|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2017 22:13:19 GMT -7
GLA Annual Elections are postponed until December 2nd, 2017 It was announced tonight at the Election Committee meeting that the GLA Annual Elections originally scheduled for November 11th will be postponed until December 2nd, 2017. The GLA Board was acting on legal advice from attorney Seth Cunningham of Billings. One South Glastonbury candidate was disqualified at the October 9th Board meeting for not notifying the GLA of a sub-division she created. Rather than face a costly lawsuit the GLA Board decided to seek legal advice. The attorney suggested that a new ballot be mailed to all South Glastonbury landowners and the election be postponed. The dis-qualified candidate, Kathleen Rakela, will not be on the new ballot.
New ballots and a letter of explanation will be mailed on this coming Saturday. All landowners will receive the letter but only South Glastonbury landowners will receive a new ballot. The contents of the letter were not shared with the Election Committee which was unusual. When an audience member asked about specific legal advice the answer was "that is covered by attorney client privilege". Few details were revealed and many questions remain to be answered.
South Glastonbury landowners can vote twice via absentee ballots but only the most newly arrived ballot will be counted. Both North and South Glastonbury landowners will have an extra 3 weeks or so to get their absentee ballots in the mail. However all payments must be received by October 31st for a landowner to be in good standing and thus eligible to vote. Proxy votes will be accepted at the December 2nd meeting even if the November 11th date box is checked on them.
The Election Committee discussed having a "Meet The Candidates Forum" on November 11th at Emigrant Hall. Everyone was in favor of the idea except the Chairman Charlene Murphy. The committee recommendation must go to the GLA Board for a vote to become a reality. If the Board agrees, official notice will be given to landowners via Saturday's mailing.
This is an ongoing story and as more details emerge we will print them here.
Comments are welcome.
|
|
chris
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by chris on Oct 24, 2017 16:13:54 GMT -7
Thanks for the timely update, Admin. Seems that our illustrious board is still operating behind closed doors and hiding behind "attorney-client privilege." I was under the impression that the effort for greater transparency in GLA business was gaining ground but now see that the "usual suspects" are sabotaging again, taking us backward instead of forward: Back to the days of the board presidencies of Mizzi, Kehoe and Allen, when board secrecy reigned and landowners were treated as mushrooms - you know, kept in the dark and fed manure.
This entire maneuver, changing the election date at this late date, is very much suspect. Could the motivation be to cover certain individual's tracks, or to further stack the deck in favor of certain candidates, or to consolidate the political power of members of a controlling institution? Much is definitely rotten in Denmark Glastonbury.
"The Election Committee discussed having a "Meet The Candidates Forum" on November 11th at Emigrant Hall. Everyone was in favor of the idea except the Chairman Charlene Murphy."
Now why would the chair of the Election Committee oppose a proposal such as this brilliant one? Most interested landowners have already reserved that date for the GLA Annual Meeting, as originally announced by the board. Moving the elections to December 2 now creates a good opportunity for candidates to interact with their prospective constituents, and to answer questions that the electorate may have.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Oct 24, 2017 17:51:37 GMT -7
This is Leo Keeler, a Director, member of the Legal Committee, and in attendance during the conference with Seth Cunningham, and last nights meeting.
The question asked last night by Clare Parker was "What did the attorney say". I responded that the conversation was attorney client privileged, as the attorney informed everyone at the start of the call. There were no specific questions last night just the general tell me everything question.
Ms Rakela has threatened the Board numerous times with a lawsuit about her candidacy and the wording of anything GLA sends to landowners, and she was sitting next to Clare. I do not believe discussing the call with Seth or the documents being prepared was proper for last nights meeting. I was not trying to hide anything and I understand that many questions remain and cannot be answered at this time.
To correct the above - SG landowners can only vote once, not twice as presented. A few landowners may be required to send in a second ballot to properly cast the 3 votes they are entitled, but only one ballot will be opened and counted. Over 20 votes had been received by Oct. 9th, on the Sept. 25th ballot which has Ms. Rakela's name as a candidate, and more since then. If landowners used that Sept. 25th ballot and voted for Ms. Rakela, that vote will not be counted since Ms. Rakela was not a member in good standing on Sept. 13. All landowners are owed the opportunity to correct their votes on an accurate and complete ballot. A corrected ballot to enable all landowners voting by absentee ballot to cast all 3 of their votes for candidates properly listed on a absentee ballot is being sent to all SG landowners. ONLY ONE BALLOT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR COUNTING- i.e. only one vote.
Ms. Rakela has corrected her covenant violation and now is a member in good standing, and as with all members in good standing, qualified to be a write-in candidate. I believe she is currently campaigning as a write-in.
The second ballot being sent to SG landowners, and the cover letter are under heavy scrutiny due to the threat of a lawsuit by Ms. Rakela. The reason those documents were not shared last night is they are still works in progress and disclosure may complicate any legal proceedings filed by Ms. Rakela.
I am surprised that the fact the Chair openly stated she was against the Candidate Forum due to the workload involved with holding it, and her personal schedule was not included in the initial statement above. She openly presented that she would present a motion to the Board and she asked the Committee to take charge of all the organizational aspects if the Board approve the Candidate Forum. She presented that motion at about 10PM last night and it has been seconded. The required 8 affirmative votes (8 required for actions required by written consent) have not yet been made.
I hope this information is helpful. Leo
|
|
k
New Member
Posts: 2 
|
Post by k on Nov 5, 2017 15:43:22 GMT -7
This statement by Admin is misleading, "One South Glastonbury candidate was disqualified at the October 9th Board meeting for not notifying the GLA of a sub-division she created."
You make it sound like the GLA was never informed about the conveyance. The TRUTH is that the family conveyance had approval by the GLA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 5, 2017 20:32:38 GMT -7
Thank-you for your post K. The Forum is a place where all voices are welcome. Could you provide a copy of the paperwork that shows that the GLA knew about Kathleen Rakela's family Conveyance before she became a candidate? You may email us a copy at glastonburycommunityforum@gmail.com
Please feel free to present Kathleen's thoughts and views so all landowners can achieve a greater understanding of the issues surrounding her candidacy. Why do you think she was disqualified by the GLA Board? Will she run a write-in campaign? Does the second ballot mailing assist her? Was her absentee ballot sent in before the Board decision to disqualify her? How does she feel about the Election process so far?
Landowners are curious and would like to know more.
|
|
