Theresa.
Nice people don’t write the kind of drivel which the Association has slung towards their opponents.
Mr Gie.
I would like to know: What’s the use of voting in changes to a constitution which is not valid. Why bother? Any change to an invalid constitution will be as invalid as the original constitution.
Anita.
I would also like to know what this committee has to say for itself. It has a lot to answer for. Welcome back. You have been quite for too long.

Mr. Gie. Please can you tell us how to follow the correct channels if the Executive Committee continues to ignore us? I can only agree that you are a sad and depressing bunch. Serve the community? Which part of the community, your rich friends who can afford levies on their property? Remember one thing, Anita is not the only one objecting. Why is ExCom only pandering to her objections? What about ours? Is Anita the headless chicken and the rest of the objectors only the chickenfeed? As the new committee member, you are in a prime position to ascertain the facts about the objectors. Please do so! Concerned Resident

Why is it that the Excom have NEVER initiated an open discussion forum with ALL members to discuss in a mature adult fashion the concerns MANY of us have regarding both the amendments and the implementation of a security scheme?

How difficult would it be to issue an open invitation to (all) members to attend a healthy debate at which knowledgeable persons including your own legal counsel could address queries honestly and accurately. Would THAT not be the democratic, fair and transparent route to enlisting everyone’s support? As for this contrived ‘bottom up’ independent negotiation process you’ve embarked on to secure your 90% (financial) support, who are you trying to kid?

This was a healthy and happy community until this security/levy nonsense started. If you haven’t got your support after so long (how many years is it now?) then surely it is self-evident that the majority of members DON’T WANT IT.

Hi Anita

Nice web site.
As it is security related do you have a problem publishing weekly crime
statistics so that residents who subscribe can get an idea of the trends of
what is happening in the marina.

It would also be a good idea to add a page of tips for residents whereby we
could give warnings based on problem areas (Did you know that there have
been 2 smash and grabs at the Military road / Prince George drive
intersection over the last couple of weeks involving residents)

Regards

Richard Gie

Does Mr. Gie understand the legal implications of the changes proposed to the Constitution? From his letter posted Feb 7, 2008 – it does not appear so..

Guys, remember the point of an association:

1. it is a central point from which we manage our affairs,

2. it gives us a stronger voice when we want to change something via the government

If the association is not valid, then let’s MAKE IT VALID. We need it for the good of us all. It is such a waste of time going on and on about the validity. It is something we need so lets make it valid via the normal channels of meetings and votings instead of fragmenting ourselves into puny little squabbling groups.

I feel that the objectors are thinking, “here’s a great loophole, the association is not valid, therefore we don’t need to follow any of the rulings.”

I say, don’t worry about how it was started, formalise it now, because we need to stand together.

But together always has to be done democratically. That’s the only way to channel the energy of a dynamic group of people; majority vote.

So, if there is anything you don’t like, you just propose the change, get people to vote and if your request gets the majority vote, then it shall be implemented.

If you think the quorum is too small, propose a change and vote on it. If the levies are too high, propose a change and vote on it. It is your right!

Richard Gie has stated this very clearly and it is all true.

Richard Gie has also stepped up to the plate and made comments on this website, a remarkable first input from Excom since this website was started. He should be welcomed. His efforts should be seen as a positive step forward. Welcome him. Discuss things constructively with him.

Having said that, Richard, seeing as how you have stepped up to the plate, when can we all get together, everyone, and have a constructive workshop/discussion/meeting to solve this Marina problem? Excom have thus far had zero to say on this very open and fair forum. What is the procedure to calling an official meeting? Can we rely on you to bring us together?

In a conflict situation, there is seldom one side that is completely wrong while the other side is completely right. So when we do get together, people of the Marina, leave your frustrations and angers and hurtfulness at home. Come with an open mind for positive compromise and constructive change. It is so easy to do.

Most important – the constitution is never carved in stone. You/us/everyone has the right to propose a change and vote on it. The constitution is there for you, by you and Excom only facilitate it, they don’t rule it. If any change to the constitution has been done without following the correct channels, then no-one needs to worry, the change is null and void.

Finally – one thing that I just can’t get my head around, if you don’t turn up at meetings then you cannot cast your vote. That’s logical, isn’t it? People in the crowd can tell you to shut up and sit down and Excom can ignore that people told you to shut up and sit down, but nobody can stop you proposing a constitutional change and nobody can stop you voting on it (unless you have not paid your subs, as written in that very constitution – and if you don’t like that rule, then propose a change to it as well – that’s what following the normal channels is all about). And if you cannot make it to the meeting, you can vote by proxy.

Thank you Richard Gie for saying a few words on this forum. Thank you Anita for always being calm and mature and reasonable.

Let’s get together everyone. This is not a difficult thing to solve if we all cast away our egos and habitual aggressions and defensiveness and all those things that keep a conflict burning.

Another suggestion from me is that Excom should be made up of people from all the different segments of Marina Da Gama. For example, 2 from Oudevlei, 2 from Park island, 2 from eastlake etc. I feel that Excom will be much better represented.

Hello Peter Harrison. Welcome to this forum. It is wonderful to see Excom taking part. Looking forward to more interaction which will lead to a great healing in the Marina.

I guess then Peter harrison was also an email to Anita rather than a voluntary contribution to the forum. Well, not as rosy as I thought, but it is still good to see constructive correspondence.

Dear William

I think it is a great loophole that the Association is not valid. What a BONUS. Now we can set up a voluntary association which will have just as much power with the Government – in other words, no power whatsoever. Council is going to do what it wants to in any event and Central Government is certainly going to shoo us away like flies if we give them hassles.

In the mean time, we will no longer be forced to dance to the tune of a bunch of dictatorial, mean, greedy and very rude ExCom members. Money will not be extorted for building plan scrutiny fees and – lo and behold – inspection fees.

The bottom line is that the Marina is too diverse to cater for all through one central, compulsory Association. Some are rich and some are poor, and what suits the rich does not necessarily suit the poor and vice versa. Even if 99.99% of the residents want the security scheme and if even one person has to sell their house, (or, heaven forbid, it gets repossessed by the bank) to cater for your needs, I feel that it is still theft, because that one person did not buy his house under those conditions. That person did not buy his house with a levy (lien) imposed on it.

If you want a security scheme, go for it. If it costs you more because other people actually recognise the idiocy of the idea and are not prepared to waste their money, tough. That is your choice. But don’t force everyone to buy into the madness.

You keep on telling us “not to worry”. Well, there is a lot to be worried about. YOU should worry a bit more. I wonder what you would have felt if you can only just afford your house, but because some other people had more money than you, you have to sell up and move out!

So by the way, Richard telling Anita that they have to “pander” to her requests, is certainly not constructive. It’s insulting. She and her group has probably spent as much time and energy on this thing as they have, trying to safeguard all of us. I have never heard her ask for money to sponsor her, so I assume that she is paying for the objectors’ newsletters, telephone calls and other expenses herself. I take my hat off to her. She has been marvellous and deserves a medal for the way she is standing up for the residents. Now that takes guts, against those mean people of ExCom. Richard should give credit where credit is due.

I will support a voluntary association, but this dictatorial home-owners thing they have, they can keep. It seems to breed nasty characters.

I agree with Glen. Nice people do not publish the kind of stuff this ExCom did.

Somebody, please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that the scope of an association and method of recovering costs can not be summarily changed by constitutional voting requirements alone. With a voluntary association maybe, but not when the membership is a captive audience and comprises an entire suburb. The association’s own legal opinion would seem to express similar reservations.

Our Excom have been particularly high-handed bordering on deceptive in the manner in which they’ve pushed through the 2006 amendments without any consultation process whatsoever (and I mean ‘consultation’ in the true sense of the word). This can only serve to undermine the relationship of trust that should exist between any association’s Excom and its wider membership.

I have withheld my subs since that awful letter was published in the Marina News. I was and am still embarassed to be associated with an association that is so unprofessional and lacking in dignity and regard for its membership. An attack on one is an attack on all and I take every exception to the manner in which this Excom have consistently sought to undermine this once-happy community. To my mind, the Excom and its Chairman have acted in bad faith and continue to do so. The fact that no forum has been initiated with the necessary professionals in attendance to address members’ numerous and varied concerns speaks for itself.

I will continue to withhold my subs until I am satisfied that the MDGA, its constitution and the actions of its Excom are lawful. And I won’t support a small group of individuals to use (abuse?) the association to recover the costs of some hairbrain security scheme by way of a levy against my property into perpetuity. If I am to even begin considering such a drastic step, the Excom would do well to enrol for a few business courses starting with Majors in Law, Ethics, Accountability & Transparency (incl. Purpose of Audits) plus extras in Basic Manners, How To Engage ‘Headless Chickens’ in Meaningful Dialogue & How Not To Treat My Neighbours.

For some reason the Excom believe that the association is so ‘private’ that they the Excom are not answerable to anyone but themselves. The blatant misrepresentation of facts and withholding of basic information, be it direct or indirect, has astounded me beyond words. A drive around the Marina clearly evidences the fact that the Excom have neglected their principal lawful object in favour of doggedly pursuing an expensive, idealistic notion for which it did not and still does not have a clear, express mandate. Instead of focussing on the fact that so few ‘objectors’ turned up to vote against the amendments to the Constitution, the Association would do better to take cognisance of the fact that so few members turned up at all let alone to vote in favour of the amendments – amendments that serve to change the ‘foundation’ of the association. In context, so few yay’s effectively mean NO. Or if I am missing something here will somebody please enlighten me with a FACTUAL argument that lends credence to what the Excom are doing in the name of the association.

Yes, I agree. Very well put. But don’t you think we are all beginning to sound like a stuck record? We are going on and on about the same things.

I think it is very clear where Excom and the objectors stand. Where to now?

I really think we should hold a referendum cum research survey to decide, for example:

1. Does the Marina da Gama need an association? Yes. No.
2. If yes, what should its purpose be? We can list its present purposes and people can tick yes or no if that purpose should stay or not and then recommend other purposes.
3. Should the current chairman stay? Yes. No.
4. If no, who should replace the chairman.? Two suggestions each.
5. Should the make up of the Excom stay as it is? Yes. No.
6. If no, what would make the Excom more representative? Open question.
7. What changes do you suggest should occur to the constitution? Open Question.
8. Should each of the areas (Park Island vs. Eastlake Vs. Cannon etc.) have it’s own association? Yes. No.
9. And so on…

In short, what can we ALL do, objectors and Excom alike, to take conclusive steps forward?

Richard Gie said that if there is enough support, we can hold an extraordinary meeting. What kind of support do you mean? 10 people? 100 people?