Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
2009-09-08-Email from Simon John
From: simon@simonjohnpiano.com
Subject: Mi Sol Bar contract renewal
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:35:23 +0200
Dear President and Community.
I felt that I wanted to express my thoughts regarding the consideration of renewing Bob and Maggie's contract and alleged talk of proposing a considerable increase in rent for Mi Sol bar.
I have been on Mi Sol like many for the last 18 years, and I have witnessed many attempts by various tenants and employed stewards to provide a consistent bar service to the community. The first year I was at Mi Sol, the community didn't even own the bar. It had been sold to a partnership of owners who promptly closed it down and ran up a debt to the community. An AGM elected to purchase the bar back from these individuals for 20000 pounds to be paid back at 5000 pounds per year. For four years the community rented the bar out for close to the 5000 per year to various tenants until it was once again property of Mi Sol.
My recollection of detail is not accurate, I am sure if I tried to relate chapter and verse of who was there and when somebody would correct me. But I am sure most will agree, during my time all tenants have attempted and failed to run the bar in a consistent and profitable, therefore sustainable manner until Bob and Maggie.
Why did previous tenants fail? Because the truth is Mi Sol Bar is not a viable enterprise, unless you are prepared to work inhuman hours, 17 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks per year. If you are prepared to be open all those hours, you will capture the business to be had, when it passes your door. During August those hours are lucrative. But make no mistake, for most of the rest of the year, many hours go by with barely a trickle of any money being paid into the till. But the bar service remains available to those who require it.
To calculate the profitability of the bar, one would have to suggest to Bob that he calculates his annual profit multiply 52 weeks by 7 days by the total daily hours he and Maggie work and divide that profit by the result to return how much per hour those two actually earn.
In my marketing experiences, one is always invited to turn that equation upside down to decide whether or not a venture was viable. Determine how much money you want to earn. Determine how many hours a
day you want to dedicate to an enterprise. Divide your desired income by the hours prepared to work to calculate how much your hourly rate needs to be. Ask your self how practical that is to achieve. If it is
achievable the business is viable. If not, look at something else.
I would actually be afraid of suggesting Bob and Maggie do that exercise. I may be wrong, I actually would be pleased to be wrong, because I think they deserve to be well rewarded for their long hours, sterling efforts and relentless hard work.
Bob and Maggie have succeeded where all others have failed. In exchange for non stop hard work and dedication to service to the community, they are rewarded with what they consider to be, an acceptable living. We shouldn't begrudge them that, we should be pleased. Every body is winning!
Mi Sol Bar is an important social hub to the community. I consider us most fortunate to have talented people running it profitably for themselves and consistently for the community. They have invested profit back into the venue to improve vastly the surroundings enjoyed by the customers and raised the standard of maintenance. Their professionalism has earned Mi Sol bar respect by their suppliers for the first time.
Please don't make Bob and Maggie feel like they are victims of their own success. In view of the hours they have to work to extract a living, In view of factors unusual to Mi Sol, 1. a closed community 2.
Higher than normal Electricity and Water costs, I would propose that there is an argument to consider a rent reduction, but "Like that is going to happen!"
I would like to express my hope that the community will join me and compliment Bob and Maggie for all of their hard work, and invite the community to consider how they can best encourage them to extend their
contract with us.
Mi Sol please don't try and fix what is not broken!
Regards.
Simon John Edgington
Subject: Mi Sol Bar contract renewal
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:35:23 +0200
Dear President and Community.
I felt that I wanted to express my thoughts regarding the consideration of renewing Bob and Maggie's contract and alleged talk of proposing a considerable increase in rent for Mi Sol bar.
I have been on Mi Sol like many for the last 18 years, and I have witnessed many attempts by various tenants and employed stewards to provide a consistent bar service to the community. The first year I was at Mi Sol, the community didn't even own the bar. It had been sold to a partnership of owners who promptly closed it down and ran up a debt to the community. An AGM elected to purchase the bar back from these individuals for 20000 pounds to be paid back at 5000 pounds per year. For four years the community rented the bar out for close to the 5000 per year to various tenants until it was once again property of Mi Sol.
My recollection of detail is not accurate, I am sure if I tried to relate chapter and verse of who was there and when somebody would correct me. But I am sure most will agree, during my time all tenants have attempted and failed to run the bar in a consistent and profitable, therefore sustainable manner until Bob and Maggie.
Why did previous tenants fail? Because the truth is Mi Sol Bar is not a viable enterprise, unless you are prepared to work inhuman hours, 17 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks per year. If you are prepared to be open all those hours, you will capture the business to be had, when it passes your door. During August those hours are lucrative. But make no mistake, for most of the rest of the year, many hours go by with barely a trickle of any money being paid into the till. But the bar service remains available to those who require it.
To calculate the profitability of the bar, one would have to suggest to Bob that he calculates his annual profit multiply 52 weeks by 7 days by the total daily hours he and Maggie work and divide that profit by the result to return how much per hour those two actually earn.
In my marketing experiences, one is always invited to turn that equation upside down to decide whether or not a venture was viable. Determine how much money you want to earn. Determine how many hours a
day you want to dedicate to an enterprise. Divide your desired income by the hours prepared to work to calculate how much your hourly rate needs to be. Ask your self how practical that is to achieve. If it is
achievable the business is viable. If not, look at something else.
I would actually be afraid of suggesting Bob and Maggie do that exercise. I may be wrong, I actually would be pleased to be wrong, because I think they deserve to be well rewarded for their long hours, sterling efforts and relentless hard work.
Bob and Maggie have succeeded where all others have failed. In exchange for non stop hard work and dedication to service to the community, they are rewarded with what they consider to be, an acceptable living. We shouldn't begrudge them that, we should be pleased. Every body is winning!
Mi Sol Bar is an important social hub to the community. I consider us most fortunate to have talented people running it profitably for themselves and consistently for the community. They have invested profit back into the venue to improve vastly the surroundings enjoyed by the customers and raised the standard of maintenance. Their professionalism has earned Mi Sol bar respect by their suppliers for the first time.
Please don't make Bob and Maggie feel like they are victims of their own success. In view of the hours they have to work to extract a living, In view of factors unusual to Mi Sol, 1. a closed community 2.
Higher than normal Electricity and Water costs, I would propose that there is an argument to consider a rent reduction, but "Like that is going to happen!"
I would like to express my hope that the community will join me and compliment Bob and Maggie for all of their hard work, and invite the community to consider how they can best encourage them to extend their
contract with us.
Mi Sol please don't try and fix what is not broken!
Regards.
Simon John Edgington
2009-07-01-Meeting With Representatives Of The Town Hall
Mi-Sol Park Comunidad de Propietarios
C:/ Villa Madrid, Torrevieja, 03184, Alicante
966.444.490
Meeting with representatives of the Town Hall
Present: Graham Knight, Pedro Gil and Pedro Valero
Fuensanta & Rosario
Mr. Knight asked for a brief explanation of how the community worked. The Town Hall offered, FOR FREE, 300 post boxes, and then they would order the Post Office to deliver. We explained the current method of receiving mail, and that we would need approval from the community for any building work
needed. The Town Hall stated that we can have the boxes now, and decide at the A.G.M.
We have two options, 1) Our current Postman collects the mail and puts it in the individual post-boxes or delivers to the office for them to put in or 2) (if and whenever) delivered by the Post Office. We could either build a new building or convert the current security hut.
The Town Hall asked about the water and electric. We explained how the system worked and the costs we have. The lawyers confirmed the legality of Pre-Paid electric meters; therefore the committee unanimously agreed to start installing them.
The Town Hall said that they would talk to Aguagest to try to reduce our tariff; but we would need to speak to Espinosa (who deals with Iberdrola) to see what could be done to ease the electrical problems.
Plan Parcial was brought up; but the Town Hall immediately said that they had given up on the idea; not to mention the unanimous vote needed and the fact some residents have private escrituras. The Town Hall asked for any suggestions or problems the Town Hall could help with;
We asked the Town Hall weather we could have road markings and a zebra crossing at the entrance, they said to apply to the Town Hall, but should be accepted.
We asked whether they could help to tarmac the roads; again they said to apply to the Town Hall.
Signed by: M. Taunton, P. Hopkins, L. Jimenez & S. Shaw
2010-07-01-President's Report
Mi-Sol Park Comunidad de Propietarios
C:/ Villa Madrid, Torrevieja, 03814, Alicante
966.444.490
Presidents Report
July 2010
At the A.G.M of 2009, it was agreed by a majority vote to end the split community by recognizing receipts that could be ratified against Accounts.
This has been an arduous process based on the understanding that if receipts could not be verified, the amounts remain outstanding. The consequence of the exercise has resulted in a united community paying monies into one bank account.
There have been highs and lows during this first year of my three year presidency; the highs are the fact that Mi-Sol now has a stable bank balance coupled with an additional account held in reserve for emergencies and we are free of debt. The lows are the cancellation fees we have had to pay for those court cases previously submitted.
We have a legal, reliable gardener and have built up a comprehensive gardening tool collection, a major improvement to the hairless broom and a broken rake.
We have endeavored to undertake maintenance on the park within our financial budget calling on the services of external contractors when necessary.
It has been a major disappointment with respect to the Pool Contractor absconding and breaching the contract but we have overcome that in as much that the pool is functional for the season thanks to Jeff Brown who with Derek Olive carried out the required repairs voluntarily. It has also been a disappointment that due to a lack of understanding, the tenant in the bar felt that the delay in opening the pool was a direct assault on him. It clearly states in his temporary contract that he has no rights over the pool or terrace area although he has the right to remove those from the terrace who choose to cause disruption. The delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Committee. The result of that particular weekend resulted in the resignation of a very good committee member, Jeff Brown. Another committee member, Kate Ellerton felt she could no longer continue. The issue of the pool and any future repairs will be on the agenda for the coming A.G.M 2010.
We have worked extremely hard to update and streamline the office management in order to maintain continuity and have introduced a more comprehensive blog in both English and Spanish. We intend to make owners accounts accessible on-line.
We have secured the services of an Auditor who has inspected, stamped and approved the accounts for 2009 offering recommendations to ensure efficiency and cost savings.
I am confident that we will continue putting Mi-Sol's best interests first and express my sincere thanks to all the committee members who have each had an important input to the managing of Mi-Sol affairs.
Maureen Taunton President
Thursday, April 7, 2011
2009-11-13-My Version of the Residents Meeting held on 2009-11-04
Hi Misolites
This is my version of what happened at the Residents Meeting held on Tuesday 4th November.
John took the chair and asked Jackie to open the meeting with her concerns etc.
I can't remember how she started off, but she asked Kate if a question put to her regarding me was accurate or not.
Kate declined to answer the question and left the meeting.
The main concern everyone seemed to have is the fact that the Open forums had appeared to have been discontinued.
I think it was Neill who stood up and said there was going to be an open forum on the Tuesday after the committee meeting to be held on Thursday. Shelagh was asked if she could confirm this, and replied that on Saturday she had been told there were not going to be any more meetings until at least the new year. Jeff was then asked if he knew about this, to which he replied that he had been told a few days ago that there would be an open meeting.
Several people brought up the fact that under Pepe there wasn't any open forums. Although what that has to do with today's committee and the people that voted them on - I really don't know....answers by email please.
The question of the bar and the bar contract was brought up, Most people present seemed to think they should have some say in the predicted rent increases and any changes to the contract. There were a small amount of people who did not agree with this.
Derek brought of the fact that the president had told the people of 621 that it would cost 30,000 Euros to get the land registered. Someone else said that was private and between him and the president. Derek replied that as the matter had been brought up at a committee meeting it became public. Lynn said she heard Mick and Pepe talking, and then changed her mind to Mick had told her. As no-one could cobberate her story, and we have been told the opposite again by Mick, the whole thing became academic.
Neill stood up and said he wished to refute any rumours doing the rounds which said He and Amelia wanted to run the bar. Several people then said they had not heard the rumour. Another rumour going around is that Peter is going to run the bar, yet another rumour is that a manager is going to be put in to run the bar. The truth is no-one knows what is going to happen yet, as Bob has first refusal on the new bar contract.
I was accused of calling the meeting as I was desperate to get back on the committee, and that I needed to get a life as mine must be very sad if that was all I had to do.
I did not call the meeting and in fact knew nothing about it until the Sunday I arrived in Spain.
I am not desperate to get back on the committee, people have the right to vote however they wish.
What I do object to is the manipulation of the vote, and I would like to know if the 24 people who gave their proxy vote to the president knew it was going to be used to vote against me during a secret ballot.
Peter has stated that there were 112 votes capable of being used. This consisted of 63 people present holding 49 proxies between them. Each person was issued with a voting slip stating how many votes they had. This equals 63 voting papers....The president asked for her 24 voting slips to be split into 6 sheets with 4 votes on each. So you now have 63 + 6 voting slips. I have written confirmation from a member of the community that two people did not put their voting slips into the box. So now you have 63 + 6 - 2. How many others did not put their voting papers into the box?? How has Peter reached the number 66 as the amount of slips used. How can there be 112 votes used if 2 people did not vote.
This is what I would like answers to.
This is my version of what happened at the Residents Meeting held on Tuesday 4th November.
John took the chair and asked Jackie to open the meeting with her concerns etc.
I can't remember how she started off, but she asked Kate if a question put to her regarding me was accurate or not.
Kate declined to answer the question and left the meeting.
The main concern everyone seemed to have is the fact that the Open forums had appeared to have been discontinued.
I think it was Neill who stood up and said there was going to be an open forum on the Tuesday after the committee meeting to be held on Thursday. Shelagh was asked if she could confirm this, and replied that on Saturday she had been told there were not going to be any more meetings until at least the new year. Jeff was then asked if he knew about this, to which he replied that he had been told a few days ago that there would be an open meeting.
Several people brought up the fact that under Pepe there wasn't any open forums. Although what that has to do with today's committee and the people that voted them on - I really don't know....answers by email please.
The question of the bar and the bar contract was brought up, Most people present seemed to think they should have some say in the predicted rent increases and any changes to the contract. There were a small amount of people who did not agree with this.
Derek brought of the fact that the president had told the people of 621 that it would cost 30,000 Euros to get the land registered. Someone else said that was private and between him and the president. Derek replied that as the matter had been brought up at a committee meeting it became public. Lynn said she heard Mick and Pepe talking, and then changed her mind to Mick had told her. As no-one could cobberate her story, and we have been told the opposite again by Mick, the whole thing became academic.
Neill stood up and said he wished to refute any rumours doing the rounds which said He and Amelia wanted to run the bar. Several people then said they had not heard the rumour. Another rumour going around is that Peter is going to run the bar, yet another rumour is that a manager is going to be put in to run the bar. The truth is no-one knows what is going to happen yet, as Bob has first refusal on the new bar contract.
I was accused of calling the meeting as I was desperate to get back on the committee, and that I needed to get a life as mine must be very sad if that was all I had to do.
I did not call the meeting and in fact knew nothing about it until the Sunday I arrived in Spain.
I am not desperate to get back on the committee, people have the right to vote however they wish.
What I do object to is the manipulation of the vote, and I would like to know if the 24 people who gave their proxy vote to the president knew it was going to be used to vote against me during a secret ballot.
Peter has stated that there were 112 votes capable of being used. This consisted of 63 people present holding 49 proxies between them. Each person was issued with a voting slip stating how many votes they had. This equals 63 voting papers....The president asked for her 24 voting slips to be split into 6 sheets with 4 votes on each. So you now have 63 + 6 voting slips. I have written confirmation from a member of the community that two people did not put their voting slips into the box. So now you have 63 + 6 - 2. How many others did not put their voting papers into the box?? How has Peter reached the number 66 as the amount of slips used. How can there be 112 votes used if 2 people did not vote.
This is what I would like answers to.
2009-10-13-Open Letter Re: Voting At AGM
Letter to the community & committee of Mi-Sol Park
For the Open Forum on the 13/10/09
I have not been voted on as a committee member which is the right of the comunity.
What I object to is the way in which it was done.
Mrs. Mo Taunton was given 24 proxy votes to do with as she saw fit. (this was nearly a quarter of the votes)
She says she did not vote herself, but gave them to Roy, as she signed them in as HER proxies, this is illegal.
If the votes were made out to Roy, then he should have signed them in. Proxy votes cannot be left blank for anyone to use them as the receiver of the proxies has to provide ID.
Mo was given 24 proxy votes which she asked me to split into 6 x 4 votes on the white voting sheets issued to all attendees who signed in. These sheets were NOT numbered or signed or in anyway had a identifying mark on them.
As the voting papers are published on the blog, it is a simple matter to note that the 6 x 4 voting papers did not vote for either myself or Neill. Which is entirely the progative of the voter...but pleeeese don't ask how I know Mrs.Mo Taunton or a member of her family did not vote for me.
The blog shows 66 papers were put into the ballot box, making with the proxies 112 voters.
This is inaccurate.. ????persons signed in, but to my knowledge 2 people did not put thier slips into the ballot box so in that case there could only have been 110 voters+64 sheets of paper
.
Mrs.Taunton says the 2/3rds large majority, or half+1 small majority is on the number of persons signed in and able to vote. I am not completely sure, but I always thought it was based on the number who said yes or no, and the ones who abstained didnot count for anything.
Jean & John who did the original counting of the votes were told that after being checked by 3 independant persons, (although they were not invited to oversee the new count) that they had made a mistake of 29 votes. Again, do you think that 2 adults, checking each others count could have made such a large mistake?
The next step in this silly saga was to see if the members voted on to the committee would allow me to be a committee member without a vote. This was rejected by a vote of 5 to 1 against....again why???
I have asked the president to allow me internet access to the bank account so that I can continue to keep the records up to date for the future. Orginally this was agreed to, but now it has been revoked on the grounds that 4 other members of the comunity also wish access to the internet bank records. As this account is in the name of Mi-Sol Park what is the problem??
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)