Why are you picking and choosing which “blocks” you list, and assuming that all blocks voted for the project? Everybody knows that is not the case, why are you presenting it like it is?

Also, why is it wrong for “blocks” to vote shares that they have acquired legitimately in the interest of their organization? Isn’t this exactly what these organizations should be doing?

Finally, it seems odd that you would so vocally criticize some of the most active organizations in our community rather than organizations that hold blocks of votes and are functionally dead or fulfill minimal or ceremonial roles.

To Strawman,
I will assume the reason that the concerned shareholders haven't listed other share blocks is because they wouldn't have access to the shareholder's list, but, I agree with you, lets ask the EHB to provide us with the full list of shareholders and the number of shares each shareholder has. Will EHB provide the shareholders with the shareholder list and number of shares per shareholder?
What is wrong with “block shares voting that are acquired legitimately in the interest of their organization”. Nothing, except the vote is not representing the community, it is representing the 7-15 block shareholders. Lets take for example the ECU, based on this article they have 714 shares, the executive board of ECU does not go to their membership when voting for issues relating to the EH corporation. (ie therefore 3 maybe 4 people from the bank board is making the decision not its membership)
At the last AGM meeting in May 2017 the total shares present were 2998, we do not know how many shareholders this represented.
Total shares present AGM 2017 2998 # of shareholders ___?___
# shares needed for vote (50%+1) 1500
Block shares as per this article 1407 # of shareholders __7__
Basically 7 shareholders almost have 50%+1 of the vote. The article is right, our voting system does not represent the will of the community members who are shareholders, only, the interests of a few block shareholders. A few shareholders get to dictate the will of the community. Markus Alliksaar made reference to that in his EHB resignation article to the community.
We know from the last AGM meeting there were 7068 total shares, therefore, lets assume 2500 shareholders. The only way to ensure the will of the community is to have a one vote per shareholder. This would represent the true will of the community.
7 to 12 block shareholders (less then 1% of the total shareholders) is not the will of the community!

The ETCU board has a responsibility to the well-being of the ETCU foremost. (ie. maintain solvency, manage risk, ensure compliance of banking rules, ensure stability to its depositors and borrowers, pay its employees etc).

The ETCU best serves our community by offering reliable and competitive financial services. Its function is not to take on, or hold high-risk real estate investments for the good of the community.

If the ETCU board feels that that their investment in the Eesti Maja has become too risky, then they have an obligation to find a solution in order to reduce the risk.

I’m not saying the Madison is the solution. I’m saying the bank has to explore the options on the table and suggesting they shouldn’t be allowed to determine and vote in their best interest is absurd.

While suggesting the bank vote to take on unacceptable risk to satisfy our desires, why don’t we just vote to confiscate the deposits from the largest accounts and use that money to save the Eesti Maja? Problem solved!

Maybe in an ideal world where the Estonian House had capital reserves to finance its own capital projects the ETCU wouldn’t have needed offer financial assistance in exchange for shares.

Please advise the minimum number of shares required to be counted as a block.

In the interest of transparency, are there other blocks not listed here? If so, who are they?

What about people who hold multiple proxies? Are they considered a block?

If all these organizations voted in support of the Madison opportunity then what gives any of us the right to question, insult or slander their motives? These organizations depend on our business (ETCU), our donations (ESK, EKN), and our participation (Meeskoor, Scouts, Guides, Kungla).

If their leaders did not believe Madison was a viable option, provided due diligence yields favourable results, then they would not have supported it. Support by the youth organizations (Scouts, Guides, Kungla) is most inspiring because they represent our community’s future! Let’s not forget that the leadership of all these organizations is accountable to their membership at least annually and in most cases much more frequently.

In contrast it would be enlightening to know how the community’s less active, totally inactive and completely defunct organizations voted the over 500 shares that they control. Who did they consult? To whom are they accountable?

Pankurid ei oleti vist ajalooga kursis. Tsitaat nende blogist:

https://blog.estoniancu.com/20...

"Until 1991: Estonia merges politically and economically into the huge Soviet empire and becomes the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (ESSR), ruled by a government, which is subordinated to the Kremlin. Around 200,000 Russian workers are displaced into Estonia. Estonia stays in stagnation for fifty years."

Kas tõesti on asjad nii kaugele läinud siin eesti kogukonnas? Merge...nagu liikluses.

Nii nagu soovitakse et Eesti Maja inimesed teeksid.

Mis on ECU tulevik, kui vanad kunded Madisoni ei saa/soovi minna?

I too am astonished that our Toronto bankers (ETCU/ECU) are now curating history.

Tänan tähelepaneku eest.

https://blog.estoniancu.com/20...

I too am astonished that our Toronto bankers (ETCU/ECU) are now curating history.

Tänan tähelepaneku eest.

https://blog.estoniancu.com/20...