Macedonian Church Dispute in Australia

[George S.]

I recently received this announcement.

"Mark Coure, Member for Oatley and Chair of the Macedonian Ministerial Committee are having a luncheon in the Speaker's Dining Room on Friday 2 March. The guests of honour at the lunch will be a delegation from the Parliament of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), led by HE Mr Trajko Veljanoski, President of the Assembly. The First Secretary, Mr Majkl Sibinovski will be accompanying the delegation.

Mr Coure believes the lunch would be an excellent opportunity to strengthen your relationship with the Parliament of FYROM. Prior to the lunch there will include an opportunity for photographs to be taken with the delegation.

Prior to lunch, guests are requested to assemble in the Legislative Council Members' Lounge at 11.45am sharp.

Please note that members of the Macedonian media will be accompanying the delegation for photos before the commencement of lunch.""
Amazing how they keep refering to us as fyrom,whatever
happened to self identification??

[lavce pelagonski]

Some shiptar ministers will come down to meet us soon, it was on Ico Najdovski yesterday but I didnt catch who.

[Vangelovski]

The membership of this Ministerial Consultative Committee is still a secret. The only confirmed member is Petar's associate Peter Ristevski. This MCC does not represent the Macedonian community and it is quite obvious that they have bowed to Greek pressure and are now referring to Macedonia as FYROM.

[George S.]

tom i don't know who they are i've emailed mark if he can let me know soon as i get it i'll keep you guys in the know.Isn't it crazy how we are represented by people we don't know or they won't let us know.I wouldn't be surprised if we are forced to go back to" slav" prefix undoing the good work of amhrc.The greeks are plotting to do that's why they are liasing & lobbying mark coure.
Lavce start collecting some rotten eggs & tomatoes & when he? comes let him have it.
We probably could video it & put it on you tube.A right royal welcome for a shiptar.

[Daj edna luta]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding a General Meeting every two years. The Annual General Meeting provision applies to public companies (for profit), which MOCA is not.

Vangelovski,
Can you tell me which section of the Corporations Act states this, I would like to look it up myself.

[Daj edna luta]

This is frivilous and irrelevant. There is nothing wrong, Biblically or under Australian law, with MOCA selling assets that belongs to it or making a profit on the sale of its assets.

Would you response be the same if the directors sold the church building itself without approval from the members?

Again, they would not be breaking any Biblical or Australian laws. Like the units the church building is just another asset.

[George S.]

Obviously it's an attempt to discredit MOCA.You could be making it all up.Daj edna luta what's to say that you just made it all up.Where is the evidence in all this.Perhaps you had one luta too many.There is a saying put up or shut up.AS mentioned by others MOCA is transparent through AGMS etc.How are directors evading their commitment to the directorship.Would anyone do something & risk going to jail???With all the checks & balances in place are you saying that is what has happened.You must be on cuckooland.

[Risto the Great]

Daj edna luta, are you going to comment on any of my replies or are you seriously just here to have a little fun? Your allegiances seem extremely clear and I will say that an extremely consistent trait among people like you is the desire for anonymity. This occurs because your position is typically deceitful, always full of innuendo and always unable to be unsubstantiated. So common. Surprise all of us and tell us who you are, I bet the "innuendo factor" drops to NIL immediately thereafter.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski,
Can you tell me which section of the Corporations Act states this, I would like to look it up myself.

You're the one that claimed it was illegal under the Corporations Act - now you've shown that you haven't even read the Corporations Act!! Why on earth would you have made that original claim if you hadn't even done your homework first?

[Vangelovski]

Would you response be the same if the directors sold the church building itself without approval from the members?

Again, they would not be breaking any Biblical or Australian laws. Like the units the church building is just another asset.

Can you even provide any evidence that any units were even sold? Or are you just here to spread more BS?

[George S.]

daj edna luta what relationship do you have with moc & how did you come accross this incident of sale of units by directors.???You would think that directors would seek approval before acting.Do you think that limitations of directors to sell something is not mentioned under corporations law??A bunch of units is not just any asset & there would be rigid rules to be followed or do you think it's open slather.Anyone can just call themselves a director
& whopsi do sell church assets & keep the money.Do you really want us to beleive that.I don't think it's that simple.Also what reason would the directors have to retain the proceeds of the sale.Adter all directors are also servants of the company.What absolute drivel.How did you find out about it are you in position of power or are you priveleged me thinks it's just hearsay.

[Daj edna luta]

Obviously it's an attempt to discredit MOCA.You could be making it all up.Daj edna luta what's to say that you just made it all up.Where is the evidence in all this.Perhaps you had one luta too many.

George,
First of all lets make one thing clear, i'm not claiming that the directors kept the profit for themselves. This is how i understand the situation:

There was some kind of deal between "St. Petka" directors and MOCA directors. "St. Petka" was to sell several units that it owned to MOCA but (this is very important) MOCA was supposed to keep the units so "St. Petka" could buy them back later. Now i don't know why but MOCA decided to sell the units a couple of years later. The profit from the sales was kept by MOCA.

Like you, i just want to know the truth. I'm sure there are members here that know much more than me and can confirm or deny all this.

[Daj edna luta]

You're the one that claimed it was illegal under the Corporations Act - now you've shown that you haven't even read the Corporations Act!! Why on earth would you have made that original claim if you hadn't even done your homework first?

I have read the Act, and my understanding is that the laws in regards to AGMs apply to all companies regardless of whether they are for profit or not. You claim to know otherwise, so that's why i'm asking you to point to the section of the Act that backs your claim.

[Daj edna luta]

A member could also ask to review the minutes of meetings where resolutions were held pertaining to the matter. Don't you know this? Why make it sound so cloak & dagger unless your intentions here are less than genuine.

Members may have certain rights in theory but it's difficult for them to apply them in practise. Just ask Mr. Mick Veloski who is one of the original founders of MOCA.

For a long time Mick has had concerns about the way MOCA is managed. At a General Meeting in August 2009 he requested that the proxy votes be verified but his request was denied by the chairman. He also requested permission from the members to inspect the books of the company. This request was granted. However 2 and a half years later he is yet to be given an opportunity to inspect the books. Initially he was told by the directors that he should contact the accountant to arrange the inspection. Each time Mick would contact the accountant he was told that the auditor had the books. Strangely, last year the auditor and accountant of MOCA resigned.


Now don't ask me to prove all this, what i can do is give you Mick's contact number (if you send me a private message) and you can ask him yourself. I'm sure he won't mind if you call him. You can read about some of his contribution to the macedonian cause on the following link:

http://www.pollitecon.com/html/life/Mick_Veloskey_Interview.html

I'm sure you'll be impressed.

[Risto the Great]

I have read the Act, and my understanding is that the laws in regards to AGMs apply to all companies regardless of whether they are for profit or not. You claim to know otherwise, so that's why i'm asking you to point to the section of the Act that backs your claim.

Your understanding is actually incorrect. Laws applying to incorporated associations are found in the various State & Territory "Associations Incorporation Acts". Notwithstanding this, the requirement for an annual AGM seems quite consistent. Maybe you missed your invitation. Alternatively, why don't you become a member and ask them about it.