The Election/Voting Railroad, will the train ever stop?
Mar 17, 2016 18:22:35 GMT -7
zorro likes this
Post by leokeeler on Mar 17, 2016 18:22:35 GMT -7
To: GLA Board of Directors
CC: Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change
Monday night’s Board meeting caused me to have several concerns, which I hope to make all Directors aware of by this letter.
My biggest concern remains that the actions of Dan Kehoe, as Chairman of the Legal Committee, are an obeious attempt to limit and control what information Members will receive as part of the package for voting on changes to the governing documents. He asked why statements of the Pro’s and Con’s of each change should be included in the voting package, which shows either an objective to limit voters knowledge, or an extreme level of ignorance of voters needs. Ross Brunson properly corrected Dan and informed him past voting packets sent to members had at least some Pro’s and Con’s for Members to see. Dan demonstrated a personal bias or agenda in the 4 question letter recently sent to an attorney, as voiced by a Board member, which causes me to wonder if a bias will be followed in developing the Pro’s and Con’s he finally agreed to develop.
When asked how landowner members of the Governing Documents Committee can help develop the Pro’s and Con’s, Dan replied the Committee would not be involved. Under pressure, he finally stated that the entire Board would develop those Pro’s and Con’s, so the bias may be reduced if every Board members’ input is truly used.
In addressing the upcoming phone meeting, I expressed that a “cut and paste” process could help develop Pro’s and Con’s for the final documents. Such a cut and paste process will also eliminate bias, intended or unintended, of interpretations made later that result in changing the meaning and intent of Members’ comments. It appeared the Board liked that idea and will use it. I hope that the entire Board knows that at the February 20th meeting, I left Dan a DVD and paper copy of my comments and concerns. I hope that will help cut and paste my issues and statements into the voting packet. To document it, YES, I do realize that many of my recommended changes will be addressed in future processes, and I can only hope the information countering the attorney or Gov. Doc Committee recommendations will be adequately shown in the voting packet.
Charlotte demanding that Landowners watch their tone and stop complaining about a shadow board really showed Charlotte for the dictator she is. I was astounded when she said the tone used was disrespectful, and that the Board "must be respected". There is no requirement in the governing documents to show respect for the Board, and I interpret the attempt to make “respecting the Board” part of the Meeting Decorum totally improper. The Conduct of Meeting policy established by Board vote in May 2015 was thrown out on December 7th when the new Decorum was mandated, and the new Decorum has never been voted on by the Board or Members. Roberts Rules does forbid personal attacks and aggressive language, but the Board has repeatedly stated it does not follow Roberts Rules. The rules for conduct during a meeting cannot be changed or applied on a whim or for convenience.
I agree use of foul language should be controlled, but none was used by Ia. Members must be able to express their anger for the Board that is caused by Board actions. Only by seeing and understanding the amount and level of anger can any improvements be achieved.
Yes, I am aware that Members showing disrespect impacts other Landowners willingness to be on the Board. However, seeing how the Board disrespects Landowners has more impact on Members volunteering their services. I offer that Debbie DeGraff volunteered to call Landowners with late assessments, and her efforts have benefited GLA by collecting over $8,000 of those assessments. This accomplishment and benefit to the entire GLA community was not even mentioned or discussed by any Board member during the Director election. That was disgraceful, especially since she sent in a letter/resume highlighting those accomplishments when she offered her services as a Director. I really felt sorry for Debbie as I watched Mr. Johnson pretend to read the handouts, fall asleep, and only participate when reminded or woken up to cast a vote. Since Mr. Johnson had often fallen asleep as a Board member in the past, his election, with a vote along party lines, so to speak, has likely squashed more Landowners’ desires to help far more than those 7 people voting the party line can imagine. Also consider that even with an audience member asking the candidates to do a short stump speech, the election process still, to me at least, was obviously decided in advance.
I feel the discussion leading to a potential change of Covenant 11.06 will generate greater workloads, and/or lawsuits if it is changed to say something along the lines of “an interest rate of between X and Y will be applied.” Having a range stated in the Covenants invites challenges about past settlements every time a lower rate is applied to a new debtor. Only by having a fixed percentage or statement tying the rate to a higher authority, such as “highest rate allowed by State law” can every debtor be treated equally. I also offer that the Treasurer’s request to be designated as the negotiator with a range of percentages to use for different debtors will place the Treasurer in jeopardy of personal legal challenges.
If, or when, negotiations are conducted, there is a great potential for conflicts of interest if only one Director is involved. I suggest that any negotiation process approved by the Board at a regular Board meeting is done by a team. Each member of that team must be able to clearly demonstrate there is no relationship with or influence from the Debtor. This is critical should there be any negotiations with Church Universal and Triumphant on the lands GLA only recently learned were actually owned by the Church. Since so many Directors are members of the Church, and it is well known the Church will excommunicate a member for simple reasons, all members of the Church have a conflict of interest. In addition, Board Directors that are tithing members can be in personal jeopardy if they negotiate between GLA, as well as tithing members who are also making significant financial contributions to the Church.
Sincerely
Leo Keeler
CC: Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change
Monday night’s Board meeting caused me to have several concerns, which I hope to make all Directors aware of by this letter.
My biggest concern remains that the actions of Dan Kehoe, as Chairman of the Legal Committee, are an obeious attempt to limit and control what information Members will receive as part of the package for voting on changes to the governing documents. He asked why statements of the Pro’s and Con’s of each change should be included in the voting package, which shows either an objective to limit voters knowledge, or an extreme level of ignorance of voters needs. Ross Brunson properly corrected Dan and informed him past voting packets sent to members had at least some Pro’s and Con’s for Members to see. Dan demonstrated a personal bias or agenda in the 4 question letter recently sent to an attorney, as voiced by a Board member, which causes me to wonder if a bias will be followed in developing the Pro’s and Con’s he finally agreed to develop.
When asked how landowner members of the Governing Documents Committee can help develop the Pro’s and Con’s, Dan replied the Committee would not be involved. Under pressure, he finally stated that the entire Board would develop those Pro’s and Con’s, so the bias may be reduced if every Board members’ input is truly used.
In addressing the upcoming phone meeting, I expressed that a “cut and paste” process could help develop Pro’s and Con’s for the final documents. Such a cut and paste process will also eliminate bias, intended or unintended, of interpretations made later that result in changing the meaning and intent of Members’ comments. It appeared the Board liked that idea and will use it. I hope that the entire Board knows that at the February 20th meeting, I left Dan a DVD and paper copy of my comments and concerns. I hope that will help cut and paste my issues and statements into the voting packet. To document it, YES, I do realize that many of my recommended changes will be addressed in future processes, and I can only hope the information countering the attorney or Gov. Doc Committee recommendations will be adequately shown in the voting packet.
Charlotte demanding that Landowners watch their tone and stop complaining about a shadow board really showed Charlotte for the dictator she is. I was astounded when she said the tone used was disrespectful, and that the Board "must be respected". There is no requirement in the governing documents to show respect for the Board, and I interpret the attempt to make “respecting the Board” part of the Meeting Decorum totally improper. The Conduct of Meeting policy established by Board vote in May 2015 was thrown out on December 7th when the new Decorum was mandated, and the new Decorum has never been voted on by the Board or Members. Roberts Rules does forbid personal attacks and aggressive language, but the Board has repeatedly stated it does not follow Roberts Rules. The rules for conduct during a meeting cannot be changed or applied on a whim or for convenience.
I agree use of foul language should be controlled, but none was used by Ia. Members must be able to express their anger for the Board that is caused by Board actions. Only by seeing and understanding the amount and level of anger can any improvements be achieved.
Yes, I am aware that Members showing disrespect impacts other Landowners willingness to be on the Board. However, seeing how the Board disrespects Landowners has more impact on Members volunteering their services. I offer that Debbie DeGraff volunteered to call Landowners with late assessments, and her efforts have benefited GLA by collecting over $8,000 of those assessments. This accomplishment and benefit to the entire GLA community was not even mentioned or discussed by any Board member during the Director election. That was disgraceful, especially since she sent in a letter/resume highlighting those accomplishments when she offered her services as a Director. I really felt sorry for Debbie as I watched Mr. Johnson pretend to read the handouts, fall asleep, and only participate when reminded or woken up to cast a vote. Since Mr. Johnson had often fallen asleep as a Board member in the past, his election, with a vote along party lines, so to speak, has likely squashed more Landowners’ desires to help far more than those 7 people voting the party line can imagine. Also consider that even with an audience member asking the candidates to do a short stump speech, the election process still, to me at least, was obviously decided in advance.
I feel the discussion leading to a potential change of Covenant 11.06 will generate greater workloads, and/or lawsuits if it is changed to say something along the lines of “an interest rate of between X and Y will be applied.” Having a range stated in the Covenants invites challenges about past settlements every time a lower rate is applied to a new debtor. Only by having a fixed percentage or statement tying the rate to a higher authority, such as “highest rate allowed by State law” can every debtor be treated equally. I also offer that the Treasurer’s request to be designated as the negotiator with a range of percentages to use for different debtors will place the Treasurer in jeopardy of personal legal challenges.
If, or when, negotiations are conducted, there is a great potential for conflicts of interest if only one Director is involved. I suggest that any negotiation process approved by the Board at a regular Board meeting is done by a team. Each member of that team must be able to clearly demonstrate there is no relationship with or influence from the Debtor. This is critical should there be any negotiations with Church Universal and Triumphant on the lands GLA only recently learned were actually owned by the Church. Since so many Directors are members of the Church, and it is well known the Church will excommunicate a member for simple reasons, all members of the Church have a conflict of interest. In addition, Board Directors that are tithing members can be in personal jeopardy if they negotiate between GLA, as well as tithing members who are also making significant financial contributions to the Church.
Sincerely
Leo Keeler