|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Apr 4, 2021 16:01:04 GMT -7
GLA Board Motion to Address Landowner Complaint Denied Recently a North Glastonbury landowner filed a formal complaint with the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA). He alleged that Directors Accatino, Dobrowski, Brozovsky, Mizzi and Dubiel canceled the November 2020 Election Meeting. Jerry Ladewig carefully wrote a detailed reply that accurately chronicled the 2020 Election postponement events. On March 28, 2021 she created a motion asking the GLA Board to approve her official answer and allow her to send it to the North Glastonbury landowner. Director Tim Brockett seconded the motion. Andrea Sedlak, Claudette Dirkers and John McAlister all voted yes. Director Mizzi claimed that the Lasewig's letter "contains inaccurate information and assumptions". Mizzi voted no. Then Ed Dobrowski and Gerald Dubiel followed with no votes. There was discussion that Dubiel and Dobrowski's votes were late and thus could not be counted. Director Accatino and Brozovsky did not bother to vote. The motion did not get 7 yes votes so it failed. |
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Apr 5, 2021 9:45:33 GMT -7
I posted the following in in another article.
GLA does not have a "filibuster for motions made and seconded in Board meetings. Directors must vote yes, no or abstain or they are considered absent and thus do not contribute to the number of votes needed to pass a motion. That principle must be applied to GLA E-Mail motions or the present deadlock will continue for ever and Landowners will not know who is stopping things.
Article VI allows the GLA Board to make motions and vote by email. It raises the number of votes needed from Directors attending the meeting to be cast in the affirmative from a simple majority to 2/3rds of the votes cast. At in person meetings, a person not voting must officially “abstain” to avoid voting, and that abstention is considered a “No” vote. If they do nothing, they are considered absent and can not be counted as attending the meeting during the time the vote is called – i.e. that changes the situation from 12 Directors attending and needing 7 votes to pass to only 11 Directors and needing only 6 affirmative votes to pass.
The principle of who is attending an E-mail meeting to vote has never been addressed and some Directors are now avoiding E-Mail votes to “filibuster” an email motion. That is wrong and violates the obligation all Directors to be open and honest.
I believe if Directors do not respond to a call for their vote on an e-mail motion, that they are absent from the electronic meeting and if 2/3 of the responses are cast affirmatively, the motion passes. Not responding to a valid motion is considered not being present for the vote tabulation.
An additional problem with voting by e-mail is that Landowners are only told the results of voting, and we do not get to see each Directors input. That is why Article VI (J) also states “Such written consent or consents shall include electronic communications and shall be filed with the Minutes of the proceedings of the Board.
The block of Directors not responding to calls for e-mail votes should not be allowed to continue hiding in the dark.
VI (J) Action Without a Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board of Directors may be taken without a meeting if all members of the Board are contacted and a two-thirds majority of the Board members shall individually or collectively affirmatively consent in writing to the proposed action. Such written consent or consents shall include electronic communications and shall be filed with the Minutes of the proceedings of the Board. ( This requires that all Directors be "CONTACTED" but the use of "AND" separates the actions from contacting and voting into different issues - thus the 2/3rd requirement is only a change from a Majority to a Super Majority.)
|
|
