GLA Board: Stop Holding Dissident Landowners Hostage

These comments are mine alone and not to be considered as those of any other landowner who is requesting to withdraw from the corporation. This presentation was made to the board at the April 11, 2016 board meeting, but it fell on deaf ears.  It was easy to tell that the nine board members in attendance were disinterested in hearing any landowner comments.  When the board got around to the agenda topic addressing landowner requests to withdraw from the corporation, directors Kehoe and Mizzi flatly denied any consideration or discussion of the matter and the board voted 6 for dis-allowance with 3 abstentions.


The best solution to any conflict is one where both sides gain something from the settlement.

Someone has stated that when one buys property in Glastonbury they automatically become under contract to the GLA. We disagree with this theory but for the sake of argument submit that all contracts or agreements may be dissolved whenever one or more participants is no longer receiving that which may have initially been agreed upon or accepted either in good faith or by default. Divorce is an example of how settlements are made in such conflicts and no-fault divorces are common under the law.

A quick, peaceful and less expensive dissolution is preferable to a drawn out expensive legal battle for all concerned. Is it equitable for the board to spend other landowners' assessment monies to try to force disgruntled landowners to remain in an untenable relationship? Is this action in keeping with the board's fiduciary responsibilities under Montana law?

Those of us who desire to withdraw from this deteriorating relationship just want to live in peace without the ever-growing restrictions from the dysfunctional management of this corporation. We do not support the changes being proposed to the governing documents that will give even more power to an unresponsive and discriminatory board. We object to the shadow board, or inner circle of board members, who unilaterally decide on policies and procedures, and who stack the board membership inequitably to consolidate their power.

Benefits that the board will achieve by allowing landowners to withdraw from the corporation known as the GLA:

*We would not have any reason to attend any board or committee meetings.

*We would not be inclined to publicly criticize the board and it members.

*We would no longer have a vote in association elections or special meetings.

*We would not be able to run for office or serve on the board or committees.

*Although we would no longer be required to pay assessments we may choose to contribute financially to the maintenance of the roads based on our usage of them and the amount of funds the association invests in same.

Note:  At this point I was interrupted by the arrival of two Sheriff's Deputies who had been summoned by President Mizzi as she was not able to maintain order.  After going outside to converse with the deputies she returned and attempted to cut me off at this point saying my three minutes were up, but I asked to be permitted to finish quickly due to the interruption.  I continued but without the next paragraph of the presentation (added here for further clarification).

*The board would finally be free to do as it darn well pleases without accountability or transparency demands from dissident landowners who are members of the corporation that they so autocratically and dictatorially dominate. It would no longer have to call the Sheriff to threaten landowners who are exercising their First Amendment rights in open board meetings that the board cannot absolutely define as either public or private, but use both terms interchangeably to advance their own agenda. 

In conclusion, we have presented the board with a peaceful and cost effective option to allow us to withdraw from the corporation known as the Glastonbury Landowners Association. The alternative choice you have is to deny our request and perhaps face yet another lawsuit which may conceivably be a class-action suit exposing all misdeeds of current and past boards with the accompanying public disclosures and exposures.

The choice is yours.

P.S.  It should also be noted that another landowner also appealed to the board to allow withdrawal stating that the board only holds onto those opposed to their discriminatory and unprofessional practices for the purpose of collecting their assessments.  They begrudgingly let the dissidents attend meetings but disregard their active participation beyond stuffing envelopes for the board's mailings.