Post by Donna Lash-Andersen on Jan 23, 2021 19:31:53 GMT -7
Glastonbury Landowners Association
Board Meeting Summary
January 18, 2021
Board Meeting Summary
January 18, 2021
Meeting Highlights
- The Glastonbury Landowner Association (GLA) board remains deadlocked (5-5). The deadlock began when the November 14, 2020 annual election was cancelled for reasons that have never been officially explained. The cancellation notice was emailed by Mizzi to subscribers only, late in the evening on Friday, November 13, 2020.
- Two landowner petitions have been sent to the board in the interim.
- One calls for the completion of the November 14, 2020 election. It was received by the board on December 30, 2020.
- The other, the Parker Petition, calls first for the removal of half of the board and then for a whole new election process. It was received by the board on January 1, 2021.
[li]Five board members who signed the Parker Petition to remove the other five, claim that those, who could potentially be removed from the board, have not handled their board duties in good faith. The five who could be removed called it an egregious conflict of interest for the other five to seek to remove them. In turn the board members who signed the petition said they did so as landowners, not directors.[/li]
- The five Parker Petition signers are Newman Brozovsky, Charlotte Mizzi, Gerald Dubiel, Aija-Mara Accatino, and Ed Dobrowski (though his status is unclear given that he believes he can rescind his resignation from the board on December 31, 2020).
- Those who could potentially be removed from the board are VP and Treasurer John McAlister, Andrea Sedlak, Tim Brockett, Jerry Ladewig, and Claudette Dirkers.
[li]The 2020 road work is over budget by 62%.[/li]
[li]The 2020 legal costs are over budget by 363%.[/li]
[li]Meeting minutes have not been available to members since July 2020.[/li]
[li]Financial reports have not been available to members for over a year.[/li]
[li]The Snow Plowing and Sanding contract with Chad Standish expired December 30, 2020. One big question is whether GLA should continue its good will effort to plow snow on private, non-platted roads owned by Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) which, like county roads, are used by GLA members. GLA’s road liability insurance only covers work done on platted roads within the geographical jurisdiction of the GLA.
[/li][/ul][/div][/font]
Call to Order
Glastonbury Landowners Association (GLA) President Newman Brozovsky convened a phone-call board meeting Monday, January 18, 2021 at 7:12 pm. Over 20 members (including board members) attended the meeting.
Visiting Landowner Input Period
There was no discussion or action on the question of when the board would fill the North Glastonbury (NG) board vacancy created when Jean Carp resigned five months ago. The Bylaws require that vacancies be filled within 60 days.
Dirkers read a letter stating she was attending the meeting under protest because the status of her authority to manage board business was not clear. Dirkers’ term of office (along with those of Brozovsky, Dubiel, Ladewig, Sedlak and McAlister) expired last December and to date there is no plan to elect new board members.
Dirkers read a letter stating she was attending the meeting under protest because the status of her authority to manage board business was not clear. Dirkers’ term of office (along with those of Brozovsky, Dubiel, Ladewig, Sedlak and McAlister) expired last December and to date there is no plan to elect new board members.
President’s Report
Brozovsky stated that he had no Presidential report. To answer Dirkers’ question about why Brozovsky had no report or updates from the Legal Committee, he said that while there is a lot going on, no details had come to his mind for a report.
Project Review Committee
The board approved a recommendation from the committee to approve a Family Conveyance that would divide the SG 24 Kim Kaiser 20-acre parcel into three parcels. Questions about why the committee uses a form to review Family Conveyances when there is no authority in any of the GLA Governing Documents to do so followed. “The form is the problem” stated McAlister. Chairman Dubiel stated that the GLA reviews everything.
Though a non-agenda item, Dubiel reported that there is alleged construction work being done on a NG project that is already in dispute. The board asked Dubiel to verify his report and suggested that pictures be taken from the road before seeking legal advice.
Though a non-agenda item, Dubiel reported that there is alleged construction work being done on a NG project that is already in dispute. The board asked Dubiel to verify his report and suggested that pictures be taken from the road before seeking legal advice.
Secretary's Report
Mizzi stated she had nothing to report. To answer the question of why Mizzi had prepared the meeting agenda without any input from boards members, Mizzi stated that she works eight hours a day for GLA and that she had had no time to include the board in the preparation of the agenda. “Help would be nice” she said, reminding the board that they have decided not to hire administrative help at this time.
To answer the question of when the backlog of minutes (dating to July, 2020) would be posted on the website, Mizzi claimed to have five sets of minutes ready and blamed the board, and notably Dirkers, for not helping her with edits. Dirkers countered that it is not her job to prepare the minutes and that she had submitted edits for the August 2020 minutes seven times and that Mizzi had ignored them. Mizzi dominated the overtalk and called the untruths to stop. And as at previous board meetings, it was once-again agreed by consensus that Mizzi would work with the board to get the backlog of minutes approved using the board’s email voting process.
Mizzi also acknowledged that she had emailed the December 7, 2020 meeting minutes to the board about an hour before the meeting even though they were incomplete and said she would present them to the board soon.
To answer the question of when the backlog of minutes (dating to July, 2020) would be posted on the website, Mizzi claimed to have five sets of minutes ready and blamed the board, and notably Dirkers, for not helping her with edits. Dirkers countered that it is not her job to prepare the minutes and that she had submitted edits for the August 2020 minutes seven times and that Mizzi had ignored them. Mizzi dominated the overtalk and called the untruths to stop. And as at previous board meetings, it was once-again agreed by consensus that Mizzi would work with the board to get the backlog of minutes approved using the board’s email voting process.
Mizzi also acknowledged that she had emailed the December 7, 2020 meeting minutes to the board about an hour before the meeting even though they were incomplete and said she would present them to the board soon.
Treasurer’s report
McAlister reported that 411 member assessments for 2021 were mailed at the beginning of January. He added that the mailing has required “an awful lot of attention to detail”. He also explained that while the board was not been very active about pursuing delinquent assessments, one large payment had been received.
The multi-page monthly financial report was not available to landowners prior to the meeting, though McAlister said he had prepared one. He also stated that he prepared financial reports for the landowners for each of the six months since he has been the Treasurer. Mizzi, tried to explain the missing reports by noting that there is no webmaster.
Note: Last December when Brockett accepted the job of webmaster, Mizzi stated that she would review all website info before Brockett would be allowed to post anything. Mizzi has not taken action to post financial reports in over a year. The website has not been updated in at least six months. Brockett resigned as webmaster last month.
The 2020 snow removal costs, including the cost of sand, are over budget by 62%. NG road expenses are over budget by 62% and by contrast, South Glastonbury (SG) road expenses are for under budget by 5%.
GLA’s 2020 Legal counsel costs are 363% over budget; the litigation costs are over by 537%.
When all 2020 expenses are lumped together, the board spent 32% more than was budgeted. The upcoming problem, said McAlister, is that in 2021, there are basically no unallocated funds to cover the overages.
Details of the 2021 budget, which is not yet approved, were not available.
The multi-page monthly financial report was not available to landowners prior to the meeting, though McAlister said he had prepared one. He also stated that he prepared financial reports for the landowners for each of the six months since he has been the Treasurer. Mizzi, tried to explain the missing reports by noting that there is no webmaster.
Note: Last December when Brockett accepted the job of webmaster, Mizzi stated that she would review all website info before Brockett would be allowed to post anything. Mizzi has not taken action to post financial reports in over a year. The website has not been updated in at least six months. Brockett resigned as webmaster last month.
The 2020 snow removal costs, including the cost of sand, are over budget by 62%. NG road expenses are over budget by 62% and by contrast, South Glastonbury (SG) road expenses are for under budget by 5%.
GLA’s 2020 Legal counsel costs are 363% over budget; the litigation costs are over by 537%.
When all 2020 expenses are lumped together, the board spent 32% more than was budgeted. The upcoming problem, said McAlister, is that in 2021, there are basically no unallocated funds to cover the overages.
Details of the 2021 budget, which is not yet approved, were not available.
Road Committee Report
Road Committee chair, John Carp (a non-board member and a non-landowner), did not attend the board meeting for the second time in a row. He did not announce that he would not be attending, he did not send a written report to mitigate his absence, and he did not take calls during the meeting. The board had questions about the expired Snow Plowing and Sanding contract and two unpaid road invoices.
There was a general consensus that when the accuracy of the list of platted roads to be plowed and sanded per the contract was determined, the board would approve a Snow and Sanding Contract with Chad Standish with an email vote.
Note: GLA has worked for years to get updated and accurate road easement agreements from Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) on sections of Aries and Sirius in NG. In the past, GLA has plowed and maintained private roads owned by CUT as a gesture of good will and in acknowledgment of the fact that GLA members benefit from the use of CUT roads. The board wants to end that practice because GLA liability insurance only applies to work done on platted roads that are within the geographical jurisdiction of the GLA.
Note: GLA has worked for years to get updated and accurate road easement agreements from Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) on sections of Aries and Sirius in NG. In the past, GLA has plowed and maintained private roads owned by CUT as a gesture of good will and in acknowledgment of the fact that GLA members benefit from the use of CUT roads. The board wants to end that practice because GLA liability insurance only applies to work done on platted roads that are within the geographical jurisdiction of the GLA.
Questions (carried over from previous board meeting) about two unpaid road invoices focused on the alleged application of mag chloride to SG roads before the wash boards were graded out and on fall road work in High South that was not complete. Board members also had questions about a sand invoice which is three times more than the 2019 sand costs.
Sedlak argued that the board had to pay both invoices. She stated clearly that the problem lies with a lack of oversight and that Carp does not know the word “No”. Dirkers said it is as though the road contractor is telling the committee what to do when it should be the other way around. A landowner disagreed and said that just as if someone ordered one sandwich and was served two, he should only have to pay for one. GLA did not order three times more sand than is usually needed in a year, and thus should not pay for three times more sand, he said.
A motion by Dobrowski, seconded my Mizzi, to pay both invoices carried 5-4. The ‘no’ votes were cast by Dirkers, McAlister, Sedlak and Ladewig. A cacophony of yelling showed support and opposition for the fact that Dobrowski voted. As it ended, one loud-voiced landowner was muted for the balance of the phone meeting.
Note: Dobrowski gave notice of his resignation from the board last August and said it would be effective at the end of the year. He now maintains that because the board has not held an election to seat his successor, he can rescind his resignation and remain on the board.
Montana law and established GLA protocol does not allow those who resign a position to rescind their action. Several years ago, when board candidate Ron Price resigned as a candidate shortly before the annual election, GLA attorney Seth Cunningham advised the board that Price could not change his mind and stay on the ballot.
Sedlak argued that the board had to pay both invoices. She stated clearly that the problem lies with a lack of oversight and that Carp does not know the word “No”. Dirkers said it is as though the road contractor is telling the committee what to do when it should be the other way around. A landowner disagreed and said that just as if someone ordered one sandwich and was served two, he should only have to pay for one. GLA did not order three times more sand than is usually needed in a year, and thus should not pay for three times more sand, he said.
A motion by Dobrowski, seconded my Mizzi, to pay both invoices carried 5-4. The ‘no’ votes were cast by Dirkers, McAlister, Sedlak and Ladewig. A cacophony of yelling showed support and opposition for the fact that Dobrowski voted. As it ended, one loud-voiced landowner was muted for the balance of the phone meeting.
Note: Dobrowski gave notice of his resignation from the board last August and said it would be effective at the end of the year. He now maintains that because the board has not held an election to seat his successor, he can rescind his resignation and remain on the board.
Montana law and established GLA protocol does not allow those who resign a position to rescind their action. Several years ago, when board candidate Ron Price resigned as a candidate shortly before the annual election, GLA attorney Seth Cunningham advised the board that Price could not change his mind and stay on the ballot.
Complaint Committee
Committee chair Ladewig asked Mizzi why she eliminated her name from the meeting agenda as Co-Chair of the committee? After Mizzi’s apology, the board approved a letter to be sent to the Van Uden’s without discussing the details.
Election Committee
Before Mizzi started her report, Dirkers that there is too much work and a lack of dual control for one person to function as the Election Committee. Though Mizzi said she would welcome the help of volunteers, the board took no action to increase the size of the committee.
Note: Mizzi is the only member of this committee. Ladewig and Sedlak resigned from this committee after Mizzi convinced half of the board to refuse to clarify that a letter, which looked official because it was from the Glastonbury Landowner Committee (GLC), was not official. They stated that they were not willing to manage a tampered election.
The GLC letter showed the names of official board candidates crossed off of the ballot and the names of board nominees, whose forms were declined for not following board directions, written in as write-in board candidates. Though Mizzi denies it, it is widely believed that Mizzi wrote the GLC letter. The letter is also widely viewed as election tampering, Mizzi and Brozovsky claim the GLC letter is an innocent campaign letter.
Mizzi reported that the board has received two landowner petitions: one demands a Special Membership meeting with the agenda to complete the November 14, 2020 election, the other headed by Clare Parker, demands a meeting to remove half of the board and hold a new election. Mizzi stated that the second petition, would be handled first, even though it was received two days after the first petition.
Mizzi asked the board to approve the letter she had written defining how the special meeting would be held, the written ballots for the removal of half of the board and the notice that each of the affected board members would have the chance to present a half-page written defense against their removal. Intense over talk followed and ended with a consensus these Mizzi’s plans were premature.
A motion by Mizzi, seconded by Dobrowski, to announce a special membership meeting as called for by both petitions is set for Saturday February 27 at 10 am at Emigrant Hall. The motion carried 6-3 with ‘no’ votes from Sedlak, McAlister and Ladewig. Though the voting by Dobrowsky was again challenged, this time by Ladewig, his vote was counted.
Note: In the interim since board received the petitions, Mizzi sent a personal letter to GLA members who signed the first petition, stating that the original election is flawed and that by signing the petition, the signers were disenfranchising four board nominees.
She also wrote that the directors who are seeking another term had a conflict of interest when they voted to disqualify the four potential board nominees. What she did not say is that the potential board nominees who were disqualified were disqualified for not following instructions on the nomination form which she herself had voted to adopt in 2019.
Mizzi also wrote that a new election is the only way to be fair to those whose nomination forms were disqualified. What she did not say is how a new election would be fair to the official candidates and to the voters who have already voted for them. To date, the board has received about 100 absentee ballots.
Mizzi also failed to disclose that she and Brozovsky had personally recruited the disqualified board nominees to run for the board.
When Dirkers added that one of the four disqualified nominees was a contract buyer for a non-compliant parcel at the time he worked to complete a legal rep form which he needed to nominate himself for the board, Mizzi screamed that Dirkers was stretching the facts.
Dramatic and boisterous discussion continued about the Parker Petition. The biggest question was how did Clare Parker, the one allegedly behind the petition, get the privileged knowledge of the board attorney’s opinion, which calls for a new election, and embed it in the second petition.
Former GLA President Dennis Riley stated that when there is an attorney-client relationship, an attorney’s opinion is privileged information which cannot be shared with others, unless every client agrees to do so. In this case, the half of the board which the Parker petition seeks to remove did not know that the other half of the board has sought legal advice until after the fact. Ladewig stated in no uncertain terms that when the attorney opinion was released, it was but another in a long series of events when half of the board does things behind the back of the other half.
Note: Verbal allegations suggested that Mizzi wrote the petition for Parker, then the breach of confidential information which was used in the petition could well make the second petition null and void.
“You cannot just ignore us” Sedlak stated. When pressed by Dirkers, Mizzi said that the GLA attorney had verbally agreed that his opinion could be included in the Parker petition. Dirkers then asked why was half of the board kept in the dark and noted that they have been kept in the dark all year long. Sedlak stated clearly that if the board attorney knew he had been quoted in the Parker petition, he would be upset.
When the over talk and yelling calmed a bit, Accatino claimed, in no uncertain terms, that everything had been done by the books. Ladewig disagreed and then accused Accatino of helping to write the GLC letter at which time Accatino vehemently denied that she was involved with the GLC Letter.
When Dirkers called the actions by half of the board seeking to remove the other half unscrupulous behavior, Mizzi’s disagreed loudly.
As the intense exchange continued, Dirkers stated that the cancelled election was nothing more than a move by half of the board to get their non-landowner cronies listed as official board candidates. Ladewig again asked Mizzi who wrote the GLC letter. Dirkers stated emphatically that the GLC letter amounted to election tampering regardless of what the attorney said.
A suggestion from Ladewig to hire a Mediator to end the deadlock was initially resisted even though Sedlak said it would show mutual effort to end the deadlock.
Both Mizzi and Newman said they did not see how a mediator would benefit the landowners. McAlister said he would welcome help to resolve the impasse.
Note: Mizzi is the only member of this committee. Ladewig and Sedlak resigned from this committee after Mizzi convinced half of the board to refuse to clarify that a letter, which looked official because it was from the Glastonbury Landowner Committee (GLC), was not official. They stated that they were not willing to manage a tampered election.
The GLC letter showed the names of official board candidates crossed off of the ballot and the names of board nominees, whose forms were declined for not following board directions, written in as write-in board candidates. Though Mizzi denies it, it is widely believed that Mizzi wrote the GLC letter. The letter is also widely viewed as election tampering, Mizzi and Brozovsky claim the GLC letter is an innocent campaign letter.
Mizzi reported that the board has received two landowner petitions: one demands a Special Membership meeting with the agenda to complete the November 14, 2020 election, the other headed by Clare Parker, demands a meeting to remove half of the board and hold a new election. Mizzi stated that the second petition, would be handled first, even though it was received two days after the first petition.
Mizzi asked the board to approve the letter she had written defining how the special meeting would be held, the written ballots for the removal of half of the board and the notice that each of the affected board members would have the chance to present a half-page written defense against their removal. Intense over talk followed and ended with a consensus these Mizzi’s plans were premature.
A motion by Mizzi, seconded by Dobrowski, to announce a special membership meeting as called for by both petitions is set for Saturday February 27 at 10 am at Emigrant Hall. The motion carried 6-3 with ‘no’ votes from Sedlak, McAlister and Ladewig. Though the voting by Dobrowsky was again challenged, this time by Ladewig, his vote was counted.
Note: In the interim since board received the petitions, Mizzi sent a personal letter to GLA members who signed the first petition, stating that the original election is flawed and that by signing the petition, the signers were disenfranchising four board nominees.
She also wrote that the directors who are seeking another term had a conflict of interest when they voted to disqualify the four potential board nominees. What she did not say is that the potential board nominees who were disqualified were disqualified for not following instructions on the nomination form which she herself had voted to adopt in 2019.
Mizzi also wrote that a new election is the only way to be fair to those whose nomination forms were disqualified. What she did not say is how a new election would be fair to the official candidates and to the voters who have already voted for them. To date, the board has received about 100 absentee ballots.
Mizzi also failed to disclose that she and Brozovsky had personally recruited the disqualified board nominees to run for the board.
When Dirkers added that one of the four disqualified nominees was a contract buyer for a non-compliant parcel at the time he worked to complete a legal rep form which he needed to nominate himself for the board, Mizzi screamed that Dirkers was stretching the facts.
Dramatic and boisterous discussion continued about the Parker Petition. The biggest question was how did Clare Parker, the one allegedly behind the petition, get the privileged knowledge of the board attorney’s opinion, which calls for a new election, and embed it in the second petition.
Former GLA President Dennis Riley stated that when there is an attorney-client relationship, an attorney’s opinion is privileged information which cannot be shared with others, unless every client agrees to do so. In this case, the half of the board which the Parker petition seeks to remove did not know that the other half of the board has sought legal advice until after the fact. Ladewig stated in no uncertain terms that when the attorney opinion was released, it was but another in a long series of events when half of the board does things behind the back of the other half.
Note: Verbal allegations suggested that Mizzi wrote the petition for Parker, then the breach of confidential information which was used in the petition could well make the second petition null and void.
“You cannot just ignore us” Sedlak stated. When pressed by Dirkers, Mizzi said that the GLA attorney had verbally agreed that his opinion could be included in the Parker petition. Dirkers then asked why was half of the board kept in the dark and noted that they have been kept in the dark all year long. Sedlak stated clearly that if the board attorney knew he had been quoted in the Parker petition, he would be upset.
When the over talk and yelling calmed a bit, Accatino claimed, in no uncertain terms, that everything had been done by the books. Ladewig disagreed and then accused Accatino of helping to write the GLC letter at which time Accatino vehemently denied that she was involved with the GLC Letter.
When Dirkers called the actions by half of the board seeking to remove the other half unscrupulous behavior, Mizzi’s disagreed loudly.
As the intense exchange continued, Dirkers stated that the cancelled election was nothing more than a move by half of the board to get their non-landowner cronies listed as official board candidates. Ladewig again asked Mizzi who wrote the GLC letter. Dirkers stated emphatically that the GLC letter amounted to election tampering regardless of what the attorney said.
A suggestion from Ladewig to hire a Mediator to end the deadlock was initially resisted even though Sedlak said it would show mutual effort to end the deadlock.
Both Mizzi and Newman said they did not see how a mediator would benefit the landowners. McAlister said he would welcome help to resolve the impasse.
Visiting Landowner Input
A landowner asked the board to seek legal counsel about Dobrowski’s authority to rescind his resignation from the board. Another agreed and suggested that the issue should be handled by the Legal Committee. Hearing that there was just one minute left on the Uber Conference timeline, Brozovski adjourned the meeting at 11:13 pm without further discussion.
Official Meeting Documents
Download the meeting agenda here.