ExCom Newletter quotes:

EXCOM’S DERISION OF RESIDENTS

About the objectors questioning the legitimacy of the Constitution. To date, ExCom has been unable to provide evidence that the Constitution is a valid, legal document.

The time has come to expose those claims for what they are; a worthless charade devised by misguided people, intent only on mischievously obstructing the democratic process.
Peter Harrison - Chairman: April 2007 Newsletter.
and
The free-riders will be obliged to pay in due course, but the more we can bring on board in the mean time, the easier that transition to the comprehensive scheme will be. A little peer-pressure to persuade them to pay voluntarily, would be appreciated.
Peter Harrison - Chairman: February 1007 Newsletter.

Less than 30% of the membership voted yes. About 20% of the membership were not notified. According to Joyce Brandt - Office Manager, 50% of the membership were barred from voting because of unpaid subscriptions. Could that be because the meeting was held 5 days after annual subscriptions were due? ExCom however feel that:

Their objections appear to be based on the process by which we achieved the majority in favour of the changes. They mistakenly believe that democracy is served only when the a majority of members votes (sic) for the changes,…
ExCom - September 2006 Security Bulletin.

ExCom are not prepared to listen to anyone, not even Council.

A council official speculated that the objections received might influence the council to call a public meeting to adjudicate the complaints. This would be a tiresome and drawn-out process, which we wish to avoid. A public meeting would only attract more of the same type of people who feel they have an axe to grind, and it could not hope to be more representative of our members' wishes, than was our OGM.
Excom: September 2006 Security Bulletin

BLATANT UNTRUTHS

The Chairman admits it was not what was meant to be in the minutes of the meeting, but is quite prepared to be there to see that it happens.

The newspaper report was accurate, as was its report of the rumour of my intended resignation as chairman of the Association. I have now received a draft of the minutes of the hearing from the council, which paints an entirely different picture. Far from rejecting our proposals, and giving the victory to our opponents, the Council now appears to accept its own legal advice, that the Association does not require Council approval to amend its constitution. How these changes came about, is just as perplexing to comprehend as was the original version of the council decisions. You can be sure I will be there to see that this happens.
Peter Harrison - Chairman: September 2007 Security Bulletin.

There were 300 chairs placed in preparation for the meeting and about 50 - 60 people standing. Of course, there was not attendance record kept to verify attendance figures, so they say:)

About 500 residents attended the meeting.
Peter Harrison - Chairman: June 2006 Newsletter.

The business plan/budget was only distributed at the AGM by placing a copy on each chair. Those who did not have a seat, did not receive a copy, but ExCom said:

A detailed business plan/budget will be circulated with the notice of the AGM. So members will have the opportunity to study the plan/budget before the AGM.
Excom: September 2006 Security Bulletin.
Council never approved our original constitutions nor any amendments thereto. ExCom however tells everyone

In practice, however, it has been customary to ask council to approve every amendment which we propose making to the constitution, based on the assumption that having approved the original constitution, they must continue to be able to satisfy themselves that it remains consisting with the law. Peter Harrison - Chairman. November 2006 Security Bulletin.
About having the constitution ratified. (Since when is compliance with the law just unnecessary paperwork?)

... and approving them just creates unnecessary paperwork.
Peter Harrison - Chairman. November 2006 Security Bulletin.

It has been customary for the association to copy to the council with any proposed changes to our constitution, and we have duly placed before them the changes made, both at the 2006 AGM, and the recent OGM.
ExCom: September 2006 Security Bulletin.
About 20% of the members were not notified of the meetings This objection was made often, by various parties, and is a major deviation from the Constitution. Our chairman says:(Litigation) was particularly likely to happen, had we deviated in any way from our constitution. None of the objectors has suggested that we did so.
Peter Harrison, - Chairman: November 2006 Security Bulletin.