Akl Property Investors Assn vs The Traders

[rueben]

Is it once a year you elect your board? Why not stick around and get rid of the people who you think are causing the trouble?

[PeterEmpowerEd]

If you want to win an election: get more votes

Why not stick around and get rid of the people who you think are causing the trouble?

Well, some would say that's exactly what happened LAST election ... and in the aftermath.

Frustrated and grief-struck 'losers' in the democratic process often cry, "That election was rigged!" ... but it seems pretty clear from the (previously published) 2007 results who the APIA membership actually trusted to best represent their interests.

It also strikes me as most implausible to 'blame' this result on one email. The members aren't stupid.

- Peter Aranyi
APIA member and 2007 election scrutineer -- appointed by Ashley Church

[Kseeling]

Is it once a year you elect your board? Why not stick around and get rid of the people who you think are causing the trouble?

Good point, actually. Worth considering.

[Kseeling]

Frustrated and grief-struck 'losers' in the democratic process often cry, "That election was rigged!" ...

I'm not crying "That election was rigged". I'm simply saying the means they used to get the results amounted to no more than dirty politics.

[Kseeling]

It also strikes me as most implausible to 'blame' this result on one email.

Believe it. People / organisations either have integrity or they don't. That one email showed their true colours.

[SwampFamily]

rigged elections

Peter, I don't think anyone was suggesting the election was 'rigged' - where did that come from and why would you think that. The comments posted were about the dirty e-mails that had been pushed around on election day and the way in which the e-mail addresses of members were obtained. Every member of APIA received that e-mail therefore the database was used to promote certain members of the board for their own gain - SIMPLE (which may or may not have had an affect on the voting decisions of the members). To add I have not heard from one current board member if that is incorrect.

However, thank you for the information posted regarding the voting numbers. It throws open another debate. After taking a closer look at your finial count I see that Garth and Ashley were placed 9th and 10th. At the communications meeting Sue Tierney had indicated that the Board had 'made the decision' not to replace John May (who reisgned late last year) with the the next placed candidate. We can all see why now. But hang on, your point was about the democrate voice of the members choicing the right people to represent them. Well that voice voted for Garth as the next best candidate and he should have been offered the vacant position. Surely, come on, that follows your train of thought. And anyway, if Andrew King had not stood again for re-election (I have heard he wasn't going to) Garth would have got in anyway, and then Ashley to replace John.........But then again if that had happened perhaps John would not have reisgned in the first place.

[Kseeling]

Well put! Thank you also for bringing to light Sue's statement at the communications meeting. I could not make the meeting and had not heard that statement.

I think those talleys are very interesting. Why, indeed would APIA make the decision not to replace John with Garth? It just reinforces my feeling that APIA is acting in their own best interests and NOT with the interests of the membership. I believe this is a gross miscarriage of the democratic process. As an American who lived through the 2000 US presidential election I am thoroughly disgusted by these political machinations.

I believe the membership should demand Garth be put on the Board (if he so chooses) or at the very least some accountability for their actions!

[PeterEmpowerEd]

I think those talleys are very interesting. Why, indeed would APIA make the decision not to replace John with Garth?

I was not privy to the board's discussion about this, but given what was going on, I don't think it would have been a wise decision for the board to replace one director/shareholder of The Traders (John May) with either another one (Garth) or the third (ex CEO Ashley ... who also has some awkward questions to answer about events surrounding his decision to "terminate" his contract and actions around his departure from APIA.)

I think Sue's explanation at the communications meeting of the reason the board members appointed an accountant to fill the 'skill gap' was perfectly reasonable.

On the issue of integrity: The forensic report on the data and files copied and erased from APIA's laptop (apparently while still in Ashley's possession -- if you missed the communications meeting you missed the summary of the forensic report) shows Andrew King was telling the truth ... and someone else wasn't. Pretty hard to argue with that report.

Some posters here are buying the propaganda (if not actually peddling it) that the current APIA board are a corrupt bunch. That characterisation is NOT true in my experience as a long-time APIA member.
They're givers and volunteers, doing the best as they see it.

- Peter

[Kseeling]

8 months ago I might have agreed with that statement, with one or two quite notable exceptions...however actions speak louder than words and their actions are showing their true colours, in my opinion.

[SwampFamily]

Peter - I certainly agree with you in that they are givers and volunteers and as I have mentioned in a previous post they spend a lot of their own time putting together APIA as we know it today.

However if, as you say certain people here are buying into the propaganda then this propaganda is also being spun by the APIA board members at the same time and as much. If anything I am actually peddling for the truth which ever the outcome. And yet again I have asked a number of questions on this thread and yet not one person has answered a single one (including yourself) again fueling the 'propaganda'. So, for the sake of sounding boring I'll ask them again.

1. Did certain current APIA board members use the membership database for their own political gain at the last election.
2. Why was membership not told of John May's resignation at the time he resigned
3. Why did Ashley resign in the first place
4. What is the 'spat' between Andrew King and Ashley Church that seems to be the catalyst to all of this mess, as mentioned by Tony in the communications meeting
5. Why has the board been so quiet about all of this since the elections.
6. And what did happened in the build up to election night that created the need for such a public mud slinging show.

Again, Peter as I have already mentioned, if certain APIA board members prove that they have acted professionally and ethically then great. But perhaps they should spend some time on doing that as well as trying to prove how bad Ashely Church and The Traders are.

[Dianne]

I have been asked by the Board of the APIA to post the following information as there have been questions asked and there is a need to correct some statements which have been made which are not true or are unintentionally misleading. The Board acknowledges that some statements may have been made inadvertently without the facts being known.
The Board’s response to these issues is as follows:
·The forum statement that: The Communications Meeting was not promoted - The meeting was promoted at the February keynote meeting and in an email sent to all members on the week prior to the meeting. Those who registered to attend were all emailed a week before with confirmation of the venue and time of the meeting. There was never any desire to restrict attendance and the meeting was promoted no more and no less than any other similar meeting.
·Concerns around The Constitution – It has been suggested that changes were made by David Whitburn without adequate consultation and that these changes removed rights from members. Changes were proposed to the constitution at the APIA AGM last June. The terms of a proposed constitution were considered by the then Board Members John May, Andrew King, David Whitburn, and Ashley Church as CEO, and then drafted by Tony Steindle as solicitor to APIA. A presentation was given by Tony Steindle and David Whitburn at the AGM in June. Members felt they needed a greater opportunity to consider the changes and suggestions were made at the AGM to change the draft constitution to include the ability for members to elect the President. A further meeting was held between Ashley Church, John May, and Tony Steindle to make further minor changes also giving members an opportunity to vote on two forms of constitution – one being the form originally proposed by the Board (with the further minor changes) and another which allowed members to directly elect the President. These changes were considered by the previous Board and the new constitution was unanimously adopted at the July meeting (without the clause allowing for the Preseident to be directly elected). The changes were promoted in a newsletter to members, with members being able to access a word document highlighting changes, and were presented to the meeting by Ashley Church as CEO. Changes to the constitution were largely intended to elect Board members 2 yearly and have the President and other Board officers appointed by the Board. There was no change in terms of Special General Meetings (except for raising the quorum), and the Constitution has never changed on this issue. The quorum requirement was increased with agreement by all of the Board (for all meetings, not just a special meeting) as the quorum had been set at a much lower figure when the Association had just a few hundred members. Members are welcome to email the APIA office for a version of this document showing the changes highlighted from the previous version.

It has been suggested in the forum that APIA 's board deliberately withheld the new constitution from members. The constitution has always been available to members, either through APIA 's website, or through the Incorporated Societies webpages. When the new web site went live, (designed on behalf of NZPIF, not APIA ) this link no longer existed. It has now been reinstated.
·Business Directory - It was stated that Sue Tierney was listed on the Business Directory for APIA . This occurred several years ago when all Board members were listed for the purpose of encouraging all members to list their businesses. When APIA established a new website this information was not carried over at the time, and was added later. These changes simply administrative changes and were not prompted by the Board.
·John May’s resignation – A concern by “swamp family” was that John resigned from the Board in October and his resignation was kept secret from members. John’s letter was notice of his intention to resign. When asked if that was a resignation John on two occasions extended his resignation to 30 November 2007. John then indicated in November that he would proceed with resigning. That resignation was accepted in the last week of December at the next Board meeting, and was notified to members in January. This same question was raised by Gary Reid/ Swamp Family in an email of 27 December and this same reply was given to him in January of this year.
·The Statement That: No Seminars have occurred since Ashley’s departure and APIA is not educating its members – A successful one day seminar was held in February of this year presented by Paul Kernot. APIA also undertook the Property Expo which featured an extensive and extremely well attended seminar programme over two days, has promoted a recent Empower seminar on subdivisions, Key note speakers are organised for all of 2008, and attendance at eight local groups is at an all time high. In the past APIA itself has run around 2 seminars each year, so this pattern is not unusual. A mentoring programme has also recently commenced. Smaller special interest seminars are also proposed in the near future.
·The “Swamp Family” has complained about APIA with no response - Gary and Ellie Reid who use the email address “swampfamily” complained about APIA litigation with the traders on 27 December 2007. A reply was sent on 22 January 2008. That reply noted that there would be a communications meeting to deal with the issues raised by Gary Reid, which has now occurred. Gary Reid responded to that email from Sue Tierney in January acknowledging receipt. Since then Gary has apologised to Sue privately stating that he had received a reply, apologised for saying that he had not. It should be noted that the Swamp Family Investments Ltd is owned 30% by Ginger Holdings Ltd (which is owned by Garth Melville's wife, Garth Melville being on of the Traders). [Your attention is drawn to whitt's post further down relating to this information - cube]
·The statement that: The litigation action will cost $100,000, take 3 years, and will be in the High Court – This view is not shared by APIA ’s legal advisors. The legal action at the moment is in the District Court not the High Court, and the cost and timeframe of $100,000 and 3 years was simply a statement made by someone present at the Communications Meeting without any basis. However both parties have agreed to mediate the dispute with Warren Sowerby, an experienced mediator. APIA ’s legal advisors discounted their fee by 20% and no fee is being charged for time spent by Tony Steindle on this matter.
·Election Issues – There has been much debate as to the appropriateness of conduct in the last elections. At the instigation of John May, Martin Evans, President of NZPIF undertook an independent review of what occurred. The Board supported this enquiry, and Martin found nothing inappropriate occurred. The claim that the database was stolen for use was not found to be true. Since then the Board has prepared election guidelines, suggestions as to changes to this draft were given at the Communication Meeting, and next Board meeting it is intended to adopt guidelines for the next election.
·Board Appointment – A concern was raised about Board members being appointed who were not the next highest candidate at the election. When John May resigned from the Board the Board had the power to appoint a new Board member. The previous constitution said the next highest candidate would be appointed. The Board considered Ashley Church and Garth Melville for the Board positions but at that stage the Board had agreed to issue proceedings. It did not think that appointing them was appropriate. At the same time the Board considered that it would benefit from appointing an accountant to the Board as Andrew King had taken on the Treasurers role reluctantly. Ann Loudon had already been involved in preparing accounts for APIA relating to the bonus due to Ashley Church, and had not been involved in the issues related to the election and the database and would be objective. The Board also spoke to the next highest candidate who had no objection to Ann’s appointment. For this reason the Board appointed Ann to the Board and she accepted the position of Treasurer.
The Board is empowered by the Constitution, and always has been, to deal with the business of the Association. This is quite usual for organisations of this size, and is appropriate, as many members prefer not to be involved with day to day decisions and simply wish to belong to APIA to enjoy hearing from great speakers, to receive discounts, to have to opportunity to participate in local and special interest groups, and the other range of activities. This is clear from the small number of members attending this and past Communications Meetings. Although a vocal minority may wish to consider this matter at a key note meeting in the opinion of the Board the majority do not, and this is the reason for having Communications Meetings when certain issues arise.
The Board met on several occasions to make a decision on litigation examining all of the evidence. The evidence included a forensic report showing most information was deleted from the APIA laptop, funds were paid without Board authority, and evidence of copies of the database being made inappropriately. There was also a restraint of trade signed by Ashley which was a key term to him being engaged by APIA . In these circumstances the Board felt compelled to take action to prevent use of the database in the future and to recover what was due to APIA . The Board has a duty to its members under the Privacy Act to keep member information secure, to recover what was paid without Board approval, and to protect future revenues from seminars. It did not take this action lightly, and was aware of the issue of incurring costs, but in balance was of the view that litigation was the best course of action as a means of ultimately ending the dispute.

The Board is pleased by the desire of the Traders to mediate utilising the agreed mediator Warren Sowerby, who is a well regarded lawyer who mediates on a full time basis and has a 96% success rate. The Board genuinely seeks a negotiated settlement. For this reason, the Board has not responded to many of the comments made to date as it does not wish to jeopardise the possibility of this dispute being resolved by mediation. At the same time, the Board cannot allow incorrect information to be left unchallenged (regardless as to whether or not this is deliberate or not).
The Board has appointed Sue Tierney, Tony Steindle, and Barry Bridgman to handle this matter for the Board and at the same time is focusing on its business and objectives of educating its members, lobbying, and improving the number and the quality of services offered to members. It is not helpful to second guess the outcome of mediation where all parties need to attend with an open mind. Both before and after that mediation the Board will continue to manage APIA to achieve its objectives, leaving resolution of this dispute in the capable hands of Sue, Tony, and Barry.

We are pleased to advise that mediation is now to proceed on 10 April 2008.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Time for an apology from Gary Reid?

So where's the public apology from Gary Reid/SwampFamily?

It seems to me, Gary, that you've been playing a duplicitous game with your (ghost-written?) posts on this thread.

Gary and Ellie Reid who use the email address “swampfamily” complained about APIA litigation with the traders on 27 December 2007. A reply was sent on 22 January 2008. That reply noted that there would be a communications meeting to deal with the issues raised by Gary Reid, which has now occurred. Gary Reid responded to that email from Sue Tierney in January acknowledging receipt. Since then Gary has apologised to Sue privately stating that he had received a reply, apologised for saying that he had not.

A concern by “swamp family” was that John resigned from the Board in October and his resignation was kept secret from members. John’s letter was notice of his intention to resign. When asked if that was a resignation John on two occasions extended his resignation to 30 November 2007. John then indicated in November that he would proceed with resigning. That resignation was accepted in the last week of December at the next Board meeting, and was notified to members in January. This same question was raised by Gary Reid/ Swamp Family in an email of 27 December and this same reply was given to him in January of this year.

Feigning ignorance and masquerading as a 'neutral' APIA member to anonymously ask 'a number of questions' to which you already know the answers seems shabby and 'political' to me. (That's just my opinion.)

It appears to me that you've been running a campaign to smear the APIA board as 'corrupt'.
Just whose glove puppet are you?

- Peter Aranyi

PS How about you Kseeling? Who are you when you're at home?

[whitt]

. . It should be noted that the Swamp Family Investments Ltd is owned 30% by Ginger Holdings Ltd (which is owned by Garth Melville's wife, Garth Melville being on of the Traders.

Just a heads up on possibly why there may be an unrelated Swamp and Melville connection.

It is common practice when setting up some trusts to have an independant person to hold some shares.
Melville's company sets up trusts and his wife is sometimes this independant share holder with a minor portion.

The fact that Swamp holds a trust which has an independant share holder does not actually mean there is a APIA or Melville conspiracy.

Many investors have used Melville to setup trusts and have his wifes company as an independant shareholder. Myself included. Does that make me and numerous other investors now part of the APIA conspiracy?

I have no idea of the APIA battle and read all the updates on these forums.

So people tread carefully before you make accusations. There may be a valid reason why your assumption could be wrong.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Thanks Whitt. What I was referring to was: the 'questions' that had been asked and answered privately but from appearances were 're-asked' publicly as part of a McCarthy-esque smear campaign.

The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to Senator Joseph McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents. - Wikpedia

[SwampFamily]

glove puppet

Peter

My only apology is that I haven't managed to respond quickly to your 'independant' post. Whilst you are obviously an impatient man with nothing else to do in your day I am a working man and have been at the office for the entire day.

Just so we are clear the 'questions' had not been answered privately and whilst I did apologise to Sue privately (although the definition of that now seems blurred) it was in reference to the wording I used, my point still remains. Yes I did get a reply but that reply did not answer the questions that I posed. Furthermore my position of 'neutral' APIA member is exactly where I stand. FYI, I also sent a private (as private discussions are now obviously public knowlegde) e-mail to Sue congratulating her on what I thought was a great APIA monthly meeting last week as I found it informative, educational and well run (I apologise again now in case I have not quoted my own exact words). I have also made mention, on this thread, that I appreicate that board members spend a lot of their free time and put a lot of effort into what they do. I believe I did the same in response to a private message from David W who obviously didn't want to do this publicly (Sorry, no I didn't thinking about it)- hardly a ghost writer from The Traders at work... I mean to say

The only connection I or my wife has with The Traders is that we attended their monthly meeting (for the first time) on Monday evening. As Whitt made quite clear my trading trust is set up like any other with an independant trustee. Company Solutions is a well trusted and well known creator of trusts and I went to the best. I found this a poor attempt to try and discredit my views by suggesting there is a link between myself and The Traders.

I am also looking into the possible breach of privicy undertaken in Dianne's post by (purposely and without need) naming myself and my wife. Whilst I have no issue with poeple knowing who I am, as I stand by my views, my entitlement to anonymity is my privelige and not to be taken away by others.

And as for 'glove puppet' and 'feigning ignorance', Peter just because people have views on what they see and react to what happens around them which may not fall into line with what you think it does not mean that I or any of the other APIA members who have expressed the same views are ignorant or being puppets.

Whilst Dianne's post (on behalf of the APIA board) was, albeit slightly vindictive, it went some way in answering the issues that have been raised (again - not only by myself). However, your post sets a new low. Who Kseeling is 'when she is at home' is none of your business. Who I am and Lincoln and other people who have posted similar comments is none of your business and how dare you think it is.

I am my own glove puppet and I have never used the word 'corrupt'.