NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

totallyletdown

freddiemae wrote: »

The PCI would do well to see what happens in a church split as has happened in Scotland. Congregations refuse to pay up to central office.

I have to confess I have stopped paying into PCI.
Which is great as more people in need are getting my money.

brick

Seems PMS got some form of mention at Church of Scotland Assembly.
Haven't time to research what the motion stated.
Wonder who the PCI representative was and what he/she stated?

From http://iainmclarty.blogspot.com/2009/05/general-assembly-thursday-and-friday.html

"There was also a new motion on Presbyterian Mutual, a building society(?) supported by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which has suffered in the current economic climate, and their representative filled us on that. It could have major implications for the church there."

BETRAYED

Many thanks to all those who have written endless letters and e-mails to PCI Church officials and politicians, sadly, without any worthwhile response.
In 1798 many Presbyterians in Ireland made their feelings felt against injustices they suffered from the State. Sadly on this ocassion it has to be the State and their own Church.

brick

Load of PMS info here.

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/assembly/pdfs/General_Board.pdf

I hadn't seen it before - apologies if already posted.

freddiemae

brick wrote: »

Load of PMS info here.

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/assembly/pdfs/General_Board.pdf

I hadn't seen it before - apologies if already posted.

Quote from report""

. The Moderator’s Advisory Committee met on two occasions to
consider the response of the Church to the evolving situation of the Presbyterian
Mutual Society. On 21 November the Clerk of Assembly outlined the position
of the Society as it was then known. The Chairman of the Directors and
Secretary of the Mutual Society had asked for a meeting on Monday, 27
October. At that meeting they indicated that the Society was no longer able to
meet demand for payments and the Directors had invoked the rule delaying
payment for 21 days. They indicated that a letter was being sent to all
shareholders.
4. At a routine meeting of Clerks of Presbytery, held on 6 November,
the Clerk of Assembly alerted Clerks of Presbytery to the problem, but took the
view that shareholders had the right to be told by the Society before any
comment was made by the Church. There was useful discussion as to how
Presbyteries might be able to support their members and the Clerk of Assembly
agreed to alert all Ministers as soon as it was clear shareholders had been
informed. It was recognised that Ministers in Congregations would be critical in
offering support to those deeply affected and upset.
5. On 12 November, the Clerk wrote to all Ministers including a copy
of the Presbyterian Mutual Society Directors’ Statement to shareholders and a
Press Statement issued by the Society. (Copy of letter appended). In the letter he
stated:
“It is easy to point out that the Mutual Society is a separate legal entity
which is quite separate from the Church. It is also clear that the Church cannot
in any way underwrite the commitments of the Society. However, the reality is
that many Presbyterians who have invested in the society are now
understandably worried and we have a responsibility to care pastorally for
them.”
Since then the Church has been considering all possible ways to fulfil its
responsibility to care, recognising that much of this support must be given at a
local level.
6. On 14 November, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Investment announced that it had rushed through urgent legislation to allow the
Presbyterian Mutual Society the option of going into administration or a
voluntary arrangement. This information was e-mailed to all ministers the
following day, again emphasising the Church’s responsibility to those deeply
Quote""

Pardon me but if the Church has nothing to do with the legal entity of the PMS why on earth were they told first before the shareholders. This beggars belief. I cannot understand why you are not out marching in the streets to be honest. All the ministers are emailed and told and you are left in the dark. Its an incredible insult to you as shareholders.

brick

freddiemae wrote: »

if the Church has nothing to do with the legal entity of the PMS why on earth were they told first before the shareholders.

Maybe, like the vast majority of savers, PMS chair/secretary too (at that stage) assumed PMS was part and parcel of PCI - so natural thing to do was to alert perceived PCI superiors?

But perhaps too simplistic an explanation.

BETRAYED

In reply to Freddiemae

/QUOTE]
Pardon me but if the Church has nothing to do with the legal entity of the PMS why on earth were they told first before the shareholders. This beggars belief. I cannot understand why you are not out marching in the streets to be honest. All the ministers are emailed and told and you are left in the dark. Its an incredible insult to you as shareholders.[

We soon will be.

freddiemae

I am sorry but I must come back to this business of the PMS board informing the Church weeks before they inform the shareholders.

If there is no legal connection between PCI and PMS then how can they give out confidential sensitive information to them before informing the shareholders. This is absolutely crucial in providing a direct link between PMS and PCI. I would be saving that document and printing it out for posterity.

It could form the basis of a case against whoever decided to give out information without consulting the people who had invested in it.


If they had gone straight to the DETNI then I could understand it - but informing an alleged unrelated third party -- never heard of it in my life.

fivealive_2

freddiemae wrote: »

I am sorry but I must come back to this business of the PMS board informing the Church weeks before they inform the shareholders.

If there is no legal connection between PCI and PMS then how can they give out confidential sensitive information to them before informing the shareholders. This is absolutely crucial in providing a direct link between PMS and PCI. I would be saving that document and printing it out for posterity.

It could form the basis of a case against whoever decided to give out information without consulting the people who had invested in it.


If they had gone straight to the DETNI then I could understand it - but informing an alleged unrelated third party -- never heard of it in my life.

Thanks Freddiemae for drawing our attention to this aspect of what took place.:T

brick

brick wrote: »

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/assembly/pdfs/General_Board.pdf

We have on occasions commented on the use of the terms "shareholder", "investor" and "saver".

Subject to error on my part, I notice that in the General Board paper those who chose to deposit their money with PMS are referred to as shareholders 13 times, investors 11 times, and only once as savers:-

"That the General Board encourages contacts with the Taoiseach
and his Government to explore ways in which help may be given
to Presbyterian Mutual Society savers, some of whom live in the
Republic."

Don't know if it is in any way significant (probably not), but it is strangely at odds with the majority of posters on this board (if I represent fairly) who generally refer to themselves as savers.