This was yet another circumstance in which there was a 'small percentage of representation of the building (approx 20%) has prevented the application of the will of a much more representative representation (just under 50% ).
The object of the dispute on this occasion was the removal from office the Chief and the curious thing is that an administration, after all, has not been confirmed. So what's the problem! The problem is that thanks to the rules that govern the effectiveness of the resolutions of this kind, in case you propose the candidature of a new administrator and admissions (direct or by proxy) were the same, the just under 50% is not enough to decide the award of attorney.
The consequence of all this is before the eyes of all, it is now years, due to similar circumstances, the Administrator would be forced against his will to a management-conditioning.
In order to avoid the use of this useless if not harmful situation I proposed to find, though the vote had gone, an agreement to form a majority that would make the effective resolution in one direction or another: if they had prevailed votes for the confirmation of the director, who also wanted his removal would have altered the vote in his favor, and conversely if they were prevailed votes for his removal, those who wanted to confirm it would also be suitable for a relative majority.
Obviously this has not happened! So it must be concluded that the agreements of common sense does not prevail over pre-established positions and, henceforth, it is good to be discarded a priori.
This unfortunately can not be considered a good starting point, especially when you consider that the Assembly should be the true means for the sharing of democratic intrapprendimenti needed to preserve and / or improvement of common property, including civil society.
The reasons that were more or less given in the justification in fact, defined as a fundamental reason of this behavior, find their origin in the belief that there is an undeniable feeling of coagulant majority group on the willingness to change the Custodian.
Personally I am not sure that this is true, in fact I'm quite sure that it is not at all, but that is enough.
The truth I see is that in one way or another the views of the entire Condominium nobody knows it: on this occasion more than 30% did not attend even by proxy.
I must conclude that in spite of myself I can only agree with those who assert that the real problem of this community is not so much who administers it, but those who compose it.
Sergio
0 comments:
Post a Comment