The hypocrisy and double standards of the GLA board revealed
Jan 23, 2016 11:31:06 GMT -7
Admin likes this
Post by chris on Jan 23, 2016 11:31:06 GMT -7
This thread is being created to expose the hypocrisy and double standards of the ruling members of the GLA board. Please add your observations to the discussion.
Example: Regarding the GLA board withholding financial information from members, including check registers, President Mizzi said that the reason they can't hand anything out is because it might end up on a public web site, even if the person requesting the information says they won't post it. But in project review discussions for both Buchanan's and Michael-George's applications the board said they can not make a ruling on the basis of what the two applicants might do in the future with their projects (referring to potential commercial uses in residential neighborhoods). They stated that they have to base their decisions on what was stated as intent at the time of the applications.
Another glaring example: The board professes to want landowner input on policies, procedures, governing documents, fiscal management, etc. while they clearly attempt to squash input with illegal dictates such as the recent "Meeting Decorum" ploy which is basically a gag order for landowners.
I could go on but I am hoping additional disgruntled landowners will join in below.
Note to GLA Board: If you dislike this kind of exposure, stop doing those things that bring it on. Simple.
Example: Regarding the GLA board withholding financial information from members, including check registers, President Mizzi said that the reason they can't hand anything out is because it might end up on a public web site, even if the person requesting the information says they won't post it. But in project review discussions for both Buchanan's and Michael-George's applications the board said they can not make a ruling on the basis of what the two applicants might do in the future with their projects (referring to potential commercial uses in residential neighborhoods). They stated that they have to base their decisions on what was stated as intent at the time of the applications.
Another glaring example: The board professes to want landowner input on policies, procedures, governing documents, fiscal management, etc. while they clearly attempt to squash input with illegal dictates such as the recent "Meeting Decorum" ploy which is basically a gag order for landowners.
I could go on but I am hoping additional disgruntled landowners will join in below.
Note to GLA Board: If you dislike this kind of exposure, stop doing those things that bring it on. Simple.