quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:
In addition to this the Board also considered that Mike Scott had now failed to attend three consecutive meetings without good cause. These meetings were on 23rd March, 26th March and 1st April. The Trust Board takes non-participation by members very seriously, and was compelled under Trust rule 63a to vote on the matter. The Trust Board has voted that Mike Scott vacate the office Society Board member with immediate effect.

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?"

quote:

Originally posted by David Hindley:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel King:
In addition to this the Board also considered that Mike Scott had now failed to attend three consecutive meetings without good cause. These meetings were on 23rd March, 26th March and 1st April. The Trust Board takes non-participation by members very seriously, and was compelled under Trust rule 63a to vote on the matter. The Trust Board has voted that Mike Scott vacate the office Society Board member with immediate effect.

It is good to see that every dot and every 't' is being crossed with regards applying the Society Rules.

Can I take it that the ruling "seven clear days’ notice of the date and place of each meeting is to be given in writing to their registered e-mail address by the Secretary to all members of the Society Board to the Chief Executive and to such other members of the Executive Board as the Society Board desire to attend the meeting" was properly upheld?

Given the proximity of the meetings - 23rd, 26th March and 1st April - it would be good to get this clarified. I would also point you to the directive that "a Society Board meeting may be called by shorter notice if it is so agreed by all the Society Board members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting."

So is it safe to assume that Mike agreed to attend these three meetings in advance but then failed to give a reasonable explanation for his absence?

Or is about interpreting the rules however you see fit to punish individuals who spoke publically about the Trust Board's collective failure to hold the Supporter Directors to account?