Proposal for Trust ballot re removal of Tisdale

[Jason H]

Might I suggest, in light of and in addition to Edward's post, in particular his opening paragraph, that any motion should not call for the removal of Tisdale - as Edward says, the Trust alone cannot do this as it's merely a majority shareholder, and the decisions taken are by those entrusted by the whole shareholding to run the club.

There may be more mileage, and actually more traction and gravitas, in instead calling for a vote of no confidence. If it is made abundantly clear that a plurality of Trust members have no confidence in Tisdale, then it may hasten any change.

And I would suggest too that you need a substantial input from Trust members in terms of a vote too. If only 150 members vote, and say 100 of those are in the "no confidence" camp, it's going to come across with very little gravitas indeed.

So if this were to happen, get campaigning either yay or nay!

 

[shoot on sight]

Might I suggest, in light of and in addition to Edward's post, in particular his opening paragraph, that any motion should not call for the removal of Tisdale - as Edward says, the Trust alone cannot do this as it's merely a majority shareholder, and the decisions taken are by those entrusted by the whole shareholding to run the club.

There may be more mileage, and actually more traction and gravitas, in instead calling for a vote of no confidence. If it is made abundantly clear that a plurality of Trust members have no confidence in Tisdale, then it may hasten any change.

And I would suggest too that you need a substantial input from Trust members in terms of a vote too. If only 150 members vote, and say 100 of those are in the "no confidence" camp, it's going to come across with very little gravitas indeed.

So if this were to happen, get campaigning either yay or nay!

I think this is a good point and heaven forbid that there should now be a shouting match as to the wording of any such petition both online and face to face. The "No Confidence" message has a concise ring to it and if there is to be a ballot on the street (as it were) this allows for many more people to be approached per hour than having to ask them to read through a more lengthy statement.
Does anyone know what shape the Trust membership database is in;from what I've managed to read it sounds like many members are inactive/deceased or just "gone away".
Also some members automatically add their young offspring (even new borns)-are they to be included as well in the list of those eligible to vote? Any lawyers out there with knowledge of age related voting eligibility????

 

[John William]

Does anyone know what shape the Trust membership database is in;from what I've managed to read it sounds like many members are inactive/deceased or just "gone away".
Also some members automatically add their young offspring (even new borns)-are they to be included as well in the list of those eligible to vote? Any lawyers out there with knowledge of age related voting eligibility????

The Trust membership list is now as up to date as any such list with over 3,000 members scattered around the country and indeed the world can reasonably be.

Under the Trust Rules no member under the age of 16 is eligible to vote at any general meeting. See Rule 6.7.

http://trust.exeweb.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ECST-Rules-2013-v1.pdf

 

[grecianstew]

Better still, give him the public "Vote of Confidence". There is nothing more certain to send a shiver up a manager's spine!

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

...........Sadly, there is a limited requirement for the Trust Board to represent the fans since there is rarely a need for any election and too many are co-opted onto the board in the first place. There is very little risk that you will lose your seat at the table because you have failed to engage with and represent the fans. Democracy falls over a bit whenever you don’t have enough capable people to contest the available positions.

I don't agree with the first part of that Edward. I would always see it as my role to represent the interests of the supporters, being one myself. I believe that the other Trustees do so also, as best they can, but the wheels can grind very slowly at times. Much too slowly for some people and myself also on occasion. It is the nature of organisations such as the Trust that they can be ponderous, unfortunately.

On the second part I totally agree. I am of the view that the structure of the Trust as a body is very democratic - and has become more so with the passage of time. However, the membership in general seem unwilling to use that democracy to its best effect and become involved. It's bad enough that insufficient people put themselves forward for election but, when there has been an election, the turnout has been as low as 17%.

 

[Jason H]

However, the membership in general seem unwilling to use that democracy to its best effect and become involved. It's bad enough that insufficient people put themselves forward for election but, when there has been an election, the turnout has been as low as 17%.

Unwilling - or in how many cases more "unable"? There are presumably some very able people who would love to serve but can't for a variety of reasons - prime obviously being location.

 

[Red Bill]

I don't agree with the first part of that Edward. I would always see it as my role to represent the interests of the supporters, being one myself. I believe that the other Trustees do so also, as best they can, but the wheels can grind very slowly at times. Much too slowly for some people and myself also on occasion. It is the nature of organisations such as the Trust that they can be ponderous, unfortunately.

On the second part I totally agree. I am of the view that the structure of the Trust as a body is very democratic - and has become more so with the passage of time. However, the membership in general seem unwilling to use that democracy to its best effect and become involved. It's bad enough that insufficient people put themselves forward for election but, when there has been an election, the turnout has been as low as 17%.

I think a lot of people are generally quite lazy in this respect and unless we make it as easy as possible to get involved we will always suffer in this way.
The last time I sent in a proposal to the Trust board about a year ago, it was to address this very issue. This suggestion I made then came up again in the last couple days and the trust secretary has promised me that he will again put it forward for discussion by the board.

 

[triumph]

Red Bill you have my support, I think there is unrest and why should the trust members not have a say.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

Whilst I respect your opinion and that of Alistair 2000, I will not be changing the wording. I am hoping to avoid going down the SGM route as this places constraints on things such as the manner of voting. What I'm attempting to do is to address an issue for which the Trust has no mechanism, I.e. to canvass the opinion of the entire membership in order to inform opinion of the Trust board so that it can accurately represent the wishes of its members in relation to a particular issue. In this case Paul Tisdale's stewardship of our club.
It therefore remains what I have called it, a proposal rather than a resolution. As regards you comments that board members may resign if they don't agree with the result of a vote of the membership, in that case they have no business being anywhere near a democratic organization and good riddance to them!!!
I started this thread to ask who supports my proposal, it's fine if you don't and if you do please PM me. I've sent this to all fans forums and supporters groups that i know of, so it's now a bit late for discussion about the wording. Sorry about that but I want to get this done, not sit talking about it for another two years!

I want Tisdale out NOW ! To that end I, like Alastair 2000, was offering advice to aid you in your quest. PT's contract of employment is with ECFC, the Trust cannot terminate it, or renegotiate it. The Trust Directors do not have the majority required if 'push comes to shove' to force this through. From what I have read, Morrish and Tagg are due up for renewal of their status as Club Directors, at the Club AGM, and the Trust can simply use its majority shareholding to block the reappointment of either one or both of them, thereby altering the power balance. Equally it can propose and force through a resolution at the Club AGM, requiring the Club Board to effect a change of manager. Even just the threat of either of these actions, could bring about the result that we both wish for. You simply mandate the Trust Board to act, and dont tie their hands with process. Leave the machiavellian chicanery to them, a la Chorlton.

So imho you should carefully reconsider the wording, to stand a far better chance of success

 

[Exe on Valdez]

I want Tisdale to stay, I just want more entertaining football, which is difficult bearing in mind our league position.

What do I vote?