My dear Sebastian, Once again, I thank you for your post in which you have raised very valid and well made points points. A few of the points actually crossed my mind before I scripted that post. Hence, I made it my business to check before I hit the SEND button.
On my part, at the outset, let me reiterate that I too have no personal interest in the dispute as I am not a member and I do not know of any of my relatives being members of GWS. The person, singled out for special attention i.e. Gaspar Almeida is one of my best friends Not only was he singled out, MY private e-space and (I believe) Goan sensibilities were offended by the plastering of this stuff on GoaNet and other sites. Even so ... and I mean it, IF Gaspar is wrong, he is wrong. BUT, if he is NOT wrong, I know that you will join me in saying so. Now, BEFORE I attempt to address your (mostly, quite reasonable) points, let me put the following up front, as I see it from afar: [a] This Society, as is, is unlikely to be "put back on rails" [b] The main sticky point appears to be one of the proverbial poixe and the allegation that Society funds are being held in private accounts. This allegation has been made on the net....and not been challenged yet. [c] Goans, in the West - at least, have had the reputation of being extremely honest when it comes to the handling of money. That is why many were upset with the UK MP Keith Vaz. This sort of stuff, once it hits the net, is our concern - as it affects us too. So, let not any FOOL attempt to advise me that 'this matter is of no concern of mine'. Now to your points: SB[1] if there was any delay, the responsibility does NOT fall in the lap of Almeida. JC [1] Responsibility for ANY action or inaction lies MAINLY with the President, not solely with the Secretary. (ref Owner, Employer, Company liability). As far as I know, Almeida was not the President. It only falls SOLELY on (say) the Secretary IF the Secretary refuses (without valid reason) to follow the direction of HIS President. In such a case, that President (in this case ...2008-2009) should have made / should make known the (unreasonable) disregard of his directions. == SB[2] Was it done just a day prior to the appearance of the ad? JC[2] Would you say that 3 days was enough time to revise the advert. == SB[3] Does the Society have a tradition of presenting audited accounts at general body meetings? Did the Outgoing Committee present one before it demitted office? JC[3] Tradition has nothing to do with the presentation of Audited accounts at an AGM. IF any team has NOT provided them, the President should be slammed. == SB[4] do I understand that your brief ends with diverting the blame from Almeida? JC[4] Thank you for that. I believe that you understand English better than you reveal in the above. PS: I am quite happy to respond to your questions - even if some may find them diversionary. I honestly do not find them diversionary. Having said that, I repeat my view that the PRIMARY issue is one of POIXE. One needs to Follow the Poixe, and determine Where they are. Do you agree or Do you not? sincerely jc == Dear ....Jose Colaco, Thank you for your post. At the outset, let me reiterate that I have no personal interest in the dispute as I am not a member and I do not know of any of my relatives being members of GWS. And I do not personally know any of the disputing parties; therefore, the question of my taking sides just does not arise. My only concern is that two groups in a GOAN organization are embroiled in an internecine quarrel, to the detriment of the Society which has done a lot of good work in the past. My desire is to see that the Society is put back on rails in the shortest possible time. The search for reasons behind this impasse should be only for the purpose of avoiding them in the future. Having said that, I find that your role is limited to prove that, if there was any delay, the responsibility does NOT fall in the lap of Almeida. You say that if there was no handing over of documents etc by the Outgoing Committee to the Incoming Committee, the fault lies with the President (whoever it is) and not with Almeida who was only the Secretary. Yet you assert that it was Almeida himself who handed over whatever it was, and that this was done 'BEFORE' the impugned adverts appeared in newspapers. But you do not state the DATE on which this was done nor the person/s TO WHOM this handing over was done. Was it done just a day prior to the appearance of the ad? Or was it on the day following the election? Please note that your 'BEFORE' encompasses a period of at least a year! If there was a delay, is any explanation provided? And was this handing over done under instructions of the ex-President? And what is the ex-President's explanation for delaying the instructions, if any? Or, do I understand that your brief ends with diverting the blame from Almeida? Does the Society have a tradition of presenting audited accounts at general body meetings? Did the Outgoing Committee present one before it demitted office? Just being "in office" is not sufficient to prove incompetence. Let me cite an example. The Government of Goa appointed Dr. J. C. Almeida as the first Chairman of Goa Public Service Commission but did not provide any infrastructure to carry on his functions. Consequently, he could do nothing worthwhile. Can we, therefore, say that Dr. Almeida was incompetent? And I do remember having read somewhere on the internet an appeal to members of GWS to send in the particulars of their membership, because the Committee does not possess the Record thereof; the 'manipulation' part, perhaps, came to light in the course of such scrutiny? But I am only thinking aloud! Isn't ONE YEAR a long enough wait before inserting an advert in newspapers? I still feel that some well-meaning persons in Kuwait should come forward to cut this Gordian knot, instead of further exacerbating the situation.
