Post by leokeeler on Jun 14, 2016 12:26:49 GMT -7
I just sent this to the Board and to GLFPC
To: GLA Board of Directors; Glastonbury Landowners For Positive Change
During the Landowner Comment Period for the June 13th Board meeting, I asked if my document request filed 5/23/26, and repeated 6/5/16 would ever be responded to. Charlotte stated that would be covered later in the meeting in 4.8.1, during the Governing Documents Change section. My document request was never addressed, partially due to my expressing my concerns with development of the Cons to be included in the voting package for the proposed Governing Documents changes.
My requesting all attorney documentation pertaining to the Board vote of April 11th to change the interest rate in Covenant 11.06 for the group of Landowners known as being late in paying their assessments is based on that resolution stated it was subject to “approval of the GLA attorney.” The spring newsletter stated “the Board creates the following Rule” which, by being in the newsletter, is a clear statement that the attorney had given written approval.
This request is again under State Law 35-2-906(5)(c) for a resolution pertaining to the “obligations of members.” This law states the Board must keep these records at “its principal office or a location from which the records may be recovered within 2 business days.” The Board violated this law by not providing any response to my first two requests. For clarity, the records I am seeking are the April 11th motion and the written attorney approval required to be part of that resolution. I hope the Board does not violate it a third time by not providing the documents under this third request.
I have additional concerns with processing the proposed changes to our Governing Documents. I have already asked that each Board member consider the proposed changes from the Landowner perspective, but unfortunately, Ed seemed to be the only one to clearly understand this request. I am concerned that the Cons the Board will eventually vote on will be hand-picked and rushed out by Dan. I am also concerned that no one will request further assistance or comments from the Landowner representatives on the Governing Documents Committee. (Donna, Jerry and I) We are emphasizing our concerns about how the proposed Covenant changes will negatively impact Landowners. The Board, on the other hand, appears to only be interested in increasing their discretionary powers and shielding itself from further lawsuits by making the Governing Documents so arbitrary that everything can be waived or given a variance.
I also offer that the Governing Documents meeting minutes the Board received were provided through a violation of the established procedures that has been in place over 3 months and that every Chairperson should know and follow. I interpret Dan not following those procedures as a convenient oversight intended to ignore Landowner input and work alone. In June of 2015, he cancelled three scheduled Gov Doc Committee meetings that would have had Landowner participation, and, almost a year later, provided no opportunity to participate until very recently. I ask that the Board not vote on any package of Cons until after Donna, Jerry, and I have had the opportunity to participate in their development as Governing Document Committee members.
In closing, I hope that all Directors understand one person’s interpreting a change as a Con may not be acknowledged by another that desires only to get the change passed. Because of the significance of changing our Governing Documents, I ask the Board require that when the Cons to be included in the voting package are presented for a Board vote, the presentation also include showing the Landowner requests that were not included and an explanation of “WHY NOT.” I believe this level of review will be valuable should there be a legal challenge to the process.
Leo Keeler
To: GLA Board of Directors; Glastonbury Landowners For Positive Change
During the Landowner Comment Period for the June 13th Board meeting, I asked if my document request filed 5/23/26, and repeated 6/5/16 would ever be responded to. Charlotte stated that would be covered later in the meeting in 4.8.1, during the Governing Documents Change section. My document request was never addressed, partially due to my expressing my concerns with development of the Cons to be included in the voting package for the proposed Governing Documents changes.
My requesting all attorney documentation pertaining to the Board vote of April 11th to change the interest rate in Covenant 11.06 for the group of Landowners known as being late in paying their assessments is based on that resolution stated it was subject to “approval of the GLA attorney.” The spring newsletter stated “the Board creates the following Rule” which, by being in the newsletter, is a clear statement that the attorney had given written approval.
This request is again under State Law 35-2-906(5)(c) for a resolution pertaining to the “obligations of members.” This law states the Board must keep these records at “its principal office or a location from which the records may be recovered within 2 business days.” The Board violated this law by not providing any response to my first two requests. For clarity, the records I am seeking are the April 11th motion and the written attorney approval required to be part of that resolution. I hope the Board does not violate it a third time by not providing the documents under this third request.
I have additional concerns with processing the proposed changes to our Governing Documents. I have already asked that each Board member consider the proposed changes from the Landowner perspective, but unfortunately, Ed seemed to be the only one to clearly understand this request. I am concerned that the Cons the Board will eventually vote on will be hand-picked and rushed out by Dan. I am also concerned that no one will request further assistance or comments from the Landowner representatives on the Governing Documents Committee. (Donna, Jerry and I) We are emphasizing our concerns about how the proposed Covenant changes will negatively impact Landowners. The Board, on the other hand, appears to only be interested in increasing their discretionary powers and shielding itself from further lawsuits by making the Governing Documents so arbitrary that everything can be waived or given a variance.
I also offer that the Governing Documents meeting minutes the Board received were provided through a violation of the established procedures that has been in place over 3 months and that every Chairperson should know and follow. I interpret Dan not following those procedures as a convenient oversight intended to ignore Landowner input and work alone. In June of 2015, he cancelled three scheduled Gov Doc Committee meetings that would have had Landowner participation, and, almost a year later, provided no opportunity to participate until very recently. I ask that the Board not vote on any package of Cons until after Donna, Jerry, and I have had the opportunity to participate in their development as Governing Document Committee members.
In closing, I hope that all Directors understand one person’s interpreting a change as a Con may not be acknowledged by another that desires only to get the change passed. Because of the significance of changing our Governing Documents, I ask the Board require that when the Cons to be included in the voting package are presented for a Board vote, the presentation also include showing the Landowner requests that were not included and an explanation of “WHY NOT.” I believe this level of review will be valuable should there be a legal challenge to the process.
Leo Keeler