Divisions rock Zimbabwe farming group
A pressure group fighting to protect the rights of white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe is itself fighting to survive bitter internal divisions that have seen the resignations of dozens of senior figures.
Justice for Agriculture (JAG) has been at the forefront of championing the cause of dispossesed white commercial farmers over the years. Its Chief Executive Officer John Worsley Worswick however is being accused of lacking financial transparency and accountability in the running of the group.
Documents sent to Nehanda Radio show a volleyball series of letters and counter-letters between the two warring factions in JAG.
‘Under these circumstances the above listed members of the General Committee have resigned. The Entire Board of Trustees of JAG have also resigned, namely: Mr D. Pascall, Mr P. Forsyth, Mr B. Munro, Mr R. Swales, Mr T. Reeler and Mr J. Robertson.’ one e-mail says.
‘The substantial contribution of the CEO to serving members’ needs in times of extreme trauma over the years is indeed acknowledged and recognised. However the General Committee and Board of Trustees are responsible to the members to ensure that the operations of the organisation are both professional and sustainable and meet the requirements of resource partners,’ one e-mail read.
Those present at the SGM were able to appreciate the real issues which relate to:
a. The lack of financial transparency and accountability,
b. The difficulty of working with the CEO in management and the impact of this on maintaining relationships with essential partners for members best interests.
The decision to resign has not been taken lightly and has been made for the following reasons:
1. The constitution of JAGMA clearly creates roles and responsibilities for members of the General Committee. We have been consistently obstructed in the performance of these responsibilities by an employee who regards himself beyond jurisdiction.
2. The Notarial Deed of Trust gives authority to the Trustees to control the Trust and requires that they take responsibility for its affairs. The refusal of the CEO to cooperate with them created an impasse where a direct appeal to membership by the CEO was used to bypass the legitimate mandate of the Trustees. This has resulted in a situation where governance and accountability is problematic.
3. Although the General Committee members also received a vote of confidence we believe that a stalemate would have followed had we chosen to remain in office. Past conflicts within JAG prior to the formation of JAGMA have been lengthy and caused further division. There is a long history of committed people being forced out and or walking away because of similar frustrations invariably triggered by a call for financial accountability.
The issues of transparency, accountability remain, the `Slate’ cannot be deemed clean, there has been a historical lack of accountability and this cannot be resolved by sidestepping the Trustees.
In spite of a mandating at the AGM and an undertaking by the JAGMA General Committee and Trustees to ensure financial accountability, all concerted efforts up to the SGM have been consistently thwarted.
We are informed that financial statements have or are being prepared by an unknown third party; however we believe that considerable credibility has been lost by JAG as a consequence of this lack of cooperation and delayed process. This is clearly not in the best interests of members and makes it impossible for Trustees to foster sound working relationships with essential partners.
Under these circumstances reengagement with critical resource partners will be difficult and may compromise the sustainability of JAG. Of particular concern has been the repeated refusal of the so called `concerned group’ to meet with the General Committee at any time before the SGM. Their campaign of misinformation and fanatical irrationality we believe has not served JAG or JAGMA well.
There may be a period of euphoria over their `victory’, but as a group that was deeply committed to delivering the best possible solution for members, we resigning members of the General Committee and Board of Trustees are saddened by the current situation.
There have been consistent calls for greater unity and collaboration amongst farmers groups and we believe that this could have been achieved with out loss of identity, mandate or dignity for JAG and JAGMA. We believe an opportunity to positively impact the changing situation in the country and the impact on our members may have been lost by JAG.
As a group we remain committed to exploring and finding a way forward for farmers and other affected groups.
It is hoped that this desire to move forward by all concerned parties will not be lost and that consultation with others will enable us to find a successful route for the betterment of all our constituency and Zimbabwe as a whole.
Notice of Resignation:
This notice serves to confirm the resignation of the undersigned from the JAGMA General Committee effective 20th November 2009.
D.Pascall, Chairman
P.Forsyth, Vice Chairman
R.D.Swift
W.B.Munro
P.Steyl
R.J.Swales
N.E.Saunders
P.B.Purcell Gilpin.
**********************************
2. Resignation of JAG Trustees
JAG Trustees
18/11/09
The Chairman
JAGMA General Committee
Dear Sir
Following on from the Extra Ordinary General Meeting, the Trustees have collectively decided to tender their resignation. The Notarial Deed mandates the Trustees to ensure transparent financial accountability. The C.E.O. has refused to work with the Trustees and has repeatedly negated to supply requested financial documents and information. The Trust is informed that the C.E.O. has engaged an unknown and unauthorized third party to carry out an audit. It is of concern that incomplete information supplied by the C.E.O. would render an audit partial.
It follows that the Trustees are unable to verify this audit and subsequently find their position untenable. The Trustees cannot be held liable in anyway whatsoever for the irregular financial affairs of the JAG Trust.
It is felt that the manipulated vote of confidence in the C.E.O. (by proxy), puts the individual above reproach. This is not how an organization should be run, and the Trustees as caretakers of the Notarial Deed of Trust can have no part of this.
All this said and done in Harare on the 18th day of November 2009.
J. Robertson (Economist) *************.
T. Reeler (Human Rights) *************.
D. Pascall (Chairman) *************.
P. Forsyth (Farmer) *************.
R. Swales (Farmer) *************.
B. Munro (Farmer) *************.
*****************************************
3. Report on JAGMA Special General Meeting held on 7th November 2009 by Retd Justice L.G. SMITH
I was asked if I would chair the JAGMA Special General Meeting that was held on Saturday 7 November 2009 at the Italian Club. I accepted the nomination and was duly elected chairman by members at the meeting. The meeting was due to start at 9.30 a.m. but, because of disputes over the questions of membership and proxies, it only started at 9.55 a.m. The principal issues at the meeting for which members were to vote were votes of confidence/no confidence in the CEO and of confidence/no confidence in the Chairman, Secretary and certain other members of the General Committee. The CEO took the floor for 30 minutes to present his case and was followed by a question-and-answer session of 45 minutes. Then members of the General Committee took the floor for 30 minutes to present their case and were followed by a question- and- answer session of 45 minutes.
Thereafter the members present cast their votes and also the votes for which they held proxies. After counting the votes of the members present the results were as follows:-
1. Item 7 re CEO
Confidence 37
No Confidence 53
2. Item 8 re Chairman, Secretary etc
Confidence 59
No Confidence 26
It was proposed that the proxy votes be counted on Monday, but the meeting called for them to be counted and the results announced before the meeting closed.
The results were as follows:
1. Item 7 re CEO (proxy votes)
Confidence 62
No Confidence 30
2. Item 8 re Chairman, Secretary and other members (proxy votes)
Confidence 32
No Confidence 60
The final result, combining the votes, was as follows.
1. Item 7 re CEO
Confidence 99
No Confidence 83
2. Item 8 re Chairman, Secretary and other members
Confidence 91
No Confidence 86
The Chairman then announced that he and the other members of the General Committee would resign from the General Committee and as trustees of JAG.
The meeting closed at 1.45 p.m.
*****************************
4. Minutes of Special General Meeting of JAGMA
See second attachment- part two
JAGMA/JAG INFORMATION RE: SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING
(Part two)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING OF JAGMA
ON 7 NOVEMBER 2009, 9.30 AM
AT THE ITALIAN CLUB, HARARE
PRESENT:
Justice G Smith (Rtd) JS
Mr D Pascall DP Chairman Jagma and Jag
Mr P Forsyth PF Vice Chairman Jagma and Jag
Mr B Gilpin BG Secretary Jagma
Mr R Swales RS Jagma, Trustee
Mr B Munro BM Jagma, Trustee
Mr T Reeler TR Trustee,
Mr B Swift BS Jagma,
Mr N Saunders NS Jagma,
Mr P Steyl PS Jagma,
Mr I Cochrane IC Jagma
Mr J Worsley-Worswick JWW CEO Jag Trust
Others Around 140 members and concerned farmers and spouses/family members
APOLOGIES:
Mr J Robertson
Meeting commenced at 10.00am
BG:. Apologised for delay in meeting. Explained to the floor that this Special General Meeting was called by 48 members through the Secretary.
ITEM 1: Election of Chairman for meeting
First item on Agenda is ratification of Justice Smith as Chairman, duly done
ITEM 2: Second item on Agenda is adoption and ratification of membership as shown in Membership files. Difficult for both parties to resolve – form used as membership application predated JAGMA, it didn’t specify JAGMA membership but actually was a form giving Jag a Power of Attorney to act on farmers behalf.Thus effectively JAGMA had no membership by proper written application.
JS: Thanks floor for Vote of Confidence. Explains that the Jag Trust established before Jagma meaning that Trustees weren’t answerable to anyone and if any vacancy occurred they could fill with whoever they felt suitable. That’s why Jagma was established so as to have an organisation which would be a membership organisation and they would elect the standing committee and that committee would then nominate the Trustees so the Trustees were answerable to the Jagma Committee and the Jagma Committee answerable to the Members.
Legal position is that JWW the CEO of the Trust and is therefore an employee of the Trust and DP Chairman of Jagma General Committee and all its members – all elected at the last AGM. Jagma Members can’t remove the CEO from office or the members of the Jagma General Committee or the Trustees – according to the Constitution.
Explains purpose of meeting to make the CEO and the General Committee aware of the confidence or lack of confidence in themselves by the members of Jagma. Explains how members are to vote.
Explains the problems of the Membership – people were accepted as members when coming into the Jag office were made to sign forms issued by the Jag Trust which authorised the Jag Trust to act on their behalf – not application for membership for Jagma. Constitution says that application for membership must be in writing. Need to adopt as applications lists and files of membership – explains again the problems that Committee were denied access to the Membership files.
Two resolutions put to members –
1. That those people on membership files and have filled in forms (voting) will be accepted as duly being appointed as Members of Jag
2. Number of people here not on membership file, so not given forms (voting) I would like to put to the members who have been appointed as members to vote whether new ones (who have same interests) can participate and have a vote. Membership have the right to decide this.
Floor: Applause from the floor and some objections from IC, Joanne Cochrane and Linda Henderson
JS: Asks what they are objecting to
IC: Says that it is an important meeting and that people need to be aware of what is going on. It is his opinion that people coming through the door now do not know what is going on!
JS: Says that that is why there is meeting and people can hear the views expressed
JWW: Explains about the `membership’ form. Says it was designed to be ambiguous because had to prove a membership `keeping under the radar’. Issues today are about Jag policy – says that the new members coming in today have no idea about Jag policy for last 8 years and that they need to be aware before they can vote. Says that they have no idea what is at stake here today
FLOOR: Some agreement, some disagreement
PS: Says that meeting about informing members and Jag is trying to explain that it represents all parties and they must not be excluded
FLOOR: Agreement from floor
??: Proposes that everyone at the meeting and has signed the Membership form and are now a member of Jag and get on with the meeting
Linda Henderson: Asks the floor where all these `interested’ people have been for the past 8 years? FLOOR: Discussion
Kerry Kay: Says that a lot of people know all the policies and what has and has not gone at Jag since 2003, says JWW is wrong and that everybody at the meeting should be given the right to vote. Explains that country in a crisis at the moment in agriculture.
Floor: Clapping in agreement
???:Suggestion from floor that this issue is put to bed
JS: Explains the difference between the two lists – JWW’s and BG. JWW list according to what names are in the files and secretary’s list of “Farming Members from Jag Data base” given to General Committee prior to AGM.BG reported that General Committee meeting on 6th November received a lot of application forms, Committee accepted the applicants as members. As far as the law concerned those people are members Discussion between JS, JWW and BG
FLOOR: Discussion amongst members about whether to allow the new members to vote. Made note that Jag correspondence says to all Jag members and associate Jag Members and proposal that anyone on emailing list be allowed to vote. Jean Simon says that lots of people are there and they wouldn’t be there if they weren’t concerned members of Jag.
FLOOR: Applaud from floor in agreement
JS: Asks for a show of hands as to how many have voting forms Discussion on this matter and proxy votes whether they should be allowed or not.
BG: believes that Jagma should be an inclusive organisation
TR: Suggests to do away with the proxies so anyone not at the meeting cannot vote, everyone at the meeting can vote so we can get on with the business
Agreement from the floor –
Trish Henson states that she holds proxy votes and that she should be allowed to vote for them on their behalf
JWW :Proposes that everyone at the meeting is given a vote and proxies that appear on the original members form can vote Further discussion on the floor
JS: Suggests separating proxy votes from voting forms of members present at the meeting. Introduces CEO to give his presentation
ITEM 3: Presentation by CEO
JWW: Gave his presentation. Maintains an unfortunate breakdown in the democratic process at Jag. Suggests that Jag building bridges with CFU. Putting proposals together for projects including community support project, farm worker project and farmer project providing each one with funding for the Trust.
Gave a history of funding proposals for this year. Mentioned that Jagma hadn’t had meetings for 3 years – not a single meeting and it was the Trust that was operating and this caused conflict in the Trust so the Jag Trust were making the decisions. There was a perception that the only way we were going to get funding was if we joined collectively with other organisation such as the CFU. Mentions an initiative behind the scenes of Jag that never came across the Jag Boardroom table whereby BG was nominated as Vice-President of CFU to forge closer ties. Asked to make it a Jag initiative but it didn’t happen. Created further conflict.
Brought up various issues that happened within the Jag staff including the trashing of a set of Minutes, the books taken to Mr A House, IC taking books for a second opinion. Maintains all these issues and the issues at the AGM about donor funding were smoke screens of a hidden agenda by the Board.
Asks that a set of Jagma Minutes dated 11 September 2009 be circulated on the floor.
Talks about the AGM and how the concerned members termed it as a jambanja and the history of the election of bearers.
Says that donor funding is to the Jag Trust and that it’s not for debate for the Jagma and no business of the Jagma General Committee. Because of the sensitivity of donor funding and the issue of forex at that stage and especially staff members salaries it was decided by the Jag Trust that only certain members of the Trust would have access to that information, namely Jim Barker, Chris Shepherd and JWW. Audit done and got presented at the 2006 AGM was a complete audit on everything that had floated into Jag. DP took over from Jim Barker and IC took over from Chris Shepherd both were privy to that information. Accountability was between the CEO, and DP and Chris Shepherd. Explains how money was received in tranches and reported back to donors. $24000 given to the Trust monthly, 97% was salaries, half paid directly into offshore accounts that employees had, the other employees had cash paid.
Says that surplus money was $700 that petty cash flowed into Jag. $500 was for rental of the premises and the remainder $200 went into the drawer and other monies such as membership subs, classified advertising went into the drawer – amount fluctuated monthly and JWW held the float.
Maintains it’s a minor amount that needs to be audited and says that it was never a requirement as per the Notarial Deed of Trust to have the donor funding audited. It was reported to the Donor and if the Donor was satisfied it was fine. There was no problem until fingers were being pointed. JWW consulted with the Donor who suggested an audit and says that that is what is happening now. A full report will be made to the Donor and the Trust.
Talks about provision in Notarial Deed of Trust for an internal hearing to take place should there be any dispute within the Trust. Says that it was actioned 3 weeks before the AGM and the Jagma Committee at the time skirted the issue and didn’t hold the hearing. Says that it was a further breakdown in the democratic process.
Says the issues here are not about personalities but the principles of Jag – goes on to state the principles. Says that the policy of Jag is under attack and says that he hasn’t stood firm on his own, stands with 50 members fighting to bring it to a democratic floor and if you change the decision here you have to change these policies. Thank you very much
ITEM 4 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CEO:
Charlie Taffs: States how sad that we are not all fighting against a common enemy and points out that if we do not stand together we are never going to get anywhere. He says that JWW obviously has not been to any of his CFU presentations on compensation which he is welcome to do! Where CFU have stated that Jag do have a part to play
Applause from floor
JWW: Says that he was never invited to any of these presentations but had Marc Carrie-Wilson representing them and is quite aware of the content. Speaks about various meetings that CFU have warehoused – Gheko and Amalinda.
Kerry Kay points out that accountability has never been a strong point in Jag.
She speaks about the initiative on farm workers and human rights. She criticises the fact that no inputting of data of human rights took place between 2003 and 2006. Says that it’s a gross violation against the farmers. Says that when she and Wynand Hart left Jag they were accused by JWW of stealing and trashing the data base. Need strong leadership and not dictatorship, need to move forward
Applause and agreement from the floor
BS: Says that he is concerned about minutes being circulated, saying that JWW driving an agenda to denigrate CFU and the subjugation of Jag. Says that it was never talked about and that the Chairman of JAGMA/JAG was emphatic that Jag must be independent of CFU. We need co-habitation with CFU for compensation and JWW playing on the emotions of members who don’t like CFU Applause from the floor
JWW: Says that they are not his minutes
BS: Why circulate them?
JWW: Says he was not invited to Jag or Jagma meetings since before the AGM. Talks about slide show that BG did at AGM showing structure of CFU where Jagma in and the Trust out. Replies to Kerry Kay.
Jim Barker: Says that while he was Chairman of Jag and whilst he worked at Jag for several years, JWW was a dictator.
DP: Explains about the Gheko Group and its policies saying that it clearly states that we have to work with a common goal. Said that had in house internal hearings to try and work through how and what Jag and Jagma should be doing and how to take it for.
JWW responds to DP. Explains the discrepancies between Valcon values and the South African valuators. Says Jag or Jagma meeting is not an internal hearing. Responds to Jim Barker, defending himself saying that it is wrong to be shot down or termed a dictator if standing firm on the Jag policy. Trish Henson: Says that her concern was that Jag was going to be taken over by CFU which is clearly not the case. Asks that a membership meeting be called if it is thought that the two will merge
Jim Barker: Mentions a conversation with JWW and David Sandeman where JWW stated that he didn’t have to listen to anyone, that he would run Jag as he saw fit
JWW: Says that he never had a meeting with David Sandeman on that issue
Iain Kay: Says that we are looking for leadership that is proactive and not frugal on the truth. Wants to know if JWW welcome at Valuation Consortium meetings and why the books haven’t been audited for 3 years
JWW: Replies saying books from 2005 were audited and presented at 2006 AGM. States that its not actually 3 years books but only 2.
Monty Hunter: Says that there are other organisations which have had to run two sets of books under more perilous situations than Jag and they still manage to keep an accurate set of books.
BG: Says that there are voice files of the AGM if anyone would like to listen especially pertaining to the election of office bearers which was indeed transparent. Happy that both parties are here today so we can resolve issues at hand. Says that there have been about 22 JAG/JAGMA meetings in past 3 years and the majority of meetings had a quorum of Jagma members present
Bruce Gemmill: Ex-Trustee. Mentions that JWW did become dictatorial but that the blame lies with the succession of weak Jag Boards who didn’t insist that JWW under the jurisdiction of Jag.
PS: Very relevant remark and the very reason why we are here today saying that this Board is demanding accountability
JWW: Replies to Bruce Gemmill. Says that he has been judged more in what he hasn’t done than what he has done. Not his forte keeping accounts raised at the last AGM. Employed a senior Administrator. Feels that the responsibility should be shared between himself and the Board.
Replies to Monty Hunter explaining that the recording has been done in relationship to account keeping. Says that all meetings that BG mentions were Trust meetings and not Jagma Board meetings.
Mr Miklem: Says very disappointed in the meeting because majority has come to hear compensation issues and we need to get our organisation organised. Maintains that the CFU will be the main player in compensation and it’s up to us to see that they perform in our best interest. Jag has a vital role to play – no doubt that Jag seems to be the most un-united and disorganised of all. Says that he is sure that Jag would get complete support if they were prepared to serve with CFU but not as the major player and would like to get on with compensation issues.
Replies to PS.
Applause from the Floor
JWW: Replies that CFU had nothing to do with compensation until about 2 years ago and has done nothing to do with compensation. Says that a succession of CFU Presidents have said that there will be no compensation and they have latched onto Valcon recently. Says that CFU have done no recording of evidence to support compensation. Says that Jag has been the main player in compensation gathering data which needs to be held for the end game. Sacfa and Valcon have also played a role in this; the other organisations have not recorded or taken any documentation for this. Every email between farmers and Jag, PR reports are stored at Jag as evidence. Reason Jag was started because there was no reporting on what was going on on the farms. Saying that Jag were the only ones who have been putting it out.
Mr.Miklem: Going back ten years ago, myself and John Laurie organised a meeting where all parties were present including Jag where all parties agreed to go forward together, ever since then they have been fighting. JWW is talking of history and we are nearly 2010, things have changed, let’s forget about the past and lets go forward. Time for change is due. Applause from the floor
Michael Caine: Saying that he had 3 attempts on his life and CFU never gave any support
Applause from the floor
Alex van Leenhoff: Agrees
Charlie Taffs: Agrees that CFU did have huge short comings then and that’s why they got involved and need people behind them now.
Applause from the floor
JWW: Says that Jag has stood firm on the principles and is heartened that CFU have come around in time. Still some conflict areas. Every person on the farm has a right to representation to a claim. Jag states that everything that is allowable under international law must be claimed. Applause from the floor
ITEM 5 PRESENTATION JAGMA :Tony Reeler, Rod Swales and Ben Gilpin
TR: Recently appointed member of the Trust. Made his presentation. Not about personalities it’s about principles and professionalism. Asks JS if he concluded that the Jagma Board at the AGM and Jag Trust were properly elected
JS: Explains that you don’t have to be a member of Jag to be a Trustee
TR: Continues with his presentation. Explains his position on Human Rights violations which need to be documented accurately. Tells of his involvement with Jag and helped get Jag connected with the Civil Society. Says has been in meetings with the CFU and has been negotiating as a Trustee a Memorandum of Understanding. Says has been part of mediation in Jag because there have been differences of opinion and accountability – says all organisations have arguments about accountability – that’s the evolution of organisations but it must evolve into a professional organisation capable driving the aims and objectives of all the membership, the Board and the Trust. It’s the Trusts responsibility to make sure that the policies are implemented but you cannot have an organisation in which management challenges directly the political authority of the organisation. States that since he has been a Trustee – the CEO refuses to do the bidding of the Trust which is appalling.
It’s not the demand of the Donors, it’s our demand so we can see and know what we are doing. When a request is made for information and it’s refused this is a disciplinary issue. Says that you asked for the affairs to be put in order and that is what we are trying to do. Choice today very simple, either you have confidence in the Board and the Trust or the CEO. Trustees don’t have confidence in the CEO; he will not implement the policies. Thinks that it is impossible that you can have confidence in both.
RS: Gives his report. Makes it clear that this is not personal. Explains his position as a member referring to JWW using his name on a list at a CFU meeting. Goes through Jags policy statement. Explains the legal requirements on accountability – two documents govern the Trust – Jagma Constitution and Notarial Deed of Trust which both clearly state that the accounts must be fully audited annually and should be presented at the AGM. To say that forex accounts is to be excluded does not appear in either of those documents. Accountability is not optional – we are dealing with public funds. Donors request for a full account, a written report at the end of each project. States that to the best of his knowledge these 3 monthly reports have never been presented to Trustees or Board. Says that this project ended in July 2009 and the report has still not gone in because cannot account for the funds.
Monies received from 2006 to now equate to Pounds Sterling 256 000 and USD51 500 – none of this has been accounted for. Accounts presented at AGM in 2006 represented 5% of monies that had gone through this organisation. Same again, this year’s AGM the accounts represented less than 5%. States that Trustees cannot sign such a document it would be to commit fraud. Accounts to 2006 and 2009 were not signed off. Jag has never achieved full accountability and has only ever accounted for funds in Zimbabwe dollars.
RS states that JWW has challenged every request of him and the Board and has had to resort to JS for guidance. Initially had support from the Bookkeeper, Mrs Nortier until it was pointed out that there were no conversion rates reflected in the accounts, whereupon the CEO said that he was not prepared to hand over an information because he didn’t recognise RS as a member of Jagma or a Trustee. Jag has only ever held two AGMs and at both, Jag and Jagma accounts have been dismal. Both are intertwined, one controls the other, they cannot be separated.
Reports on various Minutes and correspondence in files from 2004 to 2006 that RS has gone through. In addition the compulsory arbitration of 2005 by Justice Smith found that the CEO would have to present accounts within 14 days. This has never happened fully.
BG: Made his report. Need to seek a solution and make Jag more user friendly. For sustainability we need to have a balance at organisational, programme, financial and contextual level, we don’t have this at the moment. Need to evaluate ourselves and what effect we have been. In the past leadership renewal has been faced with failure and retirement and we need to get past this.
Asks three questions:
1. How have the challenges that face JAG changed and where are things headed, how are we faring?
2. Has the role of JAG changed over the past years and how should it adapt to face the new challenges and what are our resources?
3. Who are the players that most assist or detract from JAG’s new strategy and how should we best engage and manage them?
Things have changed constitutionally, politically and globally, including us. JAG once a lone voice dealing with Justice, Accountability, compensation and Human Rights. Farmers need to come closer and recognise the significant leadership changes in CFU. No single body can deal with everything. There is disunity fatigue. Need to work to heal ourselves. Mentions issues of Valcon, SADC Tribunal, and CFU compensation proposal. When the SADC Court rules on the compensation of three evicted farmers, the bench marks will change.
JAG as an organisation is stuck as it and we need to move on. Says we have an aging constituency, average when we started was 55 years but now is 60. Essential to move to at least give people an opportunity at compensation and re-engagement . Must make sure that people know what their options are and give them the final choice. Mentions the limited number and often poor quality of Loss Claim Documents. Misconception amongst farmers that Damages survey are claims. Claims will need to be verifiable. Need to find a way of getting a benchmark process that we all fit into, this can only and needs to be done on a joint venture basis.
We require the International Community to engage with us and their anxiety is that there are only 4000 farmers but you can’t get together. Mentions how he has been approached by CFU to stand for Vice-President and the compensation department there but decided that Jag is his core issue and that we must fix Jag so that we can move forward with dignity and not protect our turf. Racing against time and we need to move on and get there. This is a foot race not a boxing match*not the last one standing but the one who goes the furthest in the shortest time. We need collaboration and to avoid duplication.
As a farming community we are traumatised and need to come together and talk.
Says that JWW has been a tower of support to people – it’s a strength of his. But he also has weaknesses, if an organisation is built on an individual it will succumb to those weaknesses. We have to be a team that moves forward and builds on strengths of a broad base.
We need communication, co-operation, a professional approach, proper planning, being a good partner to donors and other players. They need you and we need them. When they tell us that we need to be working with other guys we need to be able to deal with them. We need to have some common place where our issues are dealt with and build a consensus with other partners and we have been working hard at this but keep stumbling over domestic issues. Jag needs to get over this. Jag needs to find a way forward that brings hope to the people in its entirety. Need to make sure information is shared all over, keeping our role of Jag as a member of the Civil Society, remembering our priority in compensation, justice and a just future, get to a common voice. But they all require justice, transparency and accountability both within and without.
Applause from the floor
ITEM 6 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO JAGMA
JWW: Responds to TR presentation stating the difference between Jag and RAU in that Jag has a membership. Responds to BG about change which must come through the Board room which it hasn’t done
IC: States that whole meeting is about accountability from the CEO. Says that he call for a internal hearing 3 months ago which didn’t happen which was about accounts and accountability. Asks why internal hearing was not held. Says that the accounts are in audit now and if they are clean what have we been discussing now.
Jean Simons: Says that it’s taken IC so long to call for an internal hearing when he has been on the Board for so long. Gives a history of her issues with the accounts dating back to 2005.
RS: Responds to IC. Tells that IC is the chairman of the finance sub-committee of Jagma. Says that the accounts information has been requested by the Board from the CEO and IC by to be submitted to the Boards appointed Accountant, Mr A House to do an audit, but it has been refused by them and the information has been taken and handed over to an unknown accountant which is still undisclosed to the Board and without their permission
Applause from the floor
Dave Wakefield: Observation that there is a fundamental problem with the way that Jag and the Trust have been set up and run
Neville Quail: Commenting on voting for JWW and the Board
Lance Kennedy: Again commenting on issue of voting for both and says its a disgrace that they could sort this out. Maintains that CFU part of the issue. Would like to know what CFU have achieved.
Linda Henderson: Asks Chairman to explain why if his tenure under rotation ended in 2008 why he is still chairman
DP: Explains that the internal hearing was put to the Board as to whether it should be heard before the AGM or not and it was decided by the Board that it would be the responsibility of the incoming Board to deal with.
Says that he resigned in frustration and was approached again to kick start the organisation and it was put to the vote under JS. Spoke about the AGM and election of office bearers
TR: Stays that Jag has achieved a huge amount of things in partnership especially with RAU generating report after report and another one coming out on Monday. Says that no organisation can stand alone in this country – that’s the key that it was in partnership.
Lance Kennedy: States he believes that JWW is the same today as he was in the beginning so why load it all on him today?
TR: Says that the reason why meeting today is because the people called for the meeting – Jag have tried to solve it internally but that didn’t happen
JWW: Explains about Jag and Jagma excluding him from meetings and if there was a change of policy it should be done over the Board room table.
RS: Responds to comments by an example of an inverted triangle saying that the CEO is accountable to everyone and we need accountability before we can go forward. We need funding and have to have accountability before we can get it. We keep hearing `need to know’ and shows how all the donor funding information is on the Internet for anyone to see
FLOOR: Thanking JWW for all that he has done
Mr.J.van der Sluis: Comments that the way JWW handling confidential issues is the right way to do it in light of the current situation in Zimbabwe
PS: Makes it known that JWW was invited to a Jagma meeting and he refused to come in spite of it being a work
JWW: Responded that he was told at 8.30 pm the night prior to the meeting
Jenny Faasen: Thanking JWW again for all he has done for her
IC: Saying that information was censored by DP and his Board and takes serious umbrage to that because the information needs to get out to everybody
Kerry Kay: Asks about the membership list. Comments on the censorship and says that her letters were censored by JWW.
FLOOR: Argument on the floor between members over the censorship of information and letters
Trish Henson: Asks if JWW will be able to work with the Board
JWW: Says that communication has been broken down and would have to be improved.
Discussion the floor
ITEM 7 : VOTE OF CONFIDENCE OR NO CONFIDENCE CEO AND
JS: Explaining about the ballot papers and voting
ITEM 8 : VOTE OF CONFIDENCE OR NO CONFIDENCE JAGMA CHAIRMAN AND SOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Break while voting takes place and counting of the votes.
JS: Stated that two people were involved in the counting and checked each others counting that it was only done on the members present. Will take the proxy votes and count on Monday morning.
Results:
Vote of Confidence on Jag Trust CEO – Item 7 – Yes vote 37, No vote 53.
Vote of Confidence in Jagma Chairman and list of Members of the General Committee – Item 8 – Yes vote 59, and No vote 26.
ITEM 9: WAY FORWARD
BG: Proposed to drop other agenda items regarding JAG Way forward and CFU as considerable discussion had already taken place and close of the meeting now because of time.
FLOOR: Discussion about proxy votes and whether to count then or Monday
JS: Explains the way forward when all votes are counted with the Board meeting with the CEO when results are out. Break while proxy votes are counted
12.30 pm: Results announced –
Item 7 – Vote of Confidence in Jag Trust CEO –
Yes vote proxy 62 making a total of 99.
No vote proxy 30 making a total of 83.
Item 8 – Vote of Confidence in Jagma Chairman and list of Members of the General Committee –
Yes vote proxy 32 making a total of 91
No vote proxy 60 making a total of 86.
BM: Announces that the entire General Committee and Board of Trustees resign immediately except for Ian Cochrane and Peter Etheredge. States that there has to be a meeting with a quorum to elect a new General Committee
Floor: Thanking for the patience and time spent
Meeting ended 12.45 pm
