quote:Originally posted by Martin G:Just a few points raised by the latest email from the Trust about the members' requisition. I'd be grateful if someone from the Trust Board would address these comments for me.1) The members' requisition is emphatically not "to the same effect" as the SGM called by the Trust Board, as you state in your email. There are significant extra clauses in the members' requisition which are not covered by the Trust Board's SGM proposal. Will you make efforts to clarify this factual error in your next email update?2) Why did you feel obligated to mention that six of the additional thirteen signatories have joined the Trust within the past month? Are you implying these new members are any less entitled to partake in the democratic process than any other Trust member? If this is not the implication, then what is the significance of this fact in the context of the SGM requisition?3) Is a members' email really the appropriate channel for raising the case of the individual who allegedly felt "conned" into signing the requisition? Will you be giving those who co-ordinated the requisition a right of reply on this important matter via the same channel, in the interests of impartiality?4) Is it really within your remit as Trust Board members to dismiss the idea of having two SGMs in a short space of time as "clearly ridiculous"? Has the decision to merge the SGMs been taken in line with the letter of the Trust's rules, or the 'spirit'?5) Can you confirm that the motions proposed by the members' requisitions will be debated in full at the SGM, and not distorted by trying to merge them with the existing motions proposed by the Trust Board?The Trust's recent email updates have been loaded with political bias towards the position of the current Trust Board. The simple fact, like it or not, is that the requisition has been signed by a significant minority of the Trust members that you represent. Although the Trust Board as individuals are entitled to opinions, just as we all are, you seem to be forgetting that the role of the Trust Board is to represent the will of the membership. How can you do this if you are injecting Trust communications with political bias?If you are serious about restoring the credibility of the Trust, you'd do well to change your current negative, undemocratic attitude.
quote:Originally posted by DaveR:It's really disappointing that less than a week after Nigel said "your point is noted. It’s not the intention to take cheap shots" in response to my complaint about official channels of communication being used to put across spiteful and childish swipes at other Trust members, this email comes out and does more or less the same thing.I do not pay my annual subscription to receive amateur attempts at propaganda.I'd like to be told who wrote this email, as there doesn't seem to be a PR officer at the moment.
quote:Originally posted by David Hindley:I think Martin makes some excellent points, which I hope will be answered in full by representatives of the Trust Board.For me a question that arises from the Trust comminique stems from the comment that "the Board had already announced it would be calling an SGM on 28th April to the same effect."Chronologically it had already been reported in the local media that a group of fans were collecting signatures for a SGM of which the Trust Board were aware. If the SGM in your words is "to the same effect" and "on the same subject" what was the point of the Trust Board calling for a SGM to re-ratify the two Supporter Directors?
quote:Originally posted by David Hindley:Bump.And while I am on here, may I add a further observation to the Trust statement about the SGM.One of the principles of Supporter Trusts, which has its heart in the cooperative movement, is the notion of one member, one vote. In other words, it doesn't matter how much money, time etc you have invested, how many years you have been a member, life member and so on - your voice is just as significant. Why then is it deemed important to highlight how long someone has been a member for in the Trust communique?
quote:Originally posted by Phil Marshall:Did the Trust hold an "investigation" after Mick Chappell encouraged fans to join the Trust in order to defeat the SGM?
quote:Originally posted by Nigel King:1) It was the intention that the boards proposed resolution was to the same effect. The Supporter Directors would not have continued in office if they had lost board proposed resolution. Its that the board would have prefered a simple Yes or No, do you want to to keep them or not question.
quote:2) There is no implication on this. It is information reported to members without comment.3) We made it clear that this was just one member and it did not affect the result. We made no comment on what the member had reported.
quote:4) The Board was proposing an SGM. There has been no decision to merge meetings. One meeting will be held on the 28th. This meeting is the one required by the requisition in accordance with the rules.
quote:Originally posted by Nigel King:There is no suggestion that Supporter-Directors would not resign from the board after loosing any members vote. In the unlikely case they didnt, the Trust Board would have to take the Shareholders meeting route. I would certainly do that myself in those circumstances.This is my we said the Board planned meeting was to the same effect.
quote:The number of recently joined members was also included in the 2nd April statement when the original submission was rejected for being just under. I think is possible to interpret number of recently joined members in more that one way, but that's for individual members to decide for themselves.
quote:The phrase "clearly ridiculous" was in the context of the board not proceeding with its planned SGM. It would have been ridiculous to do so. Members would not have thanked us for it. This was in the context of earlier in the statement of saying that the members requisition had accepted, the one meeting was for that alone.
quote:There's no Orwellian tendencies on the Trust Board. We remain as we were, ordinary people trying to do our best for the Trust and the Club.
quote:Originally posted by Nigel King:quote:Originally posted by Martin G:Just a few points raised by the latest email from the Trust about the members' requisition. I'd be grateful if someone from the Trust Board would address these comments for me.2) Why did you feel obligated to mention that six of the additional thirteen signatories have joined the Trust within the past month? Are you implying these new members are any less entitled to partake in the democratic process than any other Trust member? If this is not the implication, then what is the significance of this fact in the context of the SGM requisition?3) Is a members' email really the appropriate channel for raising the case of the individual who allegedly felt "conned" into signing the requisition? Will you be giving those who co-ordinated the requisition a right of reply on this important matter via the same channel, in the interests of impartiality?The Trust's recent email updates have been loaded with political bias towards the position of the current Trust Board. The simple fact, like it or not, is that the requisition has been signed by a significant minority of the Trust members that you represent. Although the Trust Board as individuals are entitled to opinions, just as we all are, you seem to be forgetting that the role of the Trust Board is to represent the will of the membership. How can you do this if you are injecting Trust communications with political bias?If you are serious about restoring the credibility of the Trust, you'd do well to change your current negative, undemocratic attitude. Martin,2) There is no implication on this. It is information reported to members without comment.3) We made it clear that this was just one member and it did not affect the result. We made no comment on what the member had reported.
quote:Originally posted by Martin G:Just a few points raised by the latest email from the Trust about the members' requisition. I'd be grateful if someone from the Trust Board would address these comments for me.2) Why did you feel obligated to mention that six of the additional thirteen signatories have joined the Trust within the past month? Are you implying these new members are any less entitled to partake in the democratic process than any other Trust member? If this is not the implication, then what is the significance of this fact in the context of the SGM requisition?3) Is a members' email really the appropriate channel for raising the case of the individual who allegedly felt "conned" into signing the requisition? Will you be giving those who co-ordinated the requisition a right of reply on this important matter via the same channel, in the interests of impartiality?The Trust's recent email updates have been loaded with political bias towards the position of the current Trust Board. The simple fact, like it or not, is that the requisition has been signed by a significant minority of the Trust members that you represent. Although the Trust Board as individuals are entitled to opinions, just as we all are, you seem to be forgetting that the role of the Trust Board is to represent the will of the membership. How can you do this if you are injecting Trust communications with political bias?If you are serious about restoring the credibility of the Trust, you'd do well to change your current negative, undemocratic attitude.
quote: reported to members without comment
© Notts County Supporters Ltd. 2003-2006
