Subscribe to Our Newsletter
RV News June 26, 2021

 

 

The ABBO (Arlen, Bronson, Bertolli and Odenweller) group is doing everything in their power to take over the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation Board.

 

 

ABBO wants to take over in order to help out the Big Sky developers and have a new Board provide sewer service outside Green Mountain’s authorized sewer service district boundary.

 

 

Here are the latest developments.

 

 

First, AS YOU KNOW FROM PAST REPORTS (which include references to the times on the recordings of each meeting):

 

 

ABBO  continuously harasses the directors, talking over them during the meetings, mocking the directors when they are speaking,  filing repeated CORA requests and threatening the directors during the meetings with demands that they resign.

 

ABBO members and their supporters have advocated that Green Mountain should help facilitate development outside the Green Mountain district.

 

Source of Green Mountain Recall: “You are Just a Toaster; An Appliance”

 

Non-Resident Mercenary Pollsters Hired to Collect Signatures – Who is Really Behind the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District Recall

 

 

ABBO, plus Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmons, worked overtime to push the majority directors to settle with the Big Sky developers and sign  a new IGA  to provide service outside Green Mountain’s authorized service boundary.

 

 

Then, the Court dismissed the case.

 

 

Now ABBO and the Big Sky developers are working on plan B – get rid of the citizen oriented directors and replace them with developer oriented directors.

 

 

ABBO started the recall campaign and paid people outside the district  to collect 75% of the signatures for the recall.

 

 

ABBO tried to have their one director, Ms. Hanagan, be the designated election official.  She  candidly confessed that she knew nothing about recall procedures,

 

 

Ms. Bertolli prepared the documents for Ms. Hanagan to sign as they rushed through certification of the petitions and then certification of the signatures.

 

 

When the majority directors asked Counsel Timmons for her assistance to replace Director Hanagan as DEO due to Director Hanagan’s conflict of interest, Counsel Timmons strenuously objected.  Counsel Timmons  made multiple threats against her own clients, including that the majority directors would be held in contempt for trying to replace Director Hanagan as the DEO.

 

Rejecting Counsel Timmons’ bad advice, the Court agreed with the majority directors and  replaced Director Hanagan because of the obvious “appearance of impropriety”.

 

 

ABBO then filed a frivolous lawsuit trying to stop the Board from hiring Title 32 counsel to handle the day to day operations which were not being addressed while the litigation was pending.

 

 

 

HERE IS THE LATEST UPDATE:

 

Despite Counsel Timmons’ obvious conflict of interest – she is the admitted source of several of the allegations in the new ABBO complaint – Counsel Timmons insisted during the June 15 meeting that her firm should represent the directors in the new lawsuit filed by ABBO.

 

 

Counsel Timmons even made the unprecedented argument that the directors being sued could not choose their own counsel “because they had a conflict of interest” with themselves.   Bizarre.

 

 

The majority directors said “no”.  They would choose counsel for the new ABBO lawsuit and Timmons had a conflict of interest.

 

 

Then,  the day the Board was set to hire new counsel to represent them against the new ABBO lawsuit  (June 21),  Arlen, Bertolli, Bronson and Odenweller dismissed their own frivolous lawsuit.  

 

Why?  Because by filing the lawsuit they were actually forcing the board to hire new litigation counsel who could eventually replace Counsel Timmons – who they filed the lawsuit to protect.   Another strategy backfire.

 

Yet another colossal waste of time, energy and money at the hands of ABBO.

 

 

But that didn’t slow ABBO down.  The next day, June 22,  the board was scheduled to interview candidates for Title 32 counsel.  (Needed to address routine operations and daily legal matters that were not being handled  because of the demands of the Big Sky litigation.)

 

 

Rita Bertolli took it upon herself to call each of the firms and explain to them why they should withdraw their applications – that the district was a total mess and the firms would regret getting involved.

A mess of course that Ms. Bertolli and ABBO were responsible for creating.

 

 

To their credit, the firms were not dissuaded by Ms. Bertolli’s warnings and the interviews went forward as scheduled.  One of the firms, the firm which was ultimately retained by the majority board, disclosed (as he ethically should have) the inappropriate contact by Ms. Bertolli.

 

 

There is a concept in the law known as tortious interference with a potential contractual relationship which Ms. Bertolli violated.  If there had been any damages to the District, this is a potential liability that she risked in taking the extraordinary step of interfering with the District’s official business.

 

 

This was not a spontaneous event.  ABBO was deliberately planning to interfere. On June 8, Christopher Arlen indicated ABBO was planning such a move when he stated “no reasonable person would apply for the  RFP”.

 

Just needed someone to tell the candidates “what was going on” so they could “reasonably” decide not to apply.

 

 

ABBO appears willing to take any steps they deem “necessary” to disrupt and overthrow the board.

 

What will they do next.

 

 

At the June 15, meeting,   Rita Bertolli argued that Green Mountain voters must be forced to go to the polls to vote on the recall.  She strenuously objected to mail in ballots stating “people just throw them away – its a waste of money”.  

 

So much for transparency, open government and encouraging public participation in the recall process.  

 

The board voted to issue mail in ballots, over Ms. Bertolli’s objections.

 

Maybe ABBO will have the same people from outside the district who they paid to collect 75% of the recall signatures come back (for a fee of course) to “poll watch” and “facilitate” mailing in the ballots during the recall election.

 

 

There is light at the end of the tunnel.  The board majority, significantly compromised by a hostile counsel and chairperson in concert with ABBO’s vicious attacks, is regaining control.

 

 

During the interviews of Title 32 counsel three lawyers from two firms answered questions.  Their answers disclosed basic legal principles about how a district operates.  The answers were the same from all three lawyers.  Lawyers not previously involved with the District.

 

The public and the board heard for the first time in about a year how the district is supposed to work under the law:

 

1. The District only speaks through its elected directors – the board.

 

2.  The board makes the decisions for the district.  No one else.  Not the counsel.  Not the chairperson.  Not a small handful of residents with personal agendas.  The board.

 

3.  And if the board is not unanimous, it is a majority of the board that makes the decisions.  Not counsel.  Not the chairperson.  Not a small handful of residents with personal agendas.  A majority of the board.

 

4.  Counsel represents a majority of the board.  Counsel does not represent individual members of the board against the majority.

 

5.  The chairperson has no more authority than any other member of the board.

 

6.  Counsel’s job is to educate the board with choices.  It is the board’s job to make the decisions.

 

7.  If at any time, there is a conflict between the board and counsel, counsel must resign.  Counsel resigns; not the board.

 

This was important.   For about a year, and during the most recent rants by the ABBO group,  ABBO has preached, with support from Counsel Timmons:

 

1. The majority of the board does not speak for the district.

 

2.  The small handful of residents with personal agendas are the district and speak for the district.

 

3.  Counsel works for the district, not the board.

 

4.  Counsel represents the chairperson against the majority of the board.

 

5.  Majority board members who disagree with counsel must get their own attorney.

 

6.   It is “rude” for the board to review counsel’s fees.

 

 

The silence by ABBO –  during  the scheduled public input later in the meeting  – was deafening.

 

The clear and objective statements by completely neutral attorneys had just negated everything ABBO and their supporters had lectured the board on for the past 8 months.

 

And once new counsel begins to work with the board, there will likely be more education for the ABBO group about how the Open Meetings Law actually works.

 

 

How refreshing it will be for the Board to have counsel working with them during the meetings who does not have a conflict of interest and who supports the board instead of attacks the board with false claims from the Big Sky developers.

 

The vote to select the new Title 32 counsel was three in favor, one (Director Hanagan) opposed and one (Director Peters) abstained.

 

There is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

In other news, last week Big Sky filed their formal appeal from the Court’s decision.

The plaintiffs are playing both sides.  The tag along developers (Three Dinos, Stream Realty, Cardel Homes) are trying to persuade the trial court judge to reverse himself while at the same time Big Sky is also going to the Court of Appeals.

 

One issue for the board will be retaining appellate counsel to handle the appeal in front of the Court of Appeals.  The issues on appeal are not difficult and it will not take a new attorney much time at all to get up to speed on the narrow appellate issue.

 

 

A troubling note from a member of the public during the June 15, meeting – that she could not recognize the elected board members because she disagreed with them.   And that Director Morgan was “screaming” during the meeting of May 25.

 

In fact, a review of the May 25 tape shows Director Morgan fighting to be heard over Counsel Timmons and Director Hanagan who had ganged up to speak over Director Morgan.

This intolerable behavior by Counsel Timmons and Director Hanagan was repeated by Kathe Odenweller during the June 15 question and answer period.  Shouting down and over Director Morgan.

Director Morgan is an elected official.  She should not have to fight to be heard by “censoring over talk” by another director, by her own counsel or by a citizen.  Hopefully with  new Title 32 counsel present at the meetings, this behavior will end.

 

And, more importantly, the notion that we can simply ignore the majority vote of our elected representatives and do whatever we want to do is not how we govern ourselves.   That is what the mob said when they stormed the United States Capital on January 6.  The majority of the elected officials do represent the district unless or until they are replaced during an election.

 

 

And there will be a recall election.   The date of the election will be selected on July 13.   At the time of the election, probably in August, there will be two votes.

 

The first vote is whether or not to recall the majority board members, Karen Morgan, Jeff Baker and Alex Plotkin.

 

Voting “no” to recall the directors ends the voting.

 

Voting “yes” means the voter must then vote on who should replace Karen, Jeff or Alex.

 

To be sure, ABBO and the Big Sky developers will have their slate of candidates.  They want new board members who will sign a new IGA for sewer to land outside the district boundaries.

 

ABBO wants you to vote “yes” on the recall and then vote for their candidates.  The candidates have until 15 days before the election to self nominate.

 

Voting “no” votes “no” to ABBO and “no” to the developers who want a new IGA for sewer service they have no legal right to claim.

 

 

Finally, the District Court will rule on the Big Sky developers’ motion to have the District Court reverse itself and to allow the developers to continue their case.

 

Since Big Sky has filed an appeal, there is an argument that the District Court loses jurisdiction or should stay further action until the Court of Appeals decides Big Sky’s appeal.

In either case, Counsel Timmons obtained an extension to file her brief until June 28.  There will be a decision by the District court after Monday.

 

 

Stand by.  Undoubtedly there will be more to come from ABBO and the Big Sky developers.

 

And keep an eye out for the 75 percenters – the folks from outside the district who collected 75% of the recall signatures.  

I have a feeling they will be knocking on doors again trying to persuade you to overthrow the board and elect ABBO and Big Sky developer supporters to the board.

 

Plan B to getting sewer from Green Mountain to their district in Rooney Valley.

 

John Henderson

 

 

1 thought on “Green Mountain Recall – Arlen, Bertolli, Bronson and Odenweller Dismiss their Lawsuit, Oppose Mail in Ballots, Try to Scare Off New Title 32 Counsel, and more news

  1. This cronyism has to stop. Timmons and this ABBO group should be ashamed of themselves and ostracized.

Comments are closed.