Glastonbury Landowners For Positive Change
The mission of the GLFPC is to foster a landowner's association,
of the people, by the people, and for the people of Glastonbury,
to create a harmonious and inclusive community, and to enhance property values.
This Summary/Interpretation of the GLA's Board meeting on October 9, 2017
is offered as a volunteer service by the GLFPC.
Your suggestions are welcome, should there be oversights or errors.
Opening of the Meeting
The tenor and tone of the October 9, 2017 GLA Board Meeting was civil and productive, with an unusual degree of efficiency, due significantly to the absence of two long-standing disruptive landowners.
Landowner Input
A landowner read her September 27, 2017 Formal Complaint about Board Member Charlotte Mizzi during the Landowner Input period. (This is yet another landowner complaints against Mizzi.) This complaint further outlined her degree of unprofessionalism, if not illegal behavior. These include: a heritage of promoting her personal ideas and goals as Chair of the Community Property Committee (CPC); writing her own version of CPC minutes; plus overriding, dismissing, ignoring and fighting with members of the now defunct committee, while using John Carp (non-landowner CUT representative/Ombudsman/committee member), as her singular man in charge. On top of this she has unilaterally spent association money without committee awareness or board approval. Her latest focus is to raze the soccer field building, despite the board voting to have a professional assessment of its condition.
Fearing that the recent dissolution of the CPC would push Mizzi’s failure to give her utmost loyalty to GLA interests, as well as her egregious lack of respect for and collaboration with her committee members under the rug, the landowner stated that her formal complaint was needed to, once and for all, hold Mizzi accountable.
Other landowner input revealed that the Communication and Technology committee (CTC), which is charged with investigating complaints, is viewed as an ineffective committee that drops Formal Complaints into, what is commonly known as, the “Black Hole!” Because the CTC has yet to establish a procedure for investigating complaints, the board seemed a bit unsure about whether to handle this complaint themselves or send it to the CTC. In the end, the board directed CTC to investigate and find resolution of this newest complaint. Along with this, two members of the board requested a status report on all pending complaints to be brought to the board meeting.
Project Review
Before this committee could begin its report, Mark Seaver questioned the voice vote taken at the end of the September board meeting to approve a garage in NG. He said it appeared that two board members had not disclosed their conflict of interest and had voted to approve the project. Paul Rantallo claimed however that he had recused himself and Gerald Dubiel stated that he did not believe he had a conflict. But, after more questions, Dubiel acknowledged that he had designed the driveway for this parcel. Leo Keeler clarified that, while it is the duty of individual board members to disclose any conflict of interest, and even the perception of a conflict of interest, it is the duty of the board to determine if and when a fellow board member has a conflict of interest, and if they can vote on the issue at hand. The board took no action on this matter.
GLFPC Note: Seaver is on record for raising board awareness and sensitivity to Conflict of Interest issues. A conflict of interest occurs when a board member has interests independent of GLA duties that could corrupt his duty to give utmost loyalty to GLA matters. Those interests may be financial or personal.
The board approved a new home application in NG. Though the applicant had submitted his application on time, three committee members (Dubiel, Rantallo, and Richard Johnson) had not prepared their report in time for the regular Project Review Committee (PRC) meeting held a week prior to the board meeting. This put the board in the situation of either sending this application back to committee, which would create a delay for the applicant, or bypassing the committee and approving a project that most board members had not viewed or studied. Charlene Murphy’s argument that the board had to take action because the applicant had done his part in a timely fashion, moved the application forward to approval.
GLFPC Note: It is noteworthy that Murphy, who is known to insist on “due process” in other matters, especially those that she does not support, or wants to delay, pushed the board to bypass the “due process” of established procedures and approve this new home project. Her motivation? Her agenda? Did she want to cover over the fact that three PRC members had not done their homework in a timely manner? Co-Chair Kevin Newby had already chastised these three committee members for coming to the previous week’s CPC meeting and failing their obligation to follow through on this application…period! Why was this matter not sent back to committee to be properly completed?
On another matter, a discussion followed of what should be done when members build something other than what their Project Review application specified. Realizing this was not an easy issue to resolve, the board set the topic aside as Unfinished Business and moved on with the meeting.
Drainage Issue
A landowner reported that an unexpected flow of water had recently flooded her horse pasture and front yard and soaked a round bale of hay. The water, which flooded her property, was being used to blast open a 30-inch culvert that had been buried for years and dug up only recently. The newly revealed culvert, which is located at right angles to Capricorn, delivered water to her parcel. Preliminary investigations suggest that the culvert may have been buried before the driveway to this parcel was created, and that the culvert may need to be relocated. The landowner is also concerned about repairs to her electric power line, which was broken during the excavation, then repaired, but left laying on the surface. The board agreed to pay the landowner $100 for the damage to the hay.
Treasurer’s Report
Questions about calculating interest and penalty charges for past due assessments dominated the discussion after Treasurer Regina Wunsch gave the treasurer’s report. Seaver insisted that all delinquency interest and penalties should be calculated and assessed uniformly. While Wunsch did not dispute Seaver’s remarks, she did point out a difference between what Seaver remembered during his time as treasurer, and what the financial books actually show. Secretary Murphy defended that the way she had “calculated” (and sent) a landowner’s delinquency “unfortunate” and agreed to recalculate (charge the full amount due) and resend the statement.
Finance Committees report
Wunsch reported that 13 of 28 delinquent members had not signed for and thus had not received their Certified Mail notice of their long-term over-due assessments. Those statements will now be handled by GLA’s Collection Attorney. Of those who did receive their official delinquency statements, one party opted to pay the balance with a payment plan, and another tried to argue that GLA did not have enough liability insurance to be a viable party, and thus able to collect past due accounts. Others had their own reasons for non-payment. The board took no specific action on this report because the next step of involving the Collection Attorney is already defined by the collection procedures. GLA is currently owed over one quarter of a million dollars in past due assessments, penalties and interest.
Secretary Report
Murphy used a portion of her Secretary report time to question why the Project Review (PRC) application form which is posted on the GLA website was not the “right one”. Murphy, who often takes issue with PRC Co-Chair Kevin Newby, went quiet when he documented how the website version of the application form is version #17 and that Murphy’s allegations were based on version #15.
Murphy also used her report time to try to persuade the board that SG Board Nominee Kathleen Rakala is now in good standing with her bid to be elected to the board. Murphy explained that Rakala took action to notice GLA about the subdivision of one of her parcels, and pay her delinquent assessments when the matters were brought to her attention. A wide ranging and passionate discussion followed.
Citing GLA Covenant 10.04, Seaver and other board members concluded that Rakala’s failure to report her subdivision in a timely manner is a covenant violation.
Keeler observed that because Rakala had notified the board of other subdivisions, she is experienced in this compliance and needs to be held accountable. He added that a 30-day delay in reporting a subdivision could be seen as a reasonable time for action, but the fact that Rakala waited a year to do so, and then only because she wanted to be in good standing for the November board election, is not ok. Seaver re-emphasized his earlier statement that a failure to report a subdivision is a covenant violation and stated dogmatically if the board was going to refuse to enforce the covenants, that would be a legal matter.
Participating by phone, Mizzi argued, and then quickly made a motion to accept Rakala as a viable candidate. Immediately, Dubiel seconded. With nine “no” votes, Mizzi’s motion failed. From the floor, a landowner called for a second censure of Mizzi based on the fact that she made a motion to not uphold GLA covenants. A subsequent motion by Keeler to rule that Rakala lacked standing to be a board nominee carried by 8 “yes” votes. Rakala was disqualified from running.
Charlene Murphy then suddenly pushed to resend the voting packets to all SG landowners. This set off another round of discussion. The outcome was unclear.
GLFPC NOTE, Secretary Murphy was so focused on the above matter she forget to call for the approval of the September 11, 2017 board meeting minutes. This took place at the very end of the meeting.
Road and Weed Committee Report
Hearing new information about the use of Mag Chloride, a known dust suppressant and road surface stabilizer used by Park County, the board reversed itself from last month’s decision and budgeted $12,000 to apply Mag Chloride during this year’s fall grading. The plan is to apply Mag Chloride on 5000 feet of NG gravel roads and 5000 feet on SG roads. Despite some audience reservation, as well as Murphy attempt to persuade the board that the application should wait until next season, the vote passed.
Action on the draft of a new Road Policy was tabled for lack of time.
A motion to install several sections of new wooden snow fence passed. Funding will come from unallocated funds.
A last-minute motion to approve funding for the installation of new road signs also passed. Funding will come from $900 left over in the road-side mowing budget.
Adjournment
Due to the nature of still unfolding circumstances (yet to be written about), Board President Riley adjourned the meeting about 10:30 pm, leaving several agenda items tabled until the beginning of the next board meeting.
The next board meeting will be held Monday, November 6th at Emigrant Hall.
