Keep voting until the desired results are achieved...
Nov 20, 2016 10:56:38 GMT -7
chris, dorothykeeler, and 2 more like this
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2016 10:56:38 GMT -7
Keep voting until the desired results are achieved...
A Forum Commentary
A Forum Commentary
It is a time honored tradition of the GLA Board to keep voting on an issue until the desired results are achieved. In 2016 the GLA Board was shocked when an opening prayer was voted down. Rather than live with the will of the people, the Board kept the issue simmering and voted it back in at the first opportunity. After the 11.06 Covenant change was soundly defeated, Board member Dan Kehoe vowed to bring the exact same issue up for a vote again.
From the GLA Board's perspective the 2016 election went as planned except for Leo Keeler. Leo Keeler who often thoughtfully criticized the Board was elected by just one vote. He beat long time resident George Makris who garnered 46 votes. Leo received 47 votes. Continuing with the GLA tradition of voting until desired outcomes are achieved GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy has announced there will be a "recount" that will include a "new ballot" from just one landowner because the GLA Board made "an error". The error of course is that a non-church member and frequent critic of the Board got elected.
From the GLA Board's perspective the 2016 election went as planned except for Leo Keeler. Leo Keeler who often thoughtfully criticized the Board was elected by just one vote. He beat long time resident George Makris who garnered 46 votes. Leo received 47 votes. Continuing with the GLA tradition of voting until desired outcomes are achieved GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy has announced there will be a "recount" that will include a "new ballot" from just one landowner because the GLA Board made "an error". The error of course is that a non-church member and frequent critic of the Board got elected.
Here is what we know so far...
From the moment this Forum commentator and Board Candidate walked into Emigrant Hall on November 12th I could see and feel that something was wrong. The atmosphere was tense. No one smiled or shared warm greetings. A pall hung over the open and mostly deserted room. I noticed that the meeting agenda was changed. Previous annual meetings presented the candidates first, which was followed by an audience question and answer period. Then a break for voting. While the vote was being counted committees gave their reports.
As the meeting progressed I listened to incumbent candidates present rosy, overly optimistic committee reports with statements that were at best debatable and at worse, simply not true. I concluded that they were campaigning. The candidates were then allowed to speak. A question and answer period followed which was highlighted by Board Secretary Charlene Murphy, herself a candidate, launching into a personal attack on another candidate. Several days later, after hearing criticism from landowners, she apologized to the landowner she attacked for her "out of line" behavior.
Candidate Murphy sent a campaign letter to church affiliated North Glastonbury landowners seeking their votes and promising to return to the old ways when CUT ran the community with an iron fist. Secretary Murphy has also verbally attacked other landowners such as Regina Wunsch at a January 20th, 2016 Finance Committee meeting. It is clear to the Forum that Board Secretary Charlene Murphy is not an impartial Board member whose responsibilities include serving all landowners fairly.
As the candidate question and answer period wound to a close people voted and a break ensued. Soon the vote counting started. During the counting process Leo Keeler's name was overheard several times coming from the counting table. It appears that the raw totals were being discussed openly. At the Election Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 16th it was stated by a director that people were still voting at 12 noon. That time coincides with the chatter heard from the ballot counting tables.
Earlier in the day an absentee ballot from a South Glastonbury landowner who owned 5 parcels and thus had 5 votes was called into question. This landowner, whom we shall call Landowner A, was behind with her assessments. Only 2 South Glastonbury parcels were paid in full; 3 were behind. Thus her absentee ballot was downgraded from 5 votes to 2. The Covenants require that a member be in good standing to vote. There is no provision that allows the GLA to grant full or partial votes for partially paid assessments. However the GLA has traditionally violated the Covenants and allowed multi-parcel landowners to vote on parcels that are paid in full.
The envelopes that the absentee ballots came in had a sticker designating the parcel number and number of votes. These envelopes were kept for the August 27th, 2016 Covenant 11.06 vote as they should have been. They are a record of who sent in absentee ballots. For the November 12th, 2016 Annual election the envelopes were destroyed.
A little after the vote counting started chatter from the ballot tables was overheard regarding Leo Keeler. Shortly thereafter Landowner A was spotted in Emigrant Hall at the ballot table. At the Election Committee meeting on November 26th Landowner A stated that she mailed a check separately for her 3 behind in assessments parcels. She also stated in an email that was openly read at the November 16th meeting that she intended to vote for George Makris, NOT Leo Keeler. Her 3 votes would have given George Makris a 2 vote victory by boosting his total to 49 versus Leo Keeler's 47 votes. Also read at the Election Committee meeting was an email from Candidate George Makris stating that he was withdrawing from the race for personal reasons.
It is not clear if landowner A was given a fresh ballot at the annual meeting or if her absentee ballot was upgraded to 5 votes. It is also unknown why absentee ballots envelopes were discarded and who made that decision.
Around 1 PM the vote count was complete and the official results were announced. Leo Keeler was the only non-church candidate to win; all others were defeated.
The Forum has learned that on Sunday afternoon, about 24 hours after the official results were announced, the private GLA Board email system started to light up with calls for a recounting of the votes in South Glastonbury. The discussion was heated and involved fears of a lawsuit. The subject of Landowner A came up and it was concluded that the GLA had made an error and deprived her of 3 votes. Somewhere in the discussion it was decided to seek a legal opinion from the Griffith Law Group. That opinion contained erroneous information regarding the date of the letter and the number of parcels in question. You may download the letter here. The opinion basically allows the GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy to decide the outcome of the election. She may disqualify any votes and count others.
On Friday November 18th, Board Secretary Charlene Murphy announced that there would be a "recount" of all South Glastonbury votes and that an additional ballot would be inserted into the mix. The ballot would be from Landowner A and would correct "an error" the GLA made on November 12th at the Annual meeting. What was not stated was that the extra ballot would steal the election from Leo Keeler and grant it to George Makris. Since George has withdrawn from the race it is presumed that the GLA Board will appoint a church person to replace him. The vote will be complete when the desired results are achieved. The Forum prays that it is wrong.
Many questions remain to be answered.
As the meeting progressed I listened to incumbent candidates present rosy, overly optimistic committee reports with statements that were at best debatable and at worse, simply not true. I concluded that they were campaigning. The candidates were then allowed to speak. A question and answer period followed which was highlighted by Board Secretary Charlene Murphy, herself a candidate, launching into a personal attack on another candidate. Several days later, after hearing criticism from landowners, she apologized to the landowner she attacked for her "out of line" behavior.
Candidate Murphy sent a campaign letter to church affiliated North Glastonbury landowners seeking their votes and promising to return to the old ways when CUT ran the community with an iron fist. Secretary Murphy has also verbally attacked other landowners such as Regina Wunsch at a January 20th, 2016 Finance Committee meeting. It is clear to the Forum that Board Secretary Charlene Murphy is not an impartial Board member whose responsibilities include serving all landowners fairly.
As the candidate question and answer period wound to a close people voted and a break ensued. Soon the vote counting started. During the counting process Leo Keeler's name was overheard several times coming from the counting table. It appears that the raw totals were being discussed openly. At the Election Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 16th it was stated by a director that people were still voting at 12 noon. That time coincides with the chatter heard from the ballot counting tables.
Earlier in the day an absentee ballot from a South Glastonbury landowner who owned 5 parcels and thus had 5 votes was called into question. This landowner, whom we shall call Landowner A, was behind with her assessments. Only 2 South Glastonbury parcels were paid in full; 3 were behind. Thus her absentee ballot was downgraded from 5 votes to 2. The Covenants require that a member be in good standing to vote. There is no provision that allows the GLA to grant full or partial votes for partially paid assessments. However the GLA has traditionally violated the Covenants and allowed multi-parcel landowners to vote on parcels that are paid in full.
The envelopes that the absentee ballots came in had a sticker designating the parcel number and number of votes. These envelopes were kept for the August 27th, 2016 Covenant 11.06 vote as they should have been. They are a record of who sent in absentee ballots. For the November 12th, 2016 Annual election the envelopes were destroyed.
A little after the vote counting started chatter from the ballot tables was overheard regarding Leo Keeler. Shortly thereafter Landowner A was spotted in Emigrant Hall at the ballot table. At the Election Committee meeting on November 26th Landowner A stated that she mailed a check separately for her 3 behind in assessments parcels. She also stated in an email that was openly read at the November 16th meeting that she intended to vote for George Makris, NOT Leo Keeler. Her 3 votes would have given George Makris a 2 vote victory by boosting his total to 49 versus Leo Keeler's 47 votes. Also read at the Election Committee meeting was an email from Candidate George Makris stating that he was withdrawing from the race for personal reasons.
It is not clear if landowner A was given a fresh ballot at the annual meeting or if her absentee ballot was upgraded to 5 votes. It is also unknown why absentee ballots envelopes were discarded and who made that decision.
Around 1 PM the vote count was complete and the official results were announced. Leo Keeler was the only non-church candidate to win; all others were defeated.
The Forum has learned that on Sunday afternoon, about 24 hours after the official results were announced, the private GLA Board email system started to light up with calls for a recounting of the votes in South Glastonbury. The discussion was heated and involved fears of a lawsuit. The subject of Landowner A came up and it was concluded that the GLA had made an error and deprived her of 3 votes. Somewhere in the discussion it was decided to seek a legal opinion from the Griffith Law Group. That opinion contained erroneous information regarding the date of the letter and the number of parcels in question. You may download the letter here. The opinion basically allows the GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy to decide the outcome of the election. She may disqualify any votes and count others.
On Friday November 18th, Board Secretary Charlene Murphy announced that there would be a "recount" of all South Glastonbury votes and that an additional ballot would be inserted into the mix. The ballot would be from Landowner A and would correct "an error" the GLA made on November 12th at the Annual meeting. What was not stated was that the extra ballot would steal the election from Leo Keeler and grant it to George Makris. Since George has withdrawn from the race it is presumed that the GLA Board will appoint a church person to replace him. The vote will be complete when the desired results are achieved. The Forum prays that it is wrong.
Many questions remain to be answered.
- Did landowner A have five valid votes at the annual meeting?
- Will she be allowed to cast more votes at the "recount"?
- Why were the envelopes that contained the absentee ballots destroyed?
- When was Landowner A's check received? Why was it not discovered before she was placed on the past due list?
- Were the election results tainted by the discussion of vote totals before the voting process was closed? Did any Board member call Landowner A and request her to pay her bill in full so she could cast 3 more votes?
- Were other landowners sympathetic to CUT called in to vote after the raw totals showed a non-church candidate in the lead?
- Will other ballots be allowed in the recount? The Forum has learned that several landowner ballots came in the mail on late Saturday and Monday. One proxy ballot was postmarked on November 7th and arrived in a landowner's Emigrant PO Box at 11:45 AM on Saturday November 12th. Will that Proxy vote be allowed in the recount?
- Has the voting process been irreconcilably corrupted? Will extra ballots be slipped into the existing stack of cast ballots? How can anyone trust the process when the GLA Board has a pattern of voting on issues until the desired result is obtained?
The Forum believes that the 2016 Elections were flawed and that the official results announced on November 12th, 2016 should be adhered to. We are all human and we all make mistakes. We must improve the process so future votes will be more accurate. To overturn the results is to overturn the system and it will spread distrust and wreak havoc. The only alternative we see is to void the 2016 election and call for a new one in early January of 2017.
