Post by chris on Mar 18, 2016 10:01:17 GMT -7
It's as plain as the nose on your face!
March 17, 2016
To the GLA Board of Directors:
I did not attend the board meeting on March 14 because I sensed that the board would be up to its predictable antics - tricks that I can no longer endure or tolerate. According to some landowners who did attend, and a recording of the pathetic proceedings, my suspicions are proven correct.
During the past eight years that I have lived in Glastonbury I have watched the GLA board deteriorate from bad to worse. I am referring to the deceptive practices that have been prevalent for many years with the GLA board no matter who the leaders / officers are, practices which may be acceptable in some circles where corruption and untruths are the norm (politics, government, sleazy corporations, certain institutions, etc.) but which have no place in honorable dealings, either public or private. Landowners, including myself, have been calling for transparency and honesty in all board dealings for years, to no avail. You demand “respect” but you neither give it nor earn it. Respect, like trust, must be earned.
You and your supporters dislike the term “Shadow Board,” and you try to silence anyone who uses that term to describe inappropriate and secret board member activities such as holding closed meetings and/ or meetings of select board members in private, at the exclusion of other board members, in order to decide and dictate policy and procedures. This activity occurs regularly under the nebulous “Legal Committee,” and the now unilateral “Governing Documents Committee” whose sole purpose is to try to consolidate power for the board at the expense of the landowner members. I suspect that this happens even more regularly for all decision making, such as director appointments and hiring, because decisions have been made in advance of public board meetings and there is little, if any, discussion during these meetings.
There are a number of landowners who are on to your tricks who knew that the board would be filling the vacancy left by the Brunson resignation with yet another member of the Church Universal and Triumphant, completely disregarding the fact that 60 per cent of all members in the GLA are not affiliated with this institution. Landowners who are not members of the church have never been fairly and equitably represented on the GLA board despite the demographics of this community. This constitutes discrimination.
The new church-affiliated director appointee came as no surprise Monday night based on the boards' historical tradition. A highly qualified non-church member landowner, who had already been donating many hours of volunteer work on behalf of the board, had asked to be appointed to fill the vacancy. This person has a much greater skill set than the person the board selected, especially in the area of finance and bookkeeping, and would have brought even more valuable and diverse talent to the board, especially in an area in which the entire board is weak. Furthermore, no consideration was given for the extent of this volunteer's substantial time and effort resulting in the collection of more than $8,000 in past due assessments.
It is obvious to most everyone that the “Shadow Board” had already selected the person appointed before the meeting opened. This is just another example of how this board operates behind the scenes in secret and is part of a pattern of board selected appointees over the past few years. Just recently half of the directors were church-affiliated and board appointed rather than elected. On March 14, the board did not even plan to allow the other candidates to speak or to explain their credentials as has been the norm in times past. One needs to only consider the directors' votes to see that all nine church-affiliated directors voted for the church-affiliated recruit, while the three non-church directors voted for the most qualified candidate.
Similarly, in the process of hiring a new administrative assistant, the board has hired an applicant who was not their first choice but who is another church member who was recruited by certain board members. Normally, one would not be suspicious of any discrimination, except for the fact that the board has been operating forever in a discriminatory manner, showing preference and favoritism to church members in every situation, unless the member is not in good standing with the church, in which case they are treated as any other “outsider.” I know there was at least one “outsider” landowner who had applied for the position, who has years of relevant experience and was given a token interview, but who was not seriously considered. This is another example of the board's discriminatory practices.
With the encouragement of other landowners who know me well, I had reluctantly agreed to seek an appointment as a landowner representative on the Project Review Committee. I use the word “reluctantly” because I have been a critic of board actions and inactions for some time, I am an independent thinker, have integrity and a strong sense of fairness, traits that the board as a whole does not exhibit. Therefore, I struggled with being so closely involved. I was not surprised to hear that one director has reservations about me, stating that she felt that I would not be impartial or objective in my duties. (Who is calling the kettle black, Charlene?) I would be more impartial, objective and fair than any church-affiliated board member can be due to your group-think tendencies and obvious peer pressure to follow established protocol. I find those allegations both two-faced and hypocritical, if not sanctimonious.
After further deliberation the board seems to have decided to allow me to participate if the committee co-chairs would assure that I play by board rules and also agree to sign a confidentiality agreement. However, it has been almost three days since this meeting adjourned and I have not heard from any board member. With the foregoing duly noted, I now inform you that I will not serve on the Project Review Committee, nor will I volunteer or serve this board in any capacity in the future.
With each and every meeting open to the landowners you members of the inner circle, the “Shadow Board,” and those directors who blindly vote with you on every issue, continue to help build a case of myopia, discrimination, mismanagement, fiscal irresponsibility, ineptness, conflicts of interest, and similar transgressions. Who knows what transpires under the guise of “legal counsel” protected by “attorney-client privilege,” and behind closed doors? Only the Shadow knows...
The board's church-dominated, biased and discriminatory practices are at the root of all the problems the Glastonbury Landowners Association endures. It is as plain as the nose on your face.
Note to landowner members of the GLA: When something is secretly kept from you, it is usually very bad for you.
Keep this in mind when the board soon asks members to vote for their power-consolidating governing document changes and vote against the proposed changes. Demand that the board permit landowner participation in drafting any future changes instead of allowing one director and their legal representative (whom landowners pay for) from controlling our association to the detriment of your landowner rights. Full disclosure and transparency with landowner participation and oversight are necessary to prevent complete autonomy and tyranny by this board. The key words are "at the board's discretion." Whenever you see this phrase, BEWARE!
March 17, 2016
To the GLA Board of Directors:
I did not attend the board meeting on March 14 because I sensed that the board would be up to its predictable antics - tricks that I can no longer endure or tolerate. According to some landowners who did attend, and a recording of the pathetic proceedings, my suspicions are proven correct.
During the past eight years that I have lived in Glastonbury I have watched the GLA board deteriorate from bad to worse. I am referring to the deceptive practices that have been prevalent for many years with the GLA board no matter who the leaders / officers are, practices which may be acceptable in some circles where corruption and untruths are the norm (politics, government, sleazy corporations, certain institutions, etc.) but which have no place in honorable dealings, either public or private. Landowners, including myself, have been calling for transparency and honesty in all board dealings for years, to no avail. You demand “respect” but you neither give it nor earn it. Respect, like trust, must be earned.
You and your supporters dislike the term “Shadow Board,” and you try to silence anyone who uses that term to describe inappropriate and secret board member activities such as holding closed meetings and/ or meetings of select board members in private, at the exclusion of other board members, in order to decide and dictate policy and procedures. This activity occurs regularly under the nebulous “Legal Committee,” and the now unilateral “Governing Documents Committee” whose sole purpose is to try to consolidate power for the board at the expense of the landowner members. I suspect that this happens even more regularly for all decision making, such as director appointments and hiring, because decisions have been made in advance of public board meetings and there is little, if any, discussion during these meetings.
There are a number of landowners who are on to your tricks who knew that the board would be filling the vacancy left by the Brunson resignation with yet another member of the Church Universal and Triumphant, completely disregarding the fact that 60 per cent of all members in the GLA are not affiliated with this institution. Landowners who are not members of the church have never been fairly and equitably represented on the GLA board despite the demographics of this community. This constitutes discrimination.
The new church-affiliated director appointee came as no surprise Monday night based on the boards' historical tradition. A highly qualified non-church member landowner, who had already been donating many hours of volunteer work on behalf of the board, had asked to be appointed to fill the vacancy. This person has a much greater skill set than the person the board selected, especially in the area of finance and bookkeeping, and would have brought even more valuable and diverse talent to the board, especially in an area in which the entire board is weak. Furthermore, no consideration was given for the extent of this volunteer's substantial time and effort resulting in the collection of more than $8,000 in past due assessments.
It is obvious to most everyone that the “Shadow Board” had already selected the person appointed before the meeting opened. This is just another example of how this board operates behind the scenes in secret and is part of a pattern of board selected appointees over the past few years. Just recently half of the directors were church-affiliated and board appointed rather than elected. On March 14, the board did not even plan to allow the other candidates to speak or to explain their credentials as has been the norm in times past. One needs to only consider the directors' votes to see that all nine church-affiliated directors voted for the church-affiliated recruit, while the three non-church directors voted for the most qualified candidate.
Similarly, in the process of hiring a new administrative assistant, the board has hired an applicant who was not their first choice but who is another church member who was recruited by certain board members. Normally, one would not be suspicious of any discrimination, except for the fact that the board has been operating forever in a discriminatory manner, showing preference and favoritism to church members in every situation, unless the member is not in good standing with the church, in which case they are treated as any other “outsider.” I know there was at least one “outsider” landowner who had applied for the position, who has years of relevant experience and was given a token interview, but who was not seriously considered. This is another example of the board's discriminatory practices.
With the encouragement of other landowners who know me well, I had reluctantly agreed to seek an appointment as a landowner representative on the Project Review Committee. I use the word “reluctantly” because I have been a critic of board actions and inactions for some time, I am an independent thinker, have integrity and a strong sense of fairness, traits that the board as a whole does not exhibit. Therefore, I struggled with being so closely involved. I was not surprised to hear that one director has reservations about me, stating that she felt that I would not be impartial or objective in my duties. (Who is calling the kettle black, Charlene?) I would be more impartial, objective and fair than any church-affiliated board member can be due to your group-think tendencies and obvious peer pressure to follow established protocol. I find those allegations both two-faced and hypocritical, if not sanctimonious.
After further deliberation the board seems to have decided to allow me to participate if the committee co-chairs would assure that I play by board rules and also agree to sign a confidentiality agreement. However, it has been almost three days since this meeting adjourned and I have not heard from any board member. With the foregoing duly noted, I now inform you that I will not serve on the Project Review Committee, nor will I volunteer or serve this board in any capacity in the future.
With each and every meeting open to the landowners you members of the inner circle, the “Shadow Board,” and those directors who blindly vote with you on every issue, continue to help build a case of myopia, discrimination, mismanagement, fiscal irresponsibility, ineptness, conflicts of interest, and similar transgressions. Who knows what transpires under the guise of “legal counsel” protected by “attorney-client privilege,” and behind closed doors? Only the Shadow knows...
The board's church-dominated, biased and discriminatory practices are at the root of all the problems the Glastonbury Landowners Association endures. It is as plain as the nose on your face.
Note to landowner members of the GLA: When something is secretly kept from you, it is usually very bad for you.
Keep this in mind when the board soon asks members to vote for their power-consolidating governing document changes and vote against the proposed changes. Demand that the board permit landowner participation in drafting any future changes instead of allowing one director and their legal representative (whom landowners pay for) from controlling our association to the detriment of your landowner rights. Full disclosure and transparency with landowner participation and oversight are necessary to prevent complete autonomy and tyranny by this board. The key words are "at the board's discretion." Whenever you see this phrase, BEWARE!