quote:

Originally posted by John Collin:

quote:

Originally posted by jurgenpie:
And as Cher puts what about JAH - "Given that the Trust Board has seen fit to remove Mike Scott from the board for missing three meetings, could you confirm what action will be taken against John Armstrong Homes for missing meetings in July 08, September 08, October 08, December 08 and January 09?"

Rule 63 a is very specific. It talks in terms of three consecutive Society Board Meetings. I have checked the information given and no three of the meetings are consecutive.

"Rule 63. Any member of the Society Board who:
a. fails without good cause to attend 3 consecutive Society Board meetings; or
b. fails without good cause to participate in board training
is to vacate the office of Society Board member if required to do so by a majority of the other Society Board members."

This is absolutely typical of the pathetic justifications we have seen from the Trust Board recently. Either you take "non-participation by members very seriously" or you don't. Rule 63a does not "compel" you to vote on the matter and it certainly does not compel you to vote for expulsion. The Board CHOSE to remove Mike Scott for missing these three meetings after JAH had missed five from seven. How is Mike's crime that much worse than JAH's that the Board felt this compulsion?

Just seems to set rules to suit your own needs disappointed that the Trust has come to this and is losing its credibility.

What Credibility !!!!!!!!!!

Every thing Forward & Trust in The Lord.

The trust board has lost it's credibility. The original purpose and basis for the creation of the trust is still valid, if not more so now.

The problem has been that the additional shareholding the trust has inherited has brought it power and the inevitable potential for corruption -at least of it's ideals. I believe that some people have seen the power of the trust and thought that they could take advantage of it, without investing any money themselves as shareholders.

We need to be careful going forward and make sure any conflicts of interest of the trust board members are declared -including membership of any third party organisations that may constitute undeclared 'connections' between them.

Darrin,
The important point here is "without good cause". Mike Scott is an exerienced board member and knows how to give appologies for absence. In this case it is not just a matter of not turning up it is a refusal to attend the meetings without a valid reason that is the difference.

Paul. The Trust has been the largest shareholder for over 2 years now, though it has always had at least 1 Director on the Club Board.

The Supporter Directors are elected/ratified by members. In the next few months there will be another election for one of these posts.

Please can you explain what you mean by "membership of any third party organisations that may constitute undeclared 'connections' between them."?

Nigel

could you confirm the nature of the investigations that took place to ensure that Mike didnt have a good cause to miss the meetings?

When was he asked whether he had good cause?

The meeting planned for 26th March was an SGM called by Stu Rolley who was suspended prior to that date, and Keri Usherwood who resigned before that date, it is perfectly likely that an assumption was made that the meeting would not be going ahead. What actions were taken to ascertain that Mike had not made this assumption?

Finally, Carole Stapleton missed 3 meetings and yet no action was taken against her? Why was Mike treated differently?

Nigel, I am referring to the alleged resignation letter that you will not publish on here from a trust board member who was also a previous trust chair. Publish it and all will be clear to all!

Cheryl,

All of these meetings took place, notice was given and reminders were also sent before hand to all members. Mike replied to the messages regarding each meeting including the Rule 69 meeting. He knew they were all taking place and did not, in the Board's opinion, give valid reasons. The Secretary had decided that as that meeting had been properly called under Rule 69 it should take place.
Other members may have missed 3 consecutive meetings in the past. It has to be assumed now that the board at the time was happy with the reasons for absence that were given. The rule is that the 3 meetings must not be missed "without good cause".

Here's an extract for you :

In meetings numbered 43,44 and 45 John Armstrong-Holmes missed 3 consecutive meetings …. He was not dismissed from the board under rule 63a and continued to serve.

In meetings numbered 50,51 and 52 John Armstrong-Holmes AGAIN missed 3 consecutive meetings …. He was not dismissed from the board under rule 63a and continued to serve.

In meetings numbered 51,52 and 53 Nigel King missed 3 consecutive meetings …. He was not dismissed from the board under rule 63a and continued to serve.

In meetings numbered 67,68 and 69 Nigel King AGAIN missed 3 consecutive meetings …. He was not dismissed from the board under rule 63a and continued to serve.

In meetings numbered 61,62,63 and 64 Glenn Rolley missed, not only 3 but 4 consecutive meetings…. He was not dismissed from the board under rule 63a and continued to serve.

Now we hear that Mike Scott missed 3 consecutive meetings and has been dismissed under rule 63a.

So why Mike Scott and why apply the rule now? What exactly is rule 63a and when should it be used?

To quote the trust from the above statement "The Trust Board takes non-participation by members very seriously".