2016 GLA Board Meeting Agendas and Documents

This is an unofficial account from an eyewitness in attendance for most of the meeting. Please wait for the official GLA minutes (Confidential – Do Not Copy) to come out and compare them to the forthcoming summary by the Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change (GLFPC), also known and referred to by some board members as the “5% troublemakers.”

The meeting began at about 7 pm when President Mizzi called the meeting to order with a Pledge of Allegiance and one minute of silence. Instead of following the agenda she overlooked the visiting landowner input period and jumped into her president’s report by calling for a volunteer landowner to be her sergeant-at-arms for this meeting. No one volunteered. I surmise that the reasons for this are that there are no guidelines regarding the duties of this position, and no reasonable landowner wants to support the president’s dictatorial and tyrannical style.

This was punctuated when a landowner approached Mizzi and demanded that she return the gavel to him as its owner, having loaned it some time ago to a different board member who never bothered to return it, but passed it on to Mizzi.

Landowners in attendance then brought it to the president’s attention that she had forgone the visiting landowners’ input period, and she then opened the floor to comments. Clearly many landowners who spoke were upset and angry about the way the board has been operating and ignoring formal complaints, letters and questions raised in recent months. Leading the list were the illegal “Meeting Decorum” policy which was unilaterally initiated by the president at the January monthly board meeting, the lack of attention or response from the board to complaints and questions, and the board’s apparent deceptive methods of stonewalling and constantly deferring to the attorney for nearly everything. One landowner referred to the attorney as the thirteenth unelected board member.

Another major item of concern is the way that the revision of the governing documents is being handled, as led by former president and director Dan Kehoe. When the subject of changing the governing documents first came up many months ago many interested landowners joined the committee. Along the way, certain board members eventually took over the function and, excluding the landowners involved, used the GLA attorney to help them draft proposed changes favorable to their interests. The board tried to get these changes on the ballot for the annual meeting in November but the timing of proper notice fortunately prevented a rush vote from taking place.

Some astute landowners, who have studied the governing documents extensively, wanted the opportunity to collaborate with the board committee and propose changes to the documents that would be in the landowners’ best interests. The board has stonewalled all attempts. Last night in this very meeting Kehoe confirmed that there will be no opportunity for landowner input, that the only changes under consideration will be those proposed by the board in their October mailing. It is now clear that the board, led by Kehoe, is proposing changes to the documents that will solidify the board’s power by giving them absolute discretion in nearly all matters, which will diminish if not devastate landowner rights. There are two special meetings scheduled for landowners to question these proposed changes, the first one at Emigrant Hall on February 20 at 10 am, and the second one a phone conference call on March 19 at 10am. The board intends to schedule another special meeting to vote on these proposals sometime thereafter. I urge all landowners to look very carefully at this Trojan horse and to vote against the proposal as it now stands.

In the Secretary’s Report, Charlene Murphy explained that only recently have committees been keeping and publishing minutes and that previously the committee chairs just made their reports at board meetings and those remarks were included in the official board minutes. Seems to me that under the old method there was much room for incomplete or inaccurate reporting, which keeps true facts from the landowners. Would the board have changed to a more transparent system of reporting without pressure from the 5%?

Also in the Secretary’s report was a motion to purchase a recording device from former director Brunson who recently resigned. The device has been used to record board meetings in the past and is considered to be excellent equipment for this purpose. The board voted to purchase it. Also disclosed, but not for the first time, is the fact that these recordings of board meetings are deleted soon after the official meeting minutes are compiled from them. It was stated that they are not transcribed, meaning that not every word is written or included in the minutes. I believe that, especially in the past, these recordings are deleted so that no landowner has access to them nor can they compare the official minutes to the recordings if they suspect foul play. How convenient. In the interest of full transparency, which the board has never practiced before, it would be desirable for the board to keep these recordings available for six months in the event the official meetings are challenged. When there is an attempt by any organization to hide information by deleting it, suspicion is rampant.

The Treasurer’s report included the 2016 draft budget and the end-of-the-year financial reports to be mailed to the members on February 12. Parker said these had been approved by Regina Wunsch which gave them credibility, based on the number of prior errors and omissions made by the Treasurer since taking office last summer. After discussion, the board voted to approve the reports.

CORRECTION:  Upon reading the above paragraph after it was published, Regina Wunsch informed this reporter that she had not received final copies of the financial reports from the Treasurer and therefore could not have approved them.  Seems we have been told another untruth by an officer of the board.

The Finance Committee report included two committee meetings reports for January 20 and 27. They did not mention the omissions of data in the official meeting minutes for the 27th, which were subsequently corrected by Wunsch. Landowner D. DeGraaf, who is volunteering to assist with past due assessment collections, and who along with Wunsch, was instrumental in recommending that the board contract with a professional accountant to maintain the books, strongly recommended that the newly hired accountant be in charge of all accounting functions with the Treasurer being the liaison between the board and the accountant in order to eliminate the flood of continuing errors by treasurers who are not equipped adequately for the job. Also mentioned was the suggestion made months ago by Wunsch and CPA Story that the association should research ways to simplify their bookkeeping.

The Project Review Committee report included their goals for 2016 to implement a new fee structure and checklists, to improve the project review instructions and requirements for landowners, to streamline the administrative processes but require 30 days for the process to insure that all details are covered so that future projects will be as mistake-free as possible, unlike recent projects hastily approved by the board.

The Road and Weed Management Committee report announced their next meeting for Feb. 11 where goals for a five-year road maintenance plan will be discussed.

The Communications & Technology Committee report included a report by Vice President Dennis Riley on how the board will be responding to landowner complaints and inquiries in a timely manner going into the future. Riley also went on to discuss the need for landowner meetings where landowners are free to discuss their concerns to board members.  Director Gerald Dubiel suggested that board members make their phone numbers available to landowners so issues can be dealt with directly and expediently. This came as a surprise to the audience, as well as to board members it seemed, as the previous Communications Committee policy was “the Communications Committee is the soul entity authorized to communicate with landowners.”  Thank you, Dennis and Gerald.

The Community Property Committee report included discussion of the “soccer field” property. Landowners were particularly concerned about the fact that 179 acres of church property surrounds the 20 acre landowner-owned soccer field property. The 179 acres are not part of Glastonbury and do not fall under the purview of the governing documents. Therefore, they could be developed by the church in any way they see fit, or could be sold and new owners would be free to develop the property any way they see fit. Mizzi, chair of the Community Property Committee, claimed at the very first meeting last summer that the church has plans for phase two of Golden Age Village, which includes 20 new dwellings, and further to someday build a cathedral below the Mother Mary statue.

There had been a Closed Session of the board scheduled at the end of the meeting but many landowners have questioned the legality of such meetings. Dan Kehoe expressed the need for attorney-client privilege as the reason for these closed sessions but landowners protested that this would only apply when discussing lawsuits that the board is involved in. Landowners asked Kehoe if the attorney represents the association (the landowners) or the board. Kehoe replied that the attorney represents the board, not the landowners. He also said that in the upcoming governing document meetings that landowners will be able to ask the attorney any question they like, not just those pertaining to proposed document changes.

The board determined that landowners could be present during the Closed Sessions so long as the items discussed did not include current lawsuit subjects, a first and slight victory for landowners in this regard. It was also noted by landowners that there have never been minutes kept or reports made to landowners of the proceeding of these closed sessions, again pointing out the secrecy and lack of transparency practiced by GLA boards.

The meeting adjourned at about 11pm.