The Petition to Recall Jeff Baker, Karen Morgan and Alex Plotkin officially started May 12, 2021, when Director Hanagan certified the format of the petitions as the “new” “designated election official”. More on that at the end.
The petition must have at least 300 qualified signatures to go to a recall election. They have 60 days to present the petitions to the “designated election official” (Director Hanagan) to certify them as sufficient.
Here is the letter the three embattled directors began to receive yesterday:
As you know, since at least October Director Hanagan has engaged in openly hostile attacks against Jeff Baker, Karen Morgan and Alex Plotkin for daring to propose bylaws which would allow for new elections of board officers. Director Hanagan is Chairperson and runs the meetings. Jeff, Karen and Alex proposed a change.
Counsel Timmons sided with Director Hanagan and it has been a mess ever since.
The petitioners have been working every meeting to harass and intimidate Jeff, Karen and Alex into resigning with constant threats of recall. Apparently Rita Bertolli has been working on it as well.
The people petitioning the recall are:
Rita Bertolli
Christoper Arlen
Brenda Bronson
Kathe Odenweller
The reason stated in the petition for the recall is the same for each, Jeff, Karen and Alex:
Lets break it down and look at their reasons to “get rid” of Jeff, Karen and Alex.
1. Director [Baker, Morgan and Plotkin] has breached his [her] oath of office by placing the District at grave financial risk.
Exactly what did they do to place the District in grave financial risk. All they have done is try to “mind the store” as to the business of running a water and sanitation district.
And, at least recently, when they tried to review Counsel Timmons’ legal bills, they were attacked by Director Hanagan with Counsel Timmons’ support as making a “personal attack against Counsel Timmons”.
Reviewing expenses and holding anyone, including counsel, accountable is their job, not a “personal attack”. Counsel is just as accountable as any other contractor the District pays money to.
With respect to the litigation with Big Sky – they won. Their work in directing the litigation – they are in charge of making the decisions and accountable for the results – resulted in the case being dismissed.
How did that place the District in grave financial risk. They won. And they want counsel to file a motion to have the plaintiffs pay Counsel Timmons’ attorney fees (of $500,000).
2. [Jeff, Karen and Alex] has compromised the District’s ability to defend itself in multi-million dollars litigation by engaging in unethical behavior that demonstrates a lack of good faith.
Whatever they did to “compromise” the district’s ability to defend itself must have worked because as a result of their work and leadership, the case was dismissed.
I have represented Fortune 500 boards, and HOA boards. The board’s job is to manage the litigation and manage the attorney. Not the other way around.
Clearly Counsel Timmons relationship with Jeff, Alex and Karen deteriorated because she was telling, not listening. Best example was Counsel Timmons trying to push settling with a new IGA before the entire board had obtained and processed the information they needed to make a decision.
Managing counsel is part of their job. Counsel works for them, the board, or at least a majority of the board. Because the District can only speak through a majority of the board.
Notwithstanding Counsel Timmons approach to working with the board, the board won the litigation. The board is now exploring whether or not the board’s trust in counsel can be restored through a mediation suggested by Director Peters.
What unethical behavior. The plaintiffs in the case tried to claim that everyone they subpoenaed for emails were “deliberately destroying evidence”. Citizens who were not parties were harassed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, as with many of their claims, were simply wrong. Cleaning out emails in the normal course is not the same as “deliberately destroying evidence”.
And at the end of the day, the plaintiffs got all the emails they could have wanted. If someone didn’t have them, someone else did. And keep in mind, these are emails of citizens talking to each other or elected officials one or two at a time. That is what they are supposed to do. Just like the developer community sending and receiving emails from elected officials, no more than two at a time.
But more importantly, since when do citizens use the unfounded false claims by plaintiff developers, who could care less about the district – use those false claims – to attack other citizens.
The substantive part of the litigation is over. Jeff, Karen and Alex did everything they could to defend the district’s interests and they won. The succeeded. They should be celebrated. Not “thrown out of office”.
3. [Jeff, Karen and Alex] has violated his [her] obligation to preserve and maintain the public trust.
I worked closely with Adrienne, Jeff , Alex and Counsel Timmons from August 12, 2018 until September 18, 2019 when I decided to “resign” from my retention as “Title 32 Legal Counsel”. I did not attend any meetings again until I believe January, 2021. I was retained by he board again on February 2, 2021 to help out again and resigned again in March because Counsel Timmons was upset that I talked with board members without her permission. Since January I have also been able to work with Director Morgan.
During these times I have never seen anything that could remotely be considered Jeff, Alex or Karen “violating their obligation to preserve and maintain the public trust”.
There is a difference of positions. Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmons want Director Hanagan to remain chairperson and run the meetings. Jeff, Alex and Karen are ready for a change. If a motion to hold new elections for officers passes with a majority, then that is what happens.
That is no reason for a recall and it certainly doesn’t violate the public trust. Its just who runs the meetings, for heavens sake. (Although we have seen that it makes a difference who is running the meetings and has control of the “mute” switch).
There has been a lot of misinformation about the Open Meetings Law and Title 32. Neither require all the prerequisites the board has now adopted for public comment, agendas or board packets. Title 32 says nothing about these matters. The Open Meetings Law only requires notice of the meeting and opportunity to attend. Nothing about public comment. Nothing about agendas other than if you know what might be on the agenda, put it in the notice. Nothing about prohibiting amendments to the agenda by a majority of the board at any time. Nothing about requiring a matter be published before it can be voted on. Nothing about board packets.
Of course the board can do whatever they want to beyond what the law requires. But to say the Board Directors are violating the law by not having many more disclosures is simply not true.
Here, again is the Open Meetings Law:
relevant excerpt:
“. . .The public place or places for posting such notice shall be designated annually at the local public body’s first regular meeting of each calendar year. The posting shall include specific agenda information where possible.”
full text:
Indeed, the board has gone so far to permit public involvement, that they can’t get anything done. They have to spend at least a couple hours every meeting being personally attacked and threatened with recall by this group that wants to take over the board.
And, with respect to talking about business outside the meetings, the bottom line is that two directors meeting with themselves or citizens is not immoral, unethical or illegal.
Open meetings law relevant excerpt:
“b) All meetings of a quorum [3/5] or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.”
Again, the plaintiff developers tried to spin the theory that elected officials talking to the citizens (and the developers) was somehow “unfair”. It is more “fair” if the elected officials only talk to the developers, apparently.
This absurd argument would not have been received well by a jury of citizens. And as even Counsel Timmons finally recognized as she organized meetings between the plaintiff developers and the directors, the directors can meet two at a time with the plaintiffs to talk about settlement just like they can talk with each other or the citizens, two at a time.
4. [Jeff, Karen and Alex] has allowed himself to be unduly influenced by non-District agents regarding crucial matters affecting the financial well-being of the District and has actively destroyed the transparency of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation Board of Directors.
The reference to “destroying the transparency” is addressed in item 3 above. Again, the petitioners want to run the board. You can’t argue that because the board members won’t let you run the board that this somehow means they aren’t being “transparent enough”. I can’t imagine a board that provides more public input than this one.
With respect to being “influenced by non-District agents regarding crucial matters affecting the financial well-being of the District”, it is unclear what that means.
Devon Neil is influencing Director Hanagan and she is a “non-District” agent. Devon Neil was and still is pushing hard for the board to enter into a new IGA with the Rooney Valley developers.
Counsel Timmons is also a “non-District agent” and was also pushing hard for a settlement before the board was ready. Director Hanagan seemed influenced by both Timmons and Neil to aggressively demand the majority settle by entering into a new IGA.
Rita Bertolli was instrumental in working with the board on the Big Sky IGA in the summer of 2018. She and I worked together to stabilize the board so they could responsibly review the Big Sky IGA, worked to obtain new counsel to assist with the evaluation of the Big Sky IGA, helped evaluate the IGA, worked on the language of the Resolution Terminating the Big Sky IGA and she provided invaluable assistance to Director Hanagan in preparing for and running each meeting. She also brought in Counsel Timmons.
Fair to say none of this would have happened without Rita’s influence on the board members.
I guess Rita would be a “District agent”. I suppose I was only a “district customer”, paying my 125% in service fees, but without a vote.
Perhaps that makes a difference.
Rita and I worked well together and, again, from what I could see, her contributions were invaluable.
The recall seems to have more to do with protecting Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmons than what is best for the District. But of course, that’s your decision.
The bottom line is that the board made the decisions. They are ultimately responsible. No one ever told them what to do. These were elected officials talking to citizens. That is what citizens and elected officials are supposed to do.
The board members reached out to the community for help and many citizens stepped up to answer their call.
And the board listened again and again to the Rooney Valley developers. The Rooney Valley developers had as much access to the decision making process as the citizens. There was nothing preventing the Rooney Valley developers from meeting with the board directors two at a time just as the Rooney Valley developers do with Lakewood City council,
The plaintiff developers tried to argue in the litigation that citizens talking to their elected officials is somehow unlawful. That is simply a false statement and ridiculous theory.
And, again, since when do citizens use the unfounded false claims by plaintiff developers, who could care less about the district – use those false claims – to attack other citizens.
Keep in mind what the current bylaws say about who the directors should consult with:
2006 Bylaws, Section 8 (b) page 5:
“. . . In performing the Director’s duties, the Director shall be entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, in each case prepared or presented by persons and groups listed in subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this subsection b; but the Director shall not be considered to be acting in good faith if he has knowledge concerning the matter in question that would cause such reliance to be unwarranted.
A person who so performs the Director’s duties shall not have any liability by reason of being or having been a Director of District. Those programs and groups upon whose information, opinions, reports, and statements a Director is entitled to rely are:
(1) One or more officers or employees of District whom the Director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;
(2) Counsel, public accountants, or other persons as to matters which the Director reasonably believes to be within such persons’ professional or expert competence; and
(3) A committee of the Board upon which the Director does not serve, duly designated in accordance with the provisions of the By-Laws, as to matters within its designated authority, which committee the Director reasonably believes to merit confidence. . . ”
5. The people of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District have lost confidence in Director [Baker, Morgan, Plotkin] competency and believe that his [her] continuation as a public officer will lead to irreparable harm.
Clearly the group that has consumed so much of the meetings harassing Jeff, Karen and Alex – openly aided by Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmons – want to “get rid” of Jeff, Karen and Alex.
Whether a majority of the 24,000 voters feel the same way remains to be seen.
One last report. The “designated election official” for the past several elections has been Sue Blair, a professional special district manager. For some unknown reason, and through some undocumented procedure, Rita Bertolli, Christoper Arlen, Brenda Bronson and Kathe Odenweller persuaded the judge to appoint Director Hanagan as the “designated election official”.
That is very convenient. The “designated election official”, Director Hanagan, will be the one to decide whether or not there are sufficient qualified signatures to require a recall election.
Here, again, is Director Hanagan’s email “congratulating” everyone on the court decision dismissing the Big Sky lawsuit:
From: Adrienne Hanagan <alhanagan@gmail.com>
Date: May 6, 2021 at 3:22:41 PM MDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Jo Timmins Wins and Scott Gessler, GOP Wannabe Chair claims creditHello Friends,Jo Timmins won for Green Mountain, the case against GMWSD is dismissed. WOW!!. She won the cross motion for summary judgement and the board still wants to replace her as general counsel. It is because John Henderson, in my opinion, is still the master Puppeteer.A tiny, brilliant and brave lady defeated an army of lawyers and won. She Is being disparaged by three wicked misogynistic men and one hateful woman, my thoughts.Yours,Adrienne
The new “designated election official” appears to have a rather robust conflict of interest with the targets of the recall.
What was that again about transparency and acting in good faith.
If you agree with the reasons stated in the petition and feel they have made their case, call them and make arrangements to sign.
If you don’t agree, pass the word and let Jeff, Karen and Alex know you support them and will help them stay in office.
Your district. Your decision.
John Henderson