GSIS and Ma On Shan

[Dragon]

even more confused

I have just read the content of the EGM requisition again and it clearly asks that a vote be done on each member of the board and on each new candidate. So once again we can affect change now even though it may only be a small change.

No ! The EGM requires the exaxt wording of the resolution to be passed at the meeting. If there is any deviation from the original request, there needs to be a withdrawal of the original request and the requisition of yet another EGM with the exact wording of the resolutionS to be passed by the EGM.
The current requisition clearly stated as the purpose of the meeting to remove all of the listed individuals, followed by the list of all current serving board members, and to vote in all of the following ( followed by the list of all individuals standing to replace the current board ) plus any other individuals deemed .....
There is is simply not an option according to the requisition to vote on each individual based on theit merit.

Before continuing this discussion, please get the facts straight !

It is one thing to oppose the current structure, but another one altogether to mislead the very engaged group on what IS ACTUALLY GOING ON
I certainly have my own beef with the current board, but I find it very irritating that,
apparently nothing has come of this discussion on the lead to the Wanchai campus, following the "discovery" of this thread, nor does it seem to be clear what the participants are supporting in line woth actual reality.
If we are to support the efforts of the requisitionists, which I strongly suggest we do, how come we are not even clear as to what exactly they are pursuing ???

 

[Dragon]

follow up

The circular to the GSIS community stated VERBATIM that,

"the requisition calls for the removal of the following and all other current directors of the GSIS Association Ltd.:
Ulrich Buchholtz, Mark Bergt, Jens Albarus, Martina Beck, Klaus Festl, Marco Foehn, Michael Gibson, Egon Heidner, Eric van Hoeven, Pius Jean-Richard Dit Bressel, Dr. Tilman Krauch, Dr. Din Bau To,
Michael Zankel,
the requisition further calls for the appointment of the following and any such other person or persons as the GSIS Association Ltd. at its General Meeting deems appropriate:
Dietmar Bruck, Jutta Doering - Riel, Martin Hirt, Desiree Jebsen, Jancu Koenig, Lisa Fingerhuth - Leung, Christian Rhomberg, Wessel van der Scheer, Bernhard Schlun, Jens Winter "

I found the mail in my Trash bin but can't copy it so I typed it down for you word by word,
any questions ?

 

[NewHorizon]

No ! The EGM requires the exaxt wording of the resolution to be passed at the meeting. If there is any deviation from the original request, there needs to be a withdrawal of the original request and the requisition of yet another EGM with the exact wording of the resolutionS to be passed by the EGM.
The current requisition clearly stated as the purpose of the meeting to remove all of the listed individuals, followed by the list of all current serving board members, and to vote in all of the following ( followed by the list of all individuals standing to replace the current board ) plus any other individuals deemed .....
There is is simply not an option according to the requisition to vote on each individual based on theit merit.

Before continuing this discussion, please get the facts straight !

It is one thing to oppose the current structure, but another one altogether to mislead the very engaged group on what IS ACTUALLY GOING ON
I certainly have my own beef with the current board, but I find it very irritating that,
apparently nothing has come of this discussion on the lead to the Wanchai campus, following the "discovery" of this thread, nor does it seem to be clear what the participants are supporting in line woth actual reality.
If we are to support the efforts of the requisitionists, which I strongly suggest we do, how come we are not even clear as to what exactly they are pursuing ???

I generally agree or at least follow what you say, except for the part I have highlighted in red. What did you mean?

 

[happyhour]

In theory, yes. In reality, no. If people vote down the requisitionists' proposal at the EGM because they are uncomfortable with a big change in the board, what's chance of them agreeing to replace half the board at the AGM? I don't know who are going to retire at the next AGM, are they all bad? What if they are the good ones? Are we going to replace them regardless? The gist of the problem is that (1) we don't know who are the culprits in the current board and (2) the new candidates can't show us any credentials in serving on the board. The appointment of 2 new directors hopefully will address to these problems.

Happy hour we have two chances one now at the EGM and one at the AGM if it doesn't work now we can go back and try at the AGM. Two chances in my opinion are better than one any day.

 

[NewHorizon]

In theory, yes. In reality, no. If people vote down the requisitionists' proposal at the EGM because they are uncomfortable with a big change in the board, what's chance of them agreeing to replace half the board at the AGM? I don't know who are going to retire at the next AGM, are they all bad? What if they are the good ones? Are we going to replace them regardless? The gist of the problem is that (1) we don't know who are the culprits in the current board and (2) the new candidates can't show us any credentials in serving on the board. The appointment of 2 new directors hopefully will address to these problems.

happyhour, I agree with you entirely!
Should buy you a drink!

 

[NewHorizon]

More questions:

How long has this board been in power?
How long has Chairman Buchholtz been in power?

Thanks.

 

[Dragon]

getting more confused all the time

I generally agree or at least follow what you say, except for the part I have highlighted in red. What did you mean?

You may remember that I was advised in this thread before that, the Wanchai Lead was posted here as early as February ? It later showed up on this thread on April 17th ? Genome was asked what happened to it with the response "I passed it on to the relevant parties" ?

My confusion results from the dates and times and engagement leading apparently to nothing until someone else alerted the board to this new solution.

I therefore wonder if this discussion is leading anywhere, or, are any participants actually involved in trying to resolve any of the issues (honestly, so far I am not ) or is this whole thread just about "airing views"
In any case, the underlying facts should be clear or else this is leading nowhere

 

[Dragon]

not confused

happyhour, I agree with you entirely!
Should buy you a drink!

I disagree with you entirely, but could buy you a drink anyway, to continue the discussion.
What good can it possibly do to replace two directors ? They will always be voted down and then, circulate their dissenting views to whoever is opposed to the still serving board through threads like this. And what does that accomplish ? Ongoing dissent, frustrations and the continuation of "business as usual" with ongoing rumblings and disunity in the background.
Besides, as stated before, the "option" of voting in two new directors currently does not exist until the next ordinary AGM

 

[happyhour]

No, you don't "replace" 2 directors. There are currently 13 directors on the board and the maximum is 15. You can appoint 2 more at any time. At the next AGM, one half of the directors will retire and will be eligible for re-election. So we are talking about 6 to 7 places then. I googled and found that the last AGM was held on 25-11-08. So the next one is probably due around the same time this year.

No doubt, only 2 directors won't carry a lot of weight. But if they could tell us who is thinking and doing what (if anything) on the board, it will have the effect of making the other directors think more carefully and and work harder (or at least do some work). They will know that the parents will get to know their individual decisions and there is no place to hide. If they keep on making no contribution to the board or backing the wrong decisions, they know that they may be replaced individually either at EGM or AGM.

I agree this is not the perfect solution. But what other practical option have we got that is perfect and is likely to get the support and votes of the majority of the parents? Let's discuss.

I disagree with you entirely, but could buy you a drink anyway, to continue the discussion.
What good can it possibly do to replace two directors ? They will always be voted down and then, circulate their dissenting views to whoever is opposed to the still serving board through threads like this. And what does that accomplish ? Ongoing dissent, frustrations and the continuation of "business as usual" with ongoing rumblings and disunity in the background.
Besides, as stated before, the "option" of voting in two new directors currently does not exist until the next ordinary AGM

 

[NewHorizon]

I disagree with you entirely, but could buy you a drink anyway, to continue the discussion. ...

This is what I would say is the correct spirit and approach - one can have lively discussions to stimulate mature consideration, accomodate different views, and at the same time remain civilized.

Should this not be the approach with the board?
Or has it not been possible?