spanish_lawyer

Nobody wants to discuss it, even some people who deny it. However, I write: there are problems between people of different EC. Arthur recognizes this in his post from another thread. http://britishexpats.com/forum/showp...6&postcount=12 (link courtesy of Jon. I'm the old dinosaur. ). I have received many PM where they are assured.

The upside of this is that apparently there are many people interested in working for EC. I really hope it's true.

I still do not understand why there must be two groups. It's a ridiculous decision and limited utility. Create an association involves some costs. This makes it feasible that a person is in two groups (or more) at once.

We agree that both groups have the same idea of improving EC. So, why are not unify them?.

You know each other. However, the Spanish members have a problem: Which association we signed?.

P.S. I will continue writing in this thread because I've always done here.

Jon-Bxl

Hi SL - PLEASE keep posting... here and on other threads

One way to post a specific post is to click on the post number on the top right (your was post 496). It opens a window with a specific internet address at the top. Copy that into your post and you have the link.

It looks like for the moment we have 2 associations, and there is a big meeting coming up as well. Im sure people will discuss that then. We have so many common objectives. Lets see what happens when people meet.

No-one is hiding anything but if there really are some tensions - well we are then required to have 2 associations. I would much rather have 2 'happy associations' coming together on common goals, than have one group give up... or even worse, facing pressure to give up. Thats no good.

Of course 1 group is better, but 2 can work too.

Regards
Jon

CAROL TAFF

I have to come to Steve Tipper's defence. He is the only person of any authority who has made any effort to give the rank and file any information as to what is happening at the official level. It was thanks only to his efforts that the non Spanish speaking attendees of the EUC General Meeting had any idea of what was going on. He now produces a 7 foolscap document detailing his version of what went on at that meeting under an introductory para stating "This is not an official document and if there are any errors it is down to me."

Bravo Steve!! To criticize your efforts really is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I very much suspect that when L&G produce the minutes they will be only in Spanish, contain less information, be more inaccurate, and be far less prompt than your effort.

Taff

CAROL TAFF

The pyramid structure of these communities is such that, at the lowest level (Community), if behind with their dues, owners loose their right to vote. However, at the IC Level only Community Presidents have a vote, and at the EUC level, only IC Presidents can vote. To deprive Community presidents and IC presidents of their right to vote should one or more of their constituents be behind, is seen as being inappropriate. Thus, the requirement to be fully paid up is removed at both the IC and EUC level. I suppose it would be possible to deduct the coefficients of the non-payees from the gross total when voting but that would horrendously increase the complexity of what is already a very complicated process. Thus, I feel there is no alternative to accepting the current rules, even if this would have allowed MF to still vote had they defaulted on their payments.

yes we can

Hi Bill and Claire

Thanks for making it clear that it was a confusion.

yes we can

Hi Carol Taff

In my opinion, sometimes it is better to do nothing to give wrong information.

yes we can

Hi SL

You know each other. However, the Spanish members have a problem: Which association we signed?.

Not to mention the South African, Portuguese, Brazilien, French, Belgian, German,Chinese, Japanese...
I know at least one Esuri owner of the nationalities mentioned. Wich association should they signed? Must start a third???

spanish_lawyer

Thanks Jon. You were my English teacher. Now also are my computer teacher.

spanish_lawyer

Changing the subject…


I'll give my opinion on guarantees. I agree with Jon that is a very important (above groups, associations, hatchets and others ...).

Summary of the current situation.

- The Town Hall has three guarantees for 6 million euros to ensure compliance with the infrastructure works.
- These guarantees ensure fulfillment of a planning work. As MF is in bankruptcy have not been met deadlines. (I do not know how long MF does not work in the work of developer).
- The first of these guarantees expire in July 2010.
- The only person who can make the decision to request the money the bank is the Mayor (who serves as President of the EUC).
- The Mayor always said "there is time” when he is asked about the guarantees. He also says that the guarantees are renewable. I don´t agree. When in a guarantee indicate the expiration date, this guarantee is not renew. By the way, if the warranty is renewable, no bank to renew it. MF is in bankruptcy.

The popular party representative, Alberto Fernández, the mayor asked at a sitting to request money from the bank guarantees. The Mayor and members of the Izquierda Unida voted against.

I do not know why the Mayor (and members of IU) voted against. I only know that dates before the vote, the Mayor met with members of IU. Later, they voted against. Although the Partido Popular made the request, and this has been rejected, if they wish, they can re-file. If a political party calling for a motion (moción) at a plenary (Pleno), it must be voted by members.

We must ensure that the Mayor ask for money to banks. There are two possibilities. We ask it directly to the Mayor. Alternatively, we ask a political party assistance.

I have doubts about what is the best option. Still, it always has more force accompanied by another politician. I would like to hear your opinion.

spanish_lawyer

I totally agree with you. I can only think of a system to prevent what you are indicating: to modify the statutes. The appointments have a one year the duration and mandatory stay up to date of payment at the time. So each year we choose the new appointments and, at least, during that year are aware of payment.

CAROL TAFF

I am very pleased that a Residents Association meeting has been arranged for the 25 March, and I implore everybody to turn up if at all possible. I certainly intend to fly out specially from the UK. More importantly, I sincerely hope, in view of their legal expertise and knowledge of the implication of the EUC statutes, that both Spanish Lawyer and Carol and John turn up, as I'm sure their contributions will be invaluable. Similarly, I hope that Steven Tipper will be there, as he provides us with direct access to the EUC Board.

Taff

yes we can

Hi Carol Taff If at least half of Esuri become involved as much as you, things quickly changed for the better.

Jon-Bxl

Hi Carol - sure, I shouldnt have technically mentioned Intercommunity. I take your point - but I also think its wrong for a president to have the role if he/she is a non payer. They can hardly push for payment, taking an authoritative role + arrange legal actions against non-payers it they are one themselves!.

In this discussion - and at the time - it was about MF not paying and I wanted them off the board if they failed to pay. This I fed through to the President and also discussed on the thread.

As it happens they have paid (apparently) ....

There is another issue that I will investigate, apparently ADA at the IC level are taking action against non-payers with a fine. But for MF they are not implementing the fine (with some vague comment about leaving it open for the judge to decide) - if this is right - its a big problem. If you read Mr Tippers EUC minutes its the penalty fine that made Fadesa pay up. Seems like we have to threaten them... but also its worrying that there could be a protectionist boys club in place - IF this is true and not just gossip.

Thanks
Jon

Jon-Bxl

Hi SL. Great summary about these guarantees (that I see as a 'pre-paid insurance policy') that we should try and call on. In the most effective way possible... this sum is over 70% MORE than the 2010 proposed EUC budget...!! About to go down the toilet!!

I am very suspicious about politicians.... they have their own agendas that are often about keeping power and doing anything to discredit the opposition.

It seems to me that the PP with Mr Fernandez tried already and failed. Showing that they have little power against the mayor. They have lost a bit of credibility by failing - and perhaps thats exactly what the mayor wants. I say this only in hindsight.

I worry that the Mayor vetoed this for political reasons. Not wanting to 'lose face' by accepting something from the opposition - not wanting to give them a 'victory'. Thus he may have killed it for the 'right' reasons for his political image..... but the wrong reason for 'the people' many of whom are his constituents, that live there and others who also pay IBI, taxes etc.

It failed once - how can it succeed a second time, unless a different strategy is used? I fear we waste precious time trying the same thing that failed before....... I dont know the alternative - but perhaps a big petition to the mayor? Im not knowledgeable on Spanish Politics though.....

Hoping that something comes out of the associations that we can support. I think one thing we should do is get on the electoral list (forgot the name) that will carry political weight - that even a face-saving Mayor cant ignore.

Thanks
Jon

spanish_lawyer

Jon, you say "I think one thing we should do is get on the electoral list (forgot the name) that will carry political weight - that even a face-saving Greater cannot ignore". I imagine that you mean to be enrolled (empadronarse). I remarked that I was thinking of register in Ayamonte. I think it's a chance that in the coming elections CE has weight. If in the censo there are many people in CE, sure someone will hear us.

You say that you think the Mayor voted against asking for guarantees not to agree with the opposition. I think not. As I said, many people have asked the Mayor to request the money from the guarantees. He has said NO to everyone. If I had to say one reason, I would say there are more personal than political interests in that decision. Ultimately, he is sitting with two members of MF in the Board.