowners is discrimination, and goes against our governing documents and can be challenged in court. Why else bother with covenants at all?

This has been the problem all along, not adhering to our governing documents, and that is what I want to see done as a landowner. Not doing so leads to anger between landowners. Adhering to them means equality for everyone and stopping future law suits.

I especially do not like the idea that a landowner has only "3 minutes" to address issues. I certainly hope the president does not use her gavel on me when I see errors being made or decisions being voted on that go against our documents! As a member of a Corporation, with a "financial investment" in this Corporation I want to see the laws it is bound by adhered to...nothing more nothing less.

Just Me - Guest WHO ARE YOU?? I understand that many people may need to be anonymous in this forum to avoid reprisals from the Church Universal and Triumphant, or causing changes in neighbors opinions. I easily accept that when the anonymous person is making suggestions for improving the Community, but to stay anonymous when attacking others causes me to doubt the purpose and accuracy of the challenge.

Sally - I feel you are correct in presenting the past due debts must be talked about with the 18% included. At least two past due accounts have recently paid their full debt and brought their assessments current, and their payment included the amounts due with a calculation of 18%. The Board now has little option but to charge everyone the 18% or be ready to refund money to those two Landowners and possibly others. 

I fear that Board members Dan and Rudy trying to focus on the difference between the actual assessment (approximately $ 110,000 per Rudy's last public statement) and the percentage rate owed (the other $140,000 if the total is only $250,000) is setting up Landowners to accept the Board only going after the $ 110,000 with maybe a 3-5% interest penalty.

There was a lot of discussion during the recent Member meeting for changing our governing documents. I have became very concerned that the talk is now about setting a range of between 12-15%. Worse that Dan quietly stated a proposal most people did not catch saying "up to the maximum allowed by State Law". That means from 0% to 15%.

Only by having a fixed interest amount, or tie to only State Law - i.e. "the maximum allowed by State Law", will everyone be treated equally. That is until any negotiations are entered into, especially if all Landowners do not get a vote on what the process/policy entails and it uses as standards.

As Sally presents, not collecting those late assessments has been injurious to the rest of the community by paying a larger share of the paving loan over a longer period than necessary, and other road and administration costs not shared equally. I have heard that some people just cannot afford to make the payments, even though if the assessment is $400 the payment over 12 months is only $33.33 per month. Those situations do need special attention, but that is the extreme exception, not the rule.

I've heard of some problems with mailing addresses and bills not being sent to the proper person and wonder if the mistakes were by the owner, the Treasurer or the accounting system. However the last late assessment listing given to Members showed that 75% of the late assessment debts were from 16 Landowners withholding payment. For a reference, there are 38 Landowners with late assessment debts less than $1,000 (one or two years missed assessments) and the total debt of all of them is only 4%. The 4% vs 75% tells me a lot.

So the problem is not really ability to pay, but the desire to pay. Unfortunately I've heard lately that those with the largest debts feel they have the right and deserve to be able to live in Glastonbury without paying the assessments. I'm not sure why those people believe they are above the law (which our covenants basically are) and where that belief originates.  But feel it is every Landowners responsibility to ask that all Landowners live by the same rules and obligations, and that we all ask the Board to be fully transparent in all negotiations. They should remember Bylaw Article VI(B)(13) requires the "Keep records in a good and business like manner of all assessments made, all expenditures and the status of each Member's accounts and MAKE SUCH RECORDS ACCESSIBLE AT REASONABLE TIME TO ALL MEMBERS."

To JustMe - If you are a proponent of only collecting "actual past dues" from those landowners (CUT included) who have NEVER paid their dues in 10-20 years, then you sound like our Board Member Gerald who was just pushing for a 0% interest rate "to get people to pay". Let me tell you: a lot of landowners (myself included) would welcome a 0% interest loan for an indefinite number of years from the GLA! That would only encourage any landowner who religiously pays their dues (because of a prohibitive 18% interest rate) to welcome the opportunity to STOP paying them and know that when they do feel like paying up in 5-10 years, it won't cost them an extra penny! So, this idea of cutting the interest rate down to a low/or no percentage may bring in some past due amounts from the past, but just watch how many landowners who have been paying will then want to take advantage of that low/no interest rate and STOP paying their dues to get that wonderful loan from the Bank of GLA - no qualifying necessary!

To Doubtful (new landowner) - Your contention that the non-CUT members are not participating is flat out wrong. Their participation has been severely limited and restricted by new CUT President Charlotte Mizzi's gavel-pounding and Meeting Decorum policies that change every month to suit her whim. Sorry, JustMe, the gavel-pounding has become well-known as she loves to wield it since her induction into the office of President in January 2016! To state otherwise would be hiding the truth! And regarding Doubtful's question "why the Board appears to be 75% Church members" when 60% of landowners are non-CUT - you have only to attend a few Board Meetings to understand what's going on there. March 14th Board meeting in particular would have made it extraordinarily clear to you. In that meeting, the CUT majority of the Board brought forth yet another CUT stand-in to fill the NG vacancy over a legitimate candidate who was a very qualified person, highly involved in volunteer efforts for the GLA. The stand-in had rarely, if ever, attended a Board Meeting before, yet was voted in over the well-qualified, involved candidate in what was a blatant, well-orchestrated behind the scenes move on the part of CUT Board Members. So, yes, as long as there is a CUT majority on the Board, they will do everything they can to maintain their majority and control of the Board - despite the fact that the Board no longer represents the actual demographics of the Glastonbury community.