STEVEN BOB MCA
Robert Vaz
Dear Steven,
I am in full agreement with you and for taking the initiative in writing a very appropriate email.
I saw the nasty and threatening email from the executive board to Michele, Michele’s response, Rons email and Manish Aranh’s harsh response ,Don’s email, Gladson’s email, Marietta’s email and finally Roshans appropriate email. Some emails are simply expressing concern or clarifications, whereas some are retaliatory and harsh. This is not Christian Spirit.
The matter is getting out of control due to retaliation and these chain of emails if continued cause great damage to MCA.
I humbly request all members and Executive board members to stop circulating any emails from now on. As per Stevens email all concerns will be discussed by the advisory board and appropriate decisions will be taken.
Members -If you have any concerns please direct your emails to Steven.
All board members – If you have any concerns please direct them ONLY to Mark who in turn will forward them to the advisory board chair Steven as per his discretion.
Let us not forget how much hard work our previous Presidents, Board members, Gurkars ,Gurkarns and the volunteers have put up to build up this association to the current level , sacrificing their precious family time. Let us join together and make the MCA a transparent, peaceful and productive association with Christian values.
Sincerely,
Bob
--
Robert (Bob) Vaz
Partner, CEO
Babco Foods International
201 Circle Drive North #115, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
Cell: +1 (908) 240-7934 | Office: +1 (732) 667-7577
Fax: +1 (732) 667-7578 | email: b...@babcofoods.com
Web: www.babcofoods.com
From: lavina...@verizon.net [mailto:lavina...@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:16 AM
To: Gladson Cardoza <glad...@gmail.com>
Cc: MCA-EC <in...@mca-ec.com>; Ronald Dsouza <rondso...@yahoo.com>; Mich Fernandes <munchkin...@gmail.com>; Bob <b...@babcofoods.com>; MCA MARK LANCY <lanc...@gmail.com>; MCA East Coast USA <mca.ea...@gmail.com>; Arun Menezes <arunc...@gmail.com>; Connie <conni...@gmail.com>; denis lobo <deni...@gmail.com>; Ernest Dsouza <dsouza...@gmail.com>; Arun Menezes (Google Groups) <mcaec-advisory...@googlegroups.com>; Eddy Sayeed <eddys...@yahoo.com>; Edmond Fernandes <reac...@yahoo.com>; Fatim...@googlegroups.com; claudau...@yahoo.co.in; Gladwin Dsouza <gla...@gmail.com>; MCA Jacinta Peter Fernandes <JFern...@chadbourne.com>; MCA-Jaison Banji <jaison...@yahoo.com>; John Dsouza <john...@gmail.com>; Kevin Saldanha <kev...@gmail.com>; Manoj pinto <pinto...@yahoo.com>; Naveen Sequeira <naveenp...@gmail.com>; Sahay Antony <sah...@yahoo.com>; Saritha Pinto <sari...@hotmail.com>; Siemyana Simi Dsouza <sim...@gmail.com>; Srego Rego <sre...@gmail.com>; Zee F <zeena....@gmail.com>; Roshan D'mello <dros...@gmail.com>; Moriye-Vado Mca-ec <moriye-v...@googlegroups.com>; Don Lewis <dop...@gmail.com>; anthony seravo <ase...@gmail.com>; Dilip Lewis <dilip...@gmail.com>; Charles Rodrigues <charles....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Registration
Hi.
All members,past and current executive board members,fellow advisory board.
We need to put an end to this blaming culture. We are not in a competition to see which board or the president performed the best.
It's very unfortunate that we spend so much time in investigating and blaming what previous board has done wrong.
Please stop this email chain immediately. Please send your concerns to me directly in this matter. Let's give our full support to current board to bring together a great Christmas event.
We can come back in the winter when weather is cool. (May be some brains will also cool down) we can address all these issues. In a executive board/advisory board. And past board member meeting which I will organise.
Until then I humbly request current executive board no to reply to any concerns. Please spend time and focus on the coming Christmas. Please allow all the concerns to come to advisory board which we will collect and bring it up in the winter meeting.
Till then please focus on what need immediate attention.
Executive board please refrain from writing such large emails and bring up past issues. If it is absolutely necessary then bring it advisory boards attention and we will gladly help.
I hope this clarify things.
Yours faithfully
Steven Aranha
Chair executive board.
Green ink solutions
On 11 Nov 2015, at 10:37, Gladson Cardoza <glad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mark & Board Members,
I am really upset with the email that was sent accusing the previous board members for doing the right thing and transforming this illegal organization in to non-profit organization. Mark you were part of it, when we were working on this initiative and we were happy when you was helping us in drafting the by-laws. We did send the people the updated by-laws copy before the picnic and then we asked people to sign it voluntarily and not by force. If they were not happy they could have abstained and not signed the by-laws Please explain where is the fraud in it.
Now since the organization is 501(c)3, I see this board knows a lot about the NJ statutes and laws, which is a good thing. Why was this not done when we started the organization initially?
Coming back to the root cause of this email chain, I didn't see anything wrong when members of our community asked to extend the deadline for the SGM. I understand from your explanation, that it would have been logistics nightmare for your board to organize. But there is always a way to do it and if I remember we did have this situation once, when we had to change our picnic venue at the last moment due to weather issues. We could have done similarly this time and members of our community wouldn't have mind if we extended the deadline. I believe even NJ statute would have allowed this.
Since you are mentioning that all the people supported your road show and I liked most of the plan, then why you are turning away those members who are willing to support you and helping this board in the transformation journey.
As a active members of this organization, it is my humble request to consider the opinions of the members and not let this association down, There might be some differences here and there, but think for the bigger picture. Being inclusive will only make our association stronger.
Thanks and regards,
Gladson
VP Public relations (2014-2015) and well wisher of MCA-EC.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Don Lewis <dop...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I agree with Ron, I do not want to be part of the new proposed Vado.
I am glad this conversation is come up, a new Vado with barely any families doesn't make sense to me either. Hope rest of you all pitch in with your concerns and opinions.
Thanks
Don
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015, 9:31 AM 'Ronald Dsouza' via Moriye Vado MCAEC <moriye-v...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Executive Board,
I am glad this conversation is still on.
The board has portrayed a message saying
"For the People by the People".
Please let me make it clear, I am not sending hate email or creating fights. I have a question. more may follow.
With that:
I came to know after SGM and also I want our good folks at Morieye vado folks also to know that;
the Road show was well presented.
It does not mean that we/I had agreed to all the inner workings.
As Gurkar of Morieye vado, I had specifically OBJECTED to BREAKING up Vado's.
It is sending a WRONG message that we in our vado no longer
want to tolerate you and do no longer like you for no genuine reason.
I had mentioned no matter what the differences are we have to all come together
and forget petty differences and that many folks having petty issues are
emotionally not grown up. I repeat that. I stand by what I have said.
Someone during the conversation also mentioned creating vado of just 4 members families
is not right and does not make sense to which I do agree, it does not make sense.
If I am wrong then I apologise in advance,
but if I am not wrong
I would like the Executive board to answer my below questions.
As members, I guess we as voting members of the association have a right to know
what Executive board is deciding before any major action(s) are taken.
I have come to know that you have already decided to break vado's
without talking or mentioning to people who attended meeting at SGM during the meeting.
Please note: if there were any side conversations, which I am not aware of,
other than meeting should not be considered as discussed in meeting.
WAS there any voting done during SGM which said the vado's are breaking up?
Is it Morieye vado or Fatima vado you are breaking up. I got email(s)
saying they are not receiving emails. Has the new vado already been formed?
I know Kursa vado is not breaking up.
Looks like the wheels are already in motion and
this was not discussed with vado Gurkar/Gurkarns
of Morieye vado.
I do not know whether Fatima vado is informed or not.
I thought the Executive Board is supposed to keep things transparent
with all its paid/voting members and the serve the needs of its paid/voting members.
Is this happening a
"MAGIC"
and
"FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE"
that we should all expect from board going forward?
As a voting member; not as Gurkar;
Can Executive board have the common courtesy of answering my simple question?
Thanks,
Ronald.
From: MCA-EC <in...@mca-ec.com>
To: Mich Fernandes <munchkin...@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob <b...@babcofoods.com>; MCA MARK LANCY <lanc...@gmail.com>; MCA East Coast USA <mca.ea...@gmail.com>; Arun Menezes <arunc...@gmail.com>; Connie <conni...@gmail.com>; denis lobo <deni...@gmail.com>; Ernest Dsouza <dsouza...@gmail.com>; Arun Menezes (Google Groups) <mcaec-advisory...@googlegroups.com>; Eddy Sayeed <eddys...@yahoo.com>; Edmond Fernandes <reac...@yahoo.com>; Fatim...@googlegroups.com; claudau...@yahoo.co.in; Gladwin Dsouza <gla...@gmail.com>; MCA Jacinta Peter Fernandes <JFern...@chadbourne.com>; MCA-Jaison Banji <jaison...@yahoo.com>; John Dsouza <john...@gmail.com>; Kevin Saldanha <kev...@gmail.com>; Manoj pinto <pinto...@yahoo.com>; Naveen Sequeira <naveenp...@gmail.com>; Ronald Dsouza <rondso...@yahoo.com>; Sahay Antony <sah...@yahoo.com>; Saritha Pinto <sari...@hotmail.com>; Siemyana Simi Dsouza <sim...@gmail.com>; Srego Rego <sre...@gmail.com>; MCA-Steven Aranha <lavina...@verizon.net>; Zee F <zeena....@gmail.com>; Roshan D'mello <dros...@gmail.com>; Moriye-Vado Mca-ec <moriye-v...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Registration
Hi Michelle,
We appreciate your concerns and are happy to address them. The board has already responded to Bob regarding the registration process for the SGM which we have to follow as per NJ State Statutes. We are first going to address the serious concerns you have raised.
· 1. “We have not yet heard back from the board as to how they are going to address the members concerns”
We fail to understand which of the concerns raised by the vado members on the day of the roadshow were not addressed at the meeting or via a follow up email. Please see the attached emails from the president and the board. In addition, Rodney had clarified questions from the vado members regarding the same. Many vado members praised the road shows and also encouraged others to attend. If you still feel that there are unanswered questions (which we are not sure of) please feel free to reach out to the board and we will promptly address it.
· 2. “The board’s primary focus is to amend and to pass the new by laws which has been well doctored”
The amendments that were sent to all the members were clearly documented as “proposed amendments”. Prior to sending out the list of proposed amendments, we reached out to all the members of the organization to request any amendments they felt were required. Amendments were received from individual members, the advisory board and the executive board submitted amendments. The board accepted all submitted amendment requests, tabulated them and sent them out to all the members well in advance of the SGM.
Are you saying the people as well as both the boards have doctored the amendments? Since the email was sent out, neither the individuals who submitted the amendments nor the advisory board have raised a concern that their amendment requests were doctored. In fact you yourself attended the SGM, but still chose to be silent. If you had a valid concern regarding amendments then why did you not bring it up at the SGM?
We request you to provide us any evidence you have that the board had “doctored” the bylaws and we will gladly discuss this evidence in a public forum or at the next AGM in March 2016. If you are unable to provide any such evidence, we require you to publicly disavow your statement and apologize for slandering the reputation of the advisory and executive boards and its members.
· 3. “Also referring to all the legalities and the right way of doing biz put forth by Mark and team is again just a formality to fulfill to shut up people who have concerns”
We find it sad that you have such a low opinion of the members of the executive board. The Special General Body Meeting is not an ordinary event and cannot be compared to other cultural or fundraising events organized by the board. The procedure for a Special General Body Meeting is set in Title 15A of the New Jersey Statutes. We have followed the procedures as documented. Are you unequivocally stating that it is wrong for the board to follow NJ state law?
· 4. “If the case was about being fair, then why were 2015 Monthi Fest registration dates changed this year”
Towards the end of Monthi Fest early bird special, few persons had difficulties resetting password and registering. So taking that into account and to be fair to members, we extended the deadline. The date of the SGM and the registration deadline was well communicated with additional reminders sent as well. There were no issues noticed while the registration was open. All members who wished to register were able to successfully do so. As a result, there were no grounds to extend the registration beyond the initial deadline.
· 5. “We need to be flexible at least during the first year of being a nonprofit for people to understand there will be annual general body meeting etc. Also the bylaws does not state that you need a registration process or a deadline to vote”
As you are most definitely aware, we are a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization and are subject to NJ State law. The law governing the Annual General Body meeting and any Special General Body meeting is defined in Title 15A of the NJ statutes. Being flexible implies that we deviate from the procedures set forth in the NJ statutes. Are you asking the board to commit an illegal action to accommodate inaction by a few members?
In addition, we take grave offense to your statement saying our members do not understand the concept of an Annual General Body meeting or a Special General Body meeting. This is despite email communication and public announcements made by the board.
· 6. “The current board wants to change the bylaws from the past board”
We agree the past board did a good job in filing for the 501(c)(3) status. The bylaws that were filed with the state and IRS had conflicting provisions and ambiguities. A few of the proposed amendments were meant to clarify this.
Your board filed the bylaws with the State of New Jersey and the IRS before they being approved by the members of the organization. After the bylaws were filed, the board asked the attendees at the annual picnic to sign and approve the bylaws. Was there any opportunity given to discuss the bylaws? Was everyone who attended the picnic and signed the bylaws given a briefing on what they are signing? That looked more of an example of “By the board for the people”. As such, you failed to perform your fiduciary duties as an executive board member. The right way as agreed by you was to have setup a venue where all the members of the organization would be able to cast their vote to approve or reject the bylaws. Once this was done, you could have filed it with the NJ state.
As mentioned previously, we followed the procedures set forth in the NJ statutes. We have to stand by the protocols defined. If we had something to hide we could have very well gotten the signatures of every member during the Christmas event and got them “approved” without any discussion just like how your board did. But as per our motto we want to function in a "By the people and for the people" manner.
Now to answer your question - Why are we doing this?
You must be very well knowing that we had sent out a three question survey earlier to which many people responded. The main idea was that people wanted to see some value in the organization apart from just the three events. Also the current bylaws do not have much leverage for our organization as a 501(c)(3). That is the reason we had to update the current bylaws to add more structure to the organization as well as provide additional value to our members and community. We sincerely hoped that you would have attended at least one of the six roadshows we held. We had gone over all this in the roadshows and your concerns would have been addressed then. If we had not called this SGM, we would have been blamed for not doing anything. We would rather get the blame for doing constructive work than not doing anything.
In addition to the above reason, we also want to put in place rules and regulations to prevent unilateral actions by executive officers of the organization.
We must say it is appalling to say in the least that you do not trust your fellow Mangalorean Catholics and Vado members. We all are putting our valuable voluntary time to enhance this organization. We have nothing to achieve from it, our term is actually ending earlier than the terms of other boards. However, what will remain constant is the value that we hope we have added to benefit our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
We hope this addresses the concerns you raised. We are available to discuss this further.
Regards
The Executive Board of MCA-EC Inc.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Mich Fernandes <munchkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bob,
I agree with your thought and I apologize for not stating it publicly as should have. I guess it resonates with everyone that this is just a cultural/charitable/educational org and don't need to make too much or think too much of it. But like you i have vested in it and do feel its important for our members to raise a concern. When Mark and few of his new team approached Fatima Vado the members were very vocal about their concerns. We have not yet heard back from the board as to how they are going to address the members concerns as the boards primary focus is to amend and pass the new by laws which has been well doctored. My previous board team has put in a lot of efforts in formulating the bylaws in accordance with the NJ state law as well as with consensus from Mark and other senior members. But its seems like a lot of what we put together is now up for change and it appalls me why this has been done within the same year that the by laws was drafted and passed unanimously at our 2015 picnic by all present voting members. Why is the current board so anxious to take up the amendment of the by laws with immediate effect rather than focusing on points and concerns put forth by the members? I don't get that.
Also referring to all the legalities and the right way of doing biz put forth by Mark and team is again just a formality to fulfill to shut up people who have concerns. If the case was about being fair then why were Monti Festh 2015 registration dates changed this year. Also current board in their email response to you mentioned about nomination deadline extension by the previous board and I can tell you as the previous board member that if that was ever done by the previous boards, it was not for any personal gain but for the benefit of being inclusive of all. People take time to respond and the previous boards have always been considerate. There have been no conflicts in the past and this is one of the first's where i have watched from the sideline where people have actually raised very strong concerns about the dealings of this association.
This is the first time MCA-EC has become a non profit so it will take some time for the new concept to be absorbed among all members of the organization. We need to be flexible at least during the first year of being a non profit for people to understand there will be annual general body meetings and votings etc. Also the by laws does not state that you need a registration process or deadline to vote. So this new changes needs to be implemented slowly and not at the pace that the current board is at. And i speak not with my voice alone but on behalf of most member's of my vado and the previous board members.
*** Mark : I would sincerely request you to think about this and give it careful consideration. You have nothing to loose and only gain from members who are asking you to make this meeting inclusive of them.
thanks,
Michelle Fernandes
VP Programs 2013-2015
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Bob <b...@babcofoods.com> wrote:
Hello MCA Board and MCA members. Thank you for your response.
None of your explanation convinces me.
Your MAGIC ROAD DHOW SLOGAN IS "BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE".
Now it sounds like BY THE BOARD FOR THE PEOPLE".
Even for the US general election the booths are open from 7 am to 8pm. This is for the convenience of citizens. They want as as many people as possible to vote.
You simply sign against your name,take the slip, give it to the booth ic and vote. It's so simple.
A tiny organisation like MCA you talk about logistics. Any of the members demanding lunch or dinner?
I urge you to keep the date open until the evening of the voting date. I consider that as transparency.
I do not know why the other members of MCA are not opening their voice with copy to all MCA members.
Best regards,
Bob
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
MCA-EC <in...@mca-ec.com> wrote:Hello Bob and Everyone else,
Thank you for your email. Mark was travelling on work whole week in LA and as a result we could reply to you only today. We hope our reply will address your concerns.
Your question “Is there any reason why you have put restriction on the registration date? Is there any complication to keep it open a day before the voting. What is your intension of restricting it?”
Our response:
1. The SGM/AGM procedure we have built is setting the standards for years to come. Moving deadlines based on who has signed up/not signed up will set the wrong standard and gives reason for people to think that there is malicious intent, leading to division in the organization. We hope that you are with us that we do not want to set bad standard for the years to come.
2. There were requests from a few other members before yours to extend the deadline after it had passed and we had rejected those requests. We want to be consistent with our answer no matter who requests it. Discriminating members based on “who they are” will create division and we do not want to divide MCA-EC. We hope you agree with us that you do not want the board to discriminate people based on their current role in MCA-EC and divide MCA-EC.
3. Based on the deadline and registration count, we contracted the place, worked with logistics etc. Extending the deadline one day before the voting creates logistical nightmare. The board has been working hard for this and we hope to have your continued help and support.
We followed the process of conducting a SGM, opened the amendment process, and voter registration process to all the eligible registered members of MCA-EC. These dates and timelines were discussed at the executive level and details were shared with the advisory board (you are a part of Advisory Board) along with the minutes of the meeting. We did not restrict any eligible voter from this mailing list. Subsequently, emails requesting people to register were sent to the registered voters of the organization several weeks in advance to the deadline. A reminder was sent a week in advance before the deadline. The registration process takes less than a minute and many people in this distribution list have already registered.
We need to properly document this process per the IRS. We have kept this process absolutely transparent, the amendments deck has been shared with everyone. We also started off with the roadshows only to keep this process absolutely transparent with all of our members and to hear their concerns on the same. We have scheduled 6 roadshows, last one is today (11/6). There is no reason for us to restrict members from participating in the growth of the organization. Keeping that in mind, the invitation was sent out to everyone in the MCA-EC mailing list.
We have to abide by the set deadlines. We set a deadline to help us plan ahead and prepare for the event. While some of us may want to overlook the importance of deadlines, others may hold us accountable for not abiding by the deadlines. I hope you will understand the reason of keeping a deadline and following the rules. You may recall the past incident of extending the election nomination deadline, it created a conflict and we do not want to repeat the same.
There is no malice in our decision and I hope in the days to come, our members will benefit from the ideas and the work we're putting towards MCA-EC. Being a non-profit, one thing every member can be sure of is that we have nothing to hide, because there is nothing we can hide. We are all accountable to do work that will help improve the organization.
Please feel free to call us if you need further clarification.
Regards,
MCA-EC Executive Board
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Robert Vaz <b...@babcofoods.com> wrote:
Dear Mark and the board members.
Is there any reason why you have put restriction on the registration date? Is there any complication to keep it open a day before the voting. What is your intension of restricting it.
I request you to keep it open and allow as many members as possible to participate.
If you do not keep it open I would consider that it is a lack of cooperation and lack of transparency from you and your board towards MCA members.
Best regards
Bob
--
Robert (Bob) Vaz
Partner, CEO
Babco Foods International
201 Circle Drive North #115, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
Cell: +1 (908) 240-7934 | Office: +1 (732) 667-7577
Fax: +1 (732) 667-7578 | email: b...@babcofoods.com
Web: www.babcofoods.com
