Akl Property Investors Assn vs The Traders

[Lincoln]

Given what you say, maybe the APIA should let it go. APIA is not a for profit organisation - it is an association effectively owned by its members (correct me if I am wrong).

Dont you need to opt in for email marketing now. Wouldn't using someone elses list be breaking the law (not for using someone elses list but for distributing spam?

Hiya CJ,

You're right, APIA is owned by its members. Which is why, before anyone decides to persue legal avenues which could end up in the high court and spend ($100,000?) shouldn't all members be given the opportunity to vote on such a decision? We have been told in the last two meetings that the assn wants to boost our membership numbers and asked how we can best do so...could this be to double revenue so it can be poured down the toilet that is litigation?

You're correct re email marketing, that if anyone sends you un-solicited emails without your "opting in" they are breaking the law. That in itself, along with an email to members from APIA to reply "unsubscribe" if any unwanted property related spam is received, should be enough.

Excellent, now one less reason out of the current four issues being quoted as reasons to sue The Traders/ Ashley Church.

Very good points CJ :O)

Cheers, Lincoln

[Lincoln]

In a lot of cases not for profits have to let it go because the don't have the resources to stand up for themselves.

The APIA is run by highly successful business people who don't like to lose. They will chase it hard with all the resources they have.

Gerrard

Hi Gerrard,

...and some resources they don't have too. I wonder if those responsible for deciding to aggressively persue this matter would do so if they had to put up the money themselves. Hmmmm...there's a challenge i'll lay down.

Can anyone please tell me who is responsible within APIA for making the decision to sue...and at what point we, the members, have any say in the matter?

Cheers, Lincoln

[Lincoln]

It is so sad to see such situations happening. I would expect that the members and the APIA committee are all doing what they feel is right.

Sounds to me like a special general meeting should be called, and all the "issues" should get debated and sorted.

Anyone know what the constitution allows around SGM's ?

Hi Wildwest (love your quote :O)

The really sad thing is the members in general have NO idea just what is really going on. Except what they are being spoon fed from the executive, with our executive "spin" on it. Whoever is driving this is I am sure doing what they genuinely think is right, but they are sadly no longer objective.

Interesting that you mention "Special General Meetings". I may stand corrected, but at the last AGM, lawyer and board member David Whitburn managed to blurr the issue sufficiently and slide in a change to the constitution that means that now it is near impossible (if not completely impossible) to call a SGM. So much for members owning the assn.

The phrase "vested interest" springs to mind. Hmmm.

Maybe someone more learned could please clarify the current situation re calling a SGM at APIA?

Also, how could I as a paid up member go about getting a copy of the constitution please?

Cheers,

Lincoln

[Lincoln]

Going to end up like Wellington with two PIAs, Wellington and Capital. Both of which are relatively small and I often wonder if the splitting issue was resolved by "letting go" how much better the combined voice etc. would be.

One of the things I learned a long time ago was pick your battles to win the war rather than fight every battle and lose the overall war because of exhaustion.

Cheers

Paul you put that so brilliantly!!!

Definitely this is a war that even if we did win (and I think the courts will find NEITHER party blameless) our resources will be severely depleted, and we will carry the war wounds forever...financially under-capitalised; divided members; ongoing in-fighting; poor constitution and governance leading to further issues, to name a few.

And I sure hope we don't end up with a split, though that could very well be the end result if this isn't sorted soon. Totally agree, Wgtn should be the largest PIA in NZ, and I believe would be were it not for their split :O(

Cheers,

Lincoln

[Fritz]

Hi Wildwest (love your quote :O)
Maybe someone more learned could please clarify the current situation re calling a SGM at APIA?

Also, how could I as a paid up member go about getting a copy of the constitution please?
Cheers,

Lincoln

I am not sure on the litigation and would not like to comment as I do not have all the facts.

You can get the constitution if it is a society here: http://www.societies.govt.nz or if any other entity go to companies.govt.nz if you know the entity and search in the right register.

First port of call should be your secretary to give you one. I have not looked at the APIA constitution. Rotorua has education and furtherment of their members as part of it.

Get enough members and approach the board members with your concerns. Good old democracy in action. If enough people care you get there.

A split would be sad to see as it divides us even further. What we need is a large unified voice to be heard. The members will be the definite losers as at the very least the teams attention is diverted away from what they were set up to do in the first place: further their members (customers) education and lobby the powers that be for changes to benefit their members.

Neither of these outcomes are being served.

Fritz.

[Pea-Dub]

Hi Lincoln

I agree that it is all a storm in a teacup! I am losing confidence in APIA really quickly! Ashey did great things in the short time at APIA. I don't believe that the Database was misused by Ashley but it was misused by other APIA board members!
You can get the constitution from societies.govt.nz/scaned-images/97/BC10054736997.pdf

I support your move to let it go!!

[Dianne]

In the interests of being factual, I make the following notes in response to Lincoln's original note:
1. THe Communication Meeting was promoted clearly by Sue Tierney at the February 12 Key Note Members Monthly Meeting, inviting all interested members to attend.
2. The Communication Meeting was promoted via the members newsletter that went to all members on the database. The fact that such a small number attended supports the decision that was made not to replace a key note speaker meeting with this communications meeting.
3. APIA ran it's first one day seminar in February, which was extremely well received by participants.

[Jaden]

In a lot of cases not for profits have to let it go because the don't have the resources to stand up for themselves.

The APIA is run by highly successful business people who don't like to lose. They will chase it hard with all the resources they have.

Gerrard

One thing that APIA board has to remember is that they need to perform as good as if not better than former board. Personally, I feel the quality is dropping in terms of seminars and monthly meetings etc. If the new board spend they time, energy and resources mainly on legal issues, I do not see the future. Regarding "the Trader", if they can provide useful information and services to property gurus, they do not do any harms to APIA members.
Derek

[Lincoln]

In the interests of being factual, I make the following notes in response to Lincoln's original note:
1. THe Communication Meeting was promoted clearly by Sue Tierney at the February 12 Key Note Members Monthly Meeting, inviting all interested members to attend.
2. The Communication Meeting was promoted via the members newsletter that went to all members on the database. The fact that such a small number attended supports the decision that was made not to replace a key note speaker meeting with this communications meeting.
3. APIA ran it's first one day seminar in February, which was extremely well received by participants.

Hi Dianne,

Thank you for setting the record straight, as I mention on several occasions in my original letter there were several points on which I was unclear, and good to know actual facts. I apologise for any distortion caused by my assumptions.

As you rightly point out, the poor turnout is likely more because the members have little or no interest in the APIA/Traders/Ashley issue, as it does not have anything to do with their reason for belonging to APIA, which I assume is mostly education.

The questions I have and which you may be able to answer is: IF mediation fails, and if it is then decided to pursue the courts option... 1. Who makes that decision, 2. Who and when is it decided what financial cap is put on legal fees/costs in pursuing the issue, 3. Is there a mechanism (such as Special General Meeting?) which members can use to bring the issue into the public domain (within APIA membership) to encourage debate and encourage a members vote on the issue, or perhaps become involved in lobbying the decision-maker(s)?

Hopefully mediation will put the whole thing to bed, but if not, the worst thing that could happen is two years down the track all the members wake up to find no money in the bank and the members in general had no idea it was being spent. Any answers you can give would be much appreciated.

Many thanks and regards,

Lincoln

[SwampFamily]

Hi Lincoln and others
Apologies for the long-winded blog but these things need to be said.

I was at the APIA ’communications’ meeting to which the opening address by the board’s representative was ‘this meeting is for the board to inform the members of current events’ left me questioning the definition of communication as it set a very one sided tone. Anyway, in my opinion, Lincoln you have accurately summed up the feeling of the meeting and I won’t reenact it however I have some points to add to your well written blog

• If the current board feels that this action is so important to the survival of the association why aren’t the members of the association involved. Why has this been hidden from public view with only a vain attempt to rectify this, a meeting held in the small room. I disagree with Sue’s comments and feel that every member of APIA would want to know about these issues (and I can tell you quite clearly they run deeper then just the APIA versus Traders issue which is just the tip of the iceberg) and have an opinion of what the association should do. I would argue that if Sue asks for a show of hands at the Tuesday monthly meeting where 300 or so people will attend the larger percentage would say drop it (but again there is a wider story behind this litigation). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out they have spent a lot of membership money on this already (forensically testing a laptop is at least $8k). Let the members decide what is best. That will be the only way to gauge an unbiased view on this matter without the personality clashes, egos and reasons of personal gains getting in the way. But the issue is that they don’t have to. Current constitution has taken that power away from the members.

• APIA says that Ashley Church ‘stole’ the database for his own commercial gain. Didn’t certain members of the current board do that in order to drum up votes at the last election? Didn’t EVERY member of APIA get an e-mail the day of the election slinging mud from one end of Auckland to the other. Again if Sue asks for a show of hands at Tuesday meeting on who did receive an e-mail from The Traders how many would put their hands up. Only if 100% do then are there suggestions vindicated. I am sure that the combined databases of Dean Letfus and Garth Melville alone way out-strip that of APIA (I did not receive an e-mail directly from The Traders and I am an APIA member). Don’t throw stones if you live in a glasshouse, it is a fact that board members used the database for self-gain, it is only speculation that The Traders did the same. Shame this point was not raised in the ‘communications’ meeting.

• If the Board’s directive is to make Ashley Church and The Traders appear to be the bad guys then they have failed because as Lincoln said people don’t know who is who in this battle. It is simply a case that there is this black cloud over here which could produce a torrential downpour. The downpour being the waste of members’ money. Yes I agree that the Board needs to protect the association but for the good of the association and not for the good of the Board. And the only way of demonstrating that is back in the first point I made. And anyway APIA and The Traders are not in competition!!

• Sue Tierney got very hot under the collar when time after time the references of personal (vested) interests were pointed at certain members of the board. This can not be nice and I know that these people spent a lot of their own time making APIA run. But the question I have is why are the only businesses listed on the APIA business directory those of certain Board members namely Andrew King’s own business and Sue’s own business (I see Sue’s has now been withdrawn). Is APIA saying that Andrew King’s investor mentoring business is the only one in Auckland. Sue, things like that do not help the Board’s case.

• Not sure how many APIA members are reading this but how many of you were aware that John May, a senior board member that many of you had voted for had approached the current board last October and tendered his resignation. Why had this not been announced to the members? I have seen a copy of his resignation letter on this forum, it does not paint a very good picture and raises the types of questions Ashley wants raised and I imagine that the board did no want these issues, direct from the pen of one of the Board aired in public. Which brings me to my next point

• Why did Ashley tender his resignation? Has anyone stopped to think about that? How often do CEOs resign for no good reason? As Dave says in this thread the Association looked good and was making money. Is APIA making money at the moment? I have my own thoughts on that. I would say with confidence the Investors Expo did not and would have cost money. Whatever the outcome, whatever people get to hear, Ashley Church had a set of skills that APIA needed and still needs.

• Who else noticed, at the ‘communications’ meeting, a nervous Andrew King who appeared to be on strict instructions not to say anything. He stood slightly separated from the rest of the board in front of the audience and was quickly instructed to ‘hush’ by Sue Tierney when he did speak. What did he have to hide? What did he have to say? Why is he on a short leash? What might have happened if he had spoken out? We may never know – publicly.

• I have wanted to remain neutral in this and give both corners of the ring an opportunity to show their true colours over time. To date I can only form the opinion that there are current members of the Board of APIA that have acted unprofessionally towards Ashley Church, highjacked the elections for their own gain, kept important information from the members, not been as communicative with the members as they could have and misused the association’s database for their own election gain. I raised many of these points and more to Sue Tierney back in October and then again in January. She did not reply

• My wife and I will be going to The Traders meeting on Monday 17 to see what all the fuss is about.

Let me tell you there is a bigger story then the one being told at the moment and regardless of who is right or wrong it should be told accurately (and this story goes back long before the election night). Members have the right to know the ‘real’ facts and if those ‘real’ facts show that the board has acted professionally, with ethics and for the good of APIA and not themselves then great. However, you need to ask yourself why has the story not been told publicly and quietly swept under the carpet. The ‘communications’ meeting last week did nothing more but fuel the situation for more questions to be asked.

[chrisj]

why the fight??

this is ludicrous. lots and lots of us are both traders and holders. Ashley's move is a godd move for the market. We all benefit. The fact that there is (as usual) an ego struggle going on shouldn't cost any of us a moment's sleep, let alone any money. I'm not an APIA member, but will be. But not til this is done and dusted and the relevant members have decided to get on with what they are there to do, rather than marking their territory.

[David_W]

Quick Clarifications

Interesting that you mention "Special General Meetings". I may stand corrected, but at the last AGM, lawyer and board member David Whitburn managed to blurr the issue sufficiently and slide in a change to the constitution that means that now it is near impossible (if not completely impossible) to call a SGM. So much for members owning the assn.

A quick note to clarify that I (elected secretary of APIA at the time) did not actually present the changes that were made to the Constitution. The presentation on the Constitution that the APIA membership voted to change the numbers including the number of people required to get quorum to call a special general meeting was in fact presented at a special general meeting last year by Ashley Church, and the whole proposals to change APIA's constitution were carried by the membership overwhelmingly.

Other thing to clarify is that under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, and APIA being an incorporated society, is that members have no rights to receive a dividend or funds on the wind up of an association, whereas with a company they do.


ANOTHER GREAT APIA MEETING

More importantly I hope that you enjoyed last night's meeting with ANZ Chief Economist Cameron Bagrie and property analyst Kieran Trass offering their thoughts. With an abundance of quality local and special interest meetings and keynote monthly meetings, fantastic discounts and networking opportunities offered, it is a great time to be an APIA member and tell your friends about why they should join too. It is a voluntary body that is blessed with many dozens of hard working people that make all the meetings and events happen.

APIA has a fantastic line up of speakers scheduled for the remainder of this year, so don't let past events get to you. Lets focus on enjoying the present and looking to the better investing future, rather than being cemented to the spilt milk of the past.

Hope that you all have a great week.

[SwampFamily]

I agree with David on one point. last nights meeting was one of the best for some time. It was informative, educational and very well presented.

However I felt your post was a little short on accuracy. From my recollection you and Tony Steindle DID make the Constitutional changes presentation ( I think at the June meeting) but due to the poor accpetance at the way it was presented the poposal was put on hold and you were unable to get them through. It was then that Ashley Church (I assume under direction from the Board to 'make it happen') presented a clear and consise presentation the following month and on that ocassion the changes went through. Just to clarify accurate fact!!

As a current board member David - would you like to address some of my concerns in my last post on this thread.

[Kseeling]

Completely dis-enchanted with APIA!

I have friends on both sides of the debate and I've tried to separate my friendships from the commercial realities of the situation.

To me, the commercial realities, simply stated include the following:

- APIA thrived under Ashley Church. Yes, we are a not for profit, but why does that have to equate to poverty mentality? What's wrong with earning money through commercial endeavours to support our members? Money is power and you can do very little without it. As long as the profits in the APIA coffers were not being mis used or mis managed what's the problem with having an excess of cash? It's my understanding that the Board had earmarked that cash for member benefits. Isn't that a good thing?

- The content APIA offered in meetings and seminars was becoming more and more unique and varied whilst Ashley was CEO. Not an easy thing to do for a country / city this size. Unfortunately in his absence APIA's content has reverted back to more of the same. I mean how many times can we trot out Cameron Bagrie (not the best speaker at the best of times) and Kieran Trass? I mean really! The Traders content is much more intersting and stimulating in my mind.

- I was aghast at the email sent out to APIA members the afternoon of the elections under Sue Tierney and David Whitburn's names. My facts may be incorrect here but I understand that this email was actually penned by Andrew King. If this was the case, why wasn't Andrew's named signed to it? I personally heard Sue say on the night that she was not responsible for that email, which I hope is true because I like and admire Sue very much and was utterly disappointed at what I'd read. I thought it was a cheap and dirty trick and completely unprofessional. But her comment left me confused. Why was her name signed to it if she was not responsible?

- I thought the election was a travesty and have not been back to an APIA meeting since. I have chosen not to renew my membership when it becomes due. This has very little to do with the dispute between APIA and the Traders and much more to do with the hijacking of the Board by "gang of 4". To my mind, they did not and do not have APIA's best interest at heart. I think this is proven by the fact that they have gotten into this war with the Traders. In the end I believe that it's the membership that has and will continue to suffer.

I sincerely hope this matter is put to rest soon and that APIA gets back on track. I, however am doubtful that I will ever re-join under current leadership.

[Jaden]

I have exactly the same feeling as you have. Also, I am not going to renew my membership either when it expires in May.