A POINT WATERSPORTS CLUB AT VETCH’S

Is it lawful?

What does it hold in store for us?

What do we as club members and the public need to know, and attend to, in order to retain something that is dear to us all?

 

Statement and Opinion of Karin Solomon
I feel duty-bound to make this statement out of concern for my community, and especially the water sports community of Durban.

An inseparable part of our participation and enjoyment in our water sports is the natural environment in which we sail, dive, surf, paddle, fish, and the beach from which we launch our craft.

In the case of the Durban water sports community, that place is Vetch’s beach which is also home to four of our water sports clubs, each with their own long standing traditions, constitutions, enjoying considerable and active membership making up a  vital part of this unique section of beachfront

In what follows, I hope to show sound reasons for fearing for the future of this gem, and any possibility of a peaceful and reasonably negotiated agreement between the four water sports clubs, the City and the development company.  This, to date, has failed.

I wish to make it clear at the outset that I make this statement in my personal capacity based on personal knowledge that I have gained over a considerable period of time, together with documents in my possession and which I have carefully considered.  Some of these documents are:

• A PYC notice to its membership regarding an attempted coup of the PYC beach club
• A notice of the postponement of the DUC AGM
• A recent heads-up circulated by the Ratline and published on the Save Vetch’s Association website
• Minutes of a PWC meeting of 20 July 2015
• An e-mail sent to the Point Development Company by DUC under a PWC signature
• A High Court Order issued on 13 May 2015

I invite anyone who reads this to consider what I have stated, to discuss it with others, and if inclined to do so, send responses or queries to the e-mail address below for publication, anonymously if so requested, in order to open a long overdue and constructive debate about these matters that lie so close to many of our hearts.

 

Karin Solomon
25 July 2016
Durban
info@saveoursunshinedurban.co.za

 

Something is amiss – the first warning bells  

 

1. On 25 February 2012 I went to the Durban Undersea Club to deliver Save Vetch’s Association raffle tickets and stickers to Mr. Mike Borland, a DUC member who had requested this via the Save Vetch’s website.
2. I had never met Mr. Borland and had undertaken to wear a Save Vetch’s T-shirt in order that he may identify me.
3. While in the restaurant area at DUC I was confronted by a man I had never met before, who is now known to me as Cuane Hall. He demanded that I left the premises and threatened to have me dragged out of the Durban Undersea Club if I didn’t comply.
4. When I asked him why he was so angry, he said, looming over me, “because you’re in my face, that’s why”.
5. I was stunned to be treated in such a violent manner because of my support of an organisation which fought for years to protect and eventually save Vetch’s beach – the very beach to which DUC owed its existence.
6. I subsequently learned that a decision had apparently been made by the DUC committee, without a hearing of any kind, to ban me from DUC because of this altercation with Hall.
7. This news reached me by way of a letter sent to my club, the Point Yacht Club, in March 2012 under the letterhead of DUC and signed by Cuane Hall, informing PYC that my reciprocity with DUC had been revoked – again without any enquiry having been conducted to provide me with an opportunity to put my version of what had happened.
8. The letter from DUC further requested PYC to also sanction me. This request was ignored by PYC and I remain a loyal member in good standing of PYC.
9. In terms of Rules of Court relating to current legal action that I have taken against, amongst others, Hall and DUC, I did request copies of the Minutes of the DUC committee meetings at which this issue had been discussed and decided upon, but to date these minutes have not been provided, and indeed seem not to exist.
10. The so-called reciprocity agreement between the clubs in terms of which my individual reciprocity was said to have been revoked also does not seem to exist. Repeated requests for it to be provided to my attorney have been unsuccessful to date.
11. This has serious implications concerning the rights of members of all the clubs. It would appear that DUC and its Committee believe they have carte blanche to suspend or terminate membership or reciprocity unilaterally as they see fit.  This is done without any warning or hearing or any Notice of such decision taken, nor does there seem to be any Minutes in which their decisions have been noted.
12. The members of the various Clubs should also consider the costs of legal action resulting from such conduct – costs which DUC and the entity referred to as “PWC” may very well have to pay.
13. All these issues should have been carefully minuted and the implications made known to members of the club. A costs order against DUC in a matter of this kind, so I am advised, could come to hundreds of thousands of Rands.
14. DUC members may want to enquire as to who is paying DUC’s legal representatives while the litigation continues.

 

Coming up:  Card de-activations

 

Card Deactivations

15. In 2015 I discovered that my PWC card had been deactivated and I could not access the PYC beach site (my own club) through the boom, or use its facilities including the bar, restaurant and ladies’ ablution facilities.
16. No notice of such de-activation had been given to me or my club, and no disciplinary action had ever taken place that would condone it. It appears that the decision to ban me had been taken unilaterally and unconstitutionally by Cuane Hall.
17. I reported this to PYC’s general committee, who after several meetings with DUC managed to restore my access to the beach site in June 2015.
18. On 24 July 2015 I went to the beach site to attend the first and to date the only meeting of the combined clubs under the umbrella of the so-called “PWC”.
19. My card had once again been deactivated, and I couldn’t gain entry with it through the boom or use it at the bar.
20. I attach minutes of a meeting of the “PWC directors” held shortly before the combined members meeting on 24 July 2015 and which indicates a possible reason for my access to the meeting having been blocked – apparently to prevent me from posing uncomfortable questions to the directors of PWC.
21. The Point Yacht Club once again stepped in on my behalf and it was only with difficulty that PYC managed to get my access to my club restored. No explanation was provided for this second deactivation.
22. In October 2015 the Point Yacht Club received a formal complaint against me under the letterhead of DUC, along with the instruction that I was not to be shown the original letter of complaint.
23. After the intervention of my attorney, a summarised version of the “DUC Complaint” was eventually sent to us.
24. The complaint concerned my alleged conduct towards Cuane Hall on 25 February 2012 (nearly three and a half years after the original incident), the fact that I had stood up at a public meeting and asked questions about the new development on 31 July 2015 and that I had allegedly accused members of the DUC executive committee of corruption and assault.
25. The summary of the complaint stated that through DUC, my reciprocity with PWC was also withdrawn.
26. At the time of these events, my PWC access card was again deactivated, but access was restored, again on the insistence of PYC, on the basis that I was “innocent until proven guilty”.
27. An investigation into the “DUC Complaint” by the Point Yacht Club General Committee took place on 31 October 2015.
28. In order to ensure fair proceedings, the PYC committee had co-opted a senior member of the bar, Mr John Pammenter, to chair the meeting.
29. PYC’s Gencom found that I had not broken any club rules and that there was no basis on which to proceed to disciplinary action against me.
30. In March 2016, while attending the beach site as part of my duties as an assistant at the Hobie Nationals, I found that my PWC card had once again, without notice or valid reason, been deactivated.
31. On visiting the office to enquire as to the reason for this, Club Manager Paul Smit refused to reactivate it, indicating that it would cost him his job if he did so. Instead, he proposed to activate my PYC card.  However, on that same evening, he deactivated that as well!
32. Due to the history described above, I recorded the conversation in Smit’s office in the presence of another PYC member.
33. PYC had to step in again and insist that my access to my club be restored.
34. At that point I applied for a High Court Order for protection against DUC and PWC, and in particular Cuane Hall and Paul Smit. A court order is currently in place, as included below, and the matter is being prepared for trial.

 

 

What are the implications of all this?  Read on…

The current lie of the land

 

35. To date, PWC seems to have ignored and have not responded to papers served on them in terms of the High Court proceedings.
36. DUC, represented in this matter by Louisa van Staden Attorneys, has been implicated at nearly every juncture in the events described, and have had papers served on them. However, they have similarly failed to respond to the High Court proceedings.
37. Our requests for DUC and PWC minutes reflecting decisions made to ban me from DUC, to deactivate my access cards repeatedly and revoke my reciprocity have been unsuccessful and indeed such minutes do not seem to exist.
38. Our requests for an electronic download of records relating to my PWC and PYC cards have been unsuccessful as this had to date not been provided.
39. This lack of transparency on the part of the parties mentioned, the unilateral and unlawful interference with my club access cards and the subsequent refusal to deliver evidence when requested to do so in the course of legal proceedings are, in my opinion, clear indications of irregularities within the management of DUC and the so-called “PWC”.
40. Furthermore, it appears to me that more and more people are being forced into litigation against their will, but out of a necessity, in order to protect themselves or the interests of the people whom they represent.
41. For example, in recent weeks both the Point Yacht Club and the Durban Paddle Ski Club have been forced to seek the advice of attorneys and counsel in order to ensure proper representation of their clubs with regard to their future at Vetch’s Beach, proper representation on the board of PWC and the constitution of an acceptable Memorandum of Incorporation.

 

Next: Who or what is PWC?

Who or what is PWC

 

42. Enquiries by my legal representatives have brought to light the fact that the Point Watersports Club (“PWC”), although registered as a non profit making company (NPC) in 2013, has never in fact been lawfully constituted, despite “PWC’s” official Memorandum of Agreement with the development company having been signed as far back as 2008.
43. It is of great concern therefore that the individuals who call themselves the directors of PWC had been “negotiating” with a development company all this time without an official mandate from all the clubs, without having been lawfully constituted through an acceptable Memorandum of Incorporation acceptable to all the clubs and their members and without as much as a constitution or a set of rules to regulate the conduct of its apparently self-appointed directors.
44. There has also been a marked lack of transparency in their activities and our request for minutes in which card de-activations and the withdrawal of my reciprocity with PWC, for example, had been discussed, were met with a deafening silence.
45. A letter sent to the Point Development Company by Cuane Hall, on behalf of PWC but under the DUC banner, indicates the suppression of the many concerns of various club members about the future of their clubs. In fact, the questions posed by individual club members are labelled as “null and void” in this letter, which I include below.
46. I have read the correspondence referred to, and it contains in my opinion the heart-felt and valid concerns of people who love their clubs and their sport.
47. My impression is that a concerted effort has been made over an extended period of time to silence not only me, but anyone who showed an interest in and concern for the water sport clubs’ future and their retaining a foothold on Vetch’s beach.
48. Ironically, this very beach would have disappeared under concrete had the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement signed by the “PWC directors” been carried out. And had it not been for the legal action taken by the Durban Paddle Ski Club and the Save Vetch’s Association, there would not be any beach in front of any club today. An affidavit in previous proceedings will show that the development company intended to build a revetment from the north harbour wall to the toe of Vetch’s reef, apparently with the concurrence of the then representatives of DUC and the Ski Boat Club. This revetment was intended to push the sea back to cater for a super-basement parking and would out of necessity have led to the total abandonment of any water sports activity on Vetch’s beach and hence, our clubs
49. It was only due to the strong opposition of the Save Vetch’s Association and the Paddle Ski Club that this plan was eventually put aside.
50. Unfortunately the manipulation of information described above seems to have been orchestrated from within our clubs by the directors of PWC at the time, namely Cuane Hall, Geoff Philips, Hilton Kidger, Sean Lavery, Trevor Donald and Tony Alison.
51. This group of directors have repeatedly refused point blank to allow the Durban Paddle Ski Club – which happens to be the stronghold of the Save Vetch’s Association – onto their “board” despite the undertaking to do so in the letter to DPDC.
52. After the intervention of its legal representatives and with support of the new PYC representatives on the PWC board – Craig Millar and Dave Cuthbert – the Durban Paddle Ski Club’s rightful place on the beach has seemingly and very reluctantly been acknowledged by four of the PWC directors – only for the Paddle Ski Club to be told recently that they will in fact not be allowed to have representation on the PWC board!
53. Despite all the posturing by the PWC, and after all these years, no Memorandum of Incorporation has as yet been agreed upon and the current “PWC” in fact has no mandate to act on behalf of all the clubs.
54. An existing draft version of a Memorandum of Incorporation (without the sanction or knowledge of some of the clubs or their members), tabled by DUC and the Ski Boat Club, was a far cry from what had originally been intended. Please take the time to read through the PYC notice below to get insight into what was afoot.
55. Thankfully, PYC refused to accept this Memorandum of Incorporation, and has now briefed a legal team to oversee the formation of a fairly constituted and balanced MOI, as has the Durban Paddle Ski Club.
56. In my opinion, any resistance to the fair and transparent process as proposed by PYC and the Paddle Ski Club, should be viewed with suspicion, and should be thoroughly investigated..

 

Next and in conclusion:   What to do

What to do

 

57. Firstly I would urge people not to participate in something that could turn out to be a scam, and to question handing over money and/or accepting membership or other cards from any organisation that does not have a constitution, that does not have properly elected representatives and that has apparently not been lawfully incorporated.
58. With the Club AGMs coming up soon, club members have the opportunity to consider the calibre of their leadership and choose representatives who will act in an honest and transparent manner, and in the best interests of the clubs, their sport and the environment.
59. Every water sports club member, as well as members of the public, should without delay request an investigation into all agreements allegedly made among the various clubs and in particular in respect of PWC. For example, where is a signed reciprocity agreement between the clubs?  Why after all these years is the PWC still without a lawfully constituted Memorandum of Incorporation?  How could the PWC print cards, put up booms and gates, issue uniforms, strip other clubs of their identity, conduct negotiations year after year, without having so much as a constitution in place?
60. In the circumstances, all clubs should be requested to publish on their individual websites full details of past and future meeting between DPDC and PWC, including minutes reflecting meeting dates and attendees, resolutions made and recordings of such meetings.
61. Of special significance are meetings regarding the development of the proposed new clubhouse and the requirements of each club. After all this time there is simply no information forthcoming – to the extent that both the Point Yacht Club and the Durban Paddle Ski Club have had to revert to legal action simply to ensure that these clubs are represented at meetings with the development company!
62. A visit to the City Engineers on Monday 4 July 2016 revealed that the plans for the new development, apparently only released on Friday 1 July 2016, show no indication of any club house/s, separate or combined, on or near the beach, or under a promenade, or as part of the new development.
63. It shows only one access road close to north pier and running underneath the promenade, which would make launching on the beach, especially during regattas and fishing competitions, near impossible.
64. There is no indication on these plans of a parking area for the hundreds of members of the public, club members and their family and guests who flock to Vetch’s beach when the clubs are open and especially during weekends. The question then is: How exactly are the clubs supposed to be accommodated and continue with their water sport activities?
65. The unprecedented postponement of an AGM because of a document from an external party which may or may not be ready in time for the AGM, the unauthorised removal of PYC club insignia from the PYC beach site, the manipulation of and lies told to members as per the PYC Notice below, the heads-up from the invariably restrained Ratline and the multiple complaints received as to the behaviour of those currently posing as the decision-makers of “PWC”, bode nothing good for the clubs under the management of PWC in its current configuration.
66. In a previous era, the Save Vetch’s Association and the Paddle Ski Club fought tooth and nail, and with every resource they had and even beyond that – remember their presence at the Blue Line Walk, the raffle ticket sales, the social media campaign, the eye-catching Save Vetch’s T-shirts – to preserve the beach and the reef for all of us to enjoy today.
67. I have at immense personal cost discovered, as I have explained here, that there seem to be other agendas afoot and that our clubs and our home at Vetch’s beach are anything but safe. Numerous requests for information have been ignored by the current “PWC” representatives, often with the excuse – whatever the context – that it would not be “the correct forum to discuss it”.
68. To date, individual club members have simply accepted what they had been told by whoever had the loudest voice, and hoped for the best for the future of our clubs.
69. I appeal to everyone to look into these events, to question what they hear and to consider the impossible loss we all stand to suffer if we lose our clubs, our access to Vetch’s beach, our privilege to use it and our right and obligation to protect it.
70. The dictatorial manner in which I have been treated and eventually compelled into litigation, the lack of transparency in the conduct of the so-called and to date unconstituted “PWC” and the untenable situation that the clubs are facing, forcing PYC and the Paddle Ski Club to defend themselves through attorneys and counsel, deserve the attention of anyone and everyone with an interest in the future of our clubs and Vetch’s beach.

 

PYC Notice – 8 June 2016

 

From: ToThePoint [mailto:info=pyc.co.za@mail222.suw12.mcsv.net] On Behalf Of ToThePoint Sent: 08/06/2016 3:57 PM To: karin@words-out.co.za Subject: Notice to PYC Members Dear Point Yacht Club Member Serious difficulties have arisen regarding the Point Yacht Club’s beach facilities at Vetch’s Pier. It has come to the notice of Gencom that PYC members are being advised by representatives of the Durban Underwater Club (“DUC”) that if they wish to continue using the facilities they are to resign from the PYC and join the DUC or Point Watersport Club. This is not correct. I am setting out below what, according to legal advice received by the club, the correct position is. As a result of the proposed redevelopment of the Vetch’s Point area, which entailed the removal of the existing PYC, DUC and Durban Skiboat Club (“DSBC”) clubhouses, an agreement was concluded between these three clubs and the Durban Point Development Company (“DPDC”) in 2008 (“the agreement”). This agreement contemplated the following: a) The three clubs would form an umbrella body, which was to be a non-profit company known as Point Watersport Clubs (“PWC”); b) All three of the clubs would relocate to a new clubhouse; c) The three clubs would initially be relocated to a new site described as Lot 5.116.  PWC would acquire freehold title to this site. Indeed partial effect has already been given to this provision in that the PYC and DUC currently jointly occupy this site; d) The constitution of PWC, to be developed, would provide for PWC to be established as  a non-profit company with each of the Ski Boat Club, DUC and PYC retaining separate constitutions and being members of the non-profit company, PWC; e) To the extent that Durban Paddle Ski Club agreed to “change its current approach” and elect to join with the other three clubs in the relocation to the new site, the parties agreed to use their reasonable endeavours to accommodate the Durban Paddle Ski Club on a fair and equitable basis. A non-profit company was registered under the name Point Watersport Club (note the exclusion of the “s” after the word “Club”), although it was obviously intended to be the non-profit company envisaged in the agreement. However, the Memorandum of Incorporation (“the MOI”) thereof does not contain what is contemplated in the agreement in that: 1.1 the members of the non-profit company are split between voting members and non-voting members.  The voting members are senior members, life members, pensioner members and honorary life members.  The members should be the clubs namely the Ski Boat Club, DUC, PYC and the Paddle Ski Club; 1.2 the objects are: a) to promote and maintain the interests of those engaged in all forms of water sport and related activities; b) to promote marine conservation and research into marine environment; c) to co-operate with similar international organisations; d) to regulate and control safety standards of all crafts registered with the Company. These objects have nothing to do with the creation of an umbrella body so as to house the Ski Boat Club, DUC, the Paddle Ski Club and PYC; 1.3 no mention is made of the four clubs; 1.4 no mention is made of the contractual obligations imposed on PWC under the agreement and certain addenda thereto, relating to the site which is to be transferred to it by DPDC; 1.5 no mention is made of the separate constitutions of each of the clubs which are to be incorporated into the Memorandum of Incorporation; 1.6 no mention is made of the obligation imposed on the PWC by the agreement to the effect that there must be reasonable accommodation for visiting boat and yacht owners and that although the constitutions or rules of each club may allow for suspension, there is to be no black-ball system; 1.7 no mention is made of each of the four clubs being entitled to continue enjoying their sporting and recreational interests and to be equitably treated; 1.8 there is no record of the obligation to introduce a flexible subscription structure so as to accommodate the different needs of each water user and so as to ensure that membership is accessible to the public of Durban. The MOI has not been approved by the PYC membership. Inasmuch as it involves the surrender of PYC’s rights and assets in and to the beach facility, the same would have to be approved by a general meeting of the members. This has never happened. In fairness, we understand that the MOI was intended to be a transitional document only. Certain proposed changes thereto have been drafted by the DUC but these do not come anywhere near to addressing the matters referred to in paragraphs 1.1 – 1.8 above. The PYC has taken legal advice and has implemented steps to ensure that our rights under the agreement are protected. In particular, it has called upon the other clubs to arrange for their attorneys to liaise with PYC’s attorneys to draft an amended MOI which accords with the agreement. Thereafter the draft MOI is to be placed before general meetings of all the clubs for approval. Should the other clubs fail to agree to this, then the PYC will invoke the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. In the interim, should you be approached by anyone advising you that you need to resign from the PYC and join another entity in order to maintain your rights at the PYC beach facility, please contact the club immediately.     Copyright © 2016 Point Yacht Club, All rights reserved. Club membershipOur mailing address is:Point Yacht Club 3 Maritime Place, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Durban, KZN4001 South Africa Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

 

 ______________________________________________________________________

Notice of postponement of DUC AGM

 

 

As outlined in the last club communique to members regarding the progress of the Point development and the subsequent impact on the Point Watersports Clubs, one of the issues that still needs to be resolved are the terms of occupation of the planned new club facility by the Point Watersports Club entity.

It has been indicated by the developers and City management that this agreement may be ready for the respective clubs approvals in July 2016. The acceptance of the terms of this agreement will require a mandate from the club membership which will be sought through a special general meeting.

The DUC AGM is held on the first Monday of August and in light of prospect of the agreement only being ready in July ,sometime, it was decided unanimously by the club committee to postpone the AGM by 30 days.

The reasoning behind this decision is to allow sufficient time for the agreement to be circulated amongst the membership and digested before it is voted on by the members at the special general meeting.

To avoid having to call an AGM and then possibly a special general meeting soon afterwards, it was resolved by the committee to accommodate both meetings on the same day which would be the first Monday in September (5^th).

It must be emphasized that there is no certainty that the agreement will be ready for approval by the members on September 5^th, in which case the club AGM will be the only members meeting held on that day.

Official notice of the 2016 AGM and its agenda will be made by the 5^th of August 2016.

Should you have any queries in this regard, please contact me.

 

Leigh Phillips

Club secretary

duc@mweb.co.za

 

_______________________________________________________________

From: Water Rat [mailto:savevetchies@gmail.com]
Sent: 17/06/2016 12:38 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Clubs at Vetch’s Beach

 

Recent developments have brought to the surface a number of important issues regarding the formation and structure of the ‘Point Watersports Club’. I therefore strongly recommend that those of you, who are members of one of the clubs situated at Vetch’s, take some time to familiarize yourself with the issues that the clubs are currently dealing with regarding the new development and attend your club’s AGM in order to hear what your club representatives have to report.

 

The elected Committees members work hard for the clubs’ interests so they do deserve your attention. If you are unhappy with any of their decisions or actions, the AGM will be your chance to pose any questions that you may have in an open forum and vote on any issues that may need be settled by ballot in terms of your Club’s Constitution.

 

You may wonder why someone who has been closely involved with the Save Vetch’s Association takes the liberty of penning this. The reason is this: one of the key issues that led to the formation of the SVA was poor communication. The breakdown in the flow of transparent information between the interested parties and the developer led to suspicion and distrust. Our issues were settled in 2012 and we have an agreement, the terms of which are bound by law. Whilst the SVA is monitoring developments we will not interfere unless the terms of our agreement are compromised.

 

Lets hope all goes smoothly and we can look forward to enjoying our beach in peace.
—

Ratty

 

_______________________________________________________

THE POINT WATERSPORT CLUB

Minutes of the meeting of Directors held on Monday, 20 July 2015 in the Boardroom of DSBC.

Present

Cuane Hall (Chairman)

Geoff Phillips

Hilton Kidger

Sean Lavery

Trevor Donald

Tony Alison

 

By Invitation

 

Phillip Pearton

 

Welcome

 

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for their interest and attendance.   He proceeded to bring Sean Lavery, Geoff Phillips and Phillip Pearton up to date on the recent developments.

 

Purpose of the Meeting

 

The Chairman noted that the objective of the meeting was to discuss and agree how the information meeting, scheduled for Friday, 24 July 2015 was to be run.   After discussion, it was agreed that the Chairman and Hilton Kidger would put together a slide show to clearly set out the purpose of the information presentation meeting and what the meeting was not about.   The slide show would be followed by the viewing of the UEM Sunrise audio visual presentation.   Thereafter, the meeting would be thrown open for questions and this would be chaired by Tony Alison.

 

It was further agreed that the Directors of PWC would all be present and sit in front of the meeting.   They would be available to answer any questions.

 

Besides this, all members would be urged to post any observations or concerns regarding the “water sport” facilities in the proposed development on the PWC website.   These would be logged, considered and responded to by the Directors.

 

The slide presentation would be circularised to the Directors, prior to the meeting for their comment and input.

 

Attendance at the Meeting

 

It was agreed that all members of the affiliated Clubs would be welcome to attend the meeting.   However, questions not related to the “water sports” interests in the development or disruptive comments/grandstanding would not be tolerated.   In this regard Trevor Donald was requested to have a meeting with Karen Solomons.

 

There being no further matters to be discussed, the Chairman declared the meeting closed.

 

SIGNED AS A TRUE REFLECTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE MEETING.

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN :     

 

DATE :