|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Apr 4, 2021 16:28:12 GMT -7
McAlister Presents Motion to Resume Board and Committee Meetings Immediately Glastonbury Landowner's Association Treasurer and Vice President John McAlister, presented a motion that would require a Project Review Committee meeting, a Legal Committee meeting and then a full GLA sit down Board meeting. On April 3, 2021 at 11:02 AM McAlister stated:
Claudette Dirkers seconded the motion. Director Mizzi did not vote and presented the excuse "This is Easter Weekend and most Board members are away from their computers". In rapid succession Andrea Sedlak, Jerry Ladewig and Director Brockett all voted yes.
The motion has two days left before it expires. It has 5 yes votes and needs two more affirmative votes to pass. Perhaps some of the board members who do not use their computers on Easter weekend can respond via their iPhones. We will keep you posted on the final vote tally.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Apr 5, 2021 9:57:17 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.)
|
|
Donna Lash-Andersen
Guest
|
Post by Donna Lash-Andersen on Apr 5, 2021 10:42:28 GMT -7
In my opinion, The nearly 6-month board deadlock (5-5) created by those who refuse to vote when an email motion is on the floor is not only dysfunctional, it is a morally wrong direction. The fact that five directors have repeatedly refused to vote for these long months, the fact that the President Newman Brozovsky refuses to call regular board meetings and the fact that there is a record of reckless overspending has depressed and divided our association as never before!! Is it not shocking to realzie. for example, that the board savings account used to be over $300,000 just a few years ago and now it is down to about $120,000.
I applaud GLastonbury Vice President John McAllister for calling a Board meeting, a Legal Committee meeting, and a Project Review Committee meeting for early in April independent of Brozovsky. The Bylaws give McAlliser the right and duty to call meetings when the president demonstrates that he is not capable of handling his duties. Thank you John!
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Apr 5, 2021 18:33:09 GMT -7
McAlister Motion To Hold Meetings Update The vote count is now five Yes votes and one No vote. The motion expires just before noon on Tuesday April 6, 2021.
The one no vote was cast by President Newman Brosovsky who reasoned "I vote no on the first motion because we can't meet that time line. Gerald said he can't do Tuesday and If we want the lawyer to attend the legal committee we need to do it when he can attend". Director Brockett replied "John did state that dates were flexible as long as they were within the same week. He said " All meetings to be held at Emigrant Hall at 7 pm. Dates to be adjusted if required, not to be moved out of the stated week. Collections attorney to be present by phone for the Legal Committee meeting."
Director Mizzi weighed in with:
Seven yes votes are needed to pass the motion. |
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Apr 6, 2021 18:07:45 GMT -7
Motion to Have Board and Committee Meetings Fails
Four Members Do Not Bother to Vote Vice President John McAlister's motion to hold a Legal, Project Review and subsequent Board meeting has failed. Five members, McAlister, Dirkers, Ladewig, Sedlak and Director Brockett voted yes. President Newman Brozovsky voted no. Four members, Charlotte Mizzi, Gerald Dubiel, Ed Dobrowski and Director Accatino did not even bother to vote. The motion did not get the 7 needed yes votes and thus failed.
April will mark the 4th month in 2021 that the GLA Board has not held a monthly meeting. The Legal committee, chaired by Newman Brozovsky has not met in 8 months. Project Review has met but projects have not been approved by the Board. None the less at least one North Glastonbury landowner is ignoring the Board and has started on his pole barn project. It is doubtful that the Board will take any action against him. Other landowners are starting to realize the impotency of the GLA Board and may start refusing to pay assessments.
Legal work has slowed to a standstill, collections are 18 months behind schedule and the 2020 Election has yet to be completed.
|
|
