Estonian House AGM, 2010

Frustrated: adj. having feelings of dissatisfaction or lack of fulfillment (Collins English Dictionary, 1993).



By using the above word to describe the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Estonian House Co-operative Society Ltd. on behalf of the people who attended, I could easily stop writing here.
But obviously I won't, so for those of you who were at the AGM on the afternoon of Sunday the 17th of October and don't want to re-live the debacle, you can put that sigh of relief back in your lungs and read on.
Let me paint the picture...
It was 2pm on stunning Sunday afternoon when a healthy crowd of approximately 60 people arrived at Sydney Eesti Maja to possibly witness a bit of history in the making. Only twice in the history of Estonian House, had the Co-operative Board, been swept aside to make way for change. If early polls were anything to go by, Sunday was looking like it could be the third time.
Whilst attendance was some kind of record (after the last AGM saw no-one except the board show up), this crowd still proved under-whelming considering the email campaign/war of the candidates on the week leading up to the meeting. With proxys being the make-or-break equation in this fight, it seemed there might have been more people there in spirit than in person.
Arvo Tinni (the Chairman of the Board), Maie Barrow and Tõnu Meiusi were present at the desk just inside the hall where registration was taken and votes and proxys were given out. I had never met Arvo before though I recognised him immediately from pictures. He was a large man with one of those imposing ‘Estonian’ voices that gave me flash-backs to childhood of vana mees sitting around talking serious mens business.
Registering to vote showed at least 70 or so possible registered voters by the time I had written my name into the book (remember there were only about 60 people present...), along with the proxy for my wife. In a curious second, I wondered why it was that my wifes proxy wasn't recorded along with her name; only 'Proxy' was written in her names place. "How would anyone know who's 'Proxy' was that persons 'Proxy'", I thought. Interesting...
As the crowd that showed up was obviously unexpected by the Board, only a few chairs were put out. I and others helped put a few more chairs out for the crowd still coming in. Once done and now having two red-hot voting forms in my hot little hand, I took my place in one of the hot-seats myself.
It felt good to be sitting there seeing so many people (considering). Seeing some action! I can't help admit I was hoping to see something special. I kicked back and took it in the scene. 

 Where's Arvo?

Sitting in my row about 4 rows back from the front, the first thing I couldn't help but notice was an almost invisible (but obvious) line between the age demographics attending (see right). The first 2-3 rows consisted of the elderly Estonians (60+ years old), followed by the "younger" set (50's-). At first I thought the older ones were keen to just sit down and get on with it, but then I began to wonder if it wasn't planned. Maybe I was reading too much into it. Hmm?
Before proceedings kicked off, a hand-out of the Constitution of the Estonian House Co-operative Society Ltd with an extract from 'Co-operatives Act 1992 No.18' was handed out amongst the audience by a member of the opposition (SES team). "How novel!", I thought. Then, "How boaring!"', and threw it onto the seat next to me.
The gavel banged and the crowd simmered down. The meeting got under way.
Things kicked off in the usual fashion: the reading of the minutes from the last AGM, apologies, other palaver and a minutes silence for the departed members. Once 30 seconds had passed, the ballot counters were nominated and seconded and then it began.
Taimi Nurm was the first to stand and place a question to the Board, followed closely by Aivo Takis. His questions of the day:

• under which section of Rule 9 of the Co-op’s Constitution was the board acting when they signed the lease of the commercial premises at the front of Eesti Maja to a non-Estonia-related business? (Suddenly the handout on the seat next to me became interesting. I picked it up and began reading the definition...)
• Would the Chairman be vacating his position with the Board today, as promised in his report, which was sent to members together with the notice of AGM?

By answering Aivos questions in an irritated fashion, the Chairman of the Board Arno Tinni would prove cagey. By declaring it necessary to step down from his position as Chairman of the Board due to the provisions of the 'Co-operative Act', he would then go on to inform the crowd assembled that it was not his intention (after all) to resign from the board, only to step down as its Chairman - thereby reducing the number of available seats for this election from four to three. His cunning revealed.
As gasps of disbelief silently went off around the room, Arvo remained calm allowing a wry smile to cross his face, palms facing out to the crowd as if to say "what did you expect?”. In fact maybe he even said it...
One member of the crowd was so incensed; he got up out of his chair and left the meeting immediately.
Calmly Aivo Takis stood up and began questioning the validity of this exercise claiming it was unconstitutional and contrary to what had been printed in the lead up to the election. Arno hearing enough arrogantly slammed his gavel on the table. Aivo politely sat down.
From behind Aivo, another gentleman stood to voice his concern at the proceedings. Toomas Sarapuu, a native Estonian now residing in Australia (you remember the one...he saved a drunk Aussie from drowning in Sydney Harbour) was almost left speechless as Arno hammered down the gavel again whilst he was in mid-sentence, not even allowing him to finish his point.
With the crowd now beginning to murmur uneasily, Aivo stood again. A game opened up between him and Arvo where one would try to get the other to give their version of what Arvo meant. Even though Aivo won the battle of the discussion by twisting the question aimed at Arvo back at Arvo, it would be Arvo who would win the war of the argument as Aivos only evidence hinged on the statement, "It is time for the position to have new blood, new ideas and fresh enthusiasm to move to the next challenges" – an obvious statement of intent, but one hardly stating the obvious. Arvos wording had been clever. He had only said enough to suggest what people wanted to hear, thereby putting them off balance.
With the number of seats cut by one, any hope of the SES dominating the future Co-op Board had all but vanished in an answer. The damage was done.

With Arvo deciding there had been enough discussion, the voting got under way. People with pens and pencils began haunching over in their seats or on the seats next to them like they were having seizures to secretly draw lines through the names of (now) four candidates instead of three. Suspicious eyeballs darted around the room to see who was looking at them while they drew a line of death through candidates names. Once the deed was done and safely knowing the Eesti Stasi had failed to hone in on their selection, the votes were quickly folded in half and safely placed into a make-do ballot cast from the finest card-board box available - Coonawarra Estate.
With counting under way, people got up to stretch their legs and moved around. Others stood still; mouths open; silent; looking on in amazement and disbelief at the proceeding so far. Some grouped together in hushed discussions. One or two even popped out the front for a calming cigarette - or three.
A few younger voters over-heard certain members of the audience telling other members to leave Kadri Stamos’ name and cross out the remaining four members of the SES. Whilst dirty politics had been played down by Arvo Tinni and others, this tactic of isolating the supposed 'weak link' of the SES team would prove there were definite strategies at play by the pro-board members of the audience. Whatever the outcome would be the following thirty or so minutes while waiting for the count would prove to be extremely long.
When the gavel dropped (again) to call people back to their seats, the list of eventual winners would be read out quickly and coldly. From most votes to least (of the winning four candidates) the order read as such: Maie Barrow, Tõnu Meiusi, Terry Kass and Kadri Stamos (Madis Alvre in 5th).
In a move to counter the supposed ‘weak’ voting in of herself, Kadri Stamos stood and asked the board to accept her immediate resignation, thereby passing on her election to the Board to the next person with the most votes, Madis Alvre. While asking the Board, she was interrupted by Mr. Tinni on more than one occassion asking her to “speak up”. Upon hearing the request, the Board was as flabbergasted as the crowd now and collectively put down the request, referring the matter to be addressed at the next monthly meeting of the Board. I might suggest it prudent of Kadri to attend with representation on that night!
With general discontent still bubbling throughout the room, disorder started creeping into the meeting. People started commenting without standing and identifying themselves as comments became more personal and heated.
After several comments and interjections by numerous people in the audience, one lady in the front row, Kulliki Poole, spoke up to tell everyone to calm down. As a "dis-interested" participant of the meeting, she resembled a compassionate saviour of the Estonian community spirit while the Estonian “community” gathered around the aging carcase of Eesti Maja arguing over how the final meal should be divided. It was a welcome comment I couldn't help but "hear-hear" along with the applause of others seeking some salvation to the day.
Following this Kullikis comment, Juhan Lubek gave the last comment for the meeting: an impassioned plea (regardless of the results for the day) stating the simple fact, "If we don't make money, we can't spend money." His point (and the SES's platform in a nut-shell) being that if money isn't found through utilising the facility that is Eesti Maja, the money needed to do the up-grades to the building won’t be available and the building will start to come down around us. Although a topic of how it could be done, all were left in agreement that this is the case at hand.
And so it was: history was un-made before our eyes. The status-quo maintained. From there the meeting was all but adjourned. The people had had their say.

Although for many (including the ones who never bothered to show up and vote) the result wasn't what they had hoped for. Some were even further disillusioned by the outcome and were focused on another (supposed) two years in the wilderness. But I couldn’t help think there was a favourable outcome achieved after all: that the current Board received a long over-due shake-up and warning call - ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Sure there were the candidates who were re-elected for another term as well as a teary-eyed "victor" in Kadri Stamos who had basically been insulted into a position on the board. But whatever the outcome, there were no losers in my eyes; only the ones who were not elected, this time.
With an intelligent member of the SES being voted onto the Co-operative Board of Directors, the re-tension of what could be considered 4 of the status-quo, two cross-benchers in Imbi Semmelweis and Sulev Kalamäe and an annual election for two positions next year; all is not lost for the SES team.
For the community as a whole, they were also the winners even if they were not there in person to appreciate it. The community was represented on this day. Not only by a Board, but by people who had found the urgency again; the need again; the PASSION again.
As a community, as an Estonian-Australian community, we were back on the map again. THAT can only be a good thing.

To end with a few questions:

• Where are the results?
• Who is auditing the results and will they be made transparent along with who resigned proxies over to other voters? There were records kept after all were there not?
• How many proxies were given per person and have these been scrutinised re: definition 179 ‘Voting by Proxy’? (Found on the front page of the ‘Co-operative Act’ that was handed out at the beginning of the meeting)

To end on my own comment:
For everyone running as candidates, I want to say I have met some wonderful people who genuinely have the best interests of Eesti Maja at heart. That is undeniable. We are all pulling in the same direction, even if the rope is a little wonky and not too straight. That's a great thing.
Through all of this process to change what we are, were we come together and how we achieve that result, neglect has set in.
Not once when arguing over who has the right to rent the front of the building, liquor licenses, disabled wheel-chair access, spending too much money did I ever hear any promises made on the future of Estonian House – the children.
No one came up with plans to get the next generation back through the door, to learn the language, to learn the dances, to participate and enjoy the culture the way they could.
Without the children backing all our grand plans up, all these grand plans become null and void from the get-go because all were arguing about is today, not tomorrow.
So what’s the point?
Ultimately, they are. Not us. It’s time to stop being so self obsessed and start thinking of them.

Some post-editing has occured from the original version of this piece with the assistance of Kadri Stamos where my detail has been vague, and hers 100%. The exception being where I claimed Mrs. Koreneff was the first to stand and comment when in fact it was Taimi Nurm.

Estonian House Sydney: The Cooperative strikes back.

I must admit people, when I opened up my hotmail today and saw a general email had been sent out to all Cooperative members, well...what can I say? It's lucky I'm writing to you now as my keyboard didn't pack it in from all the drool that splashed forth from thine mouth. I mean, this was it. The come-back I had been waiting for for days. The answer to the "fancy web page" created by the SES.
Only after slowing my heart rate and calmly reading through it did I realise that in fact it was the come-back I sought, only, it was delivered by the opposition. "What trickery is this!?" I asked myself. Alas it was none. Just Aivo Takis re-forwarding an un-forwarded email to me, stating his case against said un-forwarded email.
Oh well.
In the email sent, Mr. Takis outlined his response to Arvo Tinnis initial email entitled: "URGENT URGENT URGENT". I loved it. It was like a messenger had stumbled upon my computers doorstep, out of breath and handed me the message before passing their last breath.
Calmly I closed the door on my dead messenger and unfurled the scroll in my comfortable kitchen over a cup of tea. I read on.
In his response to claims and counter-claims, Arvo Tinni (whom I've never met FYI) outlines his side of the story. Some of it good, some of it bad, some of it just the same as the SES. Whilst both sides have valid points, the tit-for-tat game is definitely in full swing. And it's a yawn.
To break the war of words down, I'll begin with Arvo, Aivo?....no Arvo....wait....let me check.....oh yeah Arvo. I was right the first time. I'm getting confused.
Anyway, Arvo kicks off with a salvo at the SESs website. Not a good start when you consider the actual seriousness of this AGM and whats up for grabs. The SES get a star for effort in my book.
He then takes a slash at "30 Estonian working holiday makers" insinuating Mr. Takis has stacked the vote in the SESs favour. On face value, if Mr. Takis managed to stack 30 votes, it would only constitute roughly 10% of the possible vote. For the SES to reign supreme, they still need another 40% of the vote to show up in person or by proxy, and that might not be such a sure thing even if its looking possible. Based on past performance, Mr. Takis will need all the stacking he can get if the SES are to get over the line.
The next point Arvo makes is quite possibly where issues get serious. Here he refers to "...people who have little or no idea of the constitutional and legal obligations of the Co-op Board." Whilst this might or might not be true, it highlights the most common point in a relationship where one party has to come of age and the other party has to let go. This isn't unique to Eesti Maja. It's universal. Change is essential. Life depends on it. And the idea to split the board of the Co-op so that experience is retained whilst new blood is let in is one that should be continued if the Co-op/SES situation is allowed to continue. Which brings me to my next point - the Co-op/SES situation shouldn't be allowed to continue.
Far be it for me to make a call like that based on what little knowledge I know of the affairs of Eesti Maja. But it seems two weeks in Eesti Maja is a long time!!!
As written in the 'Estonian House Cooperative Society Ltd 1938-1998' commemorative handout, "...most of the time Board members have worked in harmony with the shareholders, although on two occasions (1944 and 1958) disputes arose between the two groups. In both cases the shareholders elected a new Board." Seems we have a bit of history-repeating going on.
Arvo goes on to make a point...ne...a jab, at how "Obviously quite ignorant..." the SES Committee is nominating a chairman. Again, I don't know much about the inner machinations of Boards, but I would assume if there is a majority of say, 5 SES members on a board of 7, they will place who they like as Chairman. As to whether they see themselves "...as a political party" doesn't matter either way if they win. Hyping is hyping. Stick to the point Arvo.
And he gets there.
With black and white figures, Arvo points out the immediate case for Eesti Maja going commercial. Although Eesti Maja could loose $21,000 in rent p.a. and pay $12,000 in new council costs (a total $33,000 loss p.a.) he stops short of asking the question; can this money be re-couped from a commercial venture at the front of the building or via other ventures such as hiring the hall. I think it could.
But another valid point Arvo raises is the up-front cost of going commercial. $200,000+ is big big bucks and money that will have to be spent to get the place moving. No two ways about it.
His next point really beat my drum. "...improvements...should be discussed and evaluated in the conventional professional sequence, costed and if loan finance is required, shareholders approval sought." Loans aside, I think it's time the share holders were lent on anyway. The days of just existing and expecting Eesti Maja to be there are numbered. It's time for the kids (i.e. the members) to help around the house and...chip in! There I said it.
When members put the hat around to buy the land and build the 1st Eesti Maja, they did it together. Sure they got a loan, but it was paid back within 5 years. The same story in the 50's when the 2nd extension took place.  Now it seems after almost 70 years when the place needs to go to phase 3, we're sitting back waiting for the cavalry to arrive. It wont. WE ARE THE CAVALRY.

Which now brings me to Mr. Takis.


There's not too much to say about Aivo and the SES Committee that I didn't cover in the first edition of 'Estonian House Sydney'. So I'll be brief.
In his reply, Aivo is quick to answer my call to not sell Eesti Maja (point No.1). Thank you Aivo. We have it in black and white.
His 2nd point is curious, "KEEP IT 100% ESTONIAN". Does this mean not integrate Eesti Maja with other organisations such as the Finnish or Swedes or Tongans (don't ask me why that popped into my head)? What about local communities? To my mind, if Eesti Maja goes commercial, we take on the masses. Sure we retain the Estonianism of the place, but to what degree is Aivo planning to keep it "100%" Estonian"? Has being "100% Estonian" the thing that has held Eesti Maja back? A lack of flexibility? Excuse me for being Australian too, but I'm always suspicious of over-inflated patriotism. 
*Siimon chooses not to drive a Holden ute with the Southern Cross displayed*
I shuffle down to point 9, "We have sound financial plans...NO MORTGAGE, NO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF YOUR PROPERTY!" Followed by point 13 "...there is absolutely no reliance upon the Co-op assets in our plans" What exactly are these plans and where will the money come from? Who will we owe and what are they expecting in return?

There's no free lunch.

Well, maybe on Sunday at the AGM there will be.

But will you buy it?

Estonian House Sydney: A New Dawn Has Arrived?

I heard a very good analogy of how life should be approached once: that we should look at life like a four-legged chair with only one leg supporting it on the ground. How it stays upright without toppling over relies on its balance - ergo; the balance of life. If everything is given equal measure, time and patience, the balance will be maintained and the chair will remain upright. Too much of one thing or the other...and the chair falls over.
Well, where Estonian Houses chair has been concerned, this chair of balance was kicked off its leg and put in one of the stacks in the hall, out of the way a long time ago.
This Sunday the 17th of October 2010 marks the Annual General Meeting of the Estonian House Co-operative Society Ltd. Out of the 7 positions that occupy the board, 5 positions will become vacant. Therefore 5 new or old members will be voted in. A veritable 7 legged chair.
From its last AGM a year ago, certain targets would obviously have been set and whether they were achieved or not, I don't know. My involvement in anything to do with Eesti Maja (Estonian House) administration has been limited up to this point. But then again, so has the involvement of basically all 300+ members of the Co-operative (which I have only recently become a member of). In fact, the involvement has been so poor where the AGM is concerned, only the board showed up to the last meeting!
This Sunday may mark a change where AGMs are concerned however as a crunch-point has appeared on the horizon for Eesti Maja - either make it viable or move it along.  Things really need to happen now, more than ever. We have an aging asset with infinite possibilities and an administrative situation that has gone no-where for decades. This AGM should mark a possible changing in paradigm where Eesti Maja is concerned.
As I write this now, 8 candidates appear for 5 seats on the board.
Of these 8 candidates are a team of 5 who want to be voted in collectively, and who come from the Estonian Society of Sydney - the Eesti Selts (SES); Madis and Tiina Alvre, Peeter Muttik, Kadri Stamos and Aivo Takis. Their platform is to consolidate the two entities that control Eesti Maja - the Co-operative and the SES - with mandates for "...steps in the right direction...".
As an indicator of how serious the SES are, Juhan Lubek has taken the liberty to set out the 5 nominees platform for all to see ahead of the other three candidates, Maie Barrow, Terry Kass and Tõnu Meiusi (all currently on the board but required to retire due to the constitution, but are running for re-election) who are unfortunately conspicuous by their platforms absence.
Although this information from the SES has been made available, I can't help but mention the timing smacks a little of major party costings before the federal election this year - that they showed up only a week out from elections. But the SES's effort is pretty good considering the other candidates (so far) haven't offered anything at all. Maybe if they had in the past, more people might have showed up to meetings in general. Who knows.
Why this AGM might be different from others could be reflected in the influx of people taking up shares in the Co-operative in the last year. Whilst the previous 5 years showed a declining trend in membership of the Co-operative, this year has seen as surge of new memberships rising from approx. 290 up to as high as 340 by the time the AGM runs. A rise of almost 10%! Imagine what might have happened at the last federal election if the voting roll had jumped by 10%! From this figure alone, one can reasonably assume that votes for this board might not be as passive as they have been in the past few years.
So where has this surge come from?
I guess the best comparison I might come up with might be (ironically) Russia. You see there is a slight parallel where Russia and Eesti Maja are concerned, even if there is a lag of 20 years on the part of Eesti Maja. Russia, as we know, annexed Estonia back in the 40's - when Eesti Maja was built and experienced it's "golden" period or growth in community and subsequent extension of Eesti Maja, and which lasted about....20 years.
Then came the "dark" period. The authorities that controlled Russia an Eesti Maja went into lock-down / lock-out mode. Nothing and no-one came in, and if anything, only people went out. Escaped even. However with time, Russia began to thaw. The authorities let in minor liberties which, when people got a taste for it, turned into the ruin of communist Russia...20 years ago.
Now, 20 years on from the fall of Communist Russia, a similar thawing is taking place with Eesti Maja. In the last year, the SES has been granted the liberty of running the Esto Cafe series in Sydney, with great success. Add to that the community of Adelaide forging an exemplary path to the future, the idea that things can be done have had people showing up again and getting re-acquainted with Eesti Maja. But does this mean the fall of the current board will yield a result that everyone wants and thinks might be possible from the SES team? The democratisation and capitalisation of Eesti Maja? Yes, but maybe no.
There are several glaring omissions from the SES team, and their competition. The biggest to my mind has been the lack of a clear promise NOT to sell Eesti Maja. Whilst what they have promised in terms of making the current Eesti Maja more accessible and functional not only for the Estonian-Australian community but the local community of Surry Hills has been a sweet sweet tune to listen to, the fact they have stopped short of unequivocally saying "whatever happens, we'll go down in flames before we sell of Surry Hills" has not eventuated.
Eesti Maja Surry Hills comes with pedigree. It is massive leverage that can make a once envied community even more envied in the future. The Finns and Swedes don't have what we have. From Eesti Maja Surry Hills can come great growth. If managed correctly (in terms of generating return) neighboring property can be acquired for accommodation and ease parking difficulties; additional facilities like a ski lodge and even accommodation back in Estonia could be achieved for its members. Why stop with Surry Hills?
But we have to be comfortable inside ourselves first. And I am one of many who believes the future might be an awkward fit if the Maja is re-located to a more "convenient" location. A short-term fix with no real answers. Whilst Eesti Maja doesn't have parking or the facilities other clubs might enjoy in the 'burbs', the community has an asset that can provide for the future. But this will only happen when we get the mix right. The balance right.
Another thing that I have never heard anyone talk of is having a business and marketing evaluation conducted on the property to give an independent opinion of what it will take to get Eesti Maja back on the rails again. Whilst these things are costly, currently there stands enough in the coffers to conduct such an evaluation. Money well spent if you consider it may give direction to a board whos function it seems is bailing water out of a sinking ship. An evaluation like this may shine light on options such as accommodation, commercial entertainment facilities and how much it may cost to build such a place and what return it might yield. It may answer the vexing question, should we even go down a commercial path or just hold onto the side of the chair and maintain the awkward balance.
Although as the outgoing chairman, Arvo Tinni put it, "It is time for the position [of chairman] to have new blood, new ideas and fresh enthusiasm to move to the next challenges", those ideas and challenges should represent all aspects and viewpoints of what we each want from Eesti Maja. If we all vote for the SES and allow (an almost) wholesale change of leadership, we might only be shifting the already un-steady balance from one leg of the chair onto another.
Whilst it seems easy for me to fire away at the SES and the current board, I'm not. The SES are the only candidates that have offered up any answers so far. They appear to come as a team and that is great if they all pull in the same direction and stay the course. I'll be the first to admit their platform appeals to me greatly and made me say "HARAGH!" when I read it, though the other candidates might be offering the same things - I don't know yet.
All I really want to say to you is be careful how you vote on Sunday. We are a small community with people who have big ideas and hearts to match, but balancing this is not as easy as it seems. Short term gains might not necessarily lead to the chair staying upright after all.

Stayed tuned for the 'Results Show'