From: Bob Craske, Elaine Meyer and Toni Joubert Date: 23 February 2008
Dear Anita
Thank you for your letter addressed to the Association concerning our meeting dated 2/02/08.
We would like to make the following points:
-
We confirm that we told you at the meeting that we did not meet you as representatives of Excom nor did we claim to convey its
views; you will remember that we very specifically emphasised this point. We recognise that there are many differing opinions regarding aspects of Marina affairs and that some have caused considerable dissension. We had gained the impression that you are aware of the opinions of many people who have objections to various issues, and, since we hoped that face-to-face discussion might help the situation, we suggested meeting with you. In response to your comment that other residents would like to meet with us, we have spoken to Fred Daniels who agreed to look for a list of residents who had objected to the changes to the constitution. We can meet with them if they wish. -
Regarding the query in your letter about San Marina verges; minutes obviously cannot include all comments made during discussion. The discussion, in this instance was to the effect that for the Parks and Gardens team to service those unsightly verges that are not maintained by the owners would be unfair to those residents who do take the trouble to maintain their verges; and would lead to expectations that could not continue to be met. It has been said before, and it was repeated in answer to a question from the floor during the A.G.M, at which you were present, that neither the council nor the Marina Association, via Parks and Gardens, maintain the verges of private properties in any part of the Marina; it is considered to be the responsibility of the home owners. However, subsequently, a self-help project has been undertaken by two residents of San Marina assisted by Parks and Gardens to help San Marina home owners to improve their area. This was also mentioned at the A.G.M. and in the October 2007 Marina newsletter.
We confirm that we undertook to investigate the following issues;
-
The first relates to your view that the Marina News is virtually the mouthpiece of Excom, and that articles and letters submitted by any one with differing views are not published. Fred Daniels told us that two years ago he submitted an article which was handed in to the office,and never published. Neither the previous, nor the current editors, know anything about the article – and nor does anyone else with whom we have discussed the matter. Ridgely Hall, when approached, advised us that he had never submitted an article. We have suggested to Fred that he again submit his article for publication and he agreed to see if he could find it on his computer. We repeat that Excom has nothing to do with publication or control of articles — the editors confirm this and also that they have, repeatedly, asked for reasonable length articles from all members of the Association. There is, we believe a note to this effect in the current newsletter.
-
The second issue concerns proof of the existence of the Association and legality of its constitution. The question of the legality arose (as far as we are aware) after the adoption by members of amendments at the Special General Meeting held during June 2006. We’re sure that you have read Councils submission to the Subcouncil meeting held during August 2007 in regard to the amendments; and that you know therefore that Council stated that: “So whilst it must be assumed that no formal approval for the constitution has been issued, the Association as well as its constitution are deemed to be valid in terms of the aforesaid legislation”.
Regarding your comment that Mark Collison has never seen a copy of our constitution in it’s entirety, we refer to the same document compiled by Mark Collison himself, in which he states as part of the background to the investigations, “The latest version of the constitution is dated January 2003 and is attached as Annexure 3.” This must surely lay to rest your concern that he has never seen the constitution.
We hope that this will help to clear up at least some of your misgivings, and as we stated at our meeting, the constitution provides a method for dealing with or changing any aspects of the constitution which continue to concern you or any other residents of the Marina.
In conclusion, It is perhaps worth noting that a member of the current committee suggested a meeting to you before you left the last A.G.M., and that we met you at a members home as you said you would be unhappy at the office. However you choose to construe the meeting, it was a genuine effort to build bridges.
Yours sincerely
(Signed, T Joubert, E Meyer, B Craske)
-o0o-
Anita Replies
Dear Mrs. Joubert, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Craske
-
It is generally understood that an Executive Committee member’s written reports reflect the views of the entire committee, especially if it is written under the heading “Chairman’s Report”. If this is not so, it should be clearly stated and ExCom should distance itself therefrom and publicly reprimand a member who brings ExCom into disrepute.
You now tell us that every report written by a Committee member is the personal view of that member only, so we have no idea what the views of the Committee are. We therefore insist on ExCom’s official response to my letter dated 4 February 2008 so that this matter can be cleared up. ExCom cannot expect to take absolutely no responsibility for the ranting and ravings of its officials. Peter Harrison, amongst others, has said some really appalling things, and ExCom has a lot of explaining to do.
-
Mr. Hall had asked for space in the Marina News for objectors to air their views. This message I conveyed to you and he never claimed to have written an article as you seem to suggest.
-
You asked us for a list of objectors, but just as you are unable to supply us with a list of members in favour of the changes to the constitution, we are unable to supply you with a list of objectors. The simple fact is that, because Excom is not prepared to do a proper public participation process in terms of Council’s resolution, no-one knows what the residents of Marina da Gama want. Mr. Daniels could therefore not have agreed to do the impossible and he categorically denies having agreed to supply you with the names of the objectors. Besides, we refuse to subject others to the same bad treatment we have experienced from ExCom and would prefer to protect their anonymity.
-
Your letter again points to the fact that Excom is not in a position to supply us with proof of the legality of the Association. Mark Collison’s report was rejected by the sub-council committee so there is no point to you referring thereto as it is not Council’s official view and has no significance. Your claim that Council had a copy of the constitution also untrue. Council only received a copy thereof after they officially requested one several months AFTER the application had been made by ExCom in June 2006. Council’s Legal Department has STILL NOT SEEN the constitution in its entirety. At the meeting you stated that you had (or were in the process of obtaining) a letter from Council stating that the Association is legitimate and that its constitution is valid. I seriously doubt that you will be able to obtain such a letter, but nevertheless look forward to receiving a copy thereof should you succeed.
-
But even in the unlikely event that the constitution is valid, ExCom itself failed to adhere to the conditions set out in that very same constitution when the changes thereto were voted on by the members. ExCom have around 400 members on its database who have supplied postal addresses other than the address of their home in the Marina. These members were not officially notified of any of the meetings at which the changes were made. At least one third of the Marina da Gama homeowners were simply ignored; not considered important; of no consequence!!
Anita Koetsier
2 users commented in " Private and Personal? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAre you telling us that 400 members were not notified of the meeting? That is shocking!!
Hi Bob Hi Elaine Hi Toni
Just a few minor points & questions you might want to apply your minds to for the benefit of your members:
1. The Marina News is controlled by whoever finances it and controls its distribution - now wouldn’t that be the MDGA and by default Excom? Was it the editor’s call to place that awful letter about AK on the cover page? If so, why didn’t the Chairman offer an apology in the next edition and distance the Association from such a distasteful act? I witnessed an Excom member whooping with delight…
2. My title deed restriction is very clear. I am not bound to any unlawful association, constitution or act. Period.
On to more serious stuff:
3. Exactly who were the Trustees of the Eastlake Association at the time that the trustees’ powers to alter the constitution were first transferred and were there subsequent transfers of these powers?
4. When did this happen and to whom exactly were these powers transferred? Were any conditions attached to such transfer? I guess we’ll never know without the Trustees’ Resolution required to effect such a transfer of powers (hint: very important document). I should think that the effective date of the resolution would also have some significance.
5. Who was it who authorised the new redrafted version of the Eastlake Association constitution? No, I mean who exactly? (hint: Anglo American is quite a large bag of rather diverse entities and people, and even if they or a representative of the group ‘approved’ the constitution it doesn’t automatically follow that ‘they’ were the Trustees of the Eastlake Association - they might have simply proffered their professional wisdom much as an interfering ‘Big Brother’ might do and in the belief that someone else was attending to the legalities).
6. What assurance do we have that a couple of individuals didn’t in fact intentionally hijack what was a legitimate association in law and convert it unilaterally in an unlawful manner into a body they could control? Without the old records and resolution book of the association it certainly appears to be a distinct possibility (hint: statutory records are normally handed over simultaneously with the transfer of powers as they belong to the organisation).
A few minor points:
7. If the association does not have an official register of members, does not verify its member register against Council and other official title deed records, where is the assurance that all members are notified of meetings and invoiced for subs? How many members did you say there are? And how many erven exist with this title deed restriction?
8. If the association does not maintain attendance registers, where is the assurance that the association isn’t contravening its own constitutional voting requirements? I refer specifically to the reference to a percentage of ‘…members present at the time of voting and entitled to vote…’, which if I’m not mistaken implies that anyone present and entitled, but abstaining, still counts as a negative vote. How do you count these votes without an attendance register?
9. Why do you need a list of objectors in order to call a meeting to address members’ concerns? Why can’t you just invite all the members and let them decide for themselves if they do or don’t wish to participate? It’s not a party although I suppose you could include an RSVP for catering purposes. It would of course be a discussion forum to which all members should be invited so that your legal counsel and other appropriate professionals can address the members’ concerns. Members, too, should be able to bring along their lawyers and accountants if they feel more comfortable having a knowledgable person engage on their behalf on technical points. Excom have demonstrated that they’re more than capable when it comes to calling meetings at extremely short notice when it suits them. So why is this so hard to do?
10. Does Excom comply with par 13.2 of the MDGA constitution? I don’t recall any ‘books of account’ being laid before any AGM I’ve attended. Would other members care to commment? Surely if a member isn’t able to attend an AGM he may view the books of account at the office? Why does Excom have such a problem with this? Your general attitude towards your members on this point reflects very, no extremely, poorly on the lot of you.
11. Do you think we might have the budget for the year we’re about to commence seeing as the subscription has already been approved? And what’s happening to the minutes? I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that a fresh pair of hopefully registered eyes has been appointed to scrutinize the records this time around. You’ve also issued an updated constitution incorporating the resolutions voted on at the 2007 AGM - surely this calls for the speedy issuing of the minutes supporting this?
12. Last one. Ask yourselves this question: if the association were to cease to exist, let’s say for lack of volunteers to serve on the Excom, the legal requirement for an association to exist in the Township Area would fall away - completely. So how critical is this association really and to whom? Why would Council or anyone else place any meaningful reliance on an association that is not only run by a bunch of volunteers (idiots for all they know) but also one that might disappear in the blink of an eye. Not to mention the fact that its existence probably causes Council a ton of extra work.
13. Ok last one promise. What happens if all the members withhold their subs and the association goes bankrupt? I am not being facetious here - I genuinely am interested to know what happens in such a case.
That really was the last one.
Leave A Reply