Red Bill
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 2,882
Following on from Doug and I's mini discussion on here, I'm planning on putting three resolutions to the AGM. If having read what they're about, if anyone agrees with me, I could do with a bit of help re the wording and any thoughts re practicalities. So please PM me
All resolutions relate to the make up of the Trust board:
Res 1) I propose that the number of members on the Trust Board be fixed at 12. If after an election there are less than 12 board members, the number of trustees may be brought up to 12 by co-opted trustees who shall have full voting rights.
Res 2) If a trustee/s resign/s from the board other than before an election is announced, leaving their number below 12, the board may co-opt a trustee with full voting rights. If however there were unsuccessful candidates at the most recent election, the co-option should be offered first to the candidate/s who recorded the highest number of votes at that election.
Res 3) if the need for a particular skill or area of expertise is identified by the Board, suitable members may be co-opted as trustees to fulfil that requirement, but these co-opted trustees shall have no voting rights.
So why does any of this matter? At present, the number of trustees on the board can be decided by the board before an election within upper and lower limits. Now whilst I'm not suggesting this has ever happened, IMO it leaves the board open to manipulation to some extent. As an example of of how; the year I stood there were four of us standing who issued a joint statement around the need for a change of attitude on the TB, something that was contentious at the time. The board at that time had a majority who were to some extent opposed to or at least appeared opposed to that view. Unusually there were 8 places on the board available that year and it looked very possible that all 4 of us who issued the joint statement would be elected and once we joined the two sitting members, those who opposed us (loosely) would have lost their majority and therefore the ability to shape things their way. Now if they were unscrupulous they could then have decided to make the new board 15 strong, diluting the power of the new trustees and therefore maintaining their majority position.
Why 12? because I believe thats the maximum number on any board if you want to actually get any business done. If you have more, by the time everyone's had their say there's no time left to mae a decision, if you have less you potentially have decisions being made on behalf of a 3000 strong membership by two or three people.
Why shouldn't co-optees have voting rights, because i believe its undemocratic and if you have a full board also unnecessary.
Why should co-options be offered first to unsuccessful candidates,? Because in this type of election, candidates aren't rejected by the electorate, they simply haven't gained enough support to take one of the available places. In another year they could get elected with the same number of votes and be in the same position (i.e. 3rd 4th 5th or whatever) and be successful.
All resolutions relate to the make up of the Trust board:
Res 1) I propose that the number of members on the Trust Board be fixed at 12. If after an election there are less than 12 board members, the number of trustees may be brought up to 12 by co-opted trustees who shall have full voting rights.
Res 2) If a trustee/s resign/s from the board other than before an election is announced, leaving their number below 12, the board may co-opt a trustee with full voting rights. If however there were unsuccessful candidates at the most recent election, the co-option should be offered first to the candidate/s who recorded the highest number of votes at that election.
Res 3) if the need for a particular skill or area of expertise is identified by the Board, suitable members may be co-opted as trustees to fulfil that requirement, but these co-opted trustees shall have no voting rights.
So why does any of this matter? At present, the number of trustees on the board can be decided by the board before an election within upper and lower limits. Now whilst I'm not suggesting this has ever happened, IMO it leaves the board open to manipulation to some extent. As an example of of how; the year I stood there were four of us standing who issued a joint statement around the need for a change of attitude on the TB, something that was contentious at the time. The board at that time had a majority who were to some extent opposed to or at least appeared opposed to that view. Unusually there were 8 places on the board available that year and it looked very possible that all 4 of us who issued the joint statement would be elected and once we joined the two sitting members, those who opposed us (loosely) would have lost their majority and therefore the ability to shape things their way. Now if they were unscrupulous they could then have decided to make the new board 15 strong, diluting the power of the new trustees and therefore maintaining their majority position.
Why 12? because I believe thats the maximum number on any board if you want to actually get any business done. If you have more, by the time everyone's had their say there's no time left to mae a decision, if you have less you potentially have decisions being made on behalf of a 3000 strong membership by two or three people.
Why shouldn't co-optees have voting rights, because i believe its undemocratic and if you have a full board also unnecessary.
Why should co-options be offered first to unsuccessful candidates,? Because in this type of election, candidates aren't rejected by the electorate, they simply haven't gained enough support to take one of the available places. In another year they could get elected with the same number of votes and be in the same position (i.e. 3rd 4th 5th or whatever) and be successful.
Last edited:
