Bylaw Change vs Covenant Change - Votes Required

During the August Board meeting, I stated that I interpreted the information included in the Voter Packet as VOTER MANIPULATION. The author(s) of the Voter Packet downplay the negative impacts of the proposed change and only printed 4 of the 12 Con’s that Landowners provided. Yet they went to great lengths to twist facts in order to persuade Members to vote for the changes they are promoting. They are counting on Landowners to trust the judgment of the Board rather than take the time and trouble to evaluate the matter themselves.

The author(s) included the requirements to change the Bylaws rather than the more stringent requirement for changing the Covenants. The above post shows the differences. I find it best to compare the significance of the impact between changes to the Bylaws and changes to the Covenants.

The Covenants are a contract between Landowners. It should be, and is, more difficult to change them. But the Bylaws, which are a simple guide for the Board to follow when doing business for the Landowners, should be and are easier to change. Changing the Covenants requires 51% of ALL Lot Owners to APPROVE a change in their land use, whereas the Bylaws only require 51% of those attending the meeting to accept a change in a process or requirement. Yet the most recent GLA Newsletter clearly stated that the number of votes needed to pass would be determined under the Bylaw threshold. I see that “error” as VOTER MANIPULATION, or, at best, an attempt to reduce the number of votes needed to pass the amendment, and hope that no one would notice the difference.

Additional VOTER MANIPULATION is evident with the voting packet, which includes stating that, “Compound interest is charging interest on interest.” The entire Board has been told numerous times by Regina, as well as other Landowners with a business background, that is not what Covenant 11.06 says, and only 18% simple interest has been applied in the past. Every Director has heard past accounting errors are corrected during final billing. They can see that in the GLA books. Telling voters this, rather than telling them only 18% simple interest is charged is VOTER MANIPULATION. Also, not comparing that to the 12% simple interest the Board desires and the 15% simple interest many landowners desire is also VOTER MANIPULATION.

The letter to voters says, “there is no need to make money on the interest rate; we only need to cover for the loss of buying power due to inflation.” Part of that is true, GLA is not a business intended to make money. But no matter what the interest rate is, 12%, or 15%, or 18%, the money collected goes into the same account, serves the same purpose and is not considered a “profit.” Bringing in the idea of “GLA MAKING MONEY” is another voter manipulation tool. In addition, only covering “inflation” gives no consideration to how the roads have deteriorated, and how much more it will cost to repair them due to the reported $268,000 not being available for proper maintenance.

The letter to voters also says “GLA is not a court; it does not need to charge high interest as a punitive measure.” But, actually, GLA is a court because Bylaw Article VI (B)(9) tells the Board one of its “Duties” is “Enforce obligations of the Members to the Association as provided in the Covenants.” Granted, the Board rarely accepts that responsibility, and that is what has led to so many problems within GLA. It has also contributed greatly to the growing lack of trust of the Board.

More evidence of VOTER MANIPULATION is that the “Con’s” included in the vote packet were cherry picked and presented with either degrading or inflammatory language. The 2nd Con, or reason not to change, presented in the Letter to voters states that “Using a phrase such as “the highest interest rate allowed by law” is seen as better wording.” That is not what Landowners said, and it degrades what the language really accomplishes. That exact wording is used by Associations around Big Sky to assure legality, be easily understood and implemented, and because it eliminates the need to change it again. Saying it “is seen as better wording” makes it appear that the difference is merely semantics. However, at the Board Listens # 2 meeting, the Landowners put changing the language of Covenant 11.06 to simply state, “the highest interest allowed by State Law” as their highest priority. Withholding that crucial information is a blatant attempt to sway the vote. I assume the author(s) of the voter information packet feared that giving truly valid opposing reasons and all the pertinent information would stop voters from voting as this Board wishes.

Information voters receive matters.