Open Letters to the GLA Board

October 8, 2015

GLA Board of Directors:

This letter is not only long, but long overdue. It has been formulating for years. It is necessary due to the board’s policy of restricting landowners to three minutes of input during meetings. What we have to impart will surpass the time constraints you impose. We are not targeting anyone personally so no defamation or libel intent should be construed. There are some newer appointed board members on the current board who should not feel that they are at fault here, but they need to understand that they are either part of the problem or part of the solution. The problem is the leadership of the current and past boards who formulate the tenor, direction and policies of the board. You are part of the problem if you groupthink or “go along to get along,” instead of thinking and acting independently and in the best interests of the landowners. The solution lies in a complete change of the old paradigm that has prohibited the totally honest, transparent (there’s that word again!), and professional business-like operation of the GLA corporation.

The GLA monthly board meeting held on October 5 epitomized the boards’ dysfunction and propensity to isolate themselves from landowners, likely due to a belief that they might be challenged, held accountable, misquoted, exposed or sued. When a person in office fulfills their duties and responsibilities properly, and with integrity, there is no reason for paranoia. If this were the case, in this instance, the board would have far less landowner dissatisfaction and a lot more cooperation. We challenge you to look deeply within for the reasons why landowners are upset with you instead of rationalizing, making excuses and trying to place the blame on the GLFPC and other landowners. Hubris and arrogance are terrible traits for leaders to exhibit. Just look at any hierarchal system for examples and the results of same.

Before going further, we wish to acknowledge the other landowners whom we know have also written the board, also inspired by the October 5 meeting: Debbie Blais, Andrea Sedlak, and Donna Lash-Andersen. We agree with them. We also agree with the letter writers who have asked that their comments be shared with other landowners via the GLFPC web site. One board member was heard to say that those people are only a small group, as if we did not matter. Our numbers are growing faster by the day as the board continues to try to diminish our effect and even eliminate our constitutional rights.

Following are some of the areas regarding management and operation of OUR landowner corporation that we feel needs to be addressed by this and future boards. Please also note that if most or all of these items are properly resolved, the GLFPC would no longer have a reason for being:

*The GLA board has historically created and maintained an “us versus them” attitude which can only change with a new slate of directors and officers who vow to represent their electorate, and who may be recalled if their performance is deemed inadequate by a majority of landowner voters (accountability). Trust has been broken and must be rebuilt. It has been said that trust takes years to develop but only minutes to destroy.

*Board members have not represented their constituents and board policy distances the directors from landowners. The board’s officers instituted a policy earlier in 2015 which prevents directors from individually communicating with landowners about GLA business, thus creating, in effect, a gag order. They have also stated that the board’s Communications Committee is the sole entity to communicate with landowners.

*Inadequate or lack of proper committee meeting and other meeting notice. This has only recently improved with a GLFPC landowner volunteering to keep the calendar updated.

*Inadequate dissemination and timeliness of communicating meeting minutes to landowners, only recently starting to improve after the GLFPC demonstrated to the board that a summary of meetings could be written and published in a timely fashion.

*Complete transparency, accuracy and honesty in the writing and presenting of board, committee and closed session meetings to landowners. Closed session reports have been non-existent. In the past, some minutes have been edited to reflect the desires of the board, not necessarily totally forthcoming and honest. Compare minutes to corresponding GLFPC summaries for examples.

*The board policy of allegedly destroying meeting recordings upon the board members’ approval of the final edit of the minutes. If there is nothing to hide, recordings could be kept for a year or more, and be available if requested by a landowner.

*Lack of disclosure. The board does not properly and timely inform landowners of new or ongoing litigation, deliberation, and expenses. Obfuscation?

*Lack of any response, or long overdue response, to landowner letters or requests for information. Stonewalling? Ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away?

*Conflicts of interest with some board members.

*Hiring an appropriately certified bookkeeper/accountant as recommended by landowners with vast experience and knowledge in this subject. History has proven that the GLA board does not have the expertise required to properly maintain its books. (NOTE: The board has since agreed to hire the services of same after much landowner persuasion.)

*Proper storage and accessibility of all GLA records in one location. There seems to be a lack of oversight to insure that GLA records on individual computers or in files in personal spaces are not turned over to the board when an individual is no longer an employee, director or otherwise affiliated.

*Collection of delinquent assessments and a full accounting and disclosure of deals made and debts forgiven by the board.
*The board’s historical view that landowner volunteers are unreliable or can’t be trusted.
We find it interesting that the board’s efforts to recruit volunteers for their mailing projects have consisted mostly of landowners who are members of GLFPC.

*We highly recommend that the board join the Montana Nonprofit Association and adhere to its guidelines.

*Regarding the proposed changes to the governing documents: Finalize the wording in sufficient time to allow those landowners with questions or concerns to address the issues before the voting draft is finalized. This should be at least 60 days. Do not attempt to rush the vote. Allow landowners time to educate themselves on the proposals. The proposed changes must not be an attempt to increase the board’s power at the expense of landowner rights and participation.

*Regarding variances granted by the board which imply favoritism: Is the board consistently adhering to the Master Plan and other governing documents when granting variances? Cases in point: Yaney tower/house in NG and new two-story house on a ridgeline in SG.

*With the governing documents clearly specifying that roads are to be the priority of the GLA, the necessary amounts of funds need to be appropriated and expended on them. Instead of managing our roads as has been done in the past, develop a comprehensive plan with an appropriately qualified road-expert advisor for short, medium and long term time frames. Stop the band-aid and duct tape reactionary fixes. Consider all available options from doing it ourselves to RSIDs. Manage funding appropriately whereby NG funds its own roads and SG funds its own roads. Investigate the practicality of having two sub boards, one for NG and one for SG, to administer the roads and neighborhood issues.

*All board projects, including road and community property projects, should start with a well thought out plan with input from landowners, and only implemented with landowner approval. It is our money and your fiduciary responsibility to use it wisely.

*Openly share with landowners the details of the Administrative Assistant position such as job description, compensation, hours, mileage, supervision, etc. There is concern about the proper use of her time: Attending committee meetings for what purpose, including closed board meetings? Only directors should be in closed meetings. Helping landowners fill out project application paperwork for hours?

*With whom do new policies and procedures being promoted by the board originate? Are there two or more officers who are doing this, sometimes behind the scenes, without minutes or even notes of what was discussed and decided? What role does the “volunteer secretary” play in these activities? One starts building trust through transparency (that word yet again). With six of twelve directors being appointed by the board instead of being elected in the past two years, and all but one being affiliated with CUT, it is highly suspicious. When any vacancy on the board occurs, consider permitting the landowners to elect a replacement (change the governing documents to permit this if necessary).

*Consider making it a requirement for directors to live in the Glastonburies at least (X) months a year, and preferably full time. Directors need to be here to adequately participate in meetings and to fulfill their representative and supervisory roles. It is quite obvious that directors residing in Bozeman or even further away have a hard time. Phone meetings are not adequate to serving the landowners who reside here, as presented and discussed on October 5. If you want to make the meetings open to landowners from afar, find an acceptable means to do so, but not causing a hardship or resulting in a detriment to residents.

We believe that if the GLA board is to begin to earn the landowners trust again that it begins with full disclosure, honesty, integrity and transparency in everything, coupled with an attitude of working together to solve community issues and problems without resorting to the American proclivity to litigate everything.

To begin this process the board needs to swallow its hubris and invite those with opposing views or legitimate complaints to sit down face to face (in other than a Board meeting) and try to spend some time working it out – not over email, not in 3 minutes in a board meeting, and not with an attorney! This includes the litigants and any potential litigants. To our knowledge, no board has ever done this, resulting in the legal mess in which it is currently embroiled, and the loss of insurance. The board needs to acknowledge its role in perpetuating the legal entanglements it finds itself in and not just blame the litigants. It is obvious to us that the only winners in litigation, and even when just considering litigation, are the attorneys.

To earn respect and trust, one must first be willing to demonstrate these to others.

Sincerely,

Chris & Ia Williams

P.S. It has just been brought to our attention that the board is asking among themselves why members or supporters of the GLFPC are not running for board positions at this time. I believe there are two individuals who have expressed interest but will not know for sure until the board publishes the slate for November. Of course the board could have informed landowners in the October 5 meeting of who had filed by the October 3 deadline, but the board failed to do so. There is also the possibility of some one, or more than one, deciding to run as a write-in candidate since your filing deadline has passed.

There are those who would run but only when the board has cleaned up its act based on the vast number of concerns enumerated in this letter, and only when the GLA officers relinquish their strangle hold on running the board. Note that recently two directors have resigned in disgust because they could not put up with the present situation, which is also not conducive to recruiting potential candidates for director or any volunteer position.