Trust AGM

[Alistair20000]

Going back to AOB, Rule 19.9 makes it clear that the Chair must allow members to raise issues not on the Agenda at a General Meeting but they cannot of course be voted on.

 

[Egg]

Going back to AOB, Rule 19.9 makes it clear that the Chair must allow members to raise issues not on the Agenda at a General Meeting but they cannot of course be voted on.

Unfortunately, circumstances dictated I couldn't be at Saturday's meeting – may, I think, be the first Trust AGM I've ever missed.

That aside, if, as you suggest, Rule 19.9 makes clear that the Chair must allow members to raise issues not on the agenda and this didn't happen then, it seems to me, the very least the Trust should do is apologise for this oversight and schedule another meeting – ideally at SJP, before a game, this side of Christmas – for this express purpose.

 

[Alistair20000]

Unfortunately, circumstances dictated I couldn't be at Saturday's meeting – may, I think, be the first Trust AGM I've ever missed.

That aside, if, as you suggest, Rule 19.9 makes clear that the Chair must allow members to raise issues not on the agenda and this didn't happen then, it seems to me, the very least the Trust should do is apologise for this oversight and schedule another meeting – ideally at SJP, before a game, this side of Christmas – for this express purpose.

My computer will not let me cut and paste Rule 19 but if you follow the linky thing you will see what it says; in particular Rule 19.9 and the preamble to Rules 19.7 et seq which require AOB to be taken: note the use of the word "shall" and the mandatory nature of the Rule.

I have emailed the Trust this morning suggesting an apology is in order and that Members be invited to send in their points to be posted on the Trust website with the TB responses. Maybe your idea of a meeting at SJP is a better idea though so why not email them if you agree my point on the Rules is validly made ?


http://ecfcst.org.uk/about-the-trust/trust-rules/

 

[elginCity]

The business of any General Meeting, including an Annual General Meeting, shall comprise:

19.9. consideration of any other business relating to the affairs of the Trust which any
Member may wish to raise but no resolution may be put to the vote of the meeting under this item.

 

[David Treharne]

After the meeting I was admonished by a former Trustee for trying to forcibly make the point that the AGM arrangements this year had been a series of blunders and mis-timings. These certainly led to the lowest attendance that I can remember for a long time due in part to a changed date, a changed venue and a general lack of organisation. The lack of AOB certainly compounded these issues. The certainty of the AGM is usually that all Trustees attend, and my worry about having a meeting pre-match later in the season is that many of those who are 'forced' to attend would claim "match-day duties" as indeed this year. almost inevitably the Chair of the Club did. A welcome addition to the event was the active participation of Keith Mason, who seemed much better prepared this year than last. The other downside apart from the organisation of the event itself for me was the Club Chairs address which, having had a chance to listen back to it (I recorded it for an academic article I'm writing, as it was in the public domain) is incredibly defensive and sycophantic. almost. in places, justification rather than information. Difficult to know what he seems to dread most in the future.

 

[Terryhall]

And would have continued to be discussed for years to come without it going no further than terrace chatter too if it hadn’t come to a head with poor home form seemingly inevitable for yet another season. I maintain that had we started last season as we did this nothing would have changed regarding his contract.

I'd like to think that those who put forward the motion to last years AGM did so from a perspective of wanting to improve the corporate governance - but then we could never say for sure and you are possibly right that, if the team had been performing well, perhaps it would have stayed as online grumbling without any concrete action. Equally even if a motion had been put to the AGM, whether there would have been enough support for the motion to be passed if the form of the team had been better, is definitely doubtful.

All that said, the form was crap, the motion was raised and passed, so this is all somewhat hypothetical.

 

[Sexton Blake]

I thought at one time there had been a ring of change on the Trust Board. That the new blood as a group had at last been strong enough to force those previously fixated on a minutiae of procedural issues to start behaving as if they were members of a Board of management associated with overseeing the running of a multi million turnover business.....not so sure now.

 

[PeteUSA]

I thought at one time there had been a ring of change on the Trust Board. That the new blood as a group had at last been strong enough to force those previously fixated on a minutiae of procedural issues to start behaving as if they were members of a Board of management associated with overseeing the running of a multi million turnover business.....not so sure now.

I thought the same Sexton. There appeared to be a mini revolt on here, with 3 or 4 exewebbers putting their names forward regarding getting many important things dealt with. I think it even put the 'frighteners' on TT&P that certain things would change that they might not care for much. I dont quite know what happened, but I suppose comfort can be taken from the fact that Tisdale was served his notice.

 

[Egg]

I have emailed the Trust this morning suggesting an apology is in order and that Members be invited to send in their points to be posted on the Trust website with the TB responses. Maybe your idea of a meeting at SJP is a better idea though so why not email them if you agree my point on the Rules is validly made?

http://ecfcst.org.uk/about-the-trust/trust-rules/

I think your point is entirely valid. And while I'd be happy to email the Trust and suggest a meeting, I can't help thinking it would be better if such a suggestion were to come from someone who was at the AGM and denied the opportunity to ask a question.

That aside, I've no doubt there are Trust board members reading this thread; one would like to think that, having seen this issue raised, they might take it upon themselves to be proactive and proffer some kind of remedy, such as the one I have suggested.

If you could let us know what response your email elicits then should it prove necessary I'll happily take up the baton!

 

[David Treharne]

By all accounts the matter of no AOB at the AGM was raised at last night's Trust Board meeting. I am given to understand that there will be a statement from the Trust Board to follow (no indication of time given). I am advised that if this issue directly concerns you, and that you had intended to raise an issue in AOB ,you should contact the Trust Board secretary and make it known. Don't wait with bated breath. As always, it will be interesting to see how blandly it emerges in the next Trust Board minutes.