Anita wrote
LEGALITY OF THE ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
It seems as if ExCom are currently trying to engage the objectors in a participation process in terms of the Council resolution. We welcome any effort by the Executive Committee to resolve issues and engage with the objectors. ExCom must however do this officially, as ExCom members engaging in their private capacity, with only one or two objectors, has no real meaning.
At ExCom’s own admission the public participation process around the changing of the constitution had been seriously lacking as around 400 (one third) of the membership were not officially notified of the meeting where the changes to the constitution were adopted by only 408 members.
But even before the changes to the constitution are seriously discussed, it is necessary to ascertain that the original constitution is valid and legal. The Chairman is quite incorrect in stating that this matter has been adequately resolved and Council still has not ratified the constitution. Despite their threats to hand us over to a collection agency, I, for one, will not pay them a cent until such time as the question of the legality of the constitution has been resolved.
I would however suggest that ExCom skip the stage of handing me over to a collection agency as these agencies do not have the legal right to issue summons against defaulters. Instead, I would suggest that they hand me over to a lawyer as this will expedite the matter. I will then ask them to prove their right to collect such levies/subscriptions from me and if they can prove that the constitution is binding, the matter will be resolved once and for all.
3 users commented in " So, Sue Me "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackA few years back I received a final demand from a renowned Marina debt collection agency for outstanding sub’s. I immediately wrote back demanding they prove the legality of the Association’s demands for outstanding monies. I have never received a reply!!
I too have ignored any demands made by them and will continue to do so. If they want to sue me, they must mar do so. Maybe, when the summonses start coming, we should all get together and defend ourselves “en masse” (I think that is how it is spelt). In other words, lets stick together. There is safety in numbers. Of course, I shall then not remain Anonymous any more. (hee, hee).
So by the way, does the agency the Association uses still belong to Mr. Hepple? Oi, he is a bit scary, but then, I am not going to be intimidated by a bully.
I think Anita is marvelous. Long live Anita and thanks for your courage. Maybe you will enspire some others to grow a backbone too. (or those big cahoonas you have)
This ‘bottom up’ (so-called) Independent Security Schemes consultation process is a farce. It automatically excludes anybody who doesn’t buy into a Marina wide security scheme and thus isn’t what it claims to be. Furthermore, the amendments to the constitution were voted on based on a specific budget and security plan which have been aborted. To adopt the amendments and then embark on a (so-called) consultation process to justify making the amendments is pulling the cart before the horse - an absolute nonsense.
It again begs the question: why does the MDGA not invite its attorneys and auditor to answer questions at an open forum for all members? Then everybody can participate and obtain straight answers to the very many queries and concerns members have regarding the controversial amendments and proposed Marina wide security scheme.
Leave A Reply