Post by Poor Richard on Nov 10, 2023 10:07:35 GMT -7
2023 GLA Annual Election Results
* Updated with candidate totals on November 10, 2023
* Updated with candidate totals on November 10, 2023
The Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) released the certified results of the 2023 Annual Election.
Download the official certified results here.
Download the 2023 Election Process and 20 Vote Edict Memo here.
North Glastonbury
In North Glastonbury, there were four open board seats. Eight candidates for directors received votes from approximately 45 ballots cast:
| Candidate for Director | Votes Received | % of Votes from 45 Ballots Cast* |
| Jaylyn Jensen | 29 | 64% |
| Alicia Roskind | 2 | 4% |
| Leslie Everett | 1 | 2% |
| Doug Gill | 26 | 58% |
| Claudette Dirkers | 24 | 53% |
| Olav Nordeman | 3 | 7% |
| Bob Knudson | 1 | 2% |
| Morgan Squires | 1 | 2% |
| Dean Gill | 1 | 2% |
| Candidate for Ombudsman | Votes Received | % of Votes from 45 Ballots Cast* |
| Sabrina Hanan | 28 | 62% |
| Morgan Squires | 2 | 4% |
| Lauren Skinner | 1 | 2% |
| Ross Brunson | 2 | 4% |
* Each ballot can contain votes for multiple candidates. Approximately 45 ballots were cast. If a candidate received a vote from EVERY ballot then their percentage of votes would be 100%
Because there are multiple votes allowed per ballot it would be meaningless to sum the % of Votes column.
Jaylyn Jensen, Doug Gill and Claudette Dirkers won a North Glastonbury director's seat on the GLA Board. The 4th open seat would normally be filled by whomever received the 4th largest share of votes; a plurality. That honor would go to Olav Nordamann. But because the GLA set a 20 vote threshold and Olav only received 3 votes, he will not be allowed on the board.
Sabrina Hanan will become the new North Glastonbury Ombudsman.
South Glastonbury
In South Glastonbury, there were five open board positions. Thirteen candidates for directors received votes from approximately 57 ballots cast:
| Candidate for Director | Votes Received | % of Votes from 57 Ballots Cast* |
| Timothy Brockett | 17 | 30% |
| Leslie Everett | 49 | 86% |
| Alicia Roskind Dearing | 36 | 63% |
| Don Helmbrecht | 1 | 2% |
| Molly Ohlen | 1 | 2% |
| Mark Seaver | 1 | 2% |
| Rich Swanson | 1 | 2% |
| Jack Sutton | 1 | 2% |
| Catherine Raven | 1 | 2% |
| Joel Bonner | 1 | 2% |
| Regina Wunsch | 1 | 2% |
| Paula Kehoe | 1 | 2% |
| Jeannie Campbell | 1 | 2% |
| Candidate for Ombudsman | Votes Received | % of Votes from 57 Ballots Cast* |
| Miriam Barker | 6 | 11% |
| Dean Anderson | 1 | 2% |
| Marion - no last name given | 1 | 2% |
* Each ballot can contain votes for multiple candidates. Approximately 45 ballots were cast. If a candidate received a vote from EVERY ballot then their percentage of votes would be 100%
Because there are multiple votes allowed per ballot it would be meaningless to sum the % of Votes column.
Leslie Everett and Alicia Roskind Dearing won a South Glastonbury director's seat on the GLA Board. The 3rd open seat would normally be filled by whomever received the 3rd largest share of votes; a plurality. That honor would go to Tim Brockett who was chosen by 30% of all South Glastonbury parcels that voted. But because the GLA set a 20 vote threshold and Brockett only received 17 votes, he will not be allowed on the board.
Although Miriam Barker earned a more votes than other Ombudsman candidates it was still less than 20. Miriam Barker has faithfully served as South Glastonbury Ombudsman for over a decade. She will be denied her office this year because of the 20 vote minimum threshold.
Because there are multiple votes allowed per ballot it would be meaningless to sum the % of Votes column.
Leslie Everett and Alicia Roskind Dearing won a South Glastonbury director's seat on the GLA Board. The 3rd open seat would normally be filled by whomever received the 3rd largest share of votes; a plurality. That honor would go to Tim Brockett who was chosen by 30% of all South Glastonbury parcels that voted. But because the GLA set a 20 vote threshold and Brockett only received 17 votes, he will not be allowed on the board.
Although Miriam Barker earned a more votes than other Ombudsman candidates it was still less than 20. Miriam Barker has faithfully served as South Glastonbury Ombudsman for over a decade. She will be denied her office this year because of the 20 vote minimum threshold.
On September 14th the GLA board approved a 20-vote edict that required all candidates to receive at least 20 votes to earn a seat on the board. Their reasoning was that the GLA board only wanted directors who had broad-based support; at least 5% support from landowners. Minority candidates were not desired. Landowners who voted for minority candidates would have their votes discarded in the event 19 or fewer voted for a particular candidate. The GLA seemed to forget that elections are a chance for landowners to choose who they want for representatives on the board. Instead, the GLA saw elections as a chance for the Board to choose who they wanted as directors.
The GLA ignored landowners again when they arbitrarily assigned 2-year director terms to all three North Glastonbury candidates. The North Glastonbury ballot stated that "the three candidates receiving the most votes will serve 1-year terms". Landowners voted to send three candidates to the board for one-year terms only. The sitting board then decided to require an extra year of service from the three candidates. Ignoring the will of the landowners coninued.
Four director and one ombudsman seats remain open. They may eventually be filled without any landowner votes. Eight sitting board members could override the choices of up to 38 landowners when they approve appointments for seats that landowners voted to fill. If the Bylaws and State Law were followed then the GLA would have 12 members and two Ombudsman as elected by the landowners. Because the GLA Board interfered with the Annual Election four director's and one ombudsman's seat remain empty.
At the November 9, 2023 GLA Board Meeting multiple landowners spoke regarding the 20 Vote Edict and the devastating effect it had on the 2023 Annual Election. All were opposed to the edict and several asked the GLA Board to nullify the 20 Vote minimum motion. Landowners noted that the 20 Vote Edict violated the GLA Bylaws and State Law. It suppressed voter turnout which was appallingly low. Over 70% of the landowners chose not to vote. One speaker noted that when you disenfranchise landowners you take away their incentive to participate in an election. Board Secretary Morgan Squires volunteered that she was the only director to oppose the 20 Vote minimum. Director Scott Stomerowski rudely and repeatedly interrupted landowners while taking issue with what they said. He verbally attacked a highly respected landowner who has served Glastonbury for decades by telling her twice to "get a grip". Another respected woman landowner who carefully presented a list of well written and reasoned points was interrupted by Director Stomerowski in mid-sentence. He then attempted to mis-characterize her comments as a "conspiracy theory". Later he offered that the reusable envelope was the reason for the low voter turnout. More reasonable and respectful minds on the board graciously asked landowners to email their spoken comments so the board could discuss and consider them. The board talked about having a special meeting or session to further discuss the 20 vote minimum and the role it had on the Annual Election. No specific date was set for that meeting or a timetable offered for board discussion. GLA President Alicia Roskind Dearing commented that the 20 Vote minimum "was carefully considered, with 9-years of data, to protect landowners in an unprecedented election where there were less candidates than there were seats". However the 20 Vote Edict was passed one day before Nomination forms were due. Usually a flurry of candidates email forms at the last minute. The GLA debated and passed the 20 Vote Edict before they had any idea that not enough candidates would be running. Later President Roskind Dearing offered that board members were volunteers and many had full time jobs. No similar consideration was given to landowners who also have responsibilities and lives yet found the time to carefully prepare written and spoken comments at the board meeting.