Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2015 9:32:42 GMT -7
The GLA Board created non-disclosure forms and I am told that all newly elected directors are required to sign them before they are allowed to serve on the GLA Board. I believe these forms limit free speech and violate the First Amendment to our US Constitution.
Mark Seaver and Dennis Riley are both newly elected but not yet officially on the board. That will happen at the next meeting on December 7th, 2015. Usually there is a 30 minute executive session before the meeting starts when the directors are given 3 ring binders, told about rules and required to sign documents.
Previous board members were not required to sign any forms before serving. The secrecy discussion started after the lawsuits started.
There is no requirement in the Bylaws or Covenants for any elected director to sign any agreement.
Non-disclosure agreements make sense if you are a director for a PRIVATE company. Trade secrets, supplier information, new products in development, etc must all be kept confidential or the company could suffer financial losses. The same does not hold true for publicly elected officials. The GLA is a landowners association and the Board members are elected by us to serve us. Why should they be holding secrets from us?
A thin and weak case may be made for ongoing legal cases but do we not deserve to know who among us is not paying assessments? After all we are paying extra to support those who do not pay. Should we not be able to see the invoices for grading and gravel work that we paid for? Or inspect the bank statements and even cancelled checks to confirm that our money was spent well and really went to the items listed on the annual financial statements? It is our money, our organization and we have a right to inspect records, ask questions and expect answers. Do we not? Trust, but verify is a wise policy. Blind trust is a fool's errand.
I have had past and current Board members tell me that they are forbidden from answering private emails from constituents. They explained that the GLA Board wants all email to go through the official GLA email account for "legal" reasons.The GLA Board also requires that Board members do not discuss anything that transpires in board emails or director to director private conversations. I am told that one of the agreements new directors are forced to sign requires this. Yes, forced to sign. For the GLA Board has decided that even if you were elected by the people you cannot serve until you agree to their rules. Their rules of course have never been approved by the people and the details are hidden from the people. Thus a new director must forfeit part of their Constitutional right to free speech by giving up their ability to confidentially communicate with those people who they are sworn to serve. That is authoritarianism; not democracy. We the people lose our right to free speech as well. We are no longer able to engage the people we elected in confidential conversations by the Post Office, in our homes or via private email. I am told that the rules are so strict that even private conversations between a husband and wife are prohibited if one is on the Board and the discussion involves the GLA Board.
The non-disclosure forms are only presented to new directors just before the December meeting begins. A particularly courageous new director may closely read the forms and then gently fold them up and securely place them in his inside pocket. He could explain that he never signs anything without having his attorney review the documents first. If several directors did this I believe the requirement to sign would disappear. Authority must be challenged when that authority goes beyond it's bounds and ceases to serve the public interest. If the GLA Board does not want to release the forms then I hope that at least one of the new directors would leak them to the Forum where they will be published for everyone to see.
I urge everyone to email Mark Seaver and Dennis Riley.
We cannot publish private email addresses. However you may leave comments here for any and all directors here. They will see your comments!
Let them know what you think of the non-disclosure forms and how you feel about losing the ability to freely and confidentially express your thoughts to them and get an equally confidential reply from them. Is it in the landowners best interest to have all communications go through the GLA Email system where queries and responses are checked by all Board members?
This is yet another reason why we need new officers on the Board.
Chris wrote a stirring open letter to the Board and put it on the Forum. I hope others will too. If we do not change the officers the ship of state will try to maintain the same course.
Feel free to pass this thread around and quote from it when you email our new directors.
Administrator's Update: At the March 14th, 2016 GLA Board Meeting Director Charlene Murphy discussed extending the non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements to volunteer members of various committees. One Project Review committee member refused to sign it explaining that he would lose credibility with the landowners if he did. Since then another Project Review volunteer has resigned stating the Confidentiality agreement as the reason.
At the GLA Board meeting Director Dan Kehoe stated that the volunteer Confidentiality form was almost identical to the one all board members sign. Charlene Murphy, with hands that appeared to be trembling, passed out copies of the volunteer Confidentiality agreement.
You may download a copy here.
Mark Seaver and Dennis Riley are both newly elected but not yet officially on the board. That will happen at the next meeting on December 7th, 2015. Usually there is a 30 minute executive session before the meeting starts when the directors are given 3 ring binders, told about rules and required to sign documents.
Previous board members were not required to sign any forms before serving. The secrecy discussion started after the lawsuits started.
There is no requirement in the Bylaws or Covenants for any elected director to sign any agreement.
Non-disclosure agreements make sense if you are a director for a PRIVATE company. Trade secrets, supplier information, new products in development, etc must all be kept confidential or the company could suffer financial losses. The same does not hold true for publicly elected officials. The GLA is a landowners association and the Board members are elected by us to serve us. Why should they be holding secrets from us?
A thin and weak case may be made for ongoing legal cases but do we not deserve to know who among us is not paying assessments? After all we are paying extra to support those who do not pay. Should we not be able to see the invoices for grading and gravel work that we paid for? Or inspect the bank statements and even cancelled checks to confirm that our money was spent well and really went to the items listed on the annual financial statements? It is our money, our organization and we have a right to inspect records, ask questions and expect answers. Do we not? Trust, but verify is a wise policy. Blind trust is a fool's errand.
I have had past and current Board members tell me that they are forbidden from answering private emails from constituents. They explained that the GLA Board wants all email to go through the official GLA email account for "legal" reasons.The GLA Board also requires that Board members do not discuss anything that transpires in board emails or director to director private conversations. I am told that one of the agreements new directors are forced to sign requires this. Yes, forced to sign. For the GLA Board has decided that even if you were elected by the people you cannot serve until you agree to their rules. Their rules of course have never been approved by the people and the details are hidden from the people. Thus a new director must forfeit part of their Constitutional right to free speech by giving up their ability to confidentially communicate with those people who they are sworn to serve. That is authoritarianism; not democracy. We the people lose our right to free speech as well. We are no longer able to engage the people we elected in confidential conversations by the Post Office, in our homes or via private email. I am told that the rules are so strict that even private conversations between a husband and wife are prohibited if one is on the Board and the discussion involves the GLA Board.
The non-disclosure forms are only presented to new directors just before the December meeting begins. A particularly courageous new director may closely read the forms and then gently fold them up and securely place them in his inside pocket. He could explain that he never signs anything without having his attorney review the documents first. If several directors did this I believe the requirement to sign would disappear. Authority must be challenged when that authority goes beyond it's bounds and ceases to serve the public interest. If the GLA Board does not want to release the forms then I hope that at least one of the new directors would leak them to the Forum where they will be published for everyone to see.
I urge everyone to email Mark Seaver and Dennis Riley.
We cannot publish private email addresses. However you may leave comments here for any and all directors here. They will see your comments!
Let them know what you think of the non-disclosure forms and how you feel about losing the ability to freely and confidentially express your thoughts to them and get an equally confidential reply from them. Is it in the landowners best interest to have all communications go through the GLA Email system where queries and responses are checked by all Board members?
This is yet another reason why we need new officers on the Board.
Chris wrote a stirring open letter to the Board and put it on the Forum. I hope others will too. If we do not change the officers the ship of state will try to maintain the same course.
Feel free to pass this thread around and quote from it when you email our new directors.
Administrator's Update: At the March 14th, 2016 GLA Board Meeting Director Charlene Murphy discussed extending the non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements to volunteer members of various committees. One Project Review committee member refused to sign it explaining that he would lose credibility with the landowners if he did. Since then another Project Review volunteer has resigned stating the Confidentiality agreement as the reason.
At the GLA Board meeting Director Dan Kehoe stated that the volunteer Confidentiality form was almost identical to the one all board members sign. Charlene Murphy, with hands that appeared to be trembling, passed out copies of the volunteer Confidentiality agreement.
You may download a copy here.
