CRA – MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING

Saturday 10th December 2016, 10am – Cultural Centre, Camposol.

PRESENT: Phil Gelling (PG), Bill Pryor (BP), Silvana Buxton (SB)

  1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE:  Alison Lister, Geoffrey Buxton, Allyson Ingamells
  2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Approved
  3. PUBLICATION OF AGM MINUTES: Published
  4. CABIN ROTA/OPENING TIMES: It was agreed to keep to the existing Cabin-opening-times and review the possibility of reducing them at the end of January 2017
  5. MEMBERS’ DATABASE UPDATE: PG reported that he and Allyson are making progress in the difficult task of tidying up the members’ database. They are now 1/3 of the way through checking details, contacting members, and recording the true state of the membership. Several members have collected their membership card from the Cabin, following this exercise. We still have a large number of members with no contact details.
  6. PG reported that he is in contact with a local Company, MW IT. He is hoping to report some progress in the New Year, and he asked the Committee to approve an initial fee of 500€ for MW IT services. Unanimously approved.
  7. MAZARRON COUNCIL: There is no update, following the situation reported in the AGM minutes, recently published. SB to prepare an ‘official’ request for information on Budget allocation.                                                                                                       (SB)
  8. SITUATION WITH JUSTO Y MANOLI: Since the CRA visit in late September, to the Administrators’ office and Mercedes, and following the deadline of 20th October for the Auction to begin, there seem to have been some movement in Camposol regarding the re-possession of some properties. The CRA is endeavouring to keep up with the Auditors’ repossession schedule.
  9. LEGAL ACTION UPDATE: Following the ‘out-of-the-blue’ request from the lawyer to provide a Power of Attorney from all claimants (Apparently this seems to be a normal process in Spanish Courts, therefore our lawyer understandably thought that we were aware of it), SB reported that she organised several meetings with the Notaire in Puerto de Mazarron, who advised that the fee would be between 15€ and 20€ per person. Consequently the following was arranged:

a)       Meeting on 3/11 – 73 claimants attended. A fee of 20€ was paid by each person

b)       Meeting on 25/11 – 25 claimants attended. A fee of 20€ was paid by each person.

c)       Several meetings for individuals who could not attend the previous two.

SB negotiated group discounts for the meetings on 3rd and 25th. The Notaire’s invoice of     692.33€ and 292.67€ respectively was less than originally quoted, which resulted in 975.00€ saving against original estimates, which was paid into the CRA’s account and was to be used for translation services of legal documents which still needed to be paid for.

A further 15 PoAs were received from the UK, making a total of 124 participating claimants. All      PoAs were delivered personally by PG and SB to our Lawyer in Molina, on Wednesday 30th November. The Lawyer will present the case in the Totana Court of First Instance, as soon as          he has completed the amendments to the report, excluding the information of 8 cases from        people who chose not to proceed. This should take place before Christmas.

  1. REGIONAL ASSEMBLY PROGRESS: SB reported that she has not yet received a reply to her email of 1/12/2016 to Alfonso Martinez Bano (Regional MP, PSOE) regarding the progress of the Regional Assembly in interviewing representatives from the Town Hall, the CHS, MASA /JyM and MT. However, following Alfonso’s previous message that the Assembly will not consider the Conclusions of his report until the above interviews have taken place, it is now highly unlikely that the CRA will be in a position to view Alfonso’s report before the New Year.
  2. TRANSPARENCY: PG reported that the CRA is endeavouring to maintain the high standards on Transparency at all times, although there may be occasions when information cannot be supplied in order to abide by the Code of Confidentiality.
  3. CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE: PG reported that this problem is becoming greater each day, and the TH is not responding to the grave concerns of the residents. Nothing seems to have been done in order to make safe the use of the road between C15 and the Golf Course where an enormous hole appeared and the road around is crumbling away. Another similar problem seems to be appearing at one end of the bridge between Sectors B and C, with part of the road beginning to crumble away, and a lamp-post already fallen through. The pot-holes on many roads in the urbanisation are getting bigger and bigger following the recent rain, and most roads are dirty with mud and large water puddles. The TH has stated that they do not have the appropriate equipment to clean the mud from the streets. PG will talk to the D Community Group to seek financial and material help in hiring some appropriate road/mud sweeping equipment.                                                                                           (PG)
  4. ARCHITECT VISIT TO CAMPOSOL: The CRA has arranged for an Architect, recommended by Murcia Transparente, to visit Camposol and prepare a basic report on visible infrastructure issues, which our lawyer will use in a formal request to the TH to make all the necessary repairs, after which, if the TH does not act upon it, legal action will commence with respect to all the Infrastructure issues on Camposol.
  5. IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS: The Committee agreed that urgent measures are required to solve this problem which is caused mostly by lack of organisational manpower. The CRA is working towards improving this, by returning to using the free monthly magazines, by making better use of the CRA Notice board outside Consum, by making the website/forum more user friendly, and it invites all members to make suggestions on how to resolve this big problem.
  6. AOB: PG reported that he has not yet been able to address the issue regarding Greg Green’s offer to take notes at CRA meetings. He will do this before the next meeting, and report accordingly.                                                                                                                       (PG)

SB thanked the Committee for approving her request for payment regarding the full translation of the Ombudsman report and the TH reply. This consisted of 15435 words, but SB charged for 11500 words @ 8€x100 words, making a total of 920.00€. SB’s services were used as on previous occasions we had put translation requests out to tender and SB offered the cheapest service in a timelier manner.

  1. DATE OF NEXT COMMITTEE METING: Saturday 14th January 2017

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 12:30

HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND BEST WISHES FOR A SUCCESSFUL NEW YEAR

MINUTES OF CRA COMMITTEE MEETING –  15/8/16 at C/lecrin, 7, Camposol

Present:               Chairman: Phil Gelling (PG)

Dep Chairman/acting-treasurer: Silvana Buxton (SB)

Secretary: Bill Pryor (BP)

Committee members:  Alison Lister (AL), Geoff Buxton (GB)

Associate:  Paul Drury (PD)

1. No Apologies

PG asked the Committee where they felt the CRA was, at this present time. Unanimous response: cautiously optimistic.

2. Minutes of last meeting: EGM 16/6/16 – Agreed.

3. SB confirmed the CRA’s total balance of €16,875.85 in credit. A full set of accounts will be presented at the AGM. Accountant Pedro Martinez Vera of Asesoría El Pilar will audit the accounts in October/November. Action: SB

4. Web Page. A discussion took place, on the way forward. PG to express the CRA’s grateful  thanks to Mr Norman Taylor for his hard work in producing some work in relation to a new CRA website, and to offer an ex-gratia payment.  PG to pursue enquiries with other webpage designers. He will report back next meeting.                                                                                                                                                                         Action: PG

5. AGM.  It was agreed that it should be held in December. SB to book the Cultural Centre.  Date, time and agenda to be confirmed next month.                                                                                                 Action: SB

6. New Committee members. It was agreed that PG will approach several people who expressed an interest in joining the committee.                                                                                                                        Action: PG

7. New committee members can be opted-in at a Committee meeting, then voted-in at our AGM.

8. AGM date, time, place and agenda to be advertised in the Costa Cálida Chronicle, the Journal etc.

9. Minute deleted. No Action required.

10. Legal Action for Multiple Fraud.  SB updated the Committee. 88 people joined the lawsuit and their files are with the CRA Lawyer. SB is updating claimants of any relevant developments.  One member withdrew and his file is stored in the CRA cabin, waiting for collection.

11. Two members joined the lawsuit but they are not CRA members.  PG to visit with Membership Form and invite them to become members.                                                                                                         Action: PG
12. One member’s documentation, left at the CRA, will be archived for the moment.      Action: PG

13. CRA PL Insurance. SB to obtain another quote, then SB/PG to take out PL insurance with chosen Provider.                                                                                                                                                                    Action: SB/PG

14/a. PG signed request on 001 form, for the TH to provide copy document relating to the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Food’s decision regarding the ‘Rambla’.  SB to take it to the TH and ensure receipt of same within the legal time-limit of 15 days.                                                                                                Action: SB

14/b.  Up-to-date information to Cabin Volunteers. It was agreed that a better effort would be made to keep the Cabin Volunteers updated of any new development, by using the Forum more regularly and by providing PG with any useful information for the Newsletter.  Action: All

14/c.  Membership database. Various suggestions were made to improve the existing procedure, but it was decided that PG would continue working on it, without changes, for the time being. Action: PG

14/d.  Newsletter. See 14/b

14/e.  Forum. The Committee was encouraged to use the Forum more actively. Action: All.

14/f.  Regular Committee meetings and Posting of minutes. It was agreed that monthly Committee meeting would be held. The posting of the minutes was not discussed at this stage.

14/g. Strategy.  PD commented on the need to ‘reach the members in a proactive way’. It was agreed that a social calendar should be organised.  SB to enquire about a BBQ at the Clubhouse.  AL suggested 28/10 and give it a ‘Halloween’ theme                                                                                                                                Action: SB

Date of next Committee meeting: 12th September, 3pm, at C/Lecrin 7.

Camposol Residents Association

Minutes of committee meeting 7 October 2015, 14.30 – Clubhouse Camposol

Present:

Phil Gelling – Chair (PG)

Sian Taylor – Secretary (ST)

Sandy Allison – Treasurer (SA)

Sue Tinkler – (STi)

Silvana Buxton (SB)

Geoff Buxton (GB)

Alison Lister (AL)

Apologies for absence:

Maite Gomez

Louise Allen

Grant Allen

Anita Herremans

Peter Walton

Adrian Ditum

John McCracken

Continue reading “CRA Committee meeting 07.10.2015”

Note: These are notes from the meeting. This is not a transcript. I have used the speaking notes provided by Phil Gelling, Silvana Buxton and Paul Drury. The remainder are notes made at the time supplemented from the videos posted onto YOUTUBE.

Adrian Ditum – Secretary

Camposol Residents Association

Notes of the public meeting 26 September 2015, 11.00 – Marianos Camposol

Present from CRA committee:

Phil Gelling – Chair (PG)

Adrian Ditum – Secretary (AD)

Sandy Allison – Treasurer (SA)

Sue Tinkler – (STi)

Silvana Buxton (SB)

Geoff Buxton (GB)

Maite Gomez (MG)

Alison Lister (AL)

John McCracken (JM)

Louise Allen (LA)

Paul Drury (Advisory) (PD)

Introductions and opening remarks

PG called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for their attendance. The committee members introduced themselves and gave some detail on their backgrounds.

MG spoke to the Spanish and French speakers and offered to meet with them after the meeting to clarify anything not fully understood. JM did the same for Dutch speakers.

PG: The agenda for today’s meeting is quite straightforward I shall be making

Some opening remarks

Killing off some rumours

Then Silvana Buxton will give you an up to date picture as to where the CRA are in trying to remedy all of the ills of Camposol.

That will be followed by Paul Drury talking through some possible options to improve our lot.

Then it will be your turn to tell us what you propose to do about the problems of Camposol.

Finally if we are all still alive and have not turned on one another we will take some proposals from the floor as to where do we go from here …….

We have a conference call set up so people abroad can hear what is being said and they possibly may want to make some comment or contribution as well…

Adrian Ditum one of our secretaries will be taking notes and will issue those to the CRA Website during the week.

Keith Donovan will be videoing the meeting so if we have to pass evidence over to the police they can see who did what to whom …… unless of course someone bumps of Keith and steals the camera.

Seriously I hope the meeting will run smoothly without any personal attacks and that people will not be heckled but will be given an opportunity to speak.

If you need the mike please raise your hand and please when asking a question or responding to a question state who you are and what sector and poligono you are on.

Food for thought

  • The residents of Camposol have been contributing millions of Euros each year in IBI and taxes and would you say you have had value for your money?

  • The council are full time employees and are expected to perform duties for the citizens of Camposol and do you denigrate them and abuse them when they don’t deliver.

  • You pay nothing to the Residents Association.

  • The volunteers of the CRA get unwarranted abuse from a small minority of Camposol residents when they do something someone does not like. Do you think that right and fair?

  • You the Residents have been lied to by MASA, the CHS, Murcia Regional Authority, the Town Hall, the Estate agents, the Salesman, all these people and organisations are responsible for the problems on Camposol and you say and do little about it.

  • However when a newspaper or article is produced in highlighting the plight of the residents of Camposol and conjures up some information rightly or wrongly some of you are up in arms. ….

I want to kill some rumours

I am not a member of a Spanish political party and I have no intentions of joining one. Politicians are not my cup of tea and neither are religious fanatics.

I have a villa on Camposol on D12 and it’s on the edge of the old rambla and yes I will be effected if the CHS have to re-instate the rambla or even put in flood prevention measures.

I am not a dangerous man – I have no weapons of mass destruction unless the person who stated this is referring to my brain or my mouth.

I do not believe I am hated by 70% of the households on Camposol it could be a higher percentage but then again I at least have the comfort of knowing that the mosquitos and flies love me …… oh and two of my three dogs.

I was asked to take over the CRA in January 2015 as Bob Owen retired and with the remaining members of the CRA we went about rebuilding the Committee and recruited a team of can do people. Those people I have already introduced to you.

We have shown what we can do in organising – the James Bond Night which was a great success and the Camposol Fiesta – said by the some to have raised the bar, and set a new standard and was a thoroughly great fun all-round weekend except for the organisers and volunteers.

So we gave Camposol two events which brought fun, frivolity and funds to those who took part and more importantly highlighted what is good about Camposol .

This year we also engaged with Murcia Transparente in January 2015 and we have been working on numerous strategies with them to fix Camposol. MT being retired Spanish lawyers and barristers have been charged with rooting out corruption in the Spanish system. Their remit is to help individuals and organisations get justice. They helped us put pressure on the previous Mayor Paco Garcia by paying him a visit and said when the CRA come calling take their three main priorities and complete them, and in an act of participation we helped get street signs (Not quite completed) , the dual carriageway repaired, had the ditches and pipes on ‘D’ cleared, 3 roads on D7,which had sunk due to the underground stream, were repaired and we had Capti the lighting people going around B, C and D to fix the lighting but they ran out of time as they hit too many problems and ran out of funds.

Others have claimed credit for those achievements but the weekly priority meeting minutes will demonstrate the truth of the matter.

So Where are we now?

I shall hand you over to Silvana Buxton who has spent much of 2015 in the Town Hall and on the phone and in meetings with Murcia Transparente, so much so that Geoff her husband had to join the committee to see his wife occasionally.

SB: Murcia Transparente are a Non-Governmental Organisation TRANSPARENT MURCIA

WHO ARE THEY?

Registered Charity Organisation, such as NGOs ActionAid, Oxfam, Red Cross etc. in the UK. MT is formed by Professional people (working / retired)

WHAT DO THEY DO?

Fight against corruption, and since the Legislation on Transparency was passed in Spain in December 2014, giving them much more power, they have taken our plea to heart, and are advising us all the way. They are Affiliated to the worldwide Anti-Corruption Agency Transparency International.

WHERE DO THEY GET FUNDING FROM?:

ONG’s get funding from:

  • General Public

  • National Organisations

  • International Foundations & Corporations

  • Banks of Multilateral Developments

  • United Nations

HOW DID THEY GET INVOLVED WITH CAMPOSOL?

A friend gave me their details. I e-mailed them saying: “I am a victim of the floods of the 25th Sept., which damaged my home in Camposol. These floods were not a natural phenomenon, but the result of corruption and incompetence from the Developers, the political parties at the time of the construction of Camposol and the Confederación Hidrográfica, who allowed the construction of properties on a rambla. I am seeking compensation for the material and moral damages that we are suffering. Can you help us?”

Following a few meetings with MT, I requested the support of the CRA who exposed more problems in Camposol, such as:

  • properties with subsidence problems

  • inadequate sewage system

  • properties with embargoes

  • properties without escrituras

  • properties without certificate of habitation

  • Incomplete works throughout the Urbanisation

WHAT HAVE MT DONE SO FAR FOR HELPING CAMPOSOL?

  • They have acted on our behalf with the Mazarrón and Murcia Authorities, the UK and Spanish Embassies, the European Parliament in Brussels, and the Media. In this context they have:

  • Demanded the release of ALL documentation relating to the construction of Camposol to: CHS / Mazarrón Council / Murcia Authority (a previous lawyer had quoted 11.000€ to CRA for doing this)

  • Obtained the CHS report (327 pages), and the MT lawyer studied it (a previous lawyer had quoted 25.000€ to CRA for doing this)

  • The (practising) lawyer has granted the CRA two 2-hour consultations, and has visited Camposol on one occasion, all free of charge.

  • Instigated media coverage (innumerable Press releases, and TV coverage)

  • Established and maintain a contact with Politicians in:

    • The Murcia Parliament

    • The European Parliament, Brussels

    • The Mazarrón representatives of ‘Podemos’ and ‘Ciudadanos’ Political Parties

  • Produced a package of: Reports, interviews, video coverage, and evidence of the problems in Camposol, especially re: Rambla and Land Subsidence.

  • Sent the ‘Camposol package’ to:

    • The Prime Minister, UK

    • The Minister of Foreign Affairs, UK

    • The UK Embassy Head Office, UK

    • The Spanish Ambassador in UK

    • The ‘Guardian’ newspaper in UK

  • At present MT are pursuing a course of action to denounce Mazarrón Council and Murcia Authority for failing to provide the documentation requested, which they MUST provide, by law.

  • They have practically saturated the Political scene and the Media with the Camposol situation, and they will continue the dialogue with the Spanish Authorities and Members of the European Parliament.

The MT Lawyer has outlined, in a letter to the Residents of Camposol, the options for legal action, with the relative costs for each option, which are extremely reduced in compared with normal Lawyers’ fees.

SO … WHAT NOW?

    Now is our turn TO ACT, under the guidance of MT’s Lawyer, who advises us to initiate legal proceedings, to include one or all of the following:

  1. LODGING OF CRIMINAL CHARGES for multiple crimes of fraud/falseness against CHS, Murcia Authority, Mazarrón Council. (CRIMINAL charges = if the defender does not pay, he goes to prison AND must pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal). Minimum fee 3000€

  2. CIVIL CLAIM against the Developers’ Architects (Architects are covered by Insurance, which means, sure pay-out). Minimum fee 4000€. However, in order to pursue this claim it will be necessary to obtain an Independent Expert Report, which, in view of previous reports obtained by the CRA, we expect to be in the region of 5000€

  3. Demand to the MAZARRON COUNCIL to complete the outstanding works, taking the matter to the ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE COURT if necessary. Minimum fee 3000€

  4. Administrative processing against CHS for the issue ‘Rambla of the Aznares’. The CHS were already sentenced in a previous court case to restore the Rambla to its original state. It seems as if the CHS profited from a subsequent dubious interference by a lawyer in Alicante, to ignore the Court’s order, hence it is only necessary to proceed administratively in this issue. Minimum fee 2000€

  5. For dealing with ‘Tercería de Dominio’ in Embargo cases. Minimum 1500€ each

The above costs include the use of an attorney, but exclude corresponding costs depending on the claims made, which are impossible to quote beforehand.

The CRA have expressed the willingness to initiate criminal proceedings (option 1) providing we have your moral and financial support.

In view of the fact that Camposol has approx. 5000 residents and house-owners, MT have advised to UNITE and GO FOR THE KILL (options 1-4), which is financially achievable, with an initial minimum fee of 17.000€

WE ARE SURE TO WIN – MT would not waste their time and effort otherwise, they have no financial aims, and are totally dedicated to our cause. All they ask of us is UNITY IN OUR BATTLE – they have taken us further than anybody has ever done before – we won’t get another chance!

YOU ASK: BUT WHAT WOULD WE HAVE TO PAY, RIGHT NOW, IF MT/CRA TAKE ONE OR ALL OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS ON MY BEHALF?

The MT lawyer has agreed to study the actual situation of each house-owner interested in taking part in the legal proceedings. In order to do this he requires the following documents:

  • Contract of purchase of the property / Escritura

  • Certificate of Registration (Empadronamiento)

  • Copy of oldest and newest receipt of electricity and water bills

  • Copy of last IBI receipt

  • Copy of any individual claims made, or judicial sentences, relating to your particular case

  • Any other documentation that you consider relevant or important

At the time of providing the above documentation you will be required to pay a fee of 60€ in respect of the provision of lawyers’ funds for the examination of these documents. May I point out that the fee would be infinitely higher from any other legal Firm.

If you are a House-owner, affected by structural problems, lack of documents which legalise your property (escritura, certificate of habitation etc.), have embargoes on your property (which may not be legal), or – as many people in Camposol have done – you have already taken legal action, have won, but have not been paid by the defender, you should not hesitate to pursue this course of action.

The MT Lawyer will claim appropriate compensation for each individual claim, which the judge will award according to each situation. In case of non-payment the defendant faces a jail sentence.

The MT Lawyer will sue, on behalf of the CRA, for the global issues relating to the infrastructure of Camposol, and for this the CRA will have to provide copy of its CONSTITUTION, the ACTA relating to the nomination of its Officers, and the CIF registration document.

The MT Lawyer will also require the minimum fees stated above, which the CRA alone cannot meet. We are fighting YOUR BATTLE, we need YOUR MORAL AND YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

MY MISSION / COMMITMENT

I will continue to offer, FOC, my translating and interpreting skills in relation to this cause, to MT, to the CRA and to all members who wish to sign up to the CRA/MT fight for justice.

I have available here, for you, copy of the FIVE ACTION POINTS. Please take one at the end of the meeting, mark your preference/need and return it to me. This involves no commitment on your part; it is just to give the CRA an idea of your support.

I will organise and coordinate the gathering of documents + 60€. (receipted), which can be deposited at the CRA CABIN between now and the 30th October 2015. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any assistance or further explanations.

THIS IS OUR IMMEDIATE PLAN FOR ACTION

PG: Thank you Silvana I will now hand you over to Paul Drury who has also spent most of 2015 on CRA business doing research on the problems and supporting both myself and Silvana in making connections and following up on information. Paul’s wife has not joined the committee as she was apparently thankful to get him out from under her feet.

PD: As most of you will be aware, in the 20 or so years of Camposol’s history, the relationship with Mazarrón Town Hall has been difficult to put it mildly, as things stand, the adoption actioned in July 2014 has been deemed as illegal by the new Council and the stipulations for legal adoption (that Urbanisation Camposol is completed in full, all Sectors

Included), means that if decisions are not made now, the situation is very unlikely to change in the next 20 years.


Although we have water supply, sewage facilities, water treatment and rubbish collection paid for through Aqualia and electrical power paid for through electricity suppliers, the Urbanisation still requires the service, support and administrative structure normally associated with a functioning Council.

So we need to look for options and here are the most obvious ones.

Option 1
To do nothing, no legal action and wait for Mazarrón Council to make a decision on our future.
Advantages, zero effort.
Disadvantages, by taking this option we could find ourselves in the same situation for the next 5,10,20 years, but with extra deterioration and dilapidation.

Option 2
To proceed with the legal actions as outlined by Silvana and hope that Mazarrón Council adopt Camposol in full, all streets and areas designated public and responsibility of the Town Hall.
Advantages, steps will have been taken to complete Camposol and remedy the infrastructure and private property issues via the legal action and also the possibility of full adoption.
Disadvantages, again we could be in the same position in years to come if changing Council’s adopt different attitudes, which has already happened.

Option 3
Again proceed with the legal action and attempt to get adoption through appeals to the Regional Government or possibly the Courts and if that adoption is only as per the Plan Parcial/General, meaning private roads and areas are not the responsibility of the Town Hall, then these areas would be left to the residents/homeowners and gardening groups etc., to maintain.
Advantages, the same as option 2, but with demarcation of private roads and areas.
Disadvantages, again we are in Mazarrón Council’s hands and the private roads and areas could and probably would deteriorate at various rates, reflecting the efforts to upkeep.

Option 4
Once again proceed with the legal action and if Council adoption is only as the Plan Parcial/General – only public roads and areas, re-establish the Community of Owners or a Management Board to fund and manage the upkeep of private roads and areas.
Advantages, the whole Urbanisation would be maintained whether public or private.
Disadvantages, very unpopular and would require payment to the Community of Owners as well as payment of IBI to the Council.

Option 5
Again proceeding with the legal action and with any compensation received by the CRA to investigate putting into effect an El Saladillo/Camposol Municipal Council.
Advantages, we will be able to determine our own destiny, make our own decisions, elect our own Administration, control our own budget and all revenue collected in IBI and other taxes would, after disbursements to Regional Government etc., be for the sole use of El Saladillo and Camposol.
Disadvantages, huge amount of work and effort to set up.

Option 6
Again proceed with the legal action, but start investigations into autonomy immediately as a parallel action, as legal proceedings will take some time, all the while further deterioration would take place, at the same time funds and taxes would continue to be paid to Mazarrón Town Hall with little or no return investment.
Advantages, as with option 5 but starting earlier.
Disadvantages, again same as option 5, huge workload to start.

In the first four options Camposol would be in the changing hands of the Town Hall with treatment depending on the incumbent Councils priorities, which would obviously change every 4 years following the elections, Camposol would always be a low priority after Mazarron’s“shop window” of the Port and other tourist attractions.

For options 5 and 6, after initial enquiries El Saladillo/Camposol does meet virtually the whole criteria necessary for a municipality, – there are over 5000 people on the Pedania census, – there are also the facilities and infrastructure required, in fact the only thing we seem to be missing is a cemetery, these two options would involve a lot of time and effort to come to fruition and it would be unfair to ask somebody or bodies to take it on without a mandate from the residents and homeowners, we have requested further information and hopefully this will be forthcoming shortly.

As I said these are the obvious options, if anyone has another viable and workable option please let us know”

PG: Right you have heard what we have been doing, you have heard the proposals it’s now your turn to speak …

Ask questions, make statements, but please no personal attacks or I will have to ask you to sit down or leave the room. We are all grown-ups and we should act accordingly. If we cannot answer your question, I am happy to throw it open to the floor otherwise we will take note of the question, your name and details and will send you a response.

Question from the floor: Regarding the fighting fund. How much is left and can we use this to kick off the legal action?

SA: As of 3rd September there was 17,903.02€ but there has been more since then so it is just over 18,000€. The Accounts for the period ending 30th September have yet to be finalised but will be on the website in early October.

PG: So we have some money to start off the legal action

Statement from Linda Biggs Sector A: She said that she wished to make some corrections to what had been said. To state, categorically, that Alicia Jimenez has unadopted Camposol was not true. She has her doubts but has not done anything about it. It would have to go through the Pleno before any decision was made. It is not cut and dried. Sectors B,C,and D were adopted under the last administration under Paco Garcia. He is now part of the local government, so it is highly unlikely that she will try to unadopt. But Sector A would not be considered for unadoption as it is on a different Plan Parcial.

She said that she had the same conversation with Alicia herself, she was just speaking her thoughts. You shouldn’t hang on her every word, that’s the biggest mistake that you can make when dealing with the Council.

Secondly, in 2010 we did a complaint, at no cost, to the Defensor de Pueblo [AD Note. This is equivalent to UK Ombudsman]. Created a three year dossier on the council. Because the Mayor can say whatever they like and walk away. It means nothing unless you can get them to agree minutes of the meeting. In 2007 started a dossier. A lot of hard work was done. Defensor de Pueblo found in our favour in all points. Found culpable of everything including not producing the Certificates of Habitation. Regional solicitor in Murcia said that where one certificate had been issued, they should have issued them all. In which case we are all deemed to have unwritten permission to live in our houses, because we have been doing so unchallenged. It’s nice to have the piece of paper, but it’s not the be all and end all. The Regional solicitor has said we are not illegal. The ruling was sent to the Town Hall. They had 15 days to reply. Blaya said just before the 2011 elections that the first thing he would do was reinstate the electricity to the water and sewerage stations.

When the coalition came in they started implementing more of the answers that they had given to the Defensor de Pueblo. All the time they are working through it, they are not officially in the wrong. I accept it has all stopped now. The lighting needs work. It needs to be restarted.

Alicia has been Mayor for just over 100 days. An incoming Mayor has 100 days grace when taking office before doing anything significant. Her 100 days are up and she has declared her coalition. Now we need to ask her what her intentions are.

Murcia Transparent have advised CRA not to talk to the council. If you are not talking to the council how are you going to get things done, how are you going to find out what her plans are? Alicia has said she is going to Murcia to ask for funding. If she doesn’t then we have to take it to the Tribunal Superior de Murcia. This can probably be done at very little or no cost.

Before we take further action and shut the open door to the Council. The door is open, she is obliged to see you. We should try and get the resolution of the Defensor de Pueblo implemented. In that reply Blaya said that he would dispossess MASA as the urbaniser and that the Council would take over and finish the Urbanization. That may have some financial implication to the residents. This is what we have to do. The European Parliament and what not are not going to mend the sewers or sort out the problems of the rambla. The people who are going to sort this out are the Town Hall. You can’t just dismiss the Town Hall after one meeting with a list of 35 items slapped on the desk. And then say that’s it, we’re going to sue them. I agree with Camposol being a town in our own right. I agree with legal action if the resolutions of the Defensor de Pueblo are not followed.

PG: There were two reasons that meetings with Alicia jiménez stopped. At the last meeting they were supposed to be meeting with members of the Council and planners. Believe that there were three solicitors, Alicia Jimenez and the Council. It wasn’t just a matter of handing over a list. We talked about the unsanitary conditions in certain areas of C. They suggested that the residents were moved. When asked where to they said they didn’t know.

When we asked about what they were going to do about Camposol, she said that it was illegal and they were going to deselect it. Alicia Jiménez said that all sectors on Camposol were illegal adoptions B,C, D and A were all illegal. How do you reason with someone who is blatantly lying to you? We asked numerous questions she became more and more nervous and uncomfortable and we thought that she was just lying to us. We thought after the meeting that we had just been told to get lost. Murcia Transparente were also treated badly. We went back to MT and were told on the basis that we were considering taking legal action we should not talk to them as it was sub judice.

And remember that Alicia Jimenez was Deputy Mayor for the first 8 years that Blaya Blaya was running this town.

SB: We paid a lot of money for the Garrigues report which dealt with all issues and highlighted all the problems. As far as I know that report has been filed. In 2010 a case had been brought to the Ombudsman. SB said that she had to find the ruling herself. LB replied that she had sent the report to SB. SB said that all she had received was 2 pages and attachments and the submission that that LB had sent to the Ombudsman, not his resolution.

We had the ruling why wasn’t it followed up at the time? Now it is too late, the report will have to be done and dealt with all over again. Things have deteriorated.

Mazarrón Council have failed us miserably time after time and there has been no action taken.

The Certificate of Habitation is not the be all and end all but without it all you have is a ‘Construction’. Until you have it you are only living in bricks and mortar. Many banks will not let you use your house as collateral, they will say it is not finished. Those banks that will lend will not give you the full value. If your house is worth 150,000€ they will value at 50,000€. SB went to her own bank to ask and was told she needed the Certificate.

SB said that Linda Biggs had said she thought we should give the Council more time, give them a chance to resolve the problems. She said that she didn’t call waiting 20 years being hasty.

Where were the Council when the Rambla was built over? Where were the Council when my property was hit by the floods? Why was it built on a rambla. The Council are responsible for that as well as the CHS. Where were they when houses were built on land that is subsiding? How many more chances are we going to give them?

PG: Let’s take some more questions.

Question from the floor: Proposal that we stop dealing with local solicitors etc. and take an action to the European Union. Direct Effect means that any member state is accountable to the individual account to. One case can be used to represent many. If we take criminal prosecutions and send the guilty to prison. Where do we get compensation from? We want compensation from the Spanish Government which we can get through the E.U. There is not enough money in the kitty for compensation locally, we should use Direct Effect through the European Union.

PD: Through Murcia Tranparente we are approaching the E.U. We have the support of two Regional MPs, Luis Fernandez and Miguel Sanchez who are from Ciudadanos Party and Nationally in the Spanish Senate, equivalent to the UK House of Lords, Senator Fransicso Ongate, plus in the EU, MEP Lola Sanchez and another Member are taking on the case. A Written question was asked in the European Parliament in 2013 [Note from AD. Emma McClarkin E003138-13]. The Commission’s reply at that time was that if a property had been sold through a U.K Estate Agent action could be taken against the Estate Agent through the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) in the UK, the Commission also replied that Spanish Authorities had been written to, we are in the process of investigating which departments where contacted.

Progress is being made. Action is being taken National, Regional and European levels.

S.B: Regarding compensation. Where would we get compensation from if MASA go into liquidation? Murcia Transparente have said that if MASA is in liquidation a guilty verdict would mean goal for 4-6 years but the administration, architects etc. are all covered by Insurance. The judge would award compensation.

PD: Just to add, every time we look through the files we find something new and and sometimes think, why didn’t we do something with that? It’s not all cut and dried, we’re still finding out things, still trying to move things forward. But we can’t afford to waste any more time sitting doing nothing.

Question from the floor: Rick King Sector A. Had property since 1999. We have had disputes with Linda and various other people over the years. I think we’re going back to square one. We’ve sat here over the last 16 years, we had the Pointer report, the first one over whether Camposol was illegal. We paid 8,000€ for the Garrigues report which we’re now told was a waste of time. I don’t think taking action is going to work. We need to try to work with the Council. Since the action by the Defensor de Pueblo Sector A has been adopted we have had roads fixed and the lights work. Let’s work for B,C and D to be adopted. If you go down the legal route, you all have contracts from MASA that said that we should be run by an Entity. The Council will wash their hands and we’ll all pick up the cost. Think very carefully before you go down the legal route.

Question from the floor: Tom Finnegan [CdiP]. Congratulations on the meeting. Wonderful to see this turnout. We don’t need to wait to become a Municipality. The Committee could be inside the Council making decisions now. We have 2,876 registered voters, we could have had 6 or 7 Councillors making the decisions and we wouldn’t have needed this meeting. We all have common cause. Camposol could be one of the best places to live on the Spanish coast. CdiP and CRA need to work together, need to work to get Councillors in the Town Hall. We need to stop the divisions and work together.

P.G: The CRA is non political. It means we can talk to anybody but we can’t fly the flag for anyone.

Question from the floor: Renny Mullen Sector A. Lived here for 12 years. I support anyone who comes up with a positive solution but we are going to need a good fighting fund. A major part of what we’ve got to do is raise money.

PD: This meeting is not all about raising money. It’s about finding out what you, the residents of Camposol want. The CRA can put forward proposals ’til kingdom come, but it’s you that matter, that have to decide how you want to do this.

Question from the floor: Derek Dickinson Sector C14. I don’t think that we should cut ourselves off from the Council. When legal proceedings are in place they will pull up the drawbridge and it will delay getting things sorted out. Is part of the Action Group taking MASA to court. This has cost in excess of 150,000€. The preliminary hearing has been set for January and it has taken 7 years to get here.

They will take every opportunity to delay things. It will take time and money. There are pros and cons for both Linda Biggs and CRA.

SB: CRA has not refused to speak to the Council. We had to cancel the last meeting as members were not available. We will talk to Alicia Jiménez until such time as proceedings begin. The Action Group has paid a huge amount of money. Murcia Transparente will charge nothing like that.

The lawyer is giving his time for free at the moment. The action proposed is two fold. Each one who submits documents will be charged 60€. Each one will be compensated individually. And the CRA case is for the whole infrastructure.

Question from the floor: Lesley Dunton, Sector C. Re Linda’s suggestion, if we don’t go after them now, we’ll all have gone through the tanatoria before Camposol is finished.

Question from the floor: Roy Ashcroft B32. Started a case against MASA in 2006. Went to Court in 2008 and won the case 2008. This was changed to a criminal case two years later. He won the case but is still awaiting a ruling from the judge 18 months later. Be careful how long you want to wait. This was part if a group case with 2 others.

SB: We can’t do this alone, let’s make this not 3 but 3,000. Murcia Transparente will make sure you get compensation including what you have spent so far. We will be ignored unless we join together. We need unity!

Question from the floor: Where have the missing millions gone? All the money that we have spent in Mazarrón and the Port has not come back to Camposol. We have to fight. Give them stick. Block roads, protest.

PG: I think the Spanish have brought in a law against Civil Disobedience.

Question from the floor: Don’t spend your money in Mazarrón or in the Port, go to Totana instead. Then they’ll appreciate us.

PG: He was speaking to a Councillor who told him that people on Camposol didn’t spend money in Mazarrón or the Port, but stayed in Camposol. We need to change their perceptions.

Question from the floor: Agreement with Tom Finnegan. We have 2,500 votes here. We need to get you people on to the Council. We need to vote and get you on to the Council.

PG: I’m not political, I have no desire to join a party. But I will work to fix the problems.

Question from the floor: There was a survey sent out last year. 151 on Sectors A,B and C and 150 on D said that the major problem was infrastructure. That’s about 250 people. I suspect those are the people here today. Who gave the CRA the mandate to create hoo ha nationally and, potentially, lower house prices? There are about 250 people here today and you going to take what they say as a mandate? You can’t make a decision based on the people here today. You need to ask everyone.

PG: No one gave us a mandate. CRA was created on 2005. A lot of people used the CRA to try to get things done, so, by default it has represented a lot of people. We’re not taking this meeting as a mandate. What we wanted to do was find out what people want to do. There are three or four different opinions on the way forward. We need to find out different opinions. Re talking to the Council, we’ll do it if they will have meaningful conversations and don’t lie. We’ll talk to the people of Camposol on as long as there are no personal attacks.

How are things going to get fixed if we don’t do something about it?

AL: (Coming back to the meeting) What Linda Biggs wanted to say was that she thinks we should wait 2-3 months and then if nothing has been done we should sue them into the ground.

Question from the floor: Les Sherret D27. Should we allow the Estate Agents to sell homes without informing the buyers of the problems? A neighbour has bought but not been told about the problems, embargos etc. Can’t we do something

PG: We need to raise the profile of both what’s right and what’s wrong on Camposol. People need to realise that whatever is done will effect everyone. The quicker we fix the problems the quicker house prices will go up.

Meeting’s like this are to find common ground. Come back to us. Give us feedback. CRA has suggested ways forward. We are asking you for your support and financial aid. If residents had donated 15€ each in 2006 we could have gone through the courts.

Comment from the floor. CRA didn’t ask for more money.

PG: You can’t blame the current Committee they are all different members now.

Question from the floor: Where is everyone else if they want a chance to vote? I think we should have a show of hands from those here to decide what to do. CRA are talking sense.

PG: We can’t do that, we have to allow those in UK, USA etc. a chance to vote as well. There will be proxy votes.

Meeting closed at 13.00

CRA received 235.55€ in donations at the meeting for the fighting fund.

Camposol Residents Association

Minutes of committee meeting 23 September 2015, 15.00 – Clubhouse Camposol

Present:

Phil Gelling – Chair (PG)

Adrian Ditum – Secretary (AD)

Sian Taylor – Secretary (ST)

Sandy Allison – Treasurer (SA)

Sue Tinkler – (STi)

Silvana Buxton (SB)

Geoff Buxton (GB)

Maite Gomez (MG)

Alison Lister (AL)

John McCracken (JM)

Paul Drury (Advisory) (PD)

Apologies for absence:

Louise Allen

Grant Allen

Anita Herremans

Peter Walton

  1. PG called the meeting to order and introduced JM as a potential committee member.

    JM explained his background as a Quantity Surveyor with expertise in contract law and knowledge of construction in Europe. He explained that he had entered into a separate contract with MASA when his house had been built and had check each stage of construction. He had forced them get his Certificate of Habitation otherwise they were in breach of contract. PG proposed JM as a new addition to the committee. This was seconded by SB and agreed.

  2. Minutes of the last meeting agreed. AD said he would publish them as soon as possible other commitments allowing.

  3. PG gave the meeting a copy of the proposed Agenda for the Public meeting on 26 September.

    1. Introduction and opening remarks. PG will open the meeting and explain its purpose

    2. The CRA Committee. PG will invite the committee to introduce themselves to the meeting and explain that nearly all are new to the committee.

    3. Rumours. PG explained that there are several rumours being spread about him and he wanted the opportunity to put the record straight.

    4. Where have CRA got to in fixing the Issues. SB to explain the actions Murcia Transparente have taken so far and what further actions they recommend.

    5. Possible Options. PD will explain some of the possible options open to residents.

    6. What do the residents want to do about the situation? The meeting will be open for questions and suggestions

    7. Meeting recap

    8. Closure

There will be a camera recording proceedings and a video link for those not able to attend.

  1. SB said that she would explain the actions that had been taken by Murcia Transparente on behalf of Camposol to date. Including:

    4.1 Requested all documentation relating to the building of Camposol under the ‘Freedom of Information’ legislation passed in December 2014. From CHS (water), Mazarrón Town Hall and the Regional Government of Murcia. CHS have provided over 300 pages of documentation. Neither Mazarrón nor Murcia have responded and this has now been escalated to Madrid. Murcia Transparente believe they have sufficient evidence from the documents they have to successfully take criminal proceedings.

    4.2 They have also sent a report to the European Parliament.

  2. AD queried Murcia Transparente’s advice not to talk with the Town Hall as he felt it was hard for CRA to represent its members without doing so. A discussion took place and whilst certain subjects may have to be avoided it was decided to get further legal clarification from Murcia Transparente. Action Point: Silvana/Maite to talk to Murcia Transparente regarding continuing dialogue with the Town Hall.

  3. A discussion took place regarding accurate maps of Camposol showing the number of dwellings. SA gave figures from a survey completed some time ago, so may not now be accurate giving a total of 3,920. 792 on Sector A; 565 on Sector B; 841 on Sector C and 1,722 on Sector D. JM said that Green Fingers gardening group on C had a plan of Sector C showing all properties. He will approach them for a copy. Action Point: JM to approach Green Fingers gardening group for a plan of Sector C.

  4. The costs for Murcia Transparente acting for CRA were discussed. PD asked if costs would be awarded by the court if we won, otherwise it could wipe out any compensation awarded. If the action goes ahead it will be the biggest corruption case in Spanish history.

  5. MG said she needed a copy of PG’s speech before the meeting on Saturday in order to translate this into Spanish and French. Action Point: PG to email a copy of his proposed speech to MG when finished.

  6. JM asked MG for a copy of the list of questions raised to Jose Luis the Murcia Transparente lawyer during the meeting PG, PD and SB had with him some time ago.

    Action Point: MG to forward the list of questions raised to JM.

  7. Way Forward/Options. PD went through the possible options that he had drawn up.

    Options

1. Do nothing, wait for Mazarrón Council to make a decision.

2. Proceed with criminal action as per Murcia Transparente, against MASA, the CHS, Local and Regional Government, Architects and then hope the Town Hall will adopt Camposol.

3. As 2. But try to force the Town Hall to adopt Camposol either in full or just public roads and leave Private Roads/Areas at the discretion of the homeowners.

4. As 2. But offer the Town Hall the Public/Private road adoption model and try to re- establish the Community of Owners (Entity) to maintain private roads/areas.

5. As 2. But with any compensation arising from legal action, to set up an El Saladillo/Camposol Municipal Council.

6. As 2. But in tandem start immediate investigations into setting up a Municipal Town Hall, as the legal action could take years and further deterioration would take place, while at the same time funds and taxes would be paid to Mazarrón Council with no return investment.

    A discussion took place about the merits of the various options. It was agreed that setting up an Autonomous Authority would be a huge undertaking but that Camposol meets nearly all of the conditions required. It must have:

  • a population of least 5,000

  • public lighting

  • cemetery

  • waste collection

  • water supply

  • sewerage

  • paved roads

  • public park

  • market

  • waste treatment

AD asked for a copy of the legislation. It was also decided to provide collection buckets at the meeting for donations. Action Point: PD to email a copy of the relevant legislation regarding setting up a municipality.

  1. Constitution. SB had been advised by Jose Luis the lawyer for Murcia Transparent to make the following changes to the constitution:

    1. Section 2; change Mazarrón to ‘region of Murcia’

    2. Section 4 item 8; ‘Report to the appropriate ….’

    3. Section 11 add item 7; Receive or accept, as appropriate , donations, inheritances or legacies

    4. Section 12 add item 4; Re EGM ‘Authorise the Chairman .,….etc

    5. Section 12; 2/3 majority needed

    6. Section 13; Remove reference to local press

    7. Section 13; add in ‘simple majority

    8. Section 15; add in ‘simple majority

    9. Section 17; add in item 7 – Preside the AGMs and EGMs

    10. Section 19 item 1; change to ‘upkeep’

    11. Section 19 item 6; remove – duplication of 1

    12. Section 21 item 1; remove extraneous ‘be’

    13. Section 22; changed to ‘Vice Treasurer’

    14. Section 23; add ‘carry’ to final sentence

    15. Section 24; remove final sentence

  1. AOB: MG queried why CRA was non political and thought any alliance with CDiP should be considered. CRA has voted to be non political and it was agreed that it should remain so but that did not mean that we could not continue dialogue with sympathetic parties. PD said that the MEP for West Midlands, Emma McClarkin raised a question regarding Camposol. The European Commission wrote to the Spanish Authorities but we need to find out what has happened. Action Point: PD to write to Emma McClarkin regarding any reply

  2. MG said that we still need to find the CIF certificate and that this needs to come from the Town Hall

  3. PG said that he met with students/lecturers from Cartagena University who wish to run a workshop on the subject of Camposol. They wish to come to the meeting on Saturday. It was a agreed that as this will be an open public meeting there were no objections.

  4. CDiP have requested a meeting before Saturdays public meeting. It was decided that while we have no objection to meeting with them. We did not wish to seem to be aligning with any political party, so it was best to arrange a meeting the following week.

  5. The Agenda for the next meeting is to include decisions regarding:

  • Vice Chairman

  • Vice Treasurer

  • Communications

Meeting closed 17.45

Action Points:

1. Silvana/Maite to talk to Murcia Transparente regarding continuing dialogue with the Town Hall.

2. JM to approach Green Fingers gardening group for a plan of Sector C.

3. PG to email a copy of his proposed speech to MG when finished.

4. MG to forward the list of questions raised to JM

5. PD to email a copy of the relevant legislation regarding setting up a municipality.

6. PD to write to Emma McClarkin regarding any reply from the European Commission.

Camposol Residents Association

Minutes of committee meeting 02 September 2015, 15.00 – Clubhouse Camposol

Present:

Phil Gelling – Chair (PG)

Adrian Ditum – Secretary (AD)

Sue Tinkler – (STi)

Silvana Buxton (SB)

Maite Gomez (MG)

Alison Lister (AL)

Apologies for absence:

Sandy Allison

Sian Taylor

Geoff Buxton

Anita Herremans

Peter Walton

  1. PG called the meeting to order. Minutes of the last meeting had not been brought to the meeting for agreement but had been agreed prior to the meeting by email. Minutes carried forward.

  2. PG said that there were two new committee members John and Irene McCracken to be interviewed by PG and Sti.

  3. Constitution. A discussion took place regarding the finalisation of the constitution with the following points agreed:

    1. S24#1 Annual membership fees to be changed to ‘as agreed by the membership’. There being no fees at present. Re ‘economic resources’ – leave as is, as this refers to funds raised previously but still held.

    2. Ch 3. Purpose: ‘independent of ……..’ add ‘political’…..’associations’.

    3. S 13. Quorum to be 50 members.

    4. S 21 Signatories change to ‘Treasurer plus two committee members’

    5. S 23 Change ‘at the time of writing’ to ‘the first’ constitution.

    6. S 14 Add Vice Treasurer (change proposed by STi seconded by AL)

EGM to be asked to approve the new constitution.

  1. MG suggested that the AGM be moved to January to coincide with the end of the accounting year. This was agreed.

  2. PG congratulated SB and MG on the hard work that they had put in to updating and translating the constitution.

  3. Fiesta: STi was given a vote of thanks for a job well done. There will be a ‘wash up’ session to see what went well and what could be improved. Unsure how much money had been generated as bills were still coming in. Drinks were on a sale or return basis but Oscar has bought any partial bottles from CRA at a generous rate.

  4. Cabin Duty. PG will be putting an advert in PYM and the Forum asking for more help.

  5. Goats: MG has been approached by Francisca Carvajal regarding goats and sheep being herded onto the campo on the edge of D. They have been eating plants on the verges planted by the gardening group and creating a health hazard for dogs etc with their dropping, ticks, parasites etc. She has said that what is needed is a ‘denuncia’ by an organisation. Hence the approach to CRA.

    8.1 Several questions need to be answered before any action could be considered:

    a) Who owns the land?

    b) Who owns the goats/sheep

    c) Are their grazing rights etc.

    To be looked at outside of the meeting

  6. Agendas for the EGM and general public meeting on 26th September.

    The EGM will be called for 10.30 the ratify the constitution.

    PG said that he will need to put together a more comprehensive ‘options’ paper to be sent out before the meeting. More details are needed on those suggested so far by Murcia Transparente. SB to check the availability of Jose Luis of Murcia Transparente for a meeting early next week.

  7. AOB. SB said that she had contacted the council regarding the abandoned properties on Camposol in order to compile an up to date list.

  8. Next meeting will be EGM on 26/09/2015.

Meeting closed 17.00

EGM was subsequently postponed due to further changes to the Constitution and time factors.

Camposol Residents Association,

Minutes of committee meeting 19 August 2015, 15.00 – Clubhouse Camposol.

Present:

Phil Gelling – Chair (PG)

Adrian Ditum – Secretary (AD)

Sian Taylor – Secretary (ST)

Sandy Allison – Treasurer (SA)

Sue Tinkler – (Sti)

Silvana Buxton (SB)

Geoff Buxton (GB)

Maite Gomez (MG)

Alison Lister (AL)

Apologies for absence:

  1. PG called the meeting to order and introductions were made and backgrounds explained.
  1. SB gave a brief update of her contact with Murcia Transparente.  Their advice is that CRA should not meet with Alicia Jiminez at the present time.
  1. PG explained that the meeting had been called in order to update the constitution of the association.  SB said that no copy of the constitution could be found and that she had contacted the Register of Associations in Murcia for a copy.
  1. A copy of the constitution was received in Spanish dated 2005.  The constitution should be updated every three years and a copy registered in Murcia.
  1. SB and MG had spent some time going through the constitution and highlighted areas that they felt needed bringing up to date.  SB then read through the Spanish version translating for non Spanish speakers and discussions were held on the changes needed.
  1. It was decided that:

a)    References to Camposol Courier should be replaced with press release and website.

b)    The official address should include the name of the road. Thought to be Calle Jara but to be checked.

c)    Removal of members; change from AGM to committee

d)    AGM; change from called by the chairperson to called by committee

e)    EGM; change from called by 10% of membership to 50 members

f)     Life president – there is no equivalent in Spanish a definition is needed for the Spanish constitution. To be looked at outside of the meeting

g)    EGM; change from held within 15 days to: give a minimum of 15 days notice

h)    Expulsion of member; remove ‘by EGM’

i)      Number required for quorum at meetings; change to ‘if 50 not present, wait 30 minutes and then continue with second meeting

j)      The Central Liaison Committee (Junta) should consist of Chairperson; Vice Chairperson; Secretary; Vice Secretary; Treasurer (these need to be named on the constitution).  Other Committee members would form the working Committee (Trabajo)

k)    remove references to polygonal & zonal representatives and phase committees

l)      Remove the Budget and future activity reports as AGM requirements.  Treasurer will only report on accounts for approval

m)  Change the signatories required to the Treasurer and two other committee members

n)    Change the number of members needed to dissolve the Association to a simple majority

  1. SA said that the constitution had been altered in 2012, though had not been registered and she thought that a copy had been sent to committee members on 30 July.  She will email copies to those present after the meeting.

Meeting closed at 17.30