Hatchet Job on FAR Committee Report & Members: Don't Follow the Trustees Down the Rabbit Hole

Here it is! George Rex never restricted bulk when he sold to Thesen. Just as I thought!

Go down the rabbit hole. To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds. (An allusion to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll.)

The 4* remaining trustees, now with 2 co-opted friends, are trying to take members down the rabbit hole.Their complicated, technical, legalistic (and need I say unreadable?) response to the FAR/Bulk Sub Committee is another attempt to create confusion among members. Then demonstrate what they see as their brilliant research, analysis and grasp of the issues. 

Like spinning you around in circles until you are dizzy and then before you fall, grabbing you and saying “Look, I have saved you!”

To the point, it is a strategy of distracting members with technical issues as they continue to  pursue their goal of turning Thesen Islands into a business opportunity by increasing bulk.     "The real aim was to provide the stimulation for improvements..” - Chairman’s Report – 6 December 2018

*There are actually 5. But the 5th trustee is away most of the time and does not seem to play a role in this saga. So I’m leaving him out here.  Read this. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to the trustee’s response to the FAR/Bulk Sub Committee’s report. 

80-90% of the members voted  against the increase in bulk at the AGM in January 2019. The trustees didn’t like that. So they now dismiss it as “A straw poll is exactly that, an indication of opinion of the attendees of that meeting, no more and no less.” But the trustees were not actually wanting even a discussion, never mind a vote. The taking of a straw poll had to be proposed by a member and the rest of the members pushed for it. * Read this. 

What is wrong with a “straw poll”? Aside from when you don’t like what it tells you? It is members putting their hands up to give their vote on a matter. It is the same as putting you hand up to vote for a trustee or a new Constitution.  "No, of course not, you fool!  Completely different. Pay attention!"

These trustees will argue about the meaning of every phrase and word that does not suit them. Why is that? Because the members are not buying their argument and that – plus creating confusion - is all they have ever had. So this thing drags on like a bad marriage.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote in the post on 2 August 2019 FAR/Bulk Committee Report: Bad news for Trustees (and they don't want you to see it). :

The decision to form a committee to investigate the bulk issue was, in my opinion, a strategic move by the trustees to try to remove it from discussion at the AGM in January. It failed. Members insisted it be discussed with 80% to 90% voting against the increase in bulk.  

Nevertheless, the committee was still planned as either the trustees had to drop their plan to increase bulk right there and then at the AGM, or roll the dice that the still to be formed committee would advance their agenda. 

But the trustees knew they'd rolled "snake eyes" when they saw the make up of the committee. Independent, knowledgeable members not able to be bullied into submission.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... it is worth noting that the trustees are the servants and not the masters.. (of the members).  But not here on Thesen Islands. *See more at the bottom of this post.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2018 I posted HOA tries out a new story - I'm not buying it , I wrote “The (HOA) communication buries the key issues under an avalanche of words using the approach of "this is too complicated for you to understand, but we'll try to explain it to you. But no need to worry, we're handling it as we know what's best". 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They are now replaying their same (albeit failed) strategy to bury the killer blows dealt to their scheme by the FAR Sub-committee:   

”It is the view of the committee that the Trustees should not have agreed the overall increase in FAR proposed by the DRP….” 

and  

“The DRP be run exclusively by the appointed professionals…”  

“Trustees should not have any say on DRP rulings…”

“The Trustees may, from time to time, ask the Chairperson of the DRP for a report on DRP approvals and submissions not approved, but will otherwise not intervene in this process.”


The sub-committee, chaired by a trustee, with another trustee on it (both having now resigned. Fired?) was put in place by the trustees themselves and they selected/approved the members. In fact, it is officially called a “Subcommittee of the Board of Trustees”. But now they are so pissed off with it they have disowned it.  It is now “the FAR Committee”. 

And they complain “The FAR committee was comprised of a majority of members who were expressly and vocally opposed to any relaxation. There were no DRP members on the committee either." This is their own committee they are complaining about!  

The General Manager and the Building Control Officer (who is an important cog in the DRP) were also on their committee. But when the 4 committee members released the report they said “The Report was finalised with no dissenting views on any aspect and agreement was reached by consensus”. Make of that what you will. 

The trustee’s response to the killer blows?  “Comments above fall beyond the scope of the FAR Committee Terms of Reference..”  The straight-jacket terms of reference having been set by the trustees themselves in an effort to control the sub-committee. There is no practical  reason for ignoring parts of the report if, as they claim, it is outside the terms of reference. Other than you don’t like what it says.  

To be clear about the trustee's response: Who asked the trustees to go on this mission exploring the ins and outs of the conditions of approval of the development, the Knysna Municipality zoning laws and who knows what else, blah , blah, blah, blah, hiring consultants, “experts”, maybe lawyers, all expenses paid by us, of course, to produce an unreadable response to the FAR committee’s report that torpedoed their scheme?  And then they expect members to attend "workshops" on this?

But you can bet your house that if the FAR committee had said “increased bulk is a great idea” we would not have this gobbledegook drop with a thud in our mailboxes.  For sure, the sub-committee’s report would not have seen the light of day if some of the committee didn’t decide to release it directly to members. 

The trustees appear to be delusional at best, dishonest at worst.  They claim they take the member’s wishes seriously yet ignored the wishes of the 80-90% of members at the AGM who rejected the idea of increasing the bulk. Then they say they  “take very seriously our duty to be impartial….”  but have never allowed any other viewpoint other than their own to come from the HOA. And attack and threaten members who have, in their eyes, the audacity to call them out. 

They talk of  “unwarranted and perpetual attacks on their personal reputations by disaffected members” (never substantiated). I would say they’re doing a fine job themselves on their reputations and don’t need any help from members, disaffected or not.   

Oh, and they say “As always, we will happily engage with any bona fide request from any Member”. They have ignored countless requests for information on this whole fiasco for the last 9-10 months. Bona fide! Now they tell us! That has been the problem!  Here I, and many members, have been asking the same questions countless times, but we have never received an answer because, apparently, our questions aren’t “bona fide”!  

As a service to fellow members who don’t want to waste their time asking questions that are not considered “bona fide”, here are 2 examples that must fall into the “not bona fide” category: 

The names of the owners, house numbers and architects who had plans secretly approved with the increased bulk? 

A copy of the legal opinion that the increase in bulk is, to quote the trustees, "indeed a minor change to the Design Guidelines, within the meaning of clause 9.1 of the Constitution"? A 10% increase in bulk is minor?  Not one director of the Thesen Islands Development Company agrees. Read what 2 have to say here

While moaning about “attacks on their personal reputations”, the trustees do a hatchet job on the FAR Committee members as well as those quoted in the report who do not agree with them. And throw some mud: “their premature conclusions resulted in concealing a substantial FAR indiscretion by a FAR Committee member. It also revealed that other members of the FAR Committee are presently non-compliant.” 

Does that mean they can expect a visit from the Building Control Officer in the near future?  Is this not an attack on “personal reputations” they claim they are against? I am not going to get into a “whataboutery” with the trustees on compliance, either. But many members could.  

The FAR sub-committee proposals would, hopefully, stop insider deals and trading favours. We already had a taste where insiders were getting their plans approved with increased bulk while the rest of us knew nothing about it. So much for openness, transparency and fairness.  

To end, there is this from the remaining trustees: “The FAR Committee holds itself out to be beyond reproach with numerous suggestions as to the operations of the HOA, specifically the DRP.”  If you needed any further indication that the trustees do not tolerate any criticism, this is it.  How dare the FAR Committee even make suggestions to them?  The trustees know everything and they know what is best.  

As for the  “beyond reproach” jibe:  I would gladly take all the members of the FAR sub-committee to be trustees instead of the current bunch we are stuck with. And so, I think, would most members. For what the members of the FAR Committee did is put the interests of the members first. And stood up against this power grab by the trustees. For that, they earn their anger and hostility. 

The committee members can reflect on this quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” 

And know that you have the respect of a huge majority of owners.  



*Another owner sent me this:
"At any stage the owners in a general meeting can direct the trustees to...abort or alter any course the trustees may be embarked on...it is worth noting that the trustees are the servants and not the masters..."  Read the full piece here. 


Every member reading this blog needs to realize that there are many other members who only get to read the “fake news” that the HOA puts out. So forward a link to it to all friends who are members. 

If you cannot, or do not want to, attend the AGM in January, give your proxy to a member friend or neighbour, telling him or her your position on this issue. If you give it to the chairman, as is the usual default choice on the proxy form, you know how he will vote.  

We need well-informed, involved members. The future of Thesen Islands depends on it.