Formal Complaint of the Community Property Committee
Aug 6, 2017 8:00:18 GMT -7
chris, dorothykeeler, and 1 more like this
Post by Admin on Aug 6, 2017 8:00:18 GMT -7
Administrator's Note: Sally Muto wrote the following complaint concerning the Community Property known as the "Soccer Fields". The letter was read at the July 2017 GLA Board meeting and addresses a growing issue for Glastonbury landowners. In the past, pre-1997, only CUT members were allowed to live in Glastonbury. That changed in 1998 and now approximately 50% of the community is non-church. Financial priorities and attitudes have changed since 1997. Using landowner money to maintain and possibly develop the soccer fields will satisfy the Park County parkland requirement and enable the church to develop their surrounding property, Their private property is not part of Glastonbury yet the GLA is being asked to financially assist the future development. Should landowners foot the bill for CUT? Can the GLA even afford to pay for soccer fields that provide little to no benefit to most landowners? Does the GLA have any obligation to CUT 20 years after the church opened the community to the public? These questions and more will be addressed by landowners and the GLA in the coming months.
Formal Complaint of the Community Property Committee
I would like to make a formal petition / formal complaint to the GLA Board and have it discussed at the July Board meeting. These are the issues of great concern to me and our son Jeffrey, whom I represent, in the ongoing push of an agenda to develop the common area known as the soccer field. Attached is the “REQUIRED” form.
• First, I would like to petition the Board to return the “encumbered property” known as the soccer fields, back to CUT. It was transferred to GLA, who would develop it as “recreational” parkland, and maintain it to “satisfy” CUT’s future required obligation to Park County, should they subdivide any of the “Reserved Lands.” I’m also requesting the Board not to enter into an amended contract where GLA will still come under a financial burden and a liability burden, this Association can ill afford.
• Second, I would like to see the Board discontinue the Community Property Committee as it is not needed and could be handled by the Board at regular board meetings. I had brought this up to Dan Kehoe two years ago when he was President of the Board. And if I’m not mistaken, he seemed to agree with me.
• Third, with all its contractual, legal and financial ramifications to GLA, transferring the issue of the Community Property Committee to the Legal Committee, is the responsible course of action. These complex issues are way beyond the scope of what this committee is equipped to handle. This issue will, and should, be brought to the Board eventually - and it has reached that point.
If the Board should decide to continue with a Community Property Committee, I respectively ask that Charlotte Mizzi be removed as Chairman, along with John Carp as a committee member. Both Mizzi and Carp have a conflict of interest in being a GLA Board Member and an Ombudsman (respectively), while at the same time being employed by CUT as a minister and head of the NGTC (respectively), and promoting Community Property improvements on behalf of CUT that would be funded and paid for by GLA landowners.
Neither Mizzi (Board member), nor Carp (Ombudsman), are exercising “Duty of Care,” and therefore, should be disqualified from this committee. Likewise, with any other landowners or representatives that have a vested interest in the development of the common land, which Mr. Carp does from a value perspective of the property he represents.
“Duty of Care” for a director of a Non-Profit (including those performed as a committee member): In good faith with the care that an ordinary prudent person in a similar position would exercise under similar circumstances; In a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interest of the organization.” Montana Nonprofit Association
Mizzi and Carp are pushing for the “best interest” of the North Glastonbury Teaching Center and Church Universal and Triumphant properties that they represent as officers, and they have been and are continuing to guide development of. Even after being told that GLA cannot afford to develop or maintain the property, which I believe the finances will show to be correct, Mizzi is still pushing the idea of developing the area, which will greatly increase the value of lands closest to the development - the Reserved Lands and Teaching Center properties. This tells me she has an agenda apart from the financial well-being of this Association, and therefore, is not performing her fiduciary duty as a Board member and Committee Chair - again.
In my opinion, she must not grasp or have the financial acumen to be in a position as to be objective. I find her lack of discernment in this area appalling, especially with her continued touting of her experience and achievements. Either these elements were inflated, or her experience is sadly lacking. What else could possibly explain her lack of critical analysis of the situation? Her continued dismissal of the “facts” from other landowners as “opinions,” shows a certain bias and agenda. After finding out she is also on the Finance Committee, it further confounds me since she should know the funds are simply not there for ANY development, accept for maintaining our deteriorating roads!!! By the way, we are continually searching for monies just to maintain minimal repairs. Any development will come on the backs of increased assessments to landowners to fulfill a desire and dream of Charlotte's.
GLA finds itself in a unique situation of having another organization in the middle of its geographical location. This organization is outside of our Covenants, and it’s goals are apart from and opposed to our own concerns and issues. We have people that are serving two different entities on the Board with opposite agendas that clash with each other. Divided loyalties are at play here, and are the cause of many of the situations we find ourselves dealing with, as landowners and board members. The McCowen trespass issue is a prime example of Board members conflicts of interest when Directors do not fulfil the legal requirements of serving GLA members, before serving any other entity.
“Duty of Loyalty” – Directors are obligated to exercise an undivided and unselfish loyalty to the organization they serve. Directors must exercise their obligations and powers in the best interests of the organization, not in their own interests or in the interests of another person or entity (even if charitable in nature). Montana Nonprofit Association
The GLA received the land as a gift from CUT and had no obligations or expenses. The soccer fields were developed by an organization under an agreement of some kind. That organization is no longer in existence and/or is no longer “FOOTING THE BILL” for maintenance, and their leaving the building there has generated a liability for GLA. GLA failed in requiring a performance bond adequate to remove the building.
Returning the property allows the CUT to develop their own parkland and fulfills their obligation to the County. If Charlotte and Mr. Carp want a recreational park for the area there is a nice “level” area right across the street that could be developed and neither would have to get approval from GLA landowners. After all CUT and NGTC can afford it more than GLA, beside that’s the least they can do since we maintain the roads they have access to without charge!
Sincerely,
Sally Muto, representing NG 27
(If I’m accused of having an agenda of my own, I’m going against the “best interest” of my family’s land as it overlooks the soccer fields and development would increase the value to our property. If I were to be in the position of making decisions or promotions, I would recuse myself from any appearance of a conflict of interest by the increased value to our property. Additionally, because we overlook the soccer fields, I must counter the presentations that several people use the fields. It is on few occasions that I see anyone walking across the area or using the “fields.” Not taking in to account the people vandalising the building and equipment that has been going on for years. I believe if those few that actually use the field desire to keep it mowed, they should cover all costs, electric for the well and mowing, and allow GLA to put those funds back into roads that truly serve all of GLA.)
