GLA Board Vacancies Are Addressed via a Motion

Poor Richard
Senior Plus

New to Glastonbury

Posts: 1,036

GLA Board Vacancies Are Addressed via a Motion Mar 23, 2021 8:49:14 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Poor Richard on Mar 23, 2021 8:49:14 GMT -7

GLA Board Vacancies Are Addressed via a Motion

On March 22, 2021 Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) started to consider a Motion to fill the two open board vacancies. Director Brockett proposed via the Board email system:

The Bylaws require that we fill vacancies promptly. Last August Jean Carp resigned and last October Erica Stone resigned. Since the Board agreed to mail 2020 Financials and a letter to all landowners I think a note should be included regarding the vacancies in North and South Glastonbury.

Therefore I make a motion:

That a note be included with the 2020 Year end financial mailing that notifies landowners of the two open seats on the board and invites them to apply.
Upon a second I vote yes.

The motion was seconded by Claudette Dirkers who quoted the applicable Bylaw passage. Newman Brozovsky apparently took offense. He immediately responded by stating "Read the last sentence of the bylaws,
If such vacancy occurs less than four months before the next Annual Election, the replacement should be elected at that Election Meeting.
This is why the positions were not filled". Newman declined to cast a vote regarding the motion.

The Motion will expire in two days. Eight board members have not yet voted.

Shortly after the motion was presented, Director Mizzi partially fulfilled the earlier Board request to send all landowners the 2020 Year End financials along with the Treasurer's letter of explanation. The email list includes about 25% of the landowners and several high ranking members of Church Universal and Triumphant who are not Glastonbury landowners.

Brockett asked Mizzi if she had prepared the labels and printing for the landowner mailing. He has yet to receive a reply.

Forum articles are often built upon previous articles. As a result, infrequent readers may find some articles difficult to understand. I try to include blue highlighted links so readers may reference information used in writing the article like official Minutes, Financial Statements, and previous articles. I also make errors and sometimes forget that what is clear to me, may not be for you. If you have questions please post them under the article and I will answer them.

Poor Richard
Senior Plus

New to Glastonbury

Posts: 1,036

GLA Board Vacancies Are Addressed via a Motion Mar 24, 2021 9:23:05 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Poor Richard on Mar 24, 2021 9:23:05 GMT -7

Motion Fails - Board Vacancies Remain Open

One more day remains for GLA Board members to cast their votes for the Motion presented by Director Brockett to fill the two open board vacancies. Claudette Dirkers seconded the motion and voted yes. Director Mizzi voted no. John McAlister voted yes.

Director Accatino, Dubiel, Dobrowski and Ladewig all voted no. Newman Brozovsky and Andrea Sedlak have not yet voted. Seven yes votes are needed for the motion to pass. Only three members voted yes and just two votes remain outstanding. If both outstanding votes were yes, then the total would stand at five yes votes. Therefore the motion failed and landowners will not be invited to fill the board vacancies. The board deadlock will continue.

Forum articles are often built upon previous articles. As a result, infrequent readers may find some articles difficult to understand. I try to include blue highlighted links so readers may reference information used in writing the article like official Minutes, Financial Statements, and previous articles. I also make errors and sometimes forget that what is clear to me, may not be for you. If you have questions please post them under the article and I will answer them.

Poor Richard
Senior Plus

New to Glastonbury

Posts: 1,036

GLA Board Vacancies Are Addressed via a Motion Mar 24, 2021 17:43:56 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Poor Richard on Mar 24, 2021 17:43:56 GMT -7

A Second Chance To Fill Board Vacancies?

The motion to fill two GLA Board vacancies picked up another NO vote. This was from Newman Brozovsky. Andrea Sedlak is the only person remaining who has not yet voted. Both Newman Brozovsky and Jerry Ladewig thought the motion violated the Bylaws because both vacancies occurred within four months of the Annual Election. But the Annual Election was postponed indefinitely.

Director Brockett addressed the pertinent Bylaws with the following email to the GLA Board:

The Bylaws Article VI E state:

"E. Vacancies. Notice of vacancies in the Board of Directors between Annual Meetings shall be mailed, delivered personally, faxed, or e-mailed by the Secretary, or other person designated by the President, to each Member within the affected area (Glastonbury North or Glastonbury South) within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the vacancy. Thereafter, the Members in the affected area will have thirty (30) days to contact the Board to express interest in filling the vacancy and to provide qualifications.The Board shall fill such vacancies by a vote of a majority of the remaining members of the Board at a Special Meeting of the Board held for that purpose. Each person so elected shall be a member of the Board of Directors until the next Annual Election Meeting. If the vacated term does not expire at that time, then the Annual Election will include a modified ballot for Members to decide who will serve the remainder of the vacated term. If such vacancy occurs less than four months before the next Annual Election, the replacement should be elected at that Election Meeting."

Both Jean Carp and Erica Stone resigned less than four months before the scheduled 2020 Annual Meeting and Election. At first glance, the italicized and boldly printed above line would appear to be a valid reason for voting NO to any motion that requires the process of filling vacancies to be started. A closer reading shows that the phrase reasons that a vacancy should not exist for more than four months because it will be filled by an election at the time of an Annual Meeting. This is in line with the first part of Bylaws Article VI E which requires that vacancies be addressed within 30 days and if candidates come forward, filled in 60 days or so. The intent of Bylaws Article VI E is to fill vacancies in a reasonable amount of time. That time varies between two and four months.

The Annual Election was indefinitely postponed and no new date has been set. As Claudette Dirkers noted "The North Glastonbury position has been vacant for seven months and the South Glastonbury position vacant for five months". Both vacancies have existed for longer than what the Bylaws allow. Therefore I believe that anyone who votes NO to a Motion that allows the vacancy filling process to move forward, is voting against Bylaws Article VI E.

If anyone wishes to change their vote, I will be happy to introduce this motion again. I want to see the GLA Board move forward and serve landowners.

Sincerely,
Director Tim Brockett

We will let you know if another motion is raised.

Forum articles are often built upon previous articles. As a result, infrequent readers may find some articles difficult to understand. I try to include blue highlighted links so readers may reference information used in writing the article like official Minutes, Financial Statements, and previous articles. I also make errors and sometimes forget that what is clear to me, may not be for you. If you have questions please post them under the article and I will answer them.

Poor Richard
Senior Plus

New to Glastonbury

Posts: 1,036

GLA Board Vacancies Are Addressed via a Motion Mar 26, 2021 9:55:19 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Poor Richard on Mar 26, 2021 9:55:19 GMT -7

Motion to Fill Vacancies - Final Tally

The final vote tally on the Motion to Fill Board Vacancies was six no votes and three Yes votes. The motion failed.

Director Brockett, Dirkers and McAlister voted yes, Directors Accatino, Mizzi, Dubiel, Ladewig, Dobrowski and Brozovsky voted no. Andrea Sedlak, Chair of the Governing Docs Committee and the person responsible for the Bylaw changes in 2020, did not vote. No requests were made to change votes so the motion was not presented again.

Forum articles are often built upon previous articles. As a result, infrequent readers may find some articles difficult to understand. I try to include blue highlighted links so readers may reference information used in writing the article like official Minutes, Financial Statements, and previous articles. I also make errors and sometimes forget that what is clear to me, may not be for you. If you have questions please post them under the article and I will answer them.