Once again, the powers that be in the Philippine Community Council (PCC-NSW) managed to manipulate and get the financial statement approved with the blessings of only their 12 apostles!
Only one person present, Jade Cadelina, objected in view of the absence of former Treasurer, Danny Peralta and Auditor, Leo Ceniza.. “It is unfair!”, he said Relunia replied “No need for them to be present.”
The March AGM and elections saw the Board’s refusal to have former Treasurer, Danny Peralta present his financial report. A first in 25 years! The only reason given was that it did not pass through the eyes of an auditor. However on double checking, the PCC constitution and the Associations Incorporation Act does allow it to be presented and then audited later. It has also been a practice in the past. The Department of Fair Training does not need the audited report but the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR) does, in view of the use of a fundraising permit. So somebody lied and some were fooled at the last elections.
Aside from their flimsy “auditor” excuse, no one on the Board is giving a straight answer as to what is wrong with the financial statement. Innuendos and allegations are flying, left, right and centre but actual questions are totally ignored. Peralta has responded with an email but Relunia fails to even answer his phone. Avoidance and stonewalling are in full swing. And the newbies, the gullible and vulnerable are totally being misinformed and manipulated.
So, the new 2015 Board scheduled another meeting, stating the reason in their notice as to “re-convene the general meeting.” And right there is a problem, not to mention that not all the afilliates got the notice. Was it a General meeting or a Special general meeting? How can there be a continuation of an AGM. Since the AGM was concluded with new Board members voted, then the AGM was concluded. Finito! To have two general meetings would mean it is no longer annual – it is biannual. To take up an all-important outstanding issue would mean that they had to call for a special general meeting (an SGM). If it is a continuation, then all those present in part one should be in part two, logical, isn’t it? On procedure alone, they failed!
As per Section 26 (item 2) of the PCC constitution, they only needed 13 members (affiliates) to constitute a quorum and that they had. However, item 3 of the same section states that the meeting should be adjourned within half an hour if there are not enough attendees. They called the meeting for 1pm but did not start until 2pm. But they stayed on and twisted the rule and probably excused the lateness due to weather conditions. So again, it simply is a case of which rule they want to bend and which they want to uphold. And more importantly, it depends on the who!
Now, that’s a big loophole if I ever saw one. How come during elections, people are running around to get people to come and vote? So they know that more than 13 is required; and yet for the approval of an all important and controversial financial statement, they only need 13 to approve? Something’s not right and surely conscience should be a guide, unless some don’t have one and others simply jump on the bandwagon. However, if it was a special general meeting which requires a special resolution, which approval of the financial statement would be considered, then 21 days notice was required and a majority. With 47 members, then majority would be 24. Surely, that’s logical, reasonable and sensible! Unable to distinguish what kind of meeting was being called, they were left to twist and apply whatever rules they wanted to their advantage. If it’s a continuance, then shouldn’t the same people in Part 1 be in Part 2? They sure put more effort to ring around and get more people to dance the rigodon!
To add insult to injury, the report was presented on PowerPoint but no printed copies were distributed. Only a show of hands was needed to get approval. Since Villaver who was present was I am sure representing at least three clubs; did he have three hands to raise? But finally, the 12 apostles raised their hands! Here’s another question: who gets to sign the report before submission. It has to be signed by the former President (Relunia) and the former Treasurer (Peralta) who are now faced off in a dance of anger?
I wonder when they will implement section 21 on the conduct of directors. I guess, it’s as good as never and as their logic flows “magsasawa rin sila” (They will get tired.) Rather than rattling off their heads off nonsensically and sweeping problems under the carpet, they should assess the situation and come up with real, concrete solutions. The Board has clearly chosen to railroad the rights of its members in their favour and to split the community further. Only12 apostles are representing us and that is frightening! Obvious too, is that the Board doesn’t really care what the opinions of their affiliates are until they’re wanting to fill bums on seats or sell tickets. That’s the “pick-a-buddy”.
Well then, all those who reached the point of “don’t care”, please raise your hands.
