Hi folks
Earlier today I had an email from a group member challenging my right to express an opinion on the grounds only those ‘with skin in the game’ should do so.
Can I background my response: When Maurice and I joinedUCOL five years ago the right to vote was very loose — even people who hadn’t put in their $100 membership got to show cards, partly as training, then for years everyone (not just shareholders) voted on design decisions as the project was refined. Then the group evolved to be all purchasers, apart from us, and we dropped out of any unit design decisions. So I’m not sure where the actual constitutional rules are now for someone who has a) loaned money and b) is on the waitlist.
But in case I haven’t made it clear enough, I do consider I have ‘skin in the game’ for the financial (and all round) success of the project and not just because of five years of meetings and working bees and in anticipation of some kind of memorandum of understanding that we’ve put on the back burner until the big issues are settled.
We had to wait for a share issue to become actual shareholders, and by then the rules were that we had to purchase one each ($10,00) Then it became apparent there wasn’t a unit to suit us, (and yes we felt excluded at the time) but we left the money in as a loan and also as a place on the wait list, just as an insurance policy. I presume our financial input was a significant amount at a time when the company need capital, (though no where near the amounts some other very generous people loaned). It is most certainly a significant amount for us. I have always understood there was no guarantee of getting it back, which will be difficult.
I’ve been expecting there would be a challenge to my input at some stage, but would have preferred it was raised more kindly, and in the group as a matter of principle.
And not linked to an attack on what I actually wrote, which was a response to opinions expressed by others.
Receiving emails like this will silence people and the ramifications of the way this issue is handled are far more serious than the actual decision. The free exchange of ideas is essential, learning to see the world through other’s eyes. Yes I can see that people with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake now might think that our $10,000 is ‘nothing’. (And yes, someone did say that to me once, and in retrospect I should have taken it more seriously not just a heat of the moment comment.)
I hadn’t actually decided whether to abstain tonight, but now most certainly will now, and might take the coward’s way out and not even attend. Plus ask the directors for guidance on future voting.
But I’m not butting out on an opinion, as much as I hate contention. I’m committed to the success of this project.
For the record, I had no fixed opinion on choice of lawyers til I heard Antony’s advice, and will be sorry but not devastated if you don’t take it though I do see questions still to resolved. I’m far more concerned about full exploration of issues, probing facts and opinions and MOST of all, free and supportive expression, rather than the actual outcome.
Love to you all in your deliberations Rosemarie