Following is the text of my presentation at this meeting:
WILL THE GLA BOARD REALLY LISTEN?
Or is today's “Special Meeting” just another insincere act by the board to try to look good in the eyes of their blind supporters? The fact is, the members of the board should always be listening to their electorate, the members, and should be responsive to all inquiries and complaints, which is just the opposite of how this board operates. Listening leads to learning.
I have been a member of the GLA for eight years and a member of Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change since its inception 2 years ago. Until this current board showed its true colors, I had hope that the board would begin to manage our association in a professional, business-like manner. Unfortunately, in its first three months of 2016, this board has shown that it is inept and incapable, primarily due to the inner circle of leadership that many directors and members blindly follow.
The first order of business of this board should be to get its financial house in order. No business or association can operate with integrity when its finances are in disarray and are inaccurate. We need a Treasurer who knows the requirements and duties of his office and who does not deceive the membership with inaccurate (false) financial statements, or seek “wiggle room” to negotiate collection of past due assessments with favoritism to some and inequality to all.
The next order of business is for all directors to cease emulating the leadership's habits of dishonesty, deception and discrimination (the three D's), to cease the group-think mentality, and to become transparent in ALL dealings. Directors (and landowner members) must also be willing to hold other directors accountable when their actions are counter to the best interests of the membership.
Because the board has proven to be untrustworthy due to these habits, we landowners cannot trust that any actions proposed by the board are for the benefit of the association members. The proposed changes to the governing documents is one glaring example as these changes are being orchestrated to give the board more discretion, and therefore more power, at the expense of the membership. I call for a moratorium on the vote to change these documents until full input of landowner concerns, or cons, is fully disclosed to the members.
This board has refused to listen to landowner concerns and continues to promote the leadership's self-interest agendas. If the board continues in this vein, we have no other recourse other than to show them we mean business by withholding our assessments. If you pay your assessments quarterly, as we do (and for this specific reason), you can begin withholding at any time.
We almost withheld our assessments in January but decided to give this board one more chance. They have not relented or changed anything except to implement even more draconian measures such as Mizzi's ever-changing meeting decorum policy, retroactive and discriminatory dwelling assessments, appointing a new board member over a more diversely skilled candidate to further stack the board with their cronies, and continuation of their misguided practices.
I understand that about 30% of our fellow members are already not paying assessments. Let's bump that number to 50 or 60 per cent, or even higher, and send a strong message to this board!
I am also at the point of such dissatisfaction with this board's dysfunction that I am favoring the GLA becoming a simple road association instead of having my assessment contributions support their lazy and autocratic behavior via higher administrative and legal costs to prop up their profligate ways.
I invite all GLA members to consider my words carefully and, if in agreement, show the board that we mean business by withholding your assessment payments until they do listen to us and mend their ways. If they can do that we can then start making payments and continue doing so until forced to withhold again.
Furthermore, I call on this board to enter formal mediation with a committee of landowners to rectify these problems. If they will not do so willingly, then we must force them to by taking appropriate legal action. We can use our withheld assessments to help cover our legal expenses.
In summary, I request that the following items be placed on today's list of actions for us to prioritize. Please place your voting stickers on the items that you feel should take priority and send a loud and clear message to this board:
*Accurate financial reports openly shared with all members, monthly not quarterly as being proposed by the board.
*Accountability and Transparency in all matters.
*A moratorium on the vote for proposed governing document changes.
*A Roads Association only. Simplify management and operations.
*Withhold assessments to force the board to mediate with a committee of landowner members.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AFTERTHOUGHTS TO SPECIAL GLA MEETING
“THE BOARD LISTENS” - APRIL 2, 2016
Thanks to Wendy, Dennis and Leo for facilitating the first “Board Listens” meeting in the history of the GLA. If nothing else it will have provided a venue where landowners could speak their minds without being constrained to three minutes, shouted down or gaveled into silence. It must have been extremely difficult for certain board members to hold their tongues and to open their hearts and ears throughout this meeting. By the postures and facial expressions I wondered if some of them were going to survive the three scheduled hours, especially after the Treasurer said he was going to leave after the very first comment was made.
After sharing my controversial thoughts with the audience during the meeting, I questioned to myself, “Did anyone hear me or did this just fall on deaf ears?” “Did the board members in attendance hear me, or did only landowners not beholden to a party line hear the truth in my words?” Only time will tell.
I found it puzzling why non-landowners were there to participate in a meeting for members. Someone counted six non-members, one of whom was seen placing her written comments in the anonymous comments box. Did these people also get the green stickers enabling them to also vote illegitimately on the long list of potential actions suggested for the board? Why were these people even there?
Also disturbing, but not inconceivable, was the number of members who spoke in defense of the board “volunteers” including some board members themselves. The treasurer was particularly vocal as he attempted to defend his continual errors in keeping and presenting the inaccurate financial documents of the association. Another instance included a landowner who kept repeating that the board is made up of volunteers, inferring they should not be accountable for their statements and actions? He also said that statements made by me and others were untrue and that we should prove them in court. I submit that the burden of proof lies with him and the board, and all my statements will be proven truthful and factual and are not just opinions, as he and board members like to categorize any expressions opposed to their own. If this board could withstand total scrutiny they would have been willing to be totally transparent since inception rather than secretive and withholding. Where there is smoke there is fire.
Another member, who happens to be the spouse of a recent board president, singled out my wife and me to try to embarrass or discredit us for bringing the operations of the shadow board to the forefront, it seems. She wove an implausible tale which anyone familiar with the situation would recognize as such. As a side note, it is known to us that this family has perpetrated in the community certain ongoing slanderous comments about my wife. Having the wisdom that she has, my wife does not take this personally.
As for the effectiveness of this meeting and any future reincarnations, any value will be dependent on what the board does with this information. Will they do as the Governing Documents Committee chair did with our landowner survey? By that I mean, contort the survey findings to reflect their own attitudes and agendas, then finalize their proposed changes solo, again without landowner committee members being involved. Will the board consider the fact that as a result of the 23 votes cast placing governing document changes in the top four priority positions for board action and that 18 of these votes were for the board to “stop the process until all the issues are sorted out.” In other words, will the board listen to the landowners and indeed place a moratorium on the voting for their proposed changes until all issues that landowners have are sorted out? Even as this was announced, our favorite gadfly was exclaiming that 18 votes was only a small percentage of nearly 400 landowners in Glastonbury. When one considers that there were approximately 40 landowners in attendance, 18 constitutes 45 per cent, a sizable number. I heard the illustrious board president mutter that the landowners already had their opportunity to comment and that the vote should proceed. Guess she was napping or was only selectively hearing? Can anyone spell R-A-I-L-R-O-A-D?
To summarize the voting and the top four priority action items:
#1 was Assessments (42) including collections of past due, opposition to the new proposed dwelling assessments, and revising the method of calculating assessments.
#2 was Trust & Transparency (32) indicating a large percentage of landowners are concerned with these issues, which have been brought to the attention of the different boards over the years, but to no avail.
#3 was Roads (24) with 12 voting for a professional evaluation before any plans are developed by the board.
#4 was Governing Documents (23) as discussed above.
I was very surprised that Financial Record keeping and Accounting was not in the top tier because, as I said in my presentation, no business or association can operate with integrity when its finances are inaccurate and in disarray.
Not all board members were in attendance, likely taking advantage of the president’s suggestion that only those board members on the communications committee be required to attend. I find that directive typical of the arrogance, callousness and indifference of this board’s leadership. Thank you to those board members who did attend.
In my presentation I advocated withholding payment of assessments as a tool to force the board to listen to us landowners, their constituents. I have since discovered an even better solution, which is to withdraw my property from the domination of the GLA. I know of at least two other landowners who are already engaged in an action to free themselves from tyranny. I plan to join them and invite you to do so as well. I will be posting my request / demand as a formal complaint with the board soon. See this forum link for details:
glastonbury.freeforums.net/thread/243/declare-independce-legally-paying-assessments.
