I would like to pretend I understand the sentiments that have motivated Allan Meiusi's running commentary over the past week. In so far as he feels that the process leading to tonight's resolution has been hasty and less than transparent, I can sympathise to a degree.

However, what is not healthy or helpful to the community at large has been the tenor in which he and others have presented their questions and concerns, and the way in which rumours and misinformation spread as a result; one need only glance over the recent comments on EWR and eestielu to really see some of the worst our community has to offer.

Rather than tacitly characterising them as duplicitous and nefarious, we should commend and be proud of the volunteers that put countless hours into working for a sustainable future for our community.

Arvan, et asi pole Allan Meiusi isikus, vaid oskuslikult seatud probleemiasetuses ja motiveeritud küsimustes, mida ta esitab. 10 punkti.

Allan - kus sa oled olnud viimased küme aastat? Miks sa enem ei küsinud?

Sa just ei saa aru mis kõik probleemid on.

Ja kui tihti sa ise käid Eesti Majas? Kui plaju omeast rahast sa paned sinna?

I don't buy into all the conspiracy theories and don't believe that the members of the boards of the organizations are in it for themselves; however, I do think that this should be a two part process:

Today's vote should give direction for the board to go through the due diligence process, including the determination of ownership structure, and financial sustainability of the new building. Upon completion of due diligence and its presentation to the shareholders, the shareholders can vote to move ahead (or not) of the sale of the Eesti Maja and continue with the Madison Project.

How can a shareholder vote for a project in which they don't know if at the end of the project they'll still be shareholders or not?

Who is pressuring for the quick decision? Is it the city? or are we making up artificial deadlines?

.....he'd discover the complexities of corporate government and shut up. While learning. alas, he'd constipate the process.
He's less of a nuisance, on the sidelines, composing fantasies of malfeasance, like the self-appointed, would-be saviour that he isn't.

Eestlus, truth, the community's self-understanding, and decision-making are interconnected.

By all accounts, the future of Eesti Maja is a journey in stages, so there is much decision-making ahead.

The special resolution is asking too much!

Here's how Madison Group and the Estonian House Board responded to Meiusi's Editorial in their piece, "Let's Focus on Common Community Interests", annotated. It's worth considering.

“Estonian House remains the property with the most risk and least potential for sustainability”.

Why is it being compared?

"This was made clear from the in-depth Estonian House presentation at the Town Hall on March 29th 2017”.

Nothing was made clear. Only the point that three large firms (all working in tandem with developers) had somehow made the general point about sustainability being made here, was hammered, with absolutely no details as to what was supposed to have been studied, with what relevant expertise, and on what basis any specific claims were made. WHY IS THE MADISON GROUP AND/OR THE ESTONIAN HOUSE BOARD UNWILLING TO SHARE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE VALIDITY OF ITS CLAIMS ABOUT ESTONIAN HOUSE?

“Although Mr. Meiusi may have found the presentation overly detailed and unnecessary”,

Using the same generic slides as in 2014, devoid of any pertinent information, was unnecessary, AS IF reviewing a "history", then turning to the new project, AS IF the project manager was new, and AS IF he and the “Group” were not involved in the history of failed projects, then calling lights out at 9:30 pm, and cutting off Q & A for the misnomer of a “town hall” – all that was unnecessary and indeed insulting.

“Finally, Mr. Meiusi suggested in his editorial that the preferred solution is to renovate the Estonian House bit by bit. Perhaps he did not fully comprehend the current circumstances, because in a nutshell, the challenges facing the Estonian House are so great, and the cost of remediation so high, that the building is not salvageable. Expert after expert was consulted to find a way to remediate. Three developers were worked with in succession; none being able to return a rebuilt Estonian House to the community from the proceeds of the development without unacceptable risk to the assets of the Estonian House and at the risk of losing everything.”

How does this paragraph cohere? How does the last sentence fit, since it refers to the failed developer project replacing the Estonian House, and Meiusi, as reported in the first sentence, is talking about renovating Estonian House. AS LONG AS THE ESTONIAN HOUSE BOARD HAS FAILED TO SHARE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FROM A THOROUGH, INDEED FROM ANY, EXPLORATION OF THE OPTION OF RENOVATING, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SEPARATING PROPAGANDA FROM TRUTH. If the Board and the anonymous author(s) of this piece do not see this as essential, they have no business claiming they are representing the interests of the Estonian community. That no doubt is Meiusi’s main point, and the community is grateful for his efforts.

And, regarding that last sentence, WHAT WAS the reason for the failed partnership with Alterra - NOT confusing it with anything else, just in itself? The answer given - "the numbers did not support our going forward". Take that for a response to shareholders who came to the meeting wanting to find out what had happened to what they had last agreed to, in principle.

Mr Meiusi seems to be unfamiliar with corporate governance. Directors are voted in and they have a fiduciary duty. They cannot, at law, act in their own interests. They have to act in the corporation's best interests. Why Mr Meiusi spends his time being an ässitaja puzzles me. Why does he suggest that there are directors on the various boards who are not acting in the community's interests, especially those expending considerable effort doing so? Let's look at a public company, say Bell Canada. Does any shareholder think they can walk in and see ALL corporate records?(You have to be drunk to think so.) No, they cannot. You have to have confidence in those you vote in. Doesn't he have a real job that consumes his time?