Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 3:16:15 GMT
This year's annual meeting contained much more thoughtful landowner input than in years past. Thank you to all who spoke up and participated. This is the first meeting (annual or board) where I felt the landowners truly made themselves heard. I heard a number of comments stating that the role of board members is to SERVE the landowners' best interests, not their own interests or those of any special interest group. Clearly, there were issues brought up by landowners that otherwise would not be addressed by the board, either intentionally or due to oversight: the issue of prayer before meetings, the issue of phone versus live meetings, the issue of accurate financial reports (thank you, Regina), the issue of accurate assessment files and records (thank you, DebbieB, DebbieD, Sally and Tim), issues regarding potential changes to the governing documents that fail to benefit the landowners and grant more power to the board (thank you Leo and Val), the issue of the effectiveness of the current conduct of meetings policy (thank you Michael), and the issue of better and more frequent communications from the board are items that come immediately to mind.
I am heartened to know that we have three newly elected board members from SG whose backgrounds and desire to SERVE the community as a whole should have a meaningful impact on conducting the business of our LANDOWNERS' association. As Leo so clearly reminds us, "The Board is not the Association." I hope all board members can accept this reminder and act accordingly.
Thanks to all the board and support volunteers who helped prepare and serve the refreshments, intake, count the votes, etc. and to all the landowners who took most of the day to attend this annual meeting. Today is proof of the importance of landowner involvement in managing the affairs of our association. Please add your thoughts to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by debbieb on Nov 15, 2015 17:42:39 GMT
Thank You to the GLA Board for a very well run 2015 Annual Meeting! Especially to Charlotte and Charlene who coordinated it all, and Karleen for behind the scenes prep & support - Nice Job! Everything ran very smoothly, landowners had a lot of opportunity for meaningful exchange w/other landowners and the Board, Rudy answered a lot of on-the-spot questions people had about finances - and all the food & drinks were great and kept us going for the long meeting. Lastly, Dan did an excellent job running the meeting.
Kevin and I thought it was the best Annual Meeting we've attended so far!
|
|
|
|
Post by lashandersen on Nov 16, 2015 14:33:44 GMT
Feedback about the annual meeting,
While the annual meeting ran smoother than some in the past we should not be fooled that smoother result was built on tolerated comments, squelched discussions and lost opportunities to understand new ideas. e.g. when Mike Laverty tried to make a motion and was told he could not because it was the board's discretion about how to handle the meeting. There was no obvious interest in what Laverty had in mind, rather it appeared that the goal was to quiet him. Further, since this was a member meeting, not a board meeting,there is reason to question the claim that the board could decide what members wanted to discuss and vote on at their meeting.
Another case in point was the squelching of Leo's question about what mechanism might the board use to provide discussion among members about the proposed Gov Doc changes. Rather than encouraging further discussion on this, as a reasonable moderator could do, Kehoe called it was a question for the attorney and moved on. If the concept the the Covenants and Master Plan are a contract between members could have been discussed and understood as the reason discussion between members about the changes is needed, much could have been done to move this process forward.
If Debbie's call for more accurate assessment data had been given time, the discussion might have moved to the definition of a dwelling unit, and the question of whether to change the Gov docs or enforce them as written.
Ia's questions of the candidates was shut down as fast as possible.
Other squelching happened when board members interrupted landowner comments. Most noteworthy was when Ross was called on for his interruption while a landowner was speaking and he in turn interrupted Kehoe to voice an apology.
In closing I agree that the landowner comments were more substantive than at other annual meetings and that is a good thing. But it was disappointing that most of the board appeared to have little interest in hearing what landowners said.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Nov 17, 2015 21:22:19 GMT
Thanks to Charlene and Charlotte for all their hard work and leadership in preparing for and coordinating many aspects of the meeting.
Thanks to Rudy for being able to quickly show that my neighbors who have rented out an apartment in their basement since 2005 had only been paying one dwelling assessment. Rudy indicated he would look into and correct this situation as well as review and act on the list Debbie Blaise had presented to him.
The 2015 Members meeting went much smoother than others I have attended. However I was surprised that the room was only half full, compared to 3/4 full in the past. As with national politics I believe less than 30% of Membership Interests (i.e possible votes) cast a ballot. Only 51 for all of South Glastonbury. How many were cast from North Glastonbury???
The exchange of information from Members to the Board included more topics and more Members participating. However the body language of those at the front table showed me that they really did not want to hear what was said. Specifically while votes were still being counted, I had to ask Vice President Ross Brunson 4 times if the Board would tell Members to visit glamemberforum.freeforums.net before he said yes. His tone and body language showed yes to mean doing so was an extremely low priority and would be done if and when he felt like it.
Another example was Mike Laverty making a motion to the Board and just being told the Bylaws said the Board could conduct meetings as they deired and none of the Board members offered assistance or guidance on how Mike might proceed with his idea/request. Thinking of it now, I do not recall any of the Board members at the front table ever offering to help Members resolve the issues they raised.
I was amazed at the number of Members protesting the phone meeting process and their ability to be heard. I've previously mentioned to the Board that in person meetings provide a lot more information to participants than phone meetings. I refer to the ability to see body language and understand if not only your words are being heard, but whether your message is accepted as valid or ignored. I believe most speakers words were heard, but few Board members accepted their message. The best example was the definite out cry to avoid phone in only meetings and the desire to have both phone in and in person at the same time. This idea was quickly set aside as too expensive, not having technical ability or just to much trouble to do. I wonder why none of the Board members suggested (should have demanded) that the Board seek out options and present the costs and limits of various options to Members and allow Members to vote to accept any increased costs, including purchasing technical equipment.
Since Ross did say he felt Members would benefit from using this forum, I encourage everyone to share their thoughts and inform their neighbors of this forum and their ability to be heard here. I believe this site will become very important and help make significant changes to the mutual benefit of all Members.
|
|
sally
New Member
Posts: 3 
|
Post by sally on Nov 22, 2015 16:25:35 GMT
Can anyone tell me why the full board was not seated at the front table? I saw Kevin, Newman, and Ed seated with members. Why? It would have been nice to see all of the board members that represent us seated at the table. Some new landowners thought that Karleen was a board member. Who and why was this decision made?
Sally
|
|
