Has anybody decided how many people will ulitmately be on the Trust Committee and what the different roles will be?

I think we have some example structures from Supporter's Direct. Will post back when I know more or someone else might be along, you never know.

Temporary Working Party Member

The exact number is not defined - there are
some required roles such as chair,
treasurer -looks after accounts
secretary - looks after membership roll, organises meetings.
Another rquirement is the number of elected
members is larger than that of co-opted ones.
The sort of peoplewho might be co-opted are:
(1) a representative or representatives of the Borough Council for the Area on behalf of itself and neighbouring local authorities;
(2) a representative or representatives of the young;
(3) a representative of disabled supporters;
(4) a representative of local business;
(5) a representative or representatives of any supporters group or groups of the Club
(6) a representative or representatives of employees of the Club;
(7) a representative or representatives of the Sports Council and Football in the Community;
(8) the representative of the Professional Footballers Association at the Club.

But there is a lot of work in running the trust and the board cant do all of it so some is delegated to non-board members.

Fred
Steering Group member

Temporary steering group member

sorry if im mistaken but i was under the impression that the board was voted on by the members of the trust! Are these co opted members going to be voted on the board or just given a place. if so who decides this?

Again, it's only my understanding, so correct me if I'm wrong...

The elected committee can co-opt who they see fit on to the board, with the caveats above. I can see how most of the above could help the Trust and the Trust gain greater influence through working with them. Not sure about the Club having a representative on an independent board, though.

Temporary Working Party Member

Sorry but i'll try to clarify. Phil
the representative of the club's employees is not representing the club, but the employees . this is for the broke clubs who threatened
with closure. it may be the supporters footie club but its is the employees livelihood, thus they may have a relevant role to play in its salvation.
Mainkiddy. The majority of the board must be elected but they may choose to co-opt people with special areas of expertise, interest such as councillors.
The trust is a community organisation so must work closely with all the community.
There is no neccessity to co-opt anybody. it just has proved useful to certain trusts dependent on their situation.

Fred
Steering Group member

Temporary steering group member

ok hair enough you need people with relevent experience, but i feel this could be on an advisory level. for example will they have a vote on decesions made by the committee or just be there as a relevent person to a particular issue. I bring this up because alot of the talk on other related boards has been of democracy etc.

A co-opted board member has voting rights but remember
it is the elected committee who decide
whether they need to co-opt anyone. So they
are unlikely to co-opt anybody with radically different views to them.

Fred
Temporary working group member

surely that is a bad thing someone who is co opted might create a majority if they have similar views. i feel that this issue should be made public knowledge. Especially as people are being led to believe they vote for the committee. When in actual fact almost half can be made of people who are not representative of the trust membership

It is public knowledge, MK. That's why this message board exists. I think we should debate this issue here and, if it's still an issue when the constitution is debated by the membership, it should be raised as an amendment.

It's a bit like the West Lothian question.

Temporary Working Party Member

MK
I think it extremeley unlikely that many people will be co-opted by the committee. But they are co-opted by the committee. Hence a majority of elected members agree to having them on the board- to represent a specific part of the community that is served by the football club.
The majority of the committee are always elected by the membership in one man one member vote.

The co-option option is a standard part of the rules of the type of society (IPS) that football trusts are. It is not some devious plan dreamt up by the working party.

If you want to know more about things like this I suggest you look at www.supporters-direct.org
(if you do I am the one in the county scarf on the front page photo) or mail them to ask if they know of a trust where co-option has become a contentious issue.

Fred
Temporary working group member

i know it is in there but i have spoke to others in the " temporary working party" and they said it was something that wasnt possible. Is this a mistake or was i deliberatly mislead?

What was said MK?

We're all honest people, believe me. We're doing this on the hoof a lot of the times and mistakes may be made, but they're honest mistakes. That's why Fred's trying to clear the air.

There doesn't have to be co-opted members, you can argue against co-opted members and I dare say you could force a vote on co-opted members if you wanted. It's a suggestion, nowhere does it say you will have 49% of your committee and they must have a vote.

Temporary Working Party Member

if you read fred moss's messages it states that the coopted members cannot be a majority, therefore 49% is a real possibility. also he says it is part of the normal practice of thisa kind of society. The reason for me bringing this up is no way an attack on the working party. (As it seems to be interpreted). Someone may get voted on who doesnt have the same agenda as the TWP. The TWP have lead people to believe that the committee would be voted on by the membership. This ambiguity should probably be cleared up before the election. I feel that its a good idea to get other groups opinions but it should only be at an advisory level. The truat should be run by notts county supporters for notts county supporters.

Having coopted members of a management committee is not unusual.

I'm a school governor and we are required to coopt members to the governing body to represent the local community. There are careful rules about how they are coopted and who cannot be coopted, and there is a clear process for removing an individual should the Governing Body choose.

Providing the rules are drafted correctly I can't see it posing a problem. I wouldn't like to limit the committee by not allowing them to involve others who they believe will help us achieve our goals - we just need to ensure that non-elected members of the committee are not in a position to set our goals.

Simon

do you agree that they should have full voting rights?
im not saying its a bad idea!
BUT information that has been relayed to me personally has been that this wouldnt happen.
Also the information coming from the TWG has been that the committee would be a democracy based on one person one vote. i suggest if they want to coopt someone some kind of consensus should be sought. Especially as the people potentialy running for the committee are what seems already closely associated so arent likel to disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mainkiddy:
Especially as the people potentialy running for the committee are what seems already closely associated so arent likel to disagree.

---

There's an awful lot of assumptions in that sentence,

Temporary Working Party Member

until i hear something to the contrary i feel this is a fair assumption to make.

Again, you're assuming that any of us want to be on the committee. Honestly, I haven't heard any member of the working party mention that they want a specific job or even that they want to sit in any capacity. Not in a meeting and not in any of the chats we've had.

Temporary Working Party Member

Phil

I certainly have no intention of standing for the committee. For two reasons firstly i live in the North West of England and am as such unable to commit to meetings functions etc at very short notice and secondly I am not really a leader as such I am more suited to being given a task to do and go away and get on with it. I would prefer to leave committee roles to those that are likely to achieve something and can dedicate the necessary time to the role.

Regards

Gary Spencer