Dear Dr. Jose Colaco, Many thanks for your message. It is commendable that you are trying to defend one of your best friends, as such friends who come to your aid in times of need are hard to come by. I can only wish you luck. But I have no such mission, since I do even know personally any of the persons involved. And my opinion is based on whatever I can recollect having read on the issue in the recent past. Let me also clarify that I have not seen the advertisement.
When you say "IF Gaspar is wrong, he is wrong. BUT, if he is NOT wrong, I know that you will join me in saying so" you are only stating a truism because it applies to each one of us, including the opponents of Almeida. But we must have some proof of his innocence in this matter. Thus far, we have only accusations thrown at him. Unfortunately, he is not coming forward with his defence; he has just clammed shut. All that we have is his friends waxing eloquent on his qualities of heart and the good work he does / has done in the past. But this is just diversionary, and has absolutely no bearing on the case as, to my mind, even a saint is liable to commit errors. And, when Almeida's best friends give hints of misdemeanor on his part, one may suspect that a more grave error must have been committed. To your query whether "3 DAYS was enough time to revise the advert" my answer would be in the negative, because I would need to know the reasons for the delay of 3 HUNDRED+ DAYS. I might want to know about the event that occurred THREE or FOUR days prior to the APPEARANCE of the advert which prompted Almeida to effect the handing over. Was it done with the sole intention of scotching the publication of the advert? If yes, that would point to dishonesty. Moreover, you have not mentioned details of the handing over like TO WHOM the things were handed over, in WHOSE presence, under WHOSE direction / supervision etc. The POIXE part is the most intriguing. From what has appeared on the net, I find that the Almeida team was in office for at least a couple of years before the Coelho team was duly elected. And the Incoming team claims that the Outgoing team has been holding on to the records (which, to my mind, would include Bank accounts) for at least a year. Therefore, would it be wrong to assume that it is the Almeida team which is holding on to the POIXE? You claim to have seen the record of things that were handed over; did this include the POIXE too? The Almeida team too must have operated Bank accounts of GWS funds. In which Banks, and in whose names, were the accounts operated? Do you find that the irregularities that you mention existed during Almeida's tenure too? If yes, what steps were taken by Almeida's team to correct them? In pursuance of your brief, you seem to be trying to shift the maximum possible, if not the entire, blame from Secretary Almeida to HIS President. You are probably quoting law books when you say, (a) "Responsibility for ANY action or inaction lies MAINLY with the President, not solely with the Secretary," and (b) "Tradition has nothing to do with the presentation of Audited accounts at an AGM. IF any team has NOT provided them (Audited accounts), the President should be slammed." I do not know how many law books the founders and past / present office-bearers of GWS have read. But I do know that in many organizations it is the Secretary who calls all the shots, the President being just a figure-head. You could have consulted your friend on this aspect to know the exact situation prevailing in the GWS. Moreover, it is nobody's case that Secretary Almeida flouted the directions of HIS President; nor does Almeida claim that he withheld the records for an inordinately long time under directions of HIS President. It is also not stated that he finally handed over the things following or flouting the directions of his President. And if, as you say, the GWS is unlikely to be "put back on rails", I would not want to waste my time on this issue. But until the final word is said, I think, we can hope for the best. Sincerely, Sebastian Borges On 24 Jun 2010 "J. Colaco < jc>" <[email protected]> wrote: 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 Sebastian Borges
