1. Draft minutes of the meeting held on 21 August were read and adopted.

2. The meeting noted that the RdC’s request to the MC to carry its draft resolutions have now

   taken the shape of a resolution by 30 members (28 are signed by respective members and 2

   gave their consent through WhatsApp messages).

3. The RdC recommends to the MC that the requisitioned SGM of 30 members be held on 2nd

   October. This recommendation is being made after consultation with most of the 30

   members who signed the requisition.

4. The RdC discussed, at length, the current mood of members regarding redevelopment and

   the way forward. It was apparent that several past actions of the MC are perceived as errors in judgement and potential mismanagement. There are persistent vocal demands to name MC members who erred and to take action. The RdC has emphasised accountability of MC members.

   In this regard, the RdC assesses that under current conditions of palpable mistrust the redevelopment project will be seriously impaired because of lack of adequate confidence in the MC as a whole. To address the situation, the RdC introduces the Redevelopment Management Team. This is a team carved out of the MC and RdC. Past positions are unlikely to hamper the cohesive functioning of this team. This is a team in which, we believe, people will have greater confidence. It is a smaller team and therefore more manageable by its de facto Chief, the Hon. Secretary, Pammu in whom the RdC reposes confidence. The RdC has articulated its approach in the creation of the Redevelopment Management Team and its role in a note attached in an Appendix.
   The RdC strongly recommends that the MC adopt this note at the earliest, possibly at an urgent meeting to ensure that confidence is rebuilt and the redevelopment project is mounted on the fast-track.
   As these minutes are made public as usual, we request members and residents at large to also share their views regarding the Redevelopment Management Team.

Appendix
Redevelopment Management Team

There is considerable anger in members over the redevelopment project being managed sub- optimally (to put it mildly) and sometimes even against wishes of the general body. Some of this anger, and not all, is reflected on the RdC Patrakar WhatsApp group. Many do not write although they feel equally frustrated. At least some of the angst is justifiable, such as on the returning of the EMDs without taking advocate’s or PMC’s advice and the attempt at engaging Naren Kuwadikar Architects the first time by the MC without engaging with the RdC and the questionable continuation on the MC for some time even upon loss of membership, albeit under very unfortunate circumstances. There have been misjudgements such as in attempting to ask for the removal of the PMC repeatedly. There has been mismanagement such as in the case of the law firm.

The MC is also hobbled by factionalism. Meetings are often aggressive and indecisive.

The MC has been stingy in sharing information although this has improved recently.

The MC has been very sensitive to criticism. A critic is considered to be against the MC. The MC does not have the capacity to handle a difference of opinion. This is also the reason why it is hobbled with mostly unresolved factionalism.

The MC has been unable to work with the RdC. It cannot deal with the RdC’s criticisms of processes and even constructive suggestions. This is what led to the RdC’s suggestions turning into a members’ requisition.

The RdC does not suggest any ill-intention by any specific member(s). It cannot provide any certificates of honour either. We believe accountability is important. The MC members cannot hide behind the MC’s unity and not name people who spearheaded and even championed questionable proposals in the past.

In the interest of maintaining credibility, the MC must conduct its own internal investigation and trace names of people who led proposals that were questionable and are being questioned till date.

We strongly suggest that the MC take corrective actions to ensure that henceforth, it is possible to trace names or champions of proponents; it is possible to trace the position of different MC members to a proposal; all dissent and arguments in favour are duly noted in the minutes and the minutes are made instantly public.

While the MC may take its own corrective actions, the RdC strongly recommends some organisational structuring specifically with respect to the redevelopment project. These are corrective actions that can be taken immediately and the angst and impatience of members can be partially assuaged.

The RdC recommends to the MC the creation of a Redevelopment Management team that comprises of the current office bearers – Ashok Trivedi, Pammu Nageswaran & Veena Krishna and three members of the RdC – Sunil Singh, Sanjay Kher and Ajit Rai.

Only members of this management team will interact with external agencies involved in redevelopment. External agencies include all vendors, consultants, government agencies and developers, etc. Interactions includes setting the agenda, discussing plans and proposals with them, negotiating with potential vendors, undertaking negotiations with existing service providers, charting out logistics, sequencing of events, etc.

Other members of the MC and RdC will not interact with any external agencies associated with the redevelopment project unless specifically instructed to do so by Pammu, and for the limited purpose given by Pammu.

Pammu would lead the redevelopment management team. He can direct or assign responsibility to any member of the MC or RdC whether within the management team or outside the management team. This proposal visualises Pammu as the CEO of the redevelopment project working subject to clearances from the MC and GB.

Pammu’s role as visualised here and the role of the management team visualised here does not dilute the powers of the MC. All decisions require the majority of the MC to agree. Pammu spearheading this also brings in greater accountability.

Operationally, wherever necessary, the management team would bring a proposal to the MC for its consideration and if found appropriate the MC may provide its approval or may ask for a revision or it may reject.

Pammu should be granted adequate freedom to run the redevelopment project to fast-track execution. Pammu and the RMT should be empowered and made accountable for executing the GB’s decisions.

The management team is the brainstorming and working group. The MC is the clearance authority.

The creation of the management team will ensure a better front with external agencies as the front is essentially of office bearers. The management team will also ensure better speed in decision making. This element, speed, should not be underestimated. This arrangement also overcomes the fractious relationship between the MC and RdC. Both teams work together towards redevelopment under the leadership of Pammu.

The RdC has confidence in the MC office bearers, Pammu, Ashok and Veena and is committed to working with them to accelerate the redevelopment project.

It is not necessary to draft and approve Rules for the management team. This can be avoided. Our experience with the Rules for the RdC does not inspire us to go down that path. Then, the clauses stall progress.

The redevelopment management team will have an initial term till the developer is selected, the DA is signed and the members have vacated their flats. This arrangement can be reviewed after that.

20 September, 2025