Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 1,654

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 19, 2016 10:57:28 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2016 10:57:28 GMT -7

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016

Administrator's Note: The following email was received from GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy on late Friday evening of November 18th, 2016.

Recount of SG Ballots from the Nov. 12 annual meeting

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.

As secretary I cannot say in good faith that the Nov 12, SG vote tally was correct. I now understand that due to an error, one landowner was denied three votes that they were eligible to cast on Nov 12. As a means to remedy the situation, this landowner will submit an absentee ballot which will then be counted for the three votes that they were not able to cast previously. The ballot will be a secret ballot in double envelopes and will be mixed in with the other ballots for a recount.
The recount will occur on Saturday, Nov 26, at 10:00 a.m. at Liberty Hall in North Glastonbury. All members of the association are invited to attend this recount of South Glastonbury votes.

After the recount the voting results will be certified. The results of the recount will be announced and posted on the GLA website.

Charlene Murphy
GLA Secretary

The Administrator, Tim Brockett, is also a Director on the Glastonbury Landowners Association Board. The opinions expressed on the Forum are his own and may or may not coincide with the views of the GLA Board.

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 1,654

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 19, 2016 11:02:01 GMT -7 Admin, chris, and 3 more like this

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2016 11:02:01 GMT -7

Administrator's note: Debbia Blais requested that we post her open letter to the GLA Board regarding the South Glastonbury vote "recount" scheduled for November 26th, 2016. Her letter follows:

GLA Board of Directors,

Your Official GLA email announcement on Friday evening, Nov 18th says: “There will be a recount of SG votes”. Period. But the PDF file attached to the Official GLA email, “Recount of SG Ballots”, from GLA Secretary, Charlene Murphy, announces several additional things will occur on Nov 26th :

1. Submission of an absentee ballot, not previously cast, for 3 votes, by an undisclosed landowner

2. Adding that absentee ballot to the other ballots previously submitted and tallied on Nov 12th

3. Followed by a recount that will include ballots from both Nov 12th and Nov 26th

4. Voting results will be re-certified on Nov 26th

5. Voting results will be re-posted on the GLA website.

Verifying the Nov 12th vote tally is one thing. Allowing additional votes to be cast on Nov 26th and added to the Nov 12th vote is another thing - and if done, should include any other votes and/or proxies received and outstanding since Nov 12th.

In light of the additional information provided by Charlene in her attached PDF document, Nov 26th will actually REOPEN the SG election for additional voting on Nov 26th. This is NOT simply a RECOUNT of votes cast prior to the close of voting as announced during the Nov 12th GLA Annual Meeting by President Charlotte Mizzi. The SG votes counted and verified by 2 independent people sitting at the SG table on Nov 12th have already been notarized this past week by one of those counters – per normal GLA election procedures. If that was not done, I ask WHY NOT?

This re-opening of the SG election for Board of Directors and Ombudsman occurs:

· after GLA Secretary Charlene Murphy formally announced the GLA Election Results in an email to all GLA landowners on Sunday, Nov 13th at 1:14 pm (Directors: Ed Dobrowski, Leo Keeler and Dan Kehoe; Ombudsman: Miriam Barker)

· after the GLA posted those GLA Election Results on the GLA website at: www.glamontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GLA-election-results-2016.pdf

· in the absence of any GLA Annual Meeting minutes, that would document voting was closed and concluded during the meeting on Nov 12th.

· in the absence of any GLA Election Committee meeting minutes from Weds, Nov 16th, to 1) discuss the election procedures and 2) review the Nov 12th annual meeting vote.

· in the absence of any Action By Written Consent filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the Board (per Bylaws Article VI, paragraph J) - for which there is no official GLA record to date of Board decisions or actions, without a meeting, to:

o REOPEN the SG election

o investigate allegations of “an error” allegedly causing one landowner to be denied 3 votes.

o incur the expense to GLA landowners for an opinion from attorney Alanah Griffith on a “recount” (an incorrect characterization of what is stated here to be a denial of votes).

o any other resolutions or motions considered and/or made by the Board outside of a meeting, by email or otherwise, when all Board Members are contacted for their consent in writing to the resolution, motion or request for vote (two-thirds majority required for such action).

There surely must be a compelling and legitimate reason for either a Recount or a Reopening of an election, accepting additional votes and proxies submitted after close of election. The GLA has not disclosed what that reason or error is, that would compel the Board to take such drastic action. The only clue in either the Official GLA email or in Charlene’s PDF document announcing the re-opening of the election is her statement that “one landowner was denied three votes that they were eligible to cast on Nov 12th”.

A denial of votes is not resolved with a “recount”. A denial of votes does not mean the vote tally on Nov 12th was incorrect. The GLA has not disclosed how the “denial of votes” happened. How did the landowner know their votes had been denied? Who discovered this problem? Why was the problem not resolved during the Annual Meeting? Or did the problem surface after the election results were announced?

It is the responsibility of each landowner to ensure they are in Good Standing on Nov 12th so their votes are counted. It is the responsibility of each landowner to submit their vote prior to close of voting on Nov 12th for their vote to be counted. It is not the responsibility of the GLA to assume either of these landowner responsibilities.

It is highly suspicious that the GLA Board has made more than 1 undocumented decision in regards to the election since Nov 12th and taken this undocumented and unprecedented action to REOPEN the SG election, allowing additional votes to be submitted and counted on Nov 26th. Whatever the alleged issue is, it deserves a full and open investigation and cannot remain undisclosed while at the same time being put forth as the basis for either a Recount or a Reopening of the election!

Debbie Blais SG 39-D

Last Edit: Nov 19, 2016 11:02:42 GMT -7 by Admin

The Administrator, Tim Brockett, is also a Director on the Glastonbury Landowners Association Board. The opinions expressed on the Forum are his own and may or may not coincide with the views of the GLA Board.

chris
Full Member

Posts: 175

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 19, 2016 20:39:58 GMT -7 Admin, dorothykeeler, and 2 more like this

Quote

Post by chris on Nov 19, 2016 20:39:58 GMT -7

What is clearly evident from this discussion is the fact that the election process of the GLA is still seriously flawed. To enumerate all the discrepancies would take more time than I am willing to invest in this subject as I am beyond weary of dealing with the antics of the current board and their institutional influence to control all that is within the boundaries of Glastonbury North and South, including the majority of landowners who do not accept their ideology. The Constitution for the united States speaks of freedom of religion. That cuts both ways (no pun intended).

What Secretary Murphy is proposing here is to reopen the acceptance of absentee ballots for one individual, who just happens to be a member of CUT. What about additional absentee ballots that surfaced after the meeting closed...those that were delivered to the post office after 7:45 am when the admin assistant checked the mail but were in boxes there at the close of the meeting? Did anyone take into count that the day before was a holiday without mail delivery? Did anyone think to check the post office box after Saturday's mail was delivered and before the polls were closed? Obviously not. It is now quite clear that the cut off date for paying assessments in full and casting absentee ballots must be sooner than the day of elections. If this had been policy already, we would not be expending time and energy once again trying to correct the errors of the GLA board, ad nausea.

Under the comedy of errors as they exist, it would be more expedient and acceptable for the GLA board to declare the original tally of votes taken and publicized on November 12 as the official record instead of trying to appease one landowner while denying other absentee ballot voters their rights as well? This whole scenario reeks of conniving manipulation to advance the agenda of CUT and their minions.

Whether or not the GLA board takes off its blinders and accepts the fact that there are indeed already two Glastonburys is moot at this point. The old guard (CUT) is outnumbered and will be outvoted when the newcomers / outsiders finally unite for freedom from the tyranny that is presently being imposed.

If you agree with my analysis, please write the GLA board and express yourself at info@glamontana.org
In addition, attend the Recount/Reelection meeting scheduled for November 26 at 10 am at Liberty Hall in North Glastonbury to protest this outrage.

PS 11/20/16- I meant to say above "absentee ballots and/or proxies," not just absentee ballots. There were at least 3 proxy votes received by a SG landowner when he checked his PO Box after the close of the election meeting on Saturday. As the election tally had already been officially announced it was obviously too late for them to be included. He did not whine or complain to the GLA board and demand that these proxies warranted a recount, but accepted the original official tally. If there is going to be a recount as Secretary Murphy has announced should not these and any other uncounted proxies be included? Does anyone know of any other SG proxies that should be included?

Last Edit: Nov 20, 2016 8:42:57 GMT -7 by chris: to add PS information

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

observer
New Member

Posts: 12

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 19, 2016 22:16:44 GMT -7

Quote

Post by observer on Nov 19, 2016 22:16:44 GMT -7

Wow! Chris and Debbie, both of you are sharp and articulate. Thank you for bringing these matters to light. How would landowners know about these matters without coming to this site?

With that said, I am saddened that your writings are even necessary. It sounds like landowners should be considering refusing to pay their assessments.

Please, keep updating us as this unfolds.

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 1,654

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 26, 2016 16:43:03 GMT -7 dorothykeeler and bluebird like this

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2016 16:43:03 GMT -7

Numerous Issues Cloud the SG Election Recount Meeting
Vote Totals are not Certified
Treasurer Rudy Parker secretly pays landowner debt balances enabling delinquent landowners to vote

The Election Committee met for 2 hours and 30 minutes on Saturday November 26th, 2016 at Liberty Hall. The audience brought forth numerous problems and issues with the original November 12th vote, the recount and the overall election process. The issues highlighted some long standing problems and several new ones. Treasurer Rudy Parker admitted to secretly paying the balance due for several landowners from his own pocket. This stunning admission effected the outcome of 7 votes and has thrown the race in favor of church affiliated candidates. It was an unethical and possibly illegal breach of his duty to serve all landowners fairly.

Other issues included:

Many landowner votes would not be counted in the recount. At least 10 votes will be ignored because they were not in Emigrant Hall at the close of voting on November 12th.
One candidates has withdrawn from the race and it was questioned if his votes counted and would the GLA Board make an appointment in his place.
CUT Business manager Allen Shaw voted for all CUT parcels but he is not a legally defined representative of the church as required by the Covenants. His votes should be disqualified because they were not proxies.
Candidate Ed Dobrowski does not own land and is not legally certified as a corporate representative. Thus his candidacy is in question and he could be disqualified as a Director and candidate.
One candidate suggested that the State Attorney General, the Secretary of State and Park County Courts may need to get involved if the results of November 12th are not accepted. He suggested that only a new election could effectively and fairly address the many issues that clouded this election.
It was revealed that a legally blind person was a ballot counter on November 12th.

The GLA Board Secretary Charlene Murphy decided that the original ballot in question be corrected from 2 to 5. She further revealed that the ballot belonged to Kathleen Rakela whom the Forum has previously described only as Landowner A. Kathleen Rakela's ballot was presented to the audience by Secretary Murphy. In the upper right hand corner a numeral 5 indicated the original number of votes. It was crossed out with a red pen and a numeral 2 was written underneath. The Candidate boxes for George Makris, Dan Kehoe and Ed Dobrowski were checked. All audience members were able to view and read her "secret" ballot.

Director Kevin Newby then inspected the pink receipt that Treasurer Rudy Parker created when he "discovered" that Kathleen Rakela had paid most of her past due amount. Newby noticed that a small amount was still due and questioned the Treasurer. Rudy Parker then admitted that he paid the final balance due from his own pocket. He stated that he often paid small amounts due for landowners from a jar of coins he had. He also paid a balance due for Herb Dawson in North Glastonbury. Both landowners did NOT pay their assessments in full and thus did NOT meet the Covenants criteria for "being a member in good standing". Their 7 votes should not be counted but were anyway.

Linda Ulrich and Kevin Newby laboriously counted and recounted the votes. In the end they found that the vote totals were off for several candidates.

SG Directors - November 12th and after the recount totals

Timothy Brockett 40 - After the recount 40
Ed Dobrowski 59 - After the recount 63
Leo Keeler 47 - After the recount 47
Dan Kehoe 51 - After the recount 55
Jerry Ladewig 21 - after the recount 21
George Makris 46 - after the recount 50
Jeffrey Reiderer 33 - after the recount 33

SG Ombudsman - November 12th and after the recount totals

Miriam Barker 78 - after the recount 82
Write in: Debbie Blais 3 - after the recount 3

Non-church candidates did not gain or lose any votes. CUT affiliated candidates each gained 4 votes. Three were from Kathleen Rakela's ballot and one was from a proxy ballot that presumably was not counted the first time around.

It was noted that George Makris is no longer a candidate so his candidacy is voided. Thus Leo Keeler should be the 3rd place winner and take his seat at the director's table. It was also noted that if Ed Dobrowski was disqualified for not meeting the standards set forth in the Covenants then Tim Brockett should sit with Leo Keeler at the director's table. The Board Secretary refused to make a decision regarding these issues and many more. Instead she explained the issues will be brought to the GLA Board's 13th member, the attorney, for a ruling. Neither the original vote or the recounted vote was officially certified.

Last Edit: Sept 25, 2018 5:34:52 GMT -7 by Admin

The Administrator, Tim Brockett, is also a Director on the Glastonbury Landowners Association Board. The opinions expressed on the Forum are his own and may or may not coincide with the views of the GLA Board.

leokeeler
Full Member

Posts: 188

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 28, 2016 17:43:11 GMT -7 Admin and bluebird like this

Quote

Post by leokeeler on Nov 28, 2016 17:43:11 GMT -7

At the end of the Nov. 26 meeting, Charlotte asked me to write up some questions for the Board to consider presenting to an attorney to resolve the current problems and avoid future ones.

I believe when asking a question of an attorney that all background information and positions known to be taken by others must be presented or the opinion will be incomplete at best or misleading. Sorry the attached is so long but if all questions are answered we might avoid major problems in the future.

Leo

Suggested Questions To Alahan.doc (62.5 KB)

Killary Klinton
Guest

Election Recount for South Glastonbury November 26th, 2016 Nov 28, 2016 20:15:45 GMT -7 bluebird likes this

Quote

Post by Killary Klinton on Nov 28, 2016 20:15:45 GMT -7

I am glad to see my kind of corruption occurring at the local level in Glastonbury. By that, I mean attempting to buy an election. I was recently asked how much it cost to try to buy an election. In my case, millions, but I hear that in Glastonbury, with the GLA Treasurer in your pocket, an election can possibly be bought for less than one dollar - 65 cents to be exact. If this confuses you, ask the Treasurer to explain why he contributed 65 cents out of his own pocket so that one landowner would be allowed to cast 3 votes in a subsequent special election "recount" on November 26 in the hope of denying a duly elected candidate his seat on the board. Furthermore, ask him how many other times has he done this! My kind of corruption!