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?
No comments:
Post a Comment