Regarding the 'Petition' to bring down the website

The subject of the Petition has been referenced once again, this time by the company solicitor in his recent letter of 12/6/17 - click here to view, much creedence appears to have been given to it since it was carried out, so much so that it's past time to take a closer look at the circumstances.

The decision to carry out the petition was instigated by the director and committee sometime after the last quarterly meeting on 2/9/17, no prior official notice was issued , it only came to light when it was discussed at the AGM on 7/11/17 and the result presented to the attending residents.  The petition itself was carried out by 2 committee members who called at each resident's home with the exception of 3 residents who they bypassed completely.  It is interesting to note that during this period the annual account was a hot topic and requests were being made to the director, committee and accountant to issue the breakdown of the repairs and maintenance expenses - this has been documented on the website.

The question on the Petition was:

do you agree or disagree with an unofficial website referring to the Sycamores and displaying information about residents without the consent of those residents or approval of its general content?

The question itself is open to interpretation by the statement highlighted above because the only 'residents' mentioned on the website were at time the director, committee and a small number of residents who contribute to the site.

So lets look at the makup and numbers of the residents who took part in the petition according to the director and committee - 43 in total who disagree with the website, these include:

4   committee members including the director (all have internet access)
5   ex committee members (3 have internet access)
34   of the remaining residents asked who in the majority of cases (if not all) do not have internet access and therefore it would be difficult for them to make an informed decision about it's content one way or another. These residents would have had to rely heavily on being told about it by those who had viewed the website and would then have made their decision on information received at the time the petition was being conducted, in this case by the 2 committee members who carried out the Petition and collected the signatures.

I would go so far as to say that the director and committee, in their attempt to close the website down and put a stop to the  uncomfortable questions being asked about the accounts, had in fact highlighted not only their lack of suitability to hold the positions they do, it also spot lighted their lack of transparency where financial matters are concerned.  I suggest they may have used any and all means to influence residents and put their own spin on the subject.

No mention was made of the 3 residents who had been excluded completely by the committee when the petition was taken on the estate - (see the last paragraph)!

At the AGM 7/11/17 the results of this petition was given to the residents attending and put to a vote - the result was as follows:

For 21 + 2 proxy votes = 23,   Against 1 + 2 proxy votes = 3, The majority vote - the site goes down. (26 votes total)

After the vote had been taken at the AGM, one resident asked why some people had been excluded from the petition completely, a committee member stated that they had been excluded because the people in question - namely the backburner group, had been nasty to others - (it can only be assumed that the committee member meant that the director and committee did not like the criticism on the website).



January 8, 2021

Copyright  L Sherwood,  All Rights Reserved, 2017-2020