Post by Donna Lash-Andersen on Jan 26, 2021 18:38:56 GMT -7
Glastonbury Landowner Association
Special Board Meeting, Sunday January 24, 2021
Special Board Meeting, Sunday January 24, 2021
GLA President Newman Brozovsky convened a Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA)Special Board meeting on Sunday, January 24, 2021 by phone at 7 pm. Nine board members and about five landowners attended. Director Tim Brockett did not attend. He views the meetings as illegal and believes there are only three directors left on the GLA Board.
The agenda called for board approval of a cover letter and the absentee ballots prepared by GLA Secretary Charlotte Mizzi that would be included with the notice of a Special Membership meeting scheduled for Saturday, February 27, 2021. The meeting is being scheduled because the board has received two landowner petitions and each requires the board to schedule a special membership meeting within 30 days of receiving a petition.
Both petitions ask for an election. The first (received Dec. 30, 2020) asks for the completion of the annual election which should have been held on November 14, 2020. The second known as the Parker Petition, (received Jan 2, 2021) asks for two things: first that half of the board be removed and second that the board hold a new election process beginning with new nominations. Half of the board known as the Old Timers, signed the second petition asking for the removal of the other half which are often referred to as the Newcomers.
Loud intense boisterous over talk plagued the meeting and made it all but virtually impossible to understand individual speakers. One director later commented that the meeting was marked by "terrible arguing".
Numerous speakers said Mizzi’s plan for the February 27th meeting did not give the five Directors, who were named for removal in the second petition, the right to adequately defend themselves. Any director up for removal from office would have the right to due process which includes relevant fact-finding process for all parties, and time for verbal and written defense for each director up for removal from office.
Sedlak stated that Mizzi’s cover letter lacked instructions on how to maintain voter privacy and establish that a voter was in good standing. Sedlak also said there needs to be room on the ballot for a ‘yes’ or ‘no' vote for an individual director who is named for removal, not just a yes or no for the whole petition.
And lastly, Sedlak said there needs to be a procedure for what to do if there are more ‘no’ votes to keep a director in office than the number of ‘yes’ required to remove them.
A motion by Mizzi, seconded by Dubiel, to send the cover letter and absentee ballots as presented by Mizzi, failed (4-5) with one abstention from Aija-Mara Accatino. Accatino said she could see both sides and that neither seemed right and thus she would abstain. Mizzi then demanded, at least four times, that Accatino vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with such force that some board members insisted that Mizzi needed to let Accatio speak for herself. Accatino then said “… that since this is going nowhere” I will abstain.
An abstention is counted as a ‘no’ vote. The four ‘no’ votes were cast by John McAlister, Claudette Dirkers, Jerry Ladewig and Andrea Sedlak. Accatino’s abstention was the first chink in the wall of the deadlocked board which dates back to October, 2020.
After the vote, the question of how privileged attorney-client info got placed in the Parker Petition, led to an even louder chaotic volume of overtalk and speaker interruptions. The second petition states the GLA attorney Seth Cunningham has advised the board that a new election is the only way to be fair to the nominees whose forms were declined.
Note: In a personal letter to landowners who signed the first petition, Mizzi wrote that the attorney had given permission to have the confidentiality of his opinion waived and she even offered to send a copy of the attorney’s letter to anyone who asked.
However, an attorney is not allowed to waive confidentiality or give permission to waive confidentiality. Instead, only the clients can release confidentiality and in the case of a group client, such as the GLA board, every must director agree to waive the attorney/client confidentiality. In this situation, half of the board did not know that the other half of the board had even sought legal counsel from the GLA attorney.
Brozovsky adjourned the meeting around 8:15 pm before other questions could be addressed or resolved.
Some board members and landowners stayed on the phone line for another hour and continued to explore options for how to move forward.
The agenda called for board approval of a cover letter and the absentee ballots prepared by GLA Secretary Charlotte Mizzi that would be included with the notice of a Special Membership meeting scheduled for Saturday, February 27, 2021. The meeting is being scheduled because the board has received two landowner petitions and each requires the board to schedule a special membership meeting within 30 days of receiving a petition.
Both petitions ask for an election. The first (received Dec. 30, 2020) asks for the completion of the annual election which should have been held on November 14, 2020. The second known as the Parker Petition, (received Jan 2, 2021) asks for two things: first that half of the board be removed and second that the board hold a new election process beginning with new nominations. Half of the board known as the Old Timers, signed the second petition asking for the removal of the other half which are often referred to as the Newcomers.
Loud intense boisterous over talk plagued the meeting and made it all but virtually impossible to understand individual speakers. One director later commented that the meeting was marked by "terrible arguing".
Numerous speakers said Mizzi’s plan for the February 27th meeting did not give the five Directors, who were named for removal in the second petition, the right to adequately defend themselves. Any director up for removal from office would have the right to due process which includes relevant fact-finding process for all parties, and time for verbal and written defense for each director up for removal from office.
Sedlak stated that Mizzi’s cover letter lacked instructions on how to maintain voter privacy and establish that a voter was in good standing. Sedlak also said there needs to be room on the ballot for a ‘yes’ or ‘no' vote for an individual director who is named for removal, not just a yes or no for the whole petition.
And lastly, Sedlak said there needs to be a procedure for what to do if there are more ‘no’ votes to keep a director in office than the number of ‘yes’ required to remove them.
A motion by Mizzi, seconded by Dubiel, to send the cover letter and absentee ballots as presented by Mizzi, failed (4-5) with one abstention from Aija-Mara Accatino. Accatino said she could see both sides and that neither seemed right and thus she would abstain. Mizzi then demanded, at least four times, that Accatino vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with such force that some board members insisted that Mizzi needed to let Accatio speak for herself. Accatino then said “… that since this is going nowhere” I will abstain.
An abstention is counted as a ‘no’ vote. The four ‘no’ votes were cast by John McAlister, Claudette Dirkers, Jerry Ladewig and Andrea Sedlak. Accatino’s abstention was the first chink in the wall of the deadlocked board which dates back to October, 2020.
After the vote, the question of how privileged attorney-client info got placed in the Parker Petition, led to an even louder chaotic volume of overtalk and speaker interruptions. The second petition states the GLA attorney Seth Cunningham has advised the board that a new election is the only way to be fair to the nominees whose forms were declined.
Note: In a personal letter to landowners who signed the first petition, Mizzi wrote that the attorney had given permission to have the confidentiality of his opinion waived and she even offered to send a copy of the attorney’s letter to anyone who asked.
However, an attorney is not allowed to waive confidentiality or give permission to waive confidentiality. Instead, only the clients can release confidentiality and in the case of a group client, such as the GLA board, every must director agree to waive the attorney/client confidentiality. In this situation, half of the board did not know that the other half of the board had even sought legal counsel from the GLA attorney.
Brozovsky adjourned the meeting around 8:15 pm before other questions could be addressed or resolved.
Some board members and landowners stayed on the phone line for another hour and continued to explore options for how to move forward.