Post by Poor Richard on Jun 5, 2022 15:13:55 GMT -7
2022 Annual Election Nomination Forms Sent
12 Candidates Needed
12 Candidates Needed
News and Commentary
The first step in the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) 2022 Annual Election process has begun. On June 1st, 2022 Candidate Nomination packages were sent to all Glastonbury landowners. Unlike in previous years, a court-appointed Custodian Pendente Lite is overseeing the election process. Bitter GLA Board infighting and competing lawsuits from two groups of GLA directors forced Judge Gilbert of the Park County 6th District court to appoint a retired judge and current attorney, Nels Swandal, to oversee and conduct the 2022 Annual Election. Pendente Lite is Latin and translates to "pending the litigation". Attorney Swandal was given full authority, like a benevolent dictator, to conduct all aspects of the GLA 2022 Annual Election. After the election is over he will report back to the court so the Dissolution litigation may continue. Swandal does not need to coordinate his actions with the GLA and has not officially done so. The 2022 Annual Election packet was not voted on by the GLA Election Committee or the full GLA board. GLA President and Dissolution lawsuit litigant John McAlister shared emails with Swandal, a few of which were read by board members. Many of the items the Dissolution group favored found their way into the 2022 Candidate Nomination package.
When one person has full control over the election process they are allowed to write and even rewrite their own rules. No debate was required and landowners were generally excluded from the process of developing the 2022 Candidate Nomination form.
In an April 27th, 2022 letter to Glastonbury landowners Swandal declared that up to 12 board members would be elected; six serving 3-year terms and six serving 2-year terms. No election would be held in 2023. In the June 1st letter, Swandal stated that only 1 and 2-year terms will now be available. That would require a 2023 Annual Election unless the GLA decides to seize power and cancel the election like they did in 2020 and 2021.
Swandal also declared that Legal Representatives must now have a "fiduciary responsibility" consistent with Montana Law (MCA 35-2-542). This is a higher standard than the GLA Bylaws contain and should help to prevent the abuse seen in the 2020 nomination process. Then several non-landowners were recruited and submitted applications to run for the board as legal representatives of current landowners. None had power of attorney and thus none possessed fiduciary responsibility.
Swandal also included language regarding Term Limits in the Restated Bylaws, Article VI D.2. That passage states "Directors who have served two consecutive full terms are not eligible for re-election until they are off the board for one annual cycle. That would seem to disqualify current directors Charlotte Mizzi, Newman Brozovsky, and Gerald Dubiel from running for re-election in 2022. However, it does not prevent any of those three current directors from serving on a new board. In the past, placeholder candidates have run and won seats. After a month or two they resigned and a new director was appointed. All three term-limited directors could be appointed to a new board as early as September 2022. The Restated Bylaw Term Limits passage only applies to re-election and never mentions board appointments.
In 2020 several candidates waited until the last minute to submit their Candidate Nomination form. In their haste clerical errors were made. One person forgot to sign the form the required three times; twice on the front and once on the back. Another put down the incorrect parcel number he was representing. These were deemed "clerical errors" by GLA attorney Seth Cunningham and determined to be acceptable. This year any clerical errors will immediately disqualify a candidate. The candidate will not be given a chance to correct their oversight or error. The sole judge regarding all matters of candidate eligibility will be Attorney Swandal. There is no appeal process either.
When one person has full control over the election process they are allowed to write and even rewrite their own rules. No debate was required and landowners were generally excluded from the process of developing the 2022 Candidate Nomination form.
In an April 27th, 2022 letter to Glastonbury landowners Swandal declared that up to 12 board members would be elected; six serving 3-year terms and six serving 2-year terms. No election would be held in 2023. In the June 1st letter, Swandal stated that only 1 and 2-year terms will now be available. That would require a 2023 Annual Election unless the GLA decides to seize power and cancel the election like they did in 2020 and 2021.
Swandal also declared that Legal Representatives must now have a "fiduciary responsibility" consistent with Montana Law (MCA 35-2-542). This is a higher standard than the GLA Bylaws contain and should help to prevent the abuse seen in the 2020 nomination process. Then several non-landowners were recruited and submitted applications to run for the board as legal representatives of current landowners. None had power of attorney and thus none possessed fiduciary responsibility.
Swandal also included language regarding Term Limits in the Restated Bylaws, Article VI D.2. That passage states "Directors who have served two consecutive full terms are not eligible for re-election until they are off the board for one annual cycle. That would seem to disqualify current directors Charlotte Mizzi, Newman Brozovsky, and Gerald Dubiel from running for re-election in 2022. However, it does not prevent any of those three current directors from serving on a new board. In the past, placeholder candidates have run and won seats. After a month or two they resigned and a new director was appointed. All three term-limited directors could be appointed to a new board as early as September 2022. The Restated Bylaw Term Limits passage only applies to re-election and never mentions board appointments.
In 2020 several candidates waited until the last minute to submit their Candidate Nomination form. In their haste clerical errors were made. One person forgot to sign the form the required three times; twice on the front and once on the back. Another put down the incorrect parcel number he was representing. These were deemed "clerical errors" by GLA attorney Seth Cunningham and determined to be acceptable. This year any clerical errors will immediately disqualify a candidate. The candidate will not be given a chance to correct their oversight or error. The sole judge regarding all matters of candidate eligibility will be Attorney Swandal. There is no appeal process either.
Underhanded and illegal tactics are a hallmark of GLA Annual Elections. In 2020 a group called the Glastonbury Landowners Committee sent letters to all Glastonbury landowners claiming that certain candidates were "removed from the ballot". In 2022 a nefarious individual with access to the submitted Candidate Nomination forms could easily alter a parcel number, erase a signature or simply black out critical information. That candidate would be rejected and not find out until they noticed that their name was not on the 2022 ballot.
The playing field for 2022 GLA Board candidates may not be level for all. Some existing directors have access to records and files that are not available to other directors and landowners. Current Director Claudette Dirkers has carefully compiled an electronic database of all GLA landowners over the past two years in her work as an assistant to the Treasurer. Dirkers is responsible for receiving, recording, and depositing all checks sent to the GLA PO Box. She carefully records personal information on the check to the landowner database before depositing the check. The landowner database contains mailing addresses, emails, phone numbers, pending property sales, Project Review information, and other detailed personal information on every landowner. As late as last July the landowner database was shared with any landowner who requested it. Now that elections are pending that electronic list is no longer available to most directors and all landowners. Dissolution litigant and Treasurer John McAlister has the only other known copy of Dirker's minutely detailed and carefully compiled, landowner database.
Another valuable resource is the Voter Sign-in sheets. These are lists that contain all landowner names and the parcels they own. They are used to record if the landowner cast a vote for their parcel(s) and by what method. Did they vote in person, by proxy, by legal representative, by email, or by fax or did they mail in their ballot? Their actual vote is confidential and NOT on the Voter Sign-in sheets. Candidates for the GLA Board could use Voter Sign-in sheets to determine who the likely voters are so they can more effectively deliver their campaign message to people who have a history of voting. Combined with the Landowner Database a board candidate would have access to the mailing address and possibly email addresses of likely voters. Dissolution litigant and Chair of the Governing Documents Committee, Andrea Sedlak, has the latest Voter Sign-in sheets from the 2020 Bylaw Change vote. Sedlak has refused to share those sheets with other directors. Historically the GLA Board has refused to share all Voter Sign-in sheets with landowners and candidates for the board. Dissolution litigant and Election Committee member Jerry Ladewig had access to many election records. She has also adamantly refused to share them with other directors or landowners.
The playing field for 2022 GLA Board candidates may not be level for all. Some existing directors have access to records and files that are not available to other directors and landowners. Current Director Claudette Dirkers has carefully compiled an electronic database of all GLA landowners over the past two years in her work as an assistant to the Treasurer. Dirkers is responsible for receiving, recording, and depositing all checks sent to the GLA PO Box. She carefully records personal information on the check to the landowner database before depositing the check. The landowner database contains mailing addresses, emails, phone numbers, pending property sales, Project Review information, and other detailed personal information on every landowner. As late as last July the landowner database was shared with any landowner who requested it. Now that elections are pending that electronic list is no longer available to most directors and all landowners. Dissolution litigant and Treasurer John McAlister has the only other known copy of Dirker's minutely detailed and carefully compiled, landowner database.
Another valuable resource is the Voter Sign-in sheets. These are lists that contain all landowner names and the parcels they own. They are used to record if the landowner cast a vote for their parcel(s) and by what method. Did they vote in person, by proxy, by legal representative, by email, or by fax or did they mail in their ballot? Their actual vote is confidential and NOT on the Voter Sign-in sheets. Candidates for the GLA Board could use Voter Sign-in sheets to determine who the likely voters are so they can more effectively deliver their campaign message to people who have a history of voting. Combined with the Landowner Database a board candidate would have access to the mailing address and possibly email addresses of likely voters. Dissolution litigant and Chair of the Governing Documents Committee, Andrea Sedlak, has the latest Voter Sign-in sheets from the 2020 Bylaw Change vote. Sedlak has refused to share those sheets with other directors. Historically the GLA Board has refused to share all Voter Sign-in sheets with landowners and candidates for the board. Dissolution litigant and Election Committee member Jerry Ladewig had access to many election records. She has also adamantly refused to share them with other directors or landowners.
The Montana Secretary of State and Park County routinely provide Voter Sign-In reports for a nominal fee. The Statewide Voter File includes two spreadsheets – one spreadsheet includes a list of all registered voters with their mailing addresses, and the other includes the voting history of each currently registered voter. Voting history shows what method the person used for casting their ballot; walk-in, absentee, etc. What candidate(s) the voter chose is unknown and thus not included.
Candidate eligibility requires that a landowner be in "good standing". Their assessments must be paid in full and they cannot be in violation of the Covenants. In the 2020 Annual Election three proxy votes were immediately disqualified because the parcels they came from had outstanding amounts owed to the GLA. The candidate protested loudly but was ignored. Still he managed to garner a tie vote for a director's seat which kept his candidacy alive. After a few days the GLA decided to conduct a run-off election. The candidate again protested declaring that the GLA erred and that he fairly won the election. Again he was ignored. Then the landowner who was incorrectly billed, and gave his proxy to the candidate, protested. The GLA immediately backed down and awarded all three of the "disqualified" votes to the candidate who then rightfully became a GLA Director.
Errors happen and there should always be a way to appeal an unjust or hasty election decision. If the system is not transparent and open to independent verification, the trust of the landowners is lost. Then elections become meaningless because the results cannot be trusted.
Dissolution litigant and GLA Treasurer/President John McAlister is in charge of determining which landowners are in good standing or not. It will be his financial records and personal recommendations that Swandal uses to disqualify voters. Again, there will be no avenue for appeal or landowner input. The voter may never know that their vote(s) were disqualified because the entire process will be kept "confidential".
In the spring one director asked the GLA Board if 2022 Voter Sign-in sheets, tally sheets, ballots and other election materials may be inspected by current directors to verify the 2022 Annual Election results. He was told in unequivocal terms that all election materials are confidential and cannot be shared with anyone. There will not be independent verification of the 2022 GLA Annual Election. Trust us was the essence of the reply he received from Director Jerry Ladewig.
If the Dissolution litigants, Director Sedlak, Ladewig, and McAlister, decide to run for the GLA Board in 2022 they will have a substantial advantage over other candidates because of the GLA documents they possess, their positions of power on the GLA Board and a Candidate Nomination Form that supports their positions. If any of the other Dissolution litigants, Mark Seaver, Dennis Riley, Wendy Riley, Jeffery Ladewig, and Martha McAlister decide to run they will have the same advantages. If only six of the eight Dissolution litigants ran in South Glastonbury they could dominate that race. Maybe the other two could run as Legal Representatives for properties in North Glastonbury. If all won their races the fate of Glastonbury would be sealed.
The stakes are higher for the 2022 Annual Election than any previous Annual Election. The fate of Glastonbury hangs in the balance. Also up for grabs is 17 million dollars worth of undeveloped land that the GLA owns but does not include on their financial statements. Most of that land is in South Glastonbury. The 17 million dollar figure is based on $75,000.00 per acre that undeveloped land often goes for in Emigrant. Currently undeveloped land in Pray, across the river from Emigrant, is listing at $100,000.00 per acre.
In North Glastonbury there is almost 200 acres of land that belongs to Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT). Most of that land is undeveloped. At $75,000.00 an acre it has an estimated market value of 15 million dollars. A friendly GLA Board could greatly assist in the development and sale of CUT private lands. An unfriendly GLA Board could demand concessions because vehicle access would be over GLA road easements.
Past GLA Annual Elections have been marred by fraud and questionable practices. In 2019 voters were allowed to revoke their ballots at the last minute and vote again. Voter Sign-in lists were routinely out of date and past landowners were allowed to cast ballots for parcels they no longer owned. Non-landowners were recruited to run for the board as legal Representatives in 2020. While the 2022 Nomination form addresses some of these concerns the process is dictatorial, undemocratic and ignores landowners. A walk-in Annual Election where voters are required to sign in and show ID if needed, will not be held. Instead, voters can only mail, fax or email their votes to the Swandal law firm. The 2022 process will be less secure and invites more opportunities for fraud and abuse.
Hopefully 12 caring, brave and hardworking landowners will step forward to serve their community via the GLA Board. It may take angels with iron shields to serve effectively if the current crop of warring directors decides the 2022/23 GLA Board must contain them.