Post by Poor Richard on Jul 31, 2021 14:35:37 GMT -7
A transcript of the July 24, 2021 closed GLA Board meeting was made available to the Forum. It first appeared on The GLA board email system when directors were asked to verify the official minutes. A full recording of the meeting was made by Andrea Sedlak via the Zoom interface. All board meetings are recorded and Zoom automatically alerts all callers. The recordings are part of the official record and used to create and verify minutes.
Over a year's worth of minutes have not been approved by the GLA board because they do not come close to matching the recordings. This was the case with the July 24 minutes created by Secretary Mizzi as well. So a written outline transcript was painstakingly created. The meeting lasted for 33 minutes. Time from the beginning of the meeting are listed in minutes and seconds. Minutes must be an official record of motion(s) and associated, pertinent discussion. Thus the transcript is an outline, it begins 10 minutes and 54 seconds into the meeting, and only includes critical information. The transcript follows:
Over a year's worth of minutes have not been approved by the GLA board because they do not come close to matching the recordings. This was the case with the July 24 minutes created by Secretary Mizzi as well. So a written outline transcript was painstakingly created. The meeting lasted for 33 minutes. Time from the beginning of the meeting are listed in minutes and seconds. Minutes must be an official record of motion(s) and associated, pertinent discussion. Thus the transcript is an outline, it begins 10 minutes and 54 seconds into the meeting, and only includes critical information. The transcript follows:
Notes on the meeting July 24, from the audio:
Wording of the motion—(italics are statements)
10:54: Charlotte Mizzi--Motion:
I move to hire an attorney who represents the Glastonbury Landowners Association Inc.
…
11:30 Charlotte Mizzi
…to hire an attorney to represent the GLA, Glastonbury Landowners Association in this petition
to dissolve the GLA
12:34 Charlotte Mizzi
I amend my motion to include all the specifics…a petition for the dissolution of a nonprofit
corporation.
Gerald Dubiel—seconded it
Tim:
No legal committee research on attorneys, etc.
…discuss CUT’s interest in the continuation of the GLA
18:43 Charlotte Mizzi:
Right now, as far as having an attorney, we’ll continue to do the research and I think as far as
the price that we might have something there. That we’ll put it on an email vote once we get
the attorney and see what he charges.
Discussion of having only 4 business days to respond.
Mizzi says she’ll do it pro se if she has to.
21:20 President Newman Brozovsky:
Right now, at this meeting, we’re asking for approval to hire a lawyer. I can’t guarantee we’ll
find one in the timeframe we’re looking at.
21:40 Claudette Dirkers
I would think that you’d want to further amend the motion to say and we will bring another
motion to the board when we find a particular attorney. Because I don’t want too much…
wiggle room in your motion where-- oh you can hire an attorney so you just went ahead and did
it and you didn’t tell anybody who you were doing it, what the prices were, everything that Tim
was talking about. You really have to look at it because we are supposed to be wise stewards of
the assessment money…
22:45 President Newman Brozovsky
When we have information on an attorney, we’ll send it right out.
22:48 Charlotte Mizzi
We’ll send it right out for a board vote.
On the other case—Reece with Knoble--
23:54 Charlotte Mizzi--They’re coming to an agreement. Newman—minor technical things.
24:48 Charlotte Mizzi—amends the motion--
As soon as we get an attorney, we’ll put all the specifics as to the price he charges for his
services.
Claudette Dirkers That’s not the right way to word the motion. You said ‘as soon as we get one.’ You
can’t even do that. You say this is the candidate, here are his prices, we make the motion to hire
this attorney.
Charlotte Mizzi But this is a motion to go along with this. That’s another motion, once we do get an
attorney.
Claudette Dirkers He can’t be hired without a motion…A specific attorney cannot be hired without a
motion to specifically hire him for a specific…But if you’re going to amend the motion.
Mizzi—My amendment is only stating that once we have an attorney we will notify the board as
to the cost of his services and all the specifics. And we will do that on a separate board motion.
25:58--Aja-Mara Accatino
I would take it that she means that any blanket thing, however many they get or can get. I like
the open.
Gerald Dubiel seconds the amendment.
Ed Dobrowski -YES
Tim Brockett - NO
Aja-Mara Accatino - YES
Gerald Dubiel - YES
Newman Brozovsky - YES
Charlotte Mizzi - YES
Claudette Dirkers - NO
Andrea Sedlak, Jerry Ladewig and John McAlister were not allowed to vote as they are litigants and thus have a conflict of interest.
Vote Total YES - 5, NO - 2
Aja-Mara Accatino This is voting to get a lawyer and once we get him the board will be advised.
Wording of the motion—(italics are statements)
10:54: Charlotte Mizzi--Motion:
I move to hire an attorney who represents the Glastonbury Landowners Association Inc.
…
11:30 Charlotte Mizzi
…to hire an attorney to represent the GLA, Glastonbury Landowners Association in this petition
to dissolve the GLA
12:34 Charlotte Mizzi
I amend my motion to include all the specifics…a petition for the dissolution of a nonprofit
corporation.
Gerald Dubiel—seconded it
Tim:
No legal committee research on attorneys, etc.
…discuss CUT’s interest in the continuation of the GLA
18:43 Charlotte Mizzi:
Right now, as far as having an attorney, we’ll continue to do the research and I think as far as
the price that we might have something there. That we’ll put it on an email vote once we get
the attorney and see what he charges.
Discussion of having only 4 business days to respond.
Mizzi says she’ll do it pro se if she has to.
21:20 President Newman Brozovsky:
Right now, at this meeting, we’re asking for approval to hire a lawyer. I can’t guarantee we’ll
find one in the timeframe we’re looking at.
21:40 Claudette Dirkers
I would think that you’d want to further amend the motion to say and we will bring another
motion to the board when we find a particular attorney. Because I don’t want too much…
wiggle room in your motion where-- oh you can hire an attorney so you just went ahead and did
it and you didn’t tell anybody who you were doing it, what the prices were, everything that Tim
was talking about. You really have to look at it because we are supposed to be wise stewards of
the assessment money…
22:45 President Newman Brozovsky
When we have information on an attorney, we’ll send it right out.
22:48 Charlotte Mizzi
We’ll send it right out for a board vote.
On the other case—Reece with Knoble--
23:54 Charlotte Mizzi--They’re coming to an agreement. Newman—minor technical things.
24:48 Charlotte Mizzi—amends the motion--
As soon as we get an attorney, we’ll put all the specifics as to the price he charges for his
services.
Claudette Dirkers That’s not the right way to word the motion. You said ‘as soon as we get one.’ You
can’t even do that. You say this is the candidate, here are his prices, we make the motion to hire
this attorney.
Charlotte Mizzi But this is a motion to go along with this. That’s another motion, once we do get an
attorney.
Claudette Dirkers He can’t be hired without a motion…A specific attorney cannot be hired without a
motion to specifically hire him for a specific…But if you’re going to amend the motion.
Mizzi—My amendment is only stating that once we have an attorney we will notify the board as
to the cost of his services and all the specifics. And we will do that on a separate board motion.
25:58--Aja-Mara Accatino
I would take it that she means that any blanket thing, however many they get or can get. I like
the open.
Gerald Dubiel seconds the amendment.
Ed Dobrowski -YES
Tim Brockett - NO
Aja-Mara Accatino - YES
Gerald Dubiel - YES
Newman Brozovsky - YES
Charlotte Mizzi - YES
Claudette Dirkers - NO
Andrea Sedlak, Jerry Ladewig and John McAlister were not allowed to vote as they are litigants and thus have a conflict of interest.
Vote Total YES - 5, NO - 2
Aja-Mara Accatino This is voting to get a lawyer and once we get him the board will be advised.
Members of the board were repeatedly promised that no attorney had yet been hired and that all costs would be revealed. Both President Brozovsky and Secretary Mizzi promised that information regarding an attorney would be sent out for a board vote. An attorney was hired, Ryan Jackson of Bozeman. The board was not notified of his hiring, hourly rate or other critical information. No board vote was taken. Most directors only learned that Ryan Jackson was hired when they read about it on the Forum.
It is customary for an attorney to ask for a retainer before they accept a case. Attorney Jackson accepted the GLA case and then spent 40 to 60 hours providing detailed answers to 65 arguments for an official court filing on July 29. At most he had three business days to complete his monumental task. Which begs the question "When exactly was attorney Jackson hired"? If he was hired before the July 24 board meeting then Brozovsky and Mizzi were not telling the truth at the meeting. Another question is "How was attorney Jackson's retainer paid ?" It is possible that Jackson decided to accept the case without guaranteed payment but that is not standard business practice in his field. Brozovsky has admitted to paying legal invoices with his own personal GLA checkbook in the past. He could have done that again. But the GLA Board never authorized any payments to attorney Jackson. The board has the sole responsibility to spend landowner funds and most directors did not even know Jackson was hired.
There is another GLA Board meeting scheduled for 5 PM on July 31. The subject is providing payment for the recently hired GLA attorney. It is expected that the retainer for Jackson will be $10,000.00.
It is customary for an attorney to ask for a retainer before they accept a case. Attorney Jackson accepted the GLA case and then spent 40 to 60 hours providing detailed answers to 65 arguments for an official court filing on July 29. At most he had three business days to complete his monumental task. Which begs the question "When exactly was attorney Jackson hired"? If he was hired before the July 24 board meeting then Brozovsky and Mizzi were not telling the truth at the meeting. Another question is "How was attorney Jackson's retainer paid ?" It is possible that Jackson decided to accept the case without guaranteed payment but that is not standard business practice in his field. Brozovsky has admitted to paying legal invoices with his own personal GLA checkbook in the past. He could have done that again. But the GLA Board never authorized any payments to attorney Jackson. The board has the sole responsibility to spend landowner funds and most directors did not even know Jackson was hired.
There is another GLA Board meeting scheduled for 5 PM on July 31. The subject is providing payment for the recently hired GLA attorney. It is expected that the retainer for Jackson will be $10,000.00.