Note on the EUC AGM

Notes on the General Assembly of the EUC Costa Esuri held on October 29, 2021.

On October 29, 2021, the General Assembly of the URBANISTIC ENTITY OF CONSERVATION COSTA ESURI (EUC) was held to, among other things, approve the Annual Accounts of 2019 and 2020, set Budget and the election of members of the council.

In view of the fact that, since March 2019, the EUC has not held General Meetings, and considering that the deliberations would require considerable time, the Residents Association had in June this year requested two meetings, one for the 2019 Annual Accounts and one for the 2020 Annual Accounts.

The Governing Council of the EUC did not answer or respond to this request, and convened an AGM for all the points to be dealt with for Friday October 29, 2021 at 5pm, knowing that the premises where it would be held (Casa Grande) closes at half past eight and knowing also that, due to the registration procedure for members, the AGM would not start at the scheduled time.

As indeed it did not, starting aproximatly one houre late at 18:00. The meeting was as usual chaotic, with a Presidency that continually tried to prevent questions from the owners, with disrespectful responses to the questions put to them and, finally, with an abrupt closing of the session that prevented dealing with items of the agenda especially, the control of votes.

All this, together with the inadequate call, is grounds to challenge the AGM and all the resolutions adopted therein, in particular:

  • No coefficient of attendance to the AGM was provided. An owner legitimately but unsucesfully tried to request this information which the Council is obliged to give.
  • The Council tried on several occasions to deny the right of speech to those present. This refusal gave rise to serious opposition, as it is a statutory right of the attendees.
  • The Council’s report on the management of the EUC was not submitted to the AGM, as is mandatory.
  • The annual accounts submitted were incomplete and did not comply with legal or statutory requirements.
  • The Council does not have the power to dispose of the owners’ money, so it cannot make a discount of 48,000€ to a debtor.
  • The items on the agenda were dealt with without being put to the vote and therefore without giving rise to the necessary reflection and decision, and some of those present did not even know which item was being dealt with.
  • The point of election of members of the Council was dealt with very quickly without giving alternative slates a chance to state their intentions.
  • No questions could be put to the Council in Any Other Business because the Council announced the closure of the meeting. The Council was informed prior to the meeting of many of these questions, which it did not answer.
  • The ballots were collected without any control while the attendees were leaving, without being able to express their reservation of vote, or request for a voting table, or indeed any other measure that guarantees a transparent and reliable recount of the votes.

Notwithstanding the above, we can highlight the following:

It was requested that the management report be given in writing, as it is mandatory.

The accounts for the financial years 2019 and 2020, gave rise to an intense debate. Their unacceptable presentation, the changes of concepts that they make each year, that makes it impossible to know what they correspond to.

The confusion between fees accrued and contributions collected, the lack of a report explaining them which it is obligatory to present.

Documents presented without identification, etc.

These were some of the issues raised, without the Council or the Administrator responding satisfactorily to any of them.

With regard to the budget, the President tried to play it down for the short time remaining of the year. Several participants opposed this as the budget should be the framework within which the EUC should operate, not the routine document formulated by the Council.

It was demanded that the execution of the budget be given as it is mandatory, some aspects were discussed such as that the Assembly approved expenses not provided for in the Statutes, a miscellaneous expenditure item in the amount of 6,000€, or that there was no item for Council expenditure to appear in the accounts.

The President said that there would be a surplus of €450,000 this year. However, the situation as at 30 September 2021 was not reported, as it appeared on the agenda, on the grounds that it was not available.

The President also said that the Council was not aware of who had paid this amount, which was due to arrears.

The Council was asked for information on debtors, which the Council said it did not know, on the grounds that it was a matter for the Servicio de Gestión Tributaria, and that information could not be published because of data protection, which was much discussed.

It was asked what steps the Council was taking to improve voluntary collection of fees, which has been falling in the last two years, the President replied that the Council does not collect, which was also discussed.

It became clear that there is no EUC liability insurance. If a person has an accident because they stumble on a tree root, or on a broken cobblestone, the EUC is responsible. The City Council was requested to reply in writing if it is it’s responsibility. It was said that it would be answered in Any Other Business, but there was no opportunity.

The Council was asked why it did not carry out an audit of the accounts, the Secretary replied that they would do so if the person requesting it paid for it.

To the question of who was the administrator of the EUC, Mr. Menéndez said that the administrator is MR Managering Madrid.
When something is published on the EUC website, it was requested that the date of publication be shown.

Both the Association and private owners had sent numerous questions to the Governing Council prior to the meeting to enable the Council to answer them in an informed manner.

Most of these questions could not be asked because the meeting was closed without dealing with the Question and answer session, which is mandatory in every Ordinary General Assembly giving the owners the opportunity to raise issues that are not included in the Agenda.

Subsequently, on 2 and 3 November, members of the alternative candidacy went to the offices of the Administrator to check the ballots, which were denied on instructions from the current Secretary of the Council, as they were told; “the results would be published on the EUC web page as soon as possible”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *