|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2016 10:45:51 GMT -7
Election Committee Meeting November 16th, 2016 At Liberty Hall Kitchen in North Glastonbury Download Meeting Documents below: - Annual Meeting Election Results with number of Proxies, Absentee and Attendee Ballots
- Procedure to verify eligibility of absentee ballots
- Griffith Law Group letter - page 1
- Griffith Law Group letter - page 2
- Official Minutes - Courtesy of the GLA Board
- Transcript of email from George Makris announcing his withdrawal and conceding to Leo Keeler.
Email from George Makris – sent to the GLA Board on November 16, 2016 @ 6:11 pm
Dear Board Members:
First, please accept my apologies for not responding to the calls I received from some of you, until now. After not being elected on Saturday, I accepted some new work contracts which demand a lot of time, every day. And it is for this same reason that I can’t serve at the GLA as a board member, even if it turns out that I’d be elected after all.
Serving on the GLA is a serious and honorable commitment that requires a lot of effort and I just wouldn’t be able to do it well, with all these new commitments.
I think Leo will be a fine board member, and as a result I withdraw my participation, even if it turns out that I won the vote.
Thank you so much for understanding. I will try to support your hard work from the sidelines and by attending some meetings.
Best regards,
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 24, 2016 14:03:44 GMT -7
GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy makes it official - Voting is a fundamental right.
But... NOT all votes will be counted.
Administrator's Note: The following email was received from the GLA Board Secretary on Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM. In it Charlene Murphy explains that voting is a fundamental right. From there she launches into an argument that tries to explain why one person will be allowed to vote again and why many landowners will NOT have their ballots counted.
The Forum finds the secretary's arguments Orwellian and recommends that her title be changed to Minister of Truth. It is especially disturbing that the stealing of this election will happen on CUT property in a building perversely named "Liberty Hall". The church shredded people's Constitutional rights with the original Covenants; they treated landowners like serfs and denied them freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to pursue happiness. The Forum fears that Charlene Murphy, a long time church member, will continue the process by denying landowners the ability to vote.
Her disturbing email follows:
From: Official GLA Info Account [mailto:info@glamontana.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 6:39 PM
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Subject: Election Committee Minutes 11-16-16 & message from GLA Secretary
November 23, 2016
Information on Nov 26 Recount of SG ballots
The right to vote is an honored and protected privilege that we in America enjoy. Voting is also a fundamental right of every member in good standing of the GLA.
The principle of the right to vote is important. To explain why a recount of the SG ballots was scheduled for Nov 26, I offer the following information.
As previously stated, it came to light that an error was made by the GLA at the Annual meeting in determining how many votes a particular landowner was entitled to cast. This was due to an assessment payment not being credited before the absentee ballot was processed, thereby making it appear as though this landowner was not in good standing for particular properties they own in SG.
After the Election Committee Meeting of November 16, 2016, I looked closely at the absentee ballot. The instructions did not state that if an assessment payment needed to be made in order to be eligible to vote, that payment should be included in the envelope with the absentee ballot. A particular SG landowner sent their assessment payment in another envelope that was received by the GLA before Nov 12. This meant that the error on Nov 12 was not the fault of the landowner, but a problem with the GLA procedures and therefore a GLA error. The absentee ballot was processed before the Treasurer processed the payment.
Since this error resulted in 3 votes being erroneously disqualified the ballot count for South Glastonbury on Nov 12 was not correct. An Election Committee meeting for the purpose of recounting ballots correctly was then scheduled for Nov 26. This meeting is specifically related to the Nov 12 election, and it is not a new membership meeting for the purpose of holding another election.
The Election Committee meeting on Nov 26 is a recount of the ballots that were turned in on the 12th, plus the replacement ballot for the particular SG landowner’s three votes that were erroneously disqualified due to a GLA error.
Question: Can a proxy received in the mail on Nov 12 be counted with the recount on Nov 26?
Answer: No, a proxy must be received before the voting period ends on the day of the election, Nov 12. See information below from the proxy form.
NOTE: It is your responsibility to mail or deliver this completed form to the person you have designated as your proxy, who will then bring it to the meeting and vote on your behalf. The GLA will not deliver this form to your proxy or hold it for him/her to pick up. Proxies may not be given to the Board, or to Directors.
DELIVERY: Individuals designated as proxies must submit their forms in person when signing-in at the Annual Meeting held on November 12, 2016, 8:45 a.m., Emigrant Hall, Emigrant. Proxy forms must be received prior to the voting period ending at 11:00 a.m.
Question: Can absentee ballots received after Nov 10 be counted?
Answer: No. There were four ballots received Nov 14. These are not eligible to be counted. The absentee ballot instructions clearly stated the ballot must be received by Nov 10th.
Question: Were there any absentee ballots received by Nov 10th that were not qualified to vote?
Answer: Yes, there were 4 absentee ballots received before Nov 10, that had a balance owing. No payment was received by the Nov 12 meeting so these four ballots were not eligible to be counted.
Question: Why is one landowner’s absentee ballot with 3 SG votes being counted as part of the recount on Nov 26?
Answer: A recount including one SG landowner’s 3 votes, is needed because this landowner mailed their payment to the GLA before Nov 12. Their absentee ballot was received prior to the Nov 10th timeline. An error occurred when the payment envelope was not found until after the absentee ballots had been processed. This is an error of the GLA not an error of the landowner. This landowner’s 3 votes were erroneously disqualified because the ballot was processed before the Treasurer processed the payment. The ballot will be a secret ballot in double envelopes and will be mixed in with the other ballots for the recount.
The GLA was responsible when we erroneously disqualified three of a landowner's votes that were actually paid in full. This was denying the landowner’s right to vote. A recount is needed to make this right.
Going forward, new procedures for processing payments and verifying eligibility of absentee ballots will be developed. A group of five landowners have volunteered to work with the election committee on developing these procedures.
As secretary I cannot say in good faith that the Nov 12, SG vote tally was correct, so a recount is scheduled for Nov 26, 2016.
Charlene Murphy
GLA Secretary
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Nov 25, 2016 7:29:36 GMT -7
I have read the above letter from Charlene Murphy and find it misleading because of the selection of certain facts and the omission of other facts to make a point. To place the focus is on the vote tally and not mention the fact that the candidate who could possibly be affected by a change in the vote tally has withdrawn from the election process is simplistic at best. To not mention that the ballot was opened and the uncounted vote results shared with others before the recount defies common sense.
To hold an official recount of a vote tally that has no chance of changing who is to be seated as a new director is to create a circus of deception and distraction. It is like swatting a mosquito with an elephant. It would be much more believable and practical to simply add an addendum to the vote tally records that acknowledges the uncounted votes and the withdrawal of the candidate who might have been directly affected by a changed vote tally.
This kind of simplistic knee-jerk reactive thinking wreaks of an agenda to deny the actual vote tally and bend it into a board appointment opportunity. It creates suspicion and distrust. It is maddening. It needlessly places one landowner against another. This kind of manipulation must end. There is no need or benefit in any recounting any of the votes. I ask you Corporate Secretary Charlene Murphy to return to common sense, stop the recount, and accept the wishes of those who voted.
Yoda
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 25, 2016 10:07:33 GMT -7
Administrator's Note:
Sally Muto requested that we post her email reply to Charlene Murphy's letter. Sally's reply follows:
Charlene, I think you misunderstood my e-mail to you and the board, by your response that I would want my vote counted. I questioned "why" you, and others on the board that attended the election committee meeting, chose this avenue to rectify one landowners "honored and protected privilege and fundamental right."
Instead of sitting there wringing your hands why not just ask the landowner if she wanted to proceed since the candidate, that she stated she had voted for, was no longer in the running? Why not ask, after incurring the expense of a lawyer and an administrative assistant hourly wage, if she would want to proceed when it would not change the outcome? I would like to think as a member of this community my "honored and protected privilege" could be put aside since my vote wouldn't have changed the outcome. Why go through all of this? I guess spending GLA's money is no object?
1. She will vote for Mr Makris and he'll be declared the winner and you'll convince him it's his duty to serve, after all look at all the trouble the community has gone to for him to win. He will accept and possibly serve until he has to resign. Then the BOARD picks a replacement. This happened with Mr McBride and others. This isn't exactly the transparency we want.
2. Or you'll go ahead and determine that the BOARD can ask for nominations and put in their chosen one. This happens all the time also, for instance when D. DeDraaf ran. You really had to beat the bushes to find Mr Johnson to run as his duty, so you could vote him in. All the while declaring that you think of this as an "inclusive" community. Actions do speak louder than words.
One question if I may...how was it that the board's attorney was able to get off a written opinion and into your hands so quickly? She's never been quick before? Speaking of which, I hope the new board will stop using their attorney as a way of running the associations business, she isn't and shouldn't be the 13th unelected board member. And please stop using the term "lawsuit" as justification of your actions. I'm sure the landowners who's voting rights are being upheld would not sue since she has been behind in assessments and therefore be unable to pay for a protracted lawsuit.
I am expecting Mr Keeler to be rightly seated at the next board meeting,
Sally Muto
|
|
