Noted @RichardB .
@VickyVanEyck , it seemed it was better for @Celine_D to start at 19h30 so we can do it then. I also want to update you on the last coordination meeting, but will do it really fast.
1 Like
Hi @Lee! I should have made my question more explicit (sorry, I kind of forgot the post could be read by people who were not at the @reef-finance meeting).
What I would like to know is: has this conversion from loan to non-refundable contribution been legally researched; is it legally something that an asbl/vzw is allowed to do with its money? how will it be done in practice? (I ask mainly for the sake of The Reef’s financial soundness and safety)
Another question pops up to my mind now: what if a decision it’s not a good time to build a cohousing is made after we start scouting, but before we find a site (e.g. because we cannot find a suitable/affordable site, or there is a further worsening of the economic conditions)?
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this works like any loan or donation agreement between two parties. So we would just create another document, signed by al parties that says “I now donate the 1500 euro that I have transferred to The Reef’s bank account as a loan, i.e. I won’t be given back this money”.
In that case everybody’s 1500 euro will stay in the bank account until the economic conditions get better. Once it’s given, it can’t be given back.
Hi @reef-finance
Just a quick update following our meeting today. There is some change in the agenda for next plenary meeting next monday so we should try to do our best to present the full membership fee doc.
Other important fact is that splitting the fee into two and having a load option was suggested by our coach Marc so it should be a legitimate thing.
@Celine_D , are you still ok to do a quick summary in FR so i can send it to Pierre Yves , the notary from Namur and ask him for advice?
@VickyVanEyck , are you ok to try and redraft the proposal so it’s ready for Monday plenary session?
Thanks
2 Likes
Done.
By the way, I could not find when the contribution amount was set at 2000 euros (the question was asked during our team meeting yesterday ; the statute does not set any amount).
1 Like
Thank you! sent to the notary. I will ask Lie this question.
I realized we will need to get together soon again as there are a few topics to discuss and decide on:
- Triodos bank – intro meeting for all reeflings (online meeting) – @VickyVanEyck in contact with the Triodos contact so nothing much yet to do about this, just to follow up.
- Notary – review the docs sent by the notary & agree with whom we would like to work and how (create a working process)
- Plan our next meeting. Any time next week?
Is it possible before our next meeting, to check Lie’s post on [notary meeting (very accurate and informative) and the doc sent by Pierre Ives (notary in Namur, it’s in FR).
Thanks
ugne
1 Like
Hey guys,
@alberto is in a different time zone, very busy and he hardly has any access to the internet, so I’m taking the liberty to keep following this discussion and chip in when I feel I can add information that is missing.
The 2000 euro is set at 2000 euro in the Blueprint 1.0 and I think also in the Governance document. It’s not in the statutes on purpose, because we wanted to keep the statutes as flexible as possible. The way this will work is that, as soon as we are ready, we’ll add an agenda point to the next GA, and we’ll call for a “quote-part” (article 13), which in function of what you decide would be either 500 euro (Alberto’s proposal) or 2000 euro (the current situation).
On the question on whether this construction is legal I am almost 100% sure that it is, in particular because it is also recommended to use it when we will each be advancing 10.000 euro to purchase the site. This you can see in the documents received from Mark (the one that is the loan convention).
The crux is this: asbl’s cannot give back money they have received as quote-parts. They can however pay back money when they received it as a loan. So if it should happen that we decide that The Reef is not a viable project, we just pay back all the loans we received (1500 per household), so that people don’t lose the full 2000 euro. If we get an audit and somebody asks: why did you give back all that money? We will answer: because it wasn’t our money, these were loans.
Converting a loan into a donation is also perfectly legit. An example would be that parents lend a child money to finance their studies, and after a while they change their mind and they tell the child it doesn’t have to pay back its debt. In The Reef it would be the same, except that we would document it on paper.
1 Like
Hi @Lee , hi @reef-finance
Thanks, Lie for an input, it’s great. I also asked Manuel to check with his legal contacts who works with the NGOs and he confirmed that this is absolutely legal and common practice. Manuel gave him the reef’s email address so he might come back to us with more elaborated info on this (regrading the loan). But it seems we should go ahead.
1 Like
Hi Ugne, I’m afraid I won’t have time for a Team meeting next week.
Next week I am available to meet Wednesday or Friday. Monday and Tuesday are already taken by Reef meetings and Thursday I have a Christmas dinner.
I just had a look at the link now. I did not know about the existence of such services and am quite impressed. If it works, then that would be pretty cheap for legal services!
1 Like
Hi @VickyVanEyck, do you think you could edit the full associates fee proposal for Mondays’ plenary?
@Celine_D or @ClaudiaPr , if you are at the plenary meeting, is it possible you present it? I can’t be there and as far as i remember, Vicky neither.
Thank you for letting me know.
1 Like
Hi! If the proposal is ready, I could present it on Monday.
I think the document “contrat de prêt” hereabove may be useful when we update the convention 
@Lee @Celine_D please find the proposal here (internal link). I think there are two things that could be clarified in more detail with the plenary : 1. We need to be very clear about exactly when the loan would turn into a non refundable contribution (the proposal itself was not consistent, it actually had two different scenarios in two different parts of the text so I took the one that made most sense to me), 2. We need to clear about the circumstances in which the loan would be reimbursed (i.e. the project is put on hold - but what if it is put on hold for just 3 or 5 months?)
2 Likes
Thanks, @VickyVanEyck .
I added one quick edit in the proposal (reference to Blueprint 1.0), and also a comment (isn’t it the General Assembly that takes the decision to start looking for a site?).
I do agree with your comments. By the way, @ugne, any news from the notary?
Hi @VickyVanEyck , hi @Celine_D
Thanks for this! No news from the notary, but we have our answer that this is legal, so there is no need to wait for his reply. I believe this is not really his job, i just thought he might know the answer, but he hasn’t even replied. If he does at any point, i will of course let you know.
Lie asked to add the link to the proposal at today’s plenary agenda, can you do it or should i?
Thanks
ugne
1 Like
Thanks @VickyVanEyck . I agree we need to be very clear on the conditions. One thing that came to my mind that we may not have to add to the proposal but definitely to the contract is a timeline/deadline of when this condition can be fulfilled. E.g. If the project is not officially put on hold but there is no progress within X years (number of years/months to be defined in the contract), then the loan should be repaid.
1 Like