Anita said,
in
So, Demetri Qually does not like us, but he wants us to work together for the common good. WE should show goodwill, as a matter of choice.
Councillor Qually, would this matter not have, at least to some extent, been settled if you had implemented the decision made by your sub-council? We realise the decision made was not the one that would have happened had you chaired the meeting, but the decision was made nonetheless. Why does goodwill only go one way or do you think that wishing us a joyous festive season is enough?
Why can’t we have a referendum? Why are you all so scared of public participation? The chairman can, to some extent, still be excused. He does not have the training to be the leader of such a large community, but you should know better. In politics, public participation is vital, and you know it.
Just a reminder: A ratepayers’ or a civic association is not a homeowners’ association - if this association is a ratepayers association, please let us know. At the AGM, you told us that this association is like every other ratepayer’s or civic association.
Quite frankly,
You want us to show goodwill. Well, why don’t you lead by example! Show the residents of
Now we sit with a very wishy-washy situation where no-one knows where they really stand, we have no security and a very, very dangerous constitution.
After the AGM I was pulled aside by Mr. Hepple and asked whether I would mind giving my telephone number to Mr. Craske of the Archcom Committee in order to discuss the matter. Of course I said yes, but I am still waiting for anyone to contact me. Goodwill goes both ways. In my opinion, you have shown very little and the association has shown none.
9 users commented in " Qually does not like us "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI noticed that the esteemed Chairman did not bother to write us a chairman’s report in the latest newsletter.
It is also clear that ExCom did not understood what Mr. Daniels was on about, as what ExCom sucked out of their thumb is as unintelligible as their normal jargon.
Qually the apparent Marina Da Gama councillor is a pathetic excuse of a politician. Up to now this elected spokesman has not had the common decency to reply to any criticism thrown at him. At the very least perhaps he could have set the record straight on some matters.
Could you just imagine a STRANGER introducing himself and saying: “My name is Demetri Qually, how can I help!” instead of ” I’m coucillor Qually” and I don’t like you AND don’t need to answer or reply to ANY letters or e-mails in the interest of a suburb being torn apart by minority mis-management.
I must say, I am bitterly disappointed in this Councillor. I have gone through the internet sites sporting his name, and all I found was excuses and comments on things other people did. What has he done for us?
In the day, Joye Gibbs was everywhere to be seen and she was always trying to improve the area, but Demetri is invisible, or just a spoke in the wheel.
Look at what he said about the Muizenberg pavilion. I don’t know, do we really have to have such a negative person representing us?
So, Qually does not like us? Mr. Qually, how can I have a “Joyous Festive Season” when I have the threat of monthly levies hanging over my head? Yes, I know they are not implementing them … YET! But you and I both know it will happen, sooner or later, and I blame YOU, Mr. Qually.
I think Anita is rather magnanimous towards Peter Harrison though. I don’t think I would have been that kind. Demetri Qually only has a Damelyn Diploma in Business Management, but Peter Harrison, on the other hand, was(is) affiliated to Deloitte Touche. Harrison should know better.
William, you seem like a nice fellow, but please, don’t be naïve. Before you say things like “And don’t worry about Excom making money out of it etc. We just get proposals from professional companies and choose the best one and commission them on contract with measurable duties, which, if not performed, gets that security company fired and new one employed. Simple.” why don’t you try dealing with this ExCom first? See how far any of your suggestions will bring you. They won’t listen to you, or anyone else. Peter Harrison said: “Talk of a public participation process is misplaced. There is no public to be consulted.” and someone else in ExCom said: “we do not want to be tied hand and foot and obliged to answer to the members at every turn. We want carte blanche to do as we see fit. That is the beginning and end of the matter.”
They are already asking for R3 000 000.00 (yes, that is six zeros) a year for a security scheme which could have been implemented at a third of the price. Do you really advocate that people need to take a second job in order to afford it? Or loose their homes? While they don’t believe it will work? There are people out here who, never mind that holiday you are talking about, can barely afford to put food on the table with the increases in interest rates, school fees, food.
You are also loosing sight of the fact that the changes to the constitution are NOT ONLY FOR SECURITY. It is for whatever they can think up next too. Why don’t you just give them a blank cheque?
Excom do not have the right to charge levies, take care of our security and nor do they have the right to charge levies, and if you think we will be consulted, you are sorely mistaken.
What I can’t figure out is that an executive committee is not a sherif of a town. An executive committee is not law. An executive committee is simply a facilitator of the wishes of the members of the association that it serves.
Those wishes are voted upon by the members.
If, therefore, a decision needs to be made, only a vote will determine if it does get made. There is not an executive committee in the world that can operate otherwise. There is absolutely no way an executive committee can say, “There is no public to be consulted.” unless there is a clause in the constitution that says so, and who would allow a clause like that?
So the Excom does not have power over you. Period. Excom is only facilitating the wishes of the members and if the majority of members vote to implement a monthly levy for security only then can it be implemented. And if your vote not to have monthly is in the minority, then you need to make peace with that. This is democracy.
That is why I say to us all that if you want to have an influence on the Marina da Gama, then vote on it. It is your right, and Excom cannot do anything else but what the majority wishes of the members are.
Why then should the Excom be feared? By law they can only do what the majority members say they can do.
Being in the minority is not easy, but democracy is still the best way to run a group of people; be they a country or a home owners association.
And yes, a quorum is a small group of people representing the whole. Quorums are always small because people generally don’t bother to turn up to vote on decisions. So, before the concept of a quorum was invented, nothing could move forward. If you want decisions made that represent the people of the Marina, then:
1. Realise that the Marina Association is your association, then
2. Support it by paing your subs, then
3. turn up for the meetings and vote.
Excom has no power over you. They are not supposed to. Their job is similar to politicians in that they are your ‘public servant’, in our case, the ‘home owners association servant’.
- If Excom do believe they have carte blanche then they have it very wrong. (Dear Peter Harrison and Excom, what is your take on this comment?)
- If the Objectors think that they can make decisions without counting your vote, then they have it very wrong. (Dear Objectors, what is your take on this comment?)
- And if you think that a minority wish will be catered for by the majority, then you have it very wrong.
It’s tough, but it is fair to more people than it is unfair to the rest. That’s democracy.
At the end of the day, the monthly levies have not been implemented. The blanket security scheme has not been implemented. Changes to the constitution have not been implemented without a legal vote. I guess democracy is catering for the majority wishes.
If you were campaigning to not have monthly levies, then you have ‘won’. Pat yourself on the back. Job done. Halt the bun fight. No need for personal insults etc. Chill.
Me naive? Well, I respect your opinion and I understand where you are coming from to have that opinion, but I don’t agree. I believe/think I am the voice of reason where a lot of people have lost the plot and allow personal emotions to get in the way of logic.
I believe I am suggesting the ideal way that people in the Marina should operate/react to this controversy and that this ideal way is not a pie in the sky (as ideals often are), it is a clear headed objective approach without taking sides.
I doesn’t make sense for a group of people with the same goals (capital growth on their property investment and family security) to take sides. Taking sides creates a border that separates the sides. The moment you have a border between people, you have conflict. That’s why I recommend that we:
1. stick to one association,
2. stop the fighting as we only go backwards in war, and
3. allow democracy to take its course.
Thank you everyone for reading and reacting to my comments. Thank you to whoever set up this forum.
Are we one step closer to the Marina Street Party?
I cannot other than agree that the Executive Committee is not the sheriff of the town. Your problems start when you have an executive committee like ours who are not prepared to listen to you. Then you have to take them to court to prove your point.
To make matters worse, you have to take them to the High Court, as it is a matter concerning immovable property. High Court action runs into hundreds of thousands of Rands, and if you sue them, you will be liable for their legal costs too, because you are a member, regardless of whether you win or loose or whether you are awarded costs or not.
The people who are negatively affected by the changes to the constitution are generally not in the high income bracket. They do not have the means to fight the matter on legal grounds.
I do not know what you mean by: “Changes to the constitution have not been implemented without a legal vote”
If you say that a legal vote has been taken legally, please consider the following:
1 The vote was taken by less than 30% of the people;
2 About 20% of the people were not even invited to vote – they did not receive notice;
3 People were not informed of the legal implications of what they were voting on. They were only voting for security.
I could give you a couple of more facts, but you can read that elsewhere on this site.
If you are saying that the changes to the constitution have not been implemented, you are wrong again. Apparently the new constitution is at the printers, ready for printing.
If the Association is prepared to prove that they have the majority vote, so be it, but they are not willing to do so.
I cannot other than to see them as an unlawful body, doing unlawful things and taking unlawful actions. For that reason, it is necessary to have an alternative association to fall back on. It is only a matter of time before this will be proven. Stick with them, if you must, but that is your choice, not mine.
I, for one, am not prepared to take legal responsibility for the ExCom’s actions. If they get sued, (and Anita certainly has plenty of personal grounds to sue them), we can be held responsible. If the objectors do decide to take the matter to the High Court, you, as a voluntary member of this association, will have to foot at least part of the bill. You are not indemnified, if that was what you thought. Think about it, and then put it into perspective by taking ExCom’s actions this past year. The threat of them getting sued is rising by the day. You may also consider that they are acting contrary to their own constitution by not implementing the levies, now that they claim that the constitution has been changed. The constitution now does not allow for yearly subscriptions, but only for monthly levies.
As for the quorum, where have you EVER seen that 2% of the membership can be representative of a community? Quorums normally ask for at least 50%. If you wish to be seen as the Voice of Reason, please be reasonable.
This Association is an embarrassment. They even went as far as, on OUR behalf, without consulting us, supporting the controversial “Loitering Bill” which, thank goodness, was proven to be undemocratic and unconstitutional. This was an inherent racist, undemocratic piece of proposed legislation, and WE are on record as supporting it! How embarrassing.
You again have it very wrong. We are not going to be happy just because the levies were not implemented. We do not want the TREAT of levies hanging over us. EVER! It was my conscious, deliberate choice not to buy a sectional title property, because I did not want levies hanging over me. No-one has the right to change that without my consent, AND I DO NOT GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO DO SO.
Do yourself a favour and ask ExCom for something, anything, really. The Minutes of their ExCom meetings, copies of contracts entered into on our behalf, or something like that. I can tell you now that you will not be able to even view them!
You are not dealing with a normal, rational Executive Committee. They are secretive and cunning, so do not be fooled, you are at risk. Everyone is.
William ( voice of not so reasonable)
From your elaborate posting and recent comment in particular, you seem to be very young or extremely naive. Before assuming the role of the voice of reason, a stroll back in time would have been beneficial to help you understand the reasons for all this conflict between the current minority association and the growing headless chickens (objectors), as your association chairman puts it.
When people realize how dangerous the current association is - if it were legal - you and many residents will be on the chicken run. If democracy was the order of the day, then Harrison and his goons and lamb followers would be out in the cold. William this is not a attack on you personally but please read all the material on the website by Anita which is purely factual and then comment again.
Don’t like him either.
Wow, I serve on a body corporate and thus ended up on this site.
I though we were emotional but this is actually quite humorous. Such angry opinions, lacking any solutions or strategies.
Though I guess it is the same, the tomato throwers never do stand up to take long term responsibility…
Leave A Reply