quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:
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".

quote:

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

quote:

Originally posted by Cher:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:
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".

When was Mike asked if he had a good cause to miss those meetings? What investigations took place?

quote:

Originally posted by Paul_B:

quote:

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

Nigel, have you had chance to read Steve's resignation letter yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:

quote:

Originally posted by Cher:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel King:
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".

When was Mike asked if he had a good cause to miss those meetings? What investigations took place?

quote:

Originally posted by Cher:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:

quote:

Originally posted by Cher:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel King:
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".

When was Mike asked if he had a good cause to miss those meetings? What investigations took place?

Any chance of an answer to the questions or is the answer none? If that is the case, why, when people have missed mulitple meetings in the past has the trust board never felt the need to do this?