POST 2 of 4
Interesting to see the new treasurer owns the company that produced the "independent" feasibility study?
Yes, we got told last Tuesday night that there was really no conflict as the new treasurer had nothing to do with the feasibility study... But I fail to see how this study was independent?
I have also since been told that David Whitburn in fact helped prepare this feasibility study – If that is the case then again where is the independence?
In respect of these matters I am appalled at the way the members were treated last Tuesday night with almost no disclosure and accusations by 'board' members that the general members would be holding back APIA if they didn't vote for this change.
This should never have been an afterthought?
A summary should have been presented at the SGM for members to consider before the vote was called for, not after the vote has been made.
Again this is surely no way to treat members. This meeting should not have been tried to be squeezed in between a guest speaker as it gave inadequate time for open debate to discuss this critical issue in detail.
Hence the rushed vote and Ron's need to 'interupt' proceedings. I still think this matter is 'unfinished' business due to the number of unhappy members who have contacted me since the meeting. It also appears that the meeting may not have adhered to the constitutional guidelines for holding a Special General Meeting...
The restructuring was overseen by an independent business advisor, who developed a business plan demonstrating its feasibility.
Interesting to see the new treasurer owns the company that produced the "independent" feasibility study?
Yes, we got told last Tuesday night that there was really no conflict as the new treasurer had nothing to do with the feasibility study... But I fail to see how this study was independent?
I have also since been told that David Whitburn in fact helped prepare this feasibility study – If that is the case then again where is the independence?
In respect of these matters I am appalled at the way the members were treated last Tuesday night with almost no disclosure and accusations by 'board' members that the general members would be holding back APIA if they didn't vote for this change.
We will put together a summary of the plan for members benefit.
This should never have been an afterthought?
A summary should have been presented at the SGM for members to consider before the vote was called for, not after the vote has been made.
An attendee of the meeting also asked that we move on to the vote because we were showing disrespect to our guest speaker.
Again this is surely no way to treat members. This meeting should not have been tried to be squeezed in between a guest speaker as it gave inadequate time for open debate to discuss this critical issue in detail.
Hence the rushed vote and Ron's need to 'interupt' proceedings. I still think this matter is 'unfinished' business due to the number of unhappy members who have contacted me since the meeting. It also appears that the meeting may not have adhered to the constitutional guidelines for holding a Special General Meeting...
Comment