Post by leokeeler on Mar 28, 2016 11:08:43 GMT -7
I believe everyone is waiting for the next shoe (lawsuit) to drop. I have been trying to understand both the Boards way of thinking and the advice attorney Alanah Griffith is giving. Understanding the Board is very difficult because members seem logical and well intended when speaking to you one on one, but they demonstrate a group think, group vote and stop looking at the big picture when sitting together deciding on an issue.
The following is an e-mail exchange between the GLA attorney, Alanah, and I. I believe if the Board relies on only her advice they will be increasing the likely hood of the next shoe drop.
Alanah,
Thanks for your reply.
I am fully aware of the court hierarchy but, unfortunately, did not
receive the rules you state were sent to me. They may have been sent to
GLA to be forwarded, but I doubt that will ever happen, so please send
them to me directly.
The power to sue and thus negotiate and settle is not in question.
The powers held by the Board are coming under more and more scrutiny due
to past actions for “Favorite Sons” as presented in the Members phone
meeting March 19th. The obvious secret meetings and vote process that led
to the filling a vacancy on the Board with yet another handpicked member
of Church Universal and Triumphant has the pot ready to boil over.
At the February 20th meeting at Emigrant Hall, you stated that you hate
variances and would like to rip them out and start over again, “but we’re
not there yet.” You also stated that no Montana court case had defined
Association but there have been lots of cases looking at language, and
that courts will look at the intent of the declarant.
During my career as the Real Estate Specialist for the US Forest Service’s
Chugach National Forest, regularly communicating with the head attorney
for the entire Forest Service in Washington DC, I was assigned numerous
tasks to find a “declarant’s intent” in writing federal law, i.e.
searching Congressional Records, etc. I know how Federal Courts use
records and how they will seek to determine the full history of a legal
document as well as how they look at language used in documents.
The GLA covenants were established in a unique way, with landowners having
no voice in developing the contract (covenants) to which they would be
bound. I have been told numerous times that the Church Universal and
Triumphant assigned members to revise the covenants without making any
significant changes. Until the 1997 covenants came into effect, the Church
had the right to force a landowner to sell them their home and land
without cause, and to do so within 90 days, so the 50% affirmative vote
from landowners on any issue was assured. Comparing the 1982 and 1997
covenants shows the 1997 covenants mirror the philosophy and level of
control of lands and Landowners by a Board dominated by Church members.
Because the Church had such strict control over landowners throughout the
process of developing our covenants, and the makeup of ownership is now
only about 40% Church members, I doubt a court would find the “declarant’s
intent” to be the only issue upon which to make a decision of GLA Board
powers. I will continue to look into ways to reduce Board control and
thus the conflict the current covenants are creating.
I hope the pot does not boil over too soon and that you can help prevent
this issue from escalating as you counsel the Board on negotiations for
collecting late assessments. I fear your help will also be needed by
individual Board members that may place themselves at high risk of
violating conflict of interest laws, especially if the Board member
negotiating for GLA is a Church member and is negotiating with the Church
or other Church members.
Leo
> Leo, there is no higher court case as the authority is very, very accepted
> per the rules that I sent you. An integral part of the power to sue
> someone is the power to settle the matter. The Court require that the
> entity that sues also have the power to settle and negotiate in good
> faith. The MCA specifically gives the Board the power to sue. Thus, they
> also have the power to settle a case. This has never been challenged in
> any high Court in the nation based on my research.
>
> Also, while I agree the language is confusing, it does not change the fact
> that the code specifically states that the powers of the corporation are
> to be exercised by the Board. That means with regards to those powers,
> when Association is stated, it means the Board. I do agree that we can
> clarify that for laymen though.
>
> Alanah
The following is an e-mail exchange between the GLA attorney, Alanah, and I. I believe if the Board relies on only her advice they will be increasing the likely hood of the next shoe drop.
Alanah,
Thanks for your reply.
I am fully aware of the court hierarchy but, unfortunately, did not
receive the rules you state were sent to me. They may have been sent to
GLA to be forwarded, but I doubt that will ever happen, so please send
them to me directly.
The power to sue and thus negotiate and settle is not in question.
The powers held by the Board are coming under more and more scrutiny due
to past actions for “Favorite Sons” as presented in the Members phone
meeting March 19th. The obvious secret meetings and vote process that led
to the filling a vacancy on the Board with yet another handpicked member
of Church Universal and Triumphant has the pot ready to boil over.
At the February 20th meeting at Emigrant Hall, you stated that you hate
variances and would like to rip them out and start over again, “but we’re
not there yet.” You also stated that no Montana court case had defined
Association but there have been lots of cases looking at language, and
that courts will look at the intent of the declarant.
During my career as the Real Estate Specialist for the US Forest Service’s
Chugach National Forest, regularly communicating with the head attorney
for the entire Forest Service in Washington DC, I was assigned numerous
tasks to find a “declarant’s intent” in writing federal law, i.e.
searching Congressional Records, etc. I know how Federal Courts use
records and how they will seek to determine the full history of a legal
document as well as how they look at language used in documents.
The GLA covenants were established in a unique way, with landowners having
no voice in developing the contract (covenants) to which they would be
bound. I have been told numerous times that the Church Universal and
Triumphant assigned members to revise the covenants without making any
significant changes. Until the 1997 covenants came into effect, the Church
had the right to force a landowner to sell them their home and land
without cause, and to do so within 90 days, so the 50% affirmative vote
from landowners on any issue was assured. Comparing the 1982 and 1997
covenants shows the 1997 covenants mirror the philosophy and level of
control of lands and Landowners by a Board dominated by Church members.
Because the Church had such strict control over landowners throughout the
process of developing our covenants, and the makeup of ownership is now
only about 40% Church members, I doubt a court would find the “declarant’s
intent” to be the only issue upon which to make a decision of GLA Board
powers. I will continue to look into ways to reduce Board control and
thus the conflict the current covenants are creating.
I hope the pot does not boil over too soon and that you can help prevent
this issue from escalating as you counsel the Board on negotiations for
collecting late assessments. I fear your help will also be needed by
individual Board members that may place themselves at high risk of
violating conflict of interest laws, especially if the Board member
negotiating for GLA is a Church member and is negotiating with the Church
or other Church members.
Leo
> Leo, there is no higher court case as the authority is very, very accepted
> per the rules that I sent you. An integral part of the power to sue
> someone is the power to settle the matter. The Court require that the
> entity that sues also have the power to settle and negotiate in good
> faith. The MCA specifically gives the Board the power to sue. Thus, they
> also have the power to settle a case. This has never been challenged in
> any high Court in the nation based on my research.
>
> Also, while I agree the language is confusing, it does not change the fact
> that the code specifically states that the powers of the corporation are
> to be exercised by the Board. That means with regards to those powers,
> when Association is stated, it means the Board. I do agree that we can
> clarify that for laymen though.
>
> Alanah