| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence 17:14 - Nov 15 with 21838 views | TheResurrection |
As per a post from exhmrc1 on another thread.
""From the supporters trust website. A special meeting shall be called within 28 days if a written request is made by 10% of the members. This would have to specify the matter to be considered""
Link: https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-model-rules/
The Trust had 840 members at the last Board meeting meaning 84 would need to write a letter of no confidence, if indeed, you'd feel strongly enough to do so.
This thread could be used to mobilise the first troops of dissent and the beginnings of a new dawn with a change of approach and mindset within the Trust.
But first for the reasoning...
This wouldn't be a bad place to discuss consequences of both a change in the Trust and thereafter the relationship with the owners that could affect our survival chances.
It would be a big call so let's weigh up all potentials and use this as a platform to see what page most of us are on should a vote and consultation come back to the members.
Otherwise, the 84 could be totted up, organised and accounted for here.
[Post edited 15 Nov 2017 17:15]
|  |
| |  |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:48 - Nov 16 with 2280 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:39 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
Nope |
That's interesting.
Do you know what the requirement is for a quorum to exist? |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:53 - Nov 16 with 2253 views | TheResurrection |
Has anyone got the time to put up the names of the remaining Trust Board members and their candidate bio? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:28 - Nov 16 with 2183 views | Shaky |
Well it seems Uxbridge had to leave the room just as things got interesting.
But to just spell out what this means, if you call an EGM you can potentially sack the entire board, probably with a 75% majority of those attending.
This would not exactly be democratic, but would certainty constitute effective guerrilla tactics.
In any case more work - preferably done by a lawyer - is required to examine the statutes of the Trust in detail to understand the lie of the land. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:29 - Nov 16 with 2180 views | pencoedjack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:26 - Nov 16 by Neath_Jack |
You are now championing what the Res has been saying for 2 years or more, yet that's all people can come up with, is that he isn't a member and he's just causing trouble.
Can you see how bonkers that is now?
People need to forget his username, and read what his posts are actually about. Same goes for Shakey too. |
I don't read the majority of his posts as I find he says the same thing in many different threads (never more so than Gylfi/Llorente).
When I do read them I quite often agree with what he says (Carroll & Naughton certainly exceptions)
Id imagine Chris being a tidy fella to have a beer with unfortunately I find his PS persona a little 'look at me, look at me'.
As for the username I don't give a toss, if I agree with him Ill say if I don' t likewise .... surely that's the same for all posters on PS no matter who they respond to ? |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:54 - Nov 16 with 2136 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:29 - Nov 16 by pencoedjack |
I don't read the majority of his posts as I find he says the same thing in many different threads (never more so than Gylfi/Llorente).
When I do read them I quite often agree with what he says (Carroll & Naughton certainly exceptions)
Id imagine Chris being a tidy fella to have a beer with unfortunately I find his PS persona a little 'look at me, look at me'.
As for the username I don't give a toss, if I agree with him Ill say if I don' t likewise .... surely that's the same for all posters on PS no matter who they respond to ? |
Well said Penc though I doubt very much that Neath_Jack has seen that it must pretty dark when your heads up Chrissys arse. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:21 - Nov 16 with 2079 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:28 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
Well it seems Uxbridge had to leave the room just as things got interesting.
But to just spell out what this means, if you call an EGM you can potentially sack the entire board, probably with a 75% majority of those attending.
This would not exactly be democratic, but would certainty constitute effective guerrilla tactics.
In any case more work - preferably done by a lawyer - is required to examine the statutes of the Trust in detail to understand the lie of the land. |
Lunch waits for no man. The model rules on the Trust site would outline the process. Not something I've looked into in any significant detail to be honest.
There are better paths to follow IMO, but the power is there for a reason. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:45 - Nov 16 with 2029 views | exhmrc1 |
your right they do and as shown on here earlier require 2/3 of the people voting. The initial request must be made by 10% of the trust members in writing. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:52 - Nov 16 with 2010 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:45 - Nov 16 by exhmrc1 |
your right they do and as shown on here earlier require 2/3 of the people voting. The initial request must be made by 10% of the trust members in writing. |
Thanks.
- how many people are required for a quorum?
- what are the rules for tabling motions? (eg advance notification to the board)
- what is the timetable for holding the EGM (within how many days of receipt of a valid notice must it be held)? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 14:05 - Nov 16 with 1977 views | Shaky |
. .anyway it all sounds quite achievable to remove the entire board, or whichever subset a majority of people take exception to.
The question is whether it is desirable?
Certainly it is quite a drastic step, and would require some planning and thought being given to the subject, and as a minimum having a group of people willing to step in and pick up the reins. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 14:11 - Nov 16 with 1963 views | pencoedjack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 14:05 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
. .anyway it all sounds quite achievable to remove the entire board, or whichever subset a majority of people take exception to.
The question is whether it is desirable?
Certainly it is quite a drastic step, and would require some planning and thought being given to the subject, and as a minimum having a group of people willing to step in and pick up the reins. |
Out of interest Shaky would you be prepared to be 'step in & pick up the reins' ? You seem like the right sort of person to take the trust forward. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 14:43 - Nov 16 with 1911 views | mikecranleigh |
I voted about the shares issue but didn't renew due to not getting a question answered about a 4th option which was never offered but would have given the Trust some justice |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 17:07 - Nov 16 with 1820 views | STID2017 |
Does a vote count if one is not currently a member but joins today ?
Alternatively, is there any possibility if one joins today a new and improved Trust will emerge from the sad demise of Phil & co and lead a fight to establish some real say in which direction our club takes in future ? |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:01 - Nov 16 with 1767 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 14:11 - Nov 16 by pencoedjack |
Out of interest Shaky would you be prepared to be 'step in & pick up the reins' ? You seem like the right sort of person to take the trust forward. |
Thanks, but I'm afraid a frontline position is not for me. However, I'm happy to advise and discuss for as long as my help is wanted. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:04 - Nov 16 with 1760 views | Shaky |
Unfortunately I am - hopefully temporarily - virtually blind on one eye, and will not be hacking my way though legal smallprint at the moment. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:05 - Nov 16 with 1757 views | longlostjack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 17:07 - Nov 16 by STID2017 |
Does a vote count if one is not currently a member but joins today ?
Alternatively, is there any possibility if one joins today a new and improved Trust will emerge from the sad demise of Phil & co and lead a fight to establish some real say in which direction our club takes in future ? |
Why shouldn't it ? No vote has been proposed yet anyway. It's only a tenner mun. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:23 - Nov 16 with 1729 views | exhmrc1 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:04 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
Unfortunately I am - hopefully temporarily - virtually blind on one eye, and will not be hacking my way though legal smallprint at the moment. |
rule 37b states a quorum is 20 or 10% of those eligible to vote whichever is the higher. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:24 - Nov 16 with 1725 views | MattG |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 17:07 - Nov 16 by STID2017 |
Does a vote count if one is not currently a member but joins today ?
Alternatively, is there any possibility if one joins today a new and improved Trust will emerge from the sad demise of Phil & co and lead a fight to establish some real say in which direction our club takes in future ? |
An Uxbridge post from this morning :
"Anyone who joins today will get a vote on any future issue, and indeed could stand for a coopted position. The deadline for either has not passed." |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:27 - Nov 16 with 1715 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:23 - Nov 16 by exhmrc1 |
rule 37b states a quorum is 20 or 10% of those eligible to vote whichever is the higher. |
Thanks.
Does it say anything about being able to vote by proxy? If so are there any procedures set out? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:31 - Nov 16 with 1705 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:27 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
Thanks.
Does it say anything about being able to vote by proxy? If so are there any procedures set out? |
Bloody hell Shaky - ECB actually posted the relevant bits on page 1 of this very thread. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:34 - Nov 16 with 1695 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:31 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Bloody hell Shaky - ECB actually posted the relevant bits on page 1 of this very thread. |
Oops, sorry. Said i couldn't see anything :-o | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:41 - Nov 16 with 1679 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:31 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Bloody hell Shaky - ECB actually posted the relevant bits on page 1 of this very thread. |
ECB is wrong about what it takes to effect a removal according to exhmrc, however; a quorum needs 20 people or 10% of the membership, whichever is greater.
That means you need a minimum of 100 people and/or proxies ready to vote your way.
=> Which implies the sitting board only needs to muster 51 votes against to survive.
In reality you would probably need >200 votes on your side to carry the day. A tough ask but not impossible, although lots of work would be required. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:51 - Nov 16 with 1642 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:52 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
Thanks.
- how many people are required for a quorum?
- what are the rules for tabling motions? (eg advance notification to the board)
- what is the timetable for holding the EGM (within how many days of receipt of a valid notice must it be held)? |
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Original_Rules.pdf
Rule 32 outlined how a special general meeting can be instigated by members. Below is a post I made last night on how I read the rules around removing board members. (I’m not a lawyer).
Rule 63 seems to be the relevant one in this context;
“A society board member may be removed from office by a resolution carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of members present in person or by proxy and voting on a poll at an annual or special general meeting...of which notice has been duly given.”
So it seems it needs 10% of current members to write a letter to the Trust board requesting a special meeting at which a vote will be held calling for the removal of all current members (presumably) of the Trust board. Then it needs two-thirds of those who turn up at that meeting to vote in favour of said removal. For the vote to be valid there must be at least 20 people at that meeting who are entitled to vote. Edit - I made a mistake there. For the vote to be valid at a special meeting it’s going to take 10% of the members voting.
What happens if the vote is successful and the board is removed I’m not sure. I assume there’s some mechanism for an election to replace them but I’ve only skim read. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 18:58]
|  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:56 - Nov 16 with 1634 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:41 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
ECB is wrong about what it takes to effect a removal according to exhmrc, however; a quorum needs 20 people or 10% of the membership, whichever is greater.
That means you need a minimum of 100 people and/or proxies ready to vote your way.
=> Which implies the sitting board only needs to muster 51 votes against to survive.
In reality you would probably need >200 votes on your side to carry the day. A tough ask but not impossible, although lots of work would be required. |
Apologies, I missed the distinction between annual and special meetings in the quorum required. You’re right. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:00]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
