Dear Fellow members
Here is the paragraph wise response to the mail from our esteemed member Mr. Amarjit Singh.
1. We had gone beyond Law and took a decision to expand the MC and include 4 new co-opted members in our meeting held on 9th May, however, the Housing Officer advised us to stay within the Legal framework of the Society’s laws. Accordingly the elected MC had to reconsider the decisions taken on Co-option. I am attaching the word file of my email for your ref. which I wrote to the expanded MC following the Legal ramifications. Our Two Hon’ Members Mr, SS Kaushik and Mr. Kailash Rustogi who were co-opted in the MC last meeting have declined for personal reasons to be on the MC. (Please also see para 5 and 6 in this regard).
Ever since the communication of the co-option of 4 members, namely Mr. Rajbir Singh, Mr. S.S. Kaushik, Mr. Kailash Rustagi and Mr. Rajesh Gulati, some of our members appear to be gravely unnerved. Some were vocal on the e-mail network, others were working behind the scenes to ensure that the newfound harmony does not last very long. What seems to have unnerved them even more is the support that members gave to the concept of member secretary and in particular to my being the secretary. I wish they could come out with their fears in the open.
I get an impression that while Mr. Amarjit Singh took a decision to co-opt 4 members, he could not withstand the pressure from some of our members who were unnerved.
I am not sure whether the legal position that Mr. Amarjit Singh has cited is legally tenable. I would request Mr. Amarjit Singh to scan and forward to members the relevant pages of the cited act before we reach a conclusion on it.
I am not sure whether the constitution of the MC itself is legally tenable. It has been challenged before the Hon'ble SDM and is presently under scrutiny. Watch this space for updates.
Technicalities apart, I believe, there could have been ways to retain the co-opted members rather than by unceremoniously asking 2 of the 4 co-opted members to resign. What added insult to the injury was his identifying 2 of the 4 co-opted members to be retained as MC members. He did not advance any reasons as to why the two identified members will have to resign. In my perception and as Mr. Amarjit admitted in one of the meetings, just because he is truthful and calls spade a spade.
In a true demonstration of unity and the concept of ‘all for one and one for all’ all 4 members declined to be part of any one sided committee. I salute each of the 4 members for having stuck to the values, principles and ethics.
2. On the question of having a ‘Member Secretary’, his / her role, functions, responsibilities etc. There have been a number of emails which we received both for and against the appointment of a ‘Member Secretary’. The MC considered all the pros and cons and with members giving us no clear cut agreement / unanimity…It was decided to go ahead and appoint an employee Secretary.
In his communication dated 10th March, 2009 to the members Mr. Amarjit Singh had communicated the decision of the ‘MC’ to have a member secretary. There was no ambiguity in that decision. Only members were asked to come forward and discharge that role. It is only when that a sizeable number of members came forward and suggested my name that Mr. Amarjit Singh and his colleagues panicked.
Instead of refuge in legalities, this time Mr. Amarjit Singh has conveniently cited divergent opinions of the members for taking a decision in favour of an employee secretary. It needs to be brought to the notice of the members the inconsistency and the irony of Mr. Amarjit Singh’s decision. 16-17 members including yours truly were in favour of having a member Secretary and just 3 members, I repeat just 3 members were in favour of having an employee secretary. Yet Mr. Singh chose to follow those 3 rather than 17. Strange logic or does it mean that some of our members are more equal than others. Does that mean, should there not be unanimity do opposite of what the majority wishes. Is that what democracy is all about?
I also get an impression that, there was a design to make some ex-chief ministers present Governor. The plan misfired because of unexpected support to my name.
3. Vipin Kumar’s resignation as the Secretary of the Society has been accepted. The President informed that two candidates had been interviewed. One of the candidates Mr. SP Dhyani has been shortlisted and an offer has been made with a probation period. If both the Society and Mr. SP Dhyani are satisfied on performance during the probation period, a firm offer shall be made. Mr. SP Dhyani brings with him over 27 years of Office / Administrative experience with the BSF. He also has a fair knowledge of Accounting . A decorated hero of the 1971 Indo Pak conflict, Mr. SP Dhyani also served the elite NSG Commandos.
I am extremely happy to know that Mr. Vipin Kumar is no longer the Secretary. I see this as a vindication of our stand that the Secretary should be there to serve the Society and its members rather than persecute them in connivance with and at the behest of sadist members.
Having said that what is disturbing and alarming is that Mr. Vipin Kumar is still going to be handling the accounts. We are all aware that the accounts are not in great shape. In fact there are reports of large scale unauthorized payments. I wish to ask Mr. Amarjit singh as well as other members whether it is prudent for us to keep the accounts in charge of someone who has the wherewithal of destroying the evidence. Why is that Mr. Vipin Kumar is considered to be indispensable by Mr. Amarjit Singh?
Further, I am slightly perplexed on this issue. In my perception either an employee leaves or is asked to go. If Mr. Vipin Kumar has indeed resigned of his own accord why would he continue to perform any role in the society and if he has been asked to leave, why is it that he continues to be an employee of the Society and supposed to handle area as critical as accounts. Incidentally, according to Mr. Amarjit Singh Mr. Vipin Kumar resigned on 1st March, 2009 and was asked to stay on till alternate arrangements are made. It is over 3 months now and he continues to be in job. His behavior is very unlikely that of an employee. Mr. Amarjit also tells us that he has not been paid salary for 2 months. In this backdrop, I am not sure whether to appreciate his commitment or to assume that there is some thing more than what meets the eye. Is it that the resignation of Mr. Vipin Kumar is a farce?
Anyways, I sometimes get a feeling whether I could draw an analogy from political parties making the charge sheeted ministers resign and instead nominating their wives to be chief ministers. Could this be called old wine in new bottle?
I have not met Mr. Dhyani and we are yet to see his performance. Having said that what I notice is that:
a) Mr. Dhyani participated in the 1971 war and was decorated. He also has administrative experience of 27 years. Assuming he was 30 years of age in 1971, and his administrative experience commenced only after he retired from army his age would be 68 years as of now.
b) Look like that the ‘MC’ gives precedence to experience over youth.
c) Mr. Dhyani is participant of 1971 war. So was Col. Vijay Pal. Thus the source is known. Incidentally, Col Vijay Pal, though not being a member of the society was co-opted by the ex-MC as member of the MC. He was being paid Rs. 1000/- per day for sharing his ‘experience’.
d) We have not been communicated the Salary that shall be paid to Mr. Dhyani, nor have we been made known the working hours Mr. Dhayani shall keep. Is it at the same level as was being paid to Mr. Vipin Kumar or will it be at the same level as Col. Vijay pal? Will someone tell us.
e) I am not sure whether Mr. Dhyani has any corporate experience or has any familiarity with computers.
4. The MC felt the need for a part time accountant who would maintain and consolidate the Society’s accounts and liaise with Auditors, maintain bank reconciliation and sub ledger accounts etc. The MC will be interviewing short listed candidates for this position. Till a suitable candidate is found The MC has requested Vipin to continue the maintenance of accounts under the President’s supervision directly.
Mr. Vipin Kumar was in charge of and was undertaking these functions as Secretary. He used to attend office for ½ day and for 5 days a week. Our experience is that there was not enough work for him even when combined with other administrative functions. If these functions are indeed taken out of Mr. Dhyani’s domain I am not sure whether there will be enough work to keep Mr. Dhyani occupied.
Mr. Amarjit Singh has made this list rather long. Members with accounts background can appreciate that liaison with auditors is required once an year, bank reconciliation is required once an month and are sub ledgers not part of accounts?
While it is indeed gracious on the part of Mr. Vipin Kumar to have consented to handle these functions without getting salary for 2 months, if Mr. Vipin Kumar continues to handle these functions, even after resigning as Secretary, he will encroach on the functions of the secretary. While the law places the responsibility of maintaining the accounts on the secretary, here we are going to have an anomaly of someone handling an area as sensitive as accounts without any responsibility.
One the one hand, Mr. Amarjit Singh talks of conserving the resources of the Society, he also talks of precarious financial position of the society yet we are going to have two persons when we cannot find enough work for even one. ET routinely terms situations like this double whammy.
