Trust AGM

[Antony Moxey]

Oh how I agree with this. Always seems such a complete waste of time!

And probably more to the point given Dr Dave’s post, was the report needed in the first place? As I’ve been saying for year upon year why don’t the Trust actually DO something instead of forever discussing in endless meetings, discussion groups, working parties and task forces the possibility of doing something.

For some time now this Vicar of Dibley attitude has been holding the club back rather than setting the lead and taking it forward. Have they made a decision on which biscuits to have yet?

 

[Jazzi]

Oh how I agree with this. Always seems such a complete waste of time!

Does anyone know if this is a requirement for a company AGM?

 

[AndrewP]

Does anyone know if this is a requirement for a company AGM?

No it's not, FACT. I have on the to present to our board every 3 months. I circulate my report, they read it and then we spend my time on the agenda discussion the salient points and answering questions.

 

[John William]

Does anyone know if this is a requirement for a company AGM?

The Trust is not a Limited Company, it is a community benefit society under scope of the Co-Operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.

And no, there is no requirement for anything to be read into the record, it's purely a procedural matter.

 

[David Treharne]

Presumably the resignation of Sean Devine as a Trust Board member means that ALL the candidates in the present election are now likely to become Trust Board members as a co-option of the "Unsuccessful" candidate is likely to be a foregone conclusion? It also ought to be noted that there was a confusion about what members who were at the Heybridge game should do with their proxy votes. There didn't appear to be a box of any kind to deposit such items, and the shop staff wouldn't accept them.

 

[iscalad]

Presumably the resignation of Sean Devine as a Trust Board member means that ALL the candidates in the present election are now likely to become Trust Board members as a co-option of the "Unsuccessful" candidate is likely to be a foregone conclusion? It also ought to be noted that there was a confusion about what members who were at the Heybridge game should do with their proxy votes. There didn't appear to be a box of any kind to deposit such items, and the shop staff wouldn't accept them.

Must admit, I was never sure why he stood last year. Shoe-in for everyone, I guess. It should be said that Mr Reliable, Andy Gillard, accepted at least one set of proxy votes.

 

[Boyo]

Must admit, I was never sure why he stood last year. Shoe-in for everyone, I guess.

I heard Taggy asked him to stand. Presumably to fill an empty slot on the Trust Board, which then wouldn't be filled by an Trust member standing on a 'change' ticket. I know of at least one other Trustee who was voted in last year who stood at the request of Taggy.

 

[Terryhall]

Would be good if it could be confirmed that this means 5 open slots on the TB and therefore all candidates will be duly elected?

 

[John William]

Would be good if it could be confirmed that this means 5 open slots on the TB and therefore all candidates will be duly elected?

No, I don't think that follows at all, in fact I don't think it can happen: the Trust cannot simply discard the election process for reasons of convenience.

When I was on the TB there was a view that it would not be good governance to co-opt unsuccessful candidates. I'm no longer in the loop, of course, but I suspect there will still be concern on those grounds.

However, on this occasion the timing of events and the fact that there will be only one unsuccessful candidate means that, if I were still on the TB, I'd be willing to consider a one-off exception to that general view.

The more I think about it the more it does in principle seem perverse that someone who puts themselves forward for election and has been scrutinised through a manifesto, hustings etc. is then precluded from being co-opted for a significant period.

Provided of course that the TB as a whole are satisfied that any particular individual has strengths and expertise to offer the TB.

And that the individual concerned wants to be co-opted, which cannot be simply assumed, they might be unhappy with this for the reasons outlined above.

 

[Terryhall]

Good point and I don't disagree with that JW, in which case the timing is a shame. We don't know how and when ** decided to stand down and no doubt he has completely valid reasons for doing so which are none of our business - but had he done so before the TB election process began, then his now-vacated seat on the TB would have surely been one of those available to the election candidates.

Procedurally it does make sense that we cannot simply amend the entire election process to add a 5th seat, particularly as the deadline for voting was 1st November if I remember correctly (meaning all votes have now been cast). I hadn't considered from that perspective when I posted above.