|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2016 10:51:59 GMT -7
2016 Newsletters and Updates
The GLA Board occasionally updates their members via Newsletters and updates. You may download them by clicking on the links below.
If you have any 2016 newsletters and/or updates that you do not see here, please email them to us as a scanned PDF. Our email address is GCF Administrator <glastonburycommunityforum@gmail.com>. We will post them ASAP.
Please feel free to leave comments or questions regarding the Newsletters and Updates by replying below.
|
|
chris
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by chris on Jan 23, 2016 12:11:16 GMT -7
First impressions upon reading the newsletter (1/23/16):
The newsletter failed to mention that it took three rounds of director voting to break the tie between Charlotte Mizzi and Dennis Riley before Mizzi finally won by one vote.
The letter from President Mizzi fails to mention the participation of some GLA board members in the disruptive meetings at St. Johns which led to the ban on holding meetings there. Her letter suggests that the problems were due and precipitated solely by landowners which is untrue. When the board and certain directors accept full responsibility for their own behavior and actions, instead of holding themselves out as innocent victims, the healing process may begin. This logic should also be applied when asking why the GLA has suffered enough lawsuits resulting in the loss of legal insurance, which places the burden of financing any future lawsuits squarely and completely upon the landowners. A clear lack of fiduciary responsibility. Higher assessments, anyone?
The newsletter paints a pretty picture for those who do not keep up with the real management problems of the GLA board. There is no mention of the mess within the financial record keeping and reporting since the incumbent Treasurer took over, and his and the Finance Committee's refusal to take advise from the landowner most familiar with the accounting system. As it currently stands, how can landowners trust that the financial information presented by the board is even correct? Kind of like the federals and their fuzzy math.
Note to GLA board: You are responsible and accountable for your actions.
Additional Impressions (1/24/16):
Responding to Prez Mizzi's message: Has she revised her "Meeting Decorum" policy? At the January 11 board meeting when she initiated this policy unilaterally (did not the board just recently implement a "Conduct of Meeting Policy"?), she stated that landowners would only be allowed three minutes to address the meeting and board, either at the beginning or at the end of the meeting, but not both times. In the newsletter she states "The board (meaning "I have") made an allowance for two input periods, one at the beginning and one at the end of the meeting during which landowners may speak for three minutes each" (emphasis mine). So which is it? One three minute period only, or one three minute period before, and one after as "each" implies? To avoid further confusion please communicate clearly...say what you mean, mean what you say.
Regarding the proposed governing documents changes: Beware! Some landowners who have been closely following the way that the board has been implementing these proposed changes believe that the primary intent is to consolidate board power at the expense of landowner rights by using legal advice paid for with landowner funds (assessments). One of the phrases the board wants to expand use of is "at the board's discretion" which, if adopted, will give the board much more power to do what they want, not necessarily what is right or what they should do. Before you vote, investigate thoroughly. Beware!
For the 5% of landowners (Mizzi's estimate) who regularly attend committee and board meetings, and for those who support positive change but may not be able to attend, I offer a few quotes from Margaret Mead:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
"Never depend upon institution or government to solve any problem. All social movements are founded by, guided by, motivated and seen through by the passion of individuals."
"Even though the ship may go down, the journey goes on."
|
|
|
|
Post by Watcher on Jan 23, 2016 20:12:39 GMT -7
I attended the August 12, 2015 board meeting that precipitated St Johns sending a warning letter to the board. The letter was just that, a warning to the board requesting that they "manage themselves and their language" otherwise they'd no longer be welcome at St Johns. The board took the opportunity to present the warning as having to do with attendee conduct, not their conduct, which included inappropriate language. Then they proceeded to use their interpretation of the letter as an excuse to no longer have physical meetings, but instead phone meetings, where landowners were muted.
It was with great landowner opposition to phone meetings that the monthly board meetings are once again being held at St Johns Church. The downfall is that President Mizzi now mutes landowners with her newly-implemented Decorum Policy and her gavel as opposed to being electronically muted in phone meetings.
As sad as this is, I have not lost faith that someday our community will come together in a way that benefits everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doubtful on Jan 24, 2016 1:10:12 GMT -7
I was not surprised to see in the newsletter that the Board could not control the landowners as the reason the Board stopped using St. John's
I believe Pres Mizzy was at the meeting when 2 Board members began cussing, i.e. they are the ones that could not be controlled - control themselves.
I wonder if a Document Request would get the letter that St. John's sent GLA and show that we were asked to leave as it was reported, or only received a warning - BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Jan 24, 2016 22:46:01 GMT -7
Chris, Thanks for starting this thread. The newsletter has a weird feeling of "everything is great", except for having 5% disgruntled Landowners speaking up.
Hope you and everyone else enjoy my avatar for this forum.
I see in the newsletter that the gag order will remain in place. I guess the idea is to assume that the Board members know everything about everything and the landowners cannot add any information of value.
I'm deeply worried that by not allowing members to speak on a subject before a vote is taken that more lawsuits will develop. Is it possible the Board members do not know what they do not know, or is it that they do not care about what they do not know.
Would it not be wiser to allow the Board to discuss items without audience input, and then before the vote to ask if anyone has any information (restricted to the topic at hand) that the Board should know before voting?
Another misconception in the newsletter is that the 5% minority that attend are the only ones monitoring the situation. I personally talk to 5 Landowners, that do not attend due to fear of consequences, about what is going on. So if there are 400 Landowners and 5% show interest and each of that 5% talk to 5 people that works out to 5% of 400 - 20 x 5 = 100 so that's really about 25%. And I have to admit I do not know as many people as most of the others I see at meetings, so I'm guessing the 25% really is more like 50% +.
My greatest worry is about making changes to the Governing Documents. From June to Sept. it appeared that the recommended changes would just be sent out with the Annual Meeting notice and voted on. However I, and others raised a lot of questions, especially about the legality of not insuring all members can hear or learn what other members are concerned about- i.e. no communication between Landowners. President Kehoe said he was surprised at the interest people had in changes to the documents that control them.
I had thought the process was going to be opened up until I read the newsletter. Now it appears obvious that the only items the Board is likely to allow Landowner to address will be the things they sent out in October. I am wondering if they will accept my proposals to clearly define the Board authority, which some think is limitless. Will the let us address defining what a dwelling is so our assessments are correct? Will they let us address business operations without a residence on the lot - i.e. can I buy a lot and put a car dealership on it? I've got lots more on this and will post it as I identify problems and offer solutions to the Board.
The President says they are going to address the $270,000 + in past due assessments. I became very worried when Past President Kehoe said they could set new interest rates and make them retroactive. Since the proposal sent to members would change this to prime rate plus 3%, that would be changing from 18% to 6%, or from expecting $270,000 to only $89,100 (33%). I do not want to throw away $180,000, if you don't either, you better speak up.
Since the Board now openly states they violate the covenants by freezing the interest due for past due assessments when a Landowner enters into a payment contract, I'm very worried about fraud. I've heard the payment plan contract process was started under President Bolen, and when challenged on it he stated he was not worried. Since he had been an attorney, I think the rest of the Board has just gone along with it. I believe that President Mizzi will bring her philosophies as Minster to the table when past due assessments are discussed. I fear that attitude of helping all long term Landowners at the expense of all other residents will be forcefully imposed upon us just as the new Meeting Decorum was. By the way did the Board vote to establish those rules, or were they just afraid to oppose her?
Has anyone on the Board read, and gained an understanding of Bylaw Article VI (B) where it states "may do all such acts or things as are not by law or by the Covenants, Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation directed to be exercised and done by the Members" and put that together with Covenant 12.01, which they rely on to enter into payment plan contracts, saying "12.01. Variances, Waivers. The Association reserves the right to waive or grant variances to any of the provisions of this Declaration" and the Members are the Association, not the Board. I think they are currently asking an attorney about this. But I fear they are likely stating, we've used this in the past to give us power, so can you tell us that it is OK now so we can tell Members and attorney said so.
I have heard Board members state they would never foreclose on a property, even though the covenants call for it to be done. I worry about that attitude guiding the change to covenants and that past due assessment interest is changed from the 18% acting like a penalty, t the 6% which I would take as a loan, and pay off a higher rate credit card.
Those pushing for going to 6% have said 18% would not be supported in court. They must not know that State law at 31-1-107 supports interest rates of 15% and higher if by agreement such as our Covenants. I guess we'll see if they want GLA to become a loan agency or if they will enforce the late payment interest as the penalty it should be.
That's enough for now on the newsletter and fears that are rising. I feel better just expressing them here and encourage everyone else to comment here, if as an anonymous guest.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kozlik on Jan 27, 2016 7:29:50 GMT -7
Chris made a good observation about the changing documents giving the board power over landowners. My biggest fear of any kind of HOA board is that kind of power. Again, in my opinion, the safest situation is a Road Maintenance Association with a minimal set of covenants (many of us already have that since we live in minor subdivision). It's not just the current BOD that is spooky to me, but what if an entirely new board takes over and fashions covenants and wields power that you might find in a Big Sky,Mt. setting. You ever see their covenants? Or maybe strict convents you'd find in some California or high falutting Connecticut sub division! It's what happens all over the west once the " big money " comes in or the big money wanna be's decide that the code of the west isn't good enough! Ever see the Code of the West pamphlet that Madison county created about 10 years ago. A good reminder of where us outsiders moved too. KISS ever hear that acronyms!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2016 8:13:13 GMT -7
James - thanks for posting.
You made some good points. I may have a copy of the Code of the West brochure. If I do I will post it.
Highfalutin Connecticut types!? Surely you know that Alyssa Allen and Gerald are from Connecticut? A few others hail from that fair state as well...
I hope you join the Forum. You will receive many benefits. Everyone will view your avatar and witness your superb fishing skills. See the member benefits menu tab for details.
|
|
chris
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by chris on Jan 27, 2016 9:01:21 GMT -7
James Kozlik said above, "the safest situation is a Road Maintenance Association with a minimal set of covenants (many of us already have that since we live in minor subdivision)."
Excellent suggestion, James. Your other points are well-taken, too. How about organizing a meeting of landowners to discuss how to proceed? I will assist you if you'd like help. Who else is in favor of exploring this as the best solution? The GLA has become far too complicated and bureaucratic, possibly even corrupt. Simplify, simplify, simplify & KISS.
|
|
