| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence 17:14 - Nov 15 with 21813 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 18:59 - Nov 16 with 1362 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:51 - Nov 16 by exiledclaseboy |
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]
|
exhmrc: Clause 37 appears to be struck out; where do you see 37b (which page of the pdf)? [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:02]
|  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:03 - Nov 16 with 1350 views | ItchySphincter |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:47 - Nov 16 by Neath_Jack |
You'll know things like whether they can speak Welsh, the first Swans game they went to, and other fascinating facts like that.
What they won't tell you, is where they stand on things like the share sale, whether they believe Jenkins should remain in position etc etc.
So unless they post on here and make their feelings know, you may as well just close your eyes and pick whoever your finger lands on. |
Not entirely accurate. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:05 - Nov 16 with 1347 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:59 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
exhmrc: Clause 37 appears to be struck out; where do you see 37b (which page of the pdf)? [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:02]
|
It’s on the next page. For some reason the original rule 37 about quorums, which was 20 or 10% (whichever lower) for all meetings, has been struck through and replaced with two separate rules, 37(a) and 37(b). The first requires the lower of 20 people or 10% for an AGM to do business, the other requires the greater of 20 people or 10% for a special meeting to do business. Page 12 of the pdf. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:06 - Nov 16 with 1345 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 18:59 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
exhmrc: Clause 37 appears to be struck out; where do you see 37b (which page of the pdf)? [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:02]
|
Right, I've just read it.
Interestingly both ECB and exhmrc are correct.
In a spectacularly lopsided piece of drafting, it's 10% of members or 20, whichever is LOWER if you do it at an AGM, and 10% of members or 20' whichever is HIGHER at what they term a 'special meeting'.
Another interesting clause (I've obviously never looked at these before), is that someone can only stay on the Trust board for a maximum of 12 years, so Phil S would have had to step down shortly anyway. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:08 - Nov 16 with 1328 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:05 - Nov 16 by exiledclaseboy |
It’s on the next page. For some reason the original rule 37 about quorums, which was 20 or 10% (whichever lower) for all meetings, has been struck through and replaced with two separate rules, 37(a) and 37(b). The first requires the lower of 20 people or 10% for an AGM to do business, the other requires the greater of 20 people or 10% for a special meeting to do business. Page 12 of the pdf. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|
Sorry ECB - didn't see this when I responded. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:08 - Nov 16 with 1327 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:06 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Right, I've just read it.
Interestingly both ECB and exhmrc are correct.
In a spectacularly lopsided piece of drafting, it's 10% of members or 20, whichever is LOWER if you do it at an AGM, and 10% of members or 20' whichever is HIGHER at what they term a 'special meeting'.
Another interesting clause (I've obviously never looked at these before), is that someone can only stay on the Trust board for a maximum of 12 years, so Phil S would have had to step down shortly anyway. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|
I noticed that last night. I can’t work out why the original rule 37 was superseded though. May well be standard practice for all I know. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:11 - Nov 16 with 1322 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:06 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Right, I've just read it.
Interestingly both ECB and exhmrc are correct.
In a spectacularly lopsided piece of drafting, it's 10% of members or 20, whichever is LOWER if you do it at an AGM, and 10% of members or 20' whichever is HIGHER at what they term a 'special meeting'.
Another interesting clause (I've obviously never looked at these before), is that someone can only stay on the Trust board for a maximum of 12 years, so Phil S would have had to step down shortly anyway. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|
It's normal to raise the bar and voting threshold to approve motions at an EGM.
Interesting about the 12 year term limit though. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:11 - Nov 16 with 1319 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:08 - Nov 16 by exiledclaseboy |
I noticed that last night. I can’t work out why the original rule 37 was superseded though. May well be standard practice for all I know. |
To stop what is being proposed here. It's anti coup drafting. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:13 - Nov 16 with 1306 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:11 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
It's normal to raise the bar and voting threshold to approve motions at an EGM.
Interesting about the 12 year term limit though. |
Yep. To stop the guerilla tactics referred to in this thread.
Still spectacularly lop sided though. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:15 - Nov 16 with 1296 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:11 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
To stop what is being proposed here. It's anti coup drafting. |
That’s what it feels like. They foresaw this situation all the way back in 2001.  | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:16 - Nov 16 with 1293 views | exhmrc1 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:06 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Right, I've just read it.
Interestingly both ECB and exhmrc are correct.
In a spectacularly lopsided piece of drafting, it's 10% of members or 20, whichever is LOWER if you do it at an AGM, and 10% of members or 20' whichever is HIGHER at what they term a 'special meeting'.
Another interesting clause (I've obviously never looked at these before), is that someone can only stay on the Trust board for a maximum of 12 years, so Phil S would have had to step down shortly anyway. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|
it makes you wonder are any of the others there have been on for longer. They should now immediately be standing down as it is a breach of the constitution.
What is not clear is what happens in the time between the old board stepping down and new elections taking place. For example once a vote of no confidence and dissolution of the old board takes place the chair would have to step down so someone else would need to be appointed temporarily. Any resolution should address this. Somebody would have to arrange the elections and sign things such as cheques. For that reason a temporary board would need to be set up.
The secretary could still continue in place as he is not a board member. Would he be prepared to do so. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:17 - Nov 16 with 1286 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:13 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Yep. To stop the guerilla tactics referred to in this thread.
Still spectacularly lop sided though. |
Can anybody match the initials against the changes to actual people? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:21 - Nov 16 with 1271 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:17 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
Can anybody match the initials against the changes to actual people? |
LD I assume is Leigh Dineen. I wouldn’t like to take a guess at the others. Some of those involved in the formation of the Trust are no longer with us. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:22 - Nov 16 with 1266 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:21 - Nov 16 by exiledclaseboy |
LD I assume is Leigh Dineen. I wouldn’t like to take a guess at the others. Some of those involved in the formation of the Trust are no longer with us. |
That's what i thought. So prehistoric stuff really. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:22 - Nov 16 with 1261 views | Phil_S |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:08 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
Chair will be appointed from the current board. It needs to be, pronto. That can't wait IMO.
The chairman is only one vote though, and a figurehead. They're not the only person who will be involved in the activities of the Trust. They do need to be in tune with the majority view of course, but this whole argument that people should blindly back the chairman's view is nonsense. That's why I understand why Phil felt he had to resign.
Anyone who applies will be as involved as they want to be. If they have the skills and the desire to take on, or assist with, one of the more critical activities of the Trust then I'm sure that path is open. |
Probably to add some extra context to this as it does sound like a toys out of the pram moment (which I know isnt what you meant)
The view I took was different to the majority view of the board. In light of the size of the decision needing to be made as an individual I felt that I could not present to members a viewpoint I did not agree with.
I know you know that bit but just thought I would add in for clarity ;-) |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:22 - Nov 16 with 1260 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:22 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
That's what i thought. So prehistoric stuff really. |
Very much so. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:24 - Nov 16 with 1256 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:17 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
Can anybody match the initials against the changes to actual people? |
Leigh Dineen, Nigel Hamer, Mike Williams and Rich Lillicrap.
The signature page is at the end of the document Shaky... | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:26 - Nov 16 with 1245 views | exiledclaseboy |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:24 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Leigh Dineen, Nigel Hamer, Mike Williams and Rich Lillicrap.
The signature page is at the end of the document Shaky... |
Well so it is. You’re very observant.  | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:26 - Nov 16 with 1240 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:22 - Nov 16 by Phil_S |
Probably to add some extra context to this as it does sound like a toys out of the pram moment (which I know isnt what you meant)
The view I took was different to the majority view of the board. In light of the size of the decision needing to be made as an individual I felt that I could not present to members a viewpoint I did not agree with.
I know you know that bit but just thought I would add in for clarity ;-) |
Phil, is it possible to say whether by majority you mean 8 to 7 or 10 to 5 or 13 to 2?
It has a bearing on whether new board members can actually make a difference. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:28 - Nov 16 with 1228 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:22 - Nov 16 by Phil_S |
Probably to add some extra context to this as it does sound like a toys out of the pram moment (which I know isnt what you meant)
The view I took was different to the majority view of the board. In light of the size of the decision needing to be made as an individual I felt that I could not present to members a viewpoint I did not agree with.
I know you know that bit but just thought I would add in for clarity ;-) |
Did it? Wasn't the intention obvs.
And yes, might have been aware  |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:28 - Nov 16 with 1228 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:26 - Nov 16 by exiledclaseboy |
Well so it is. You’re very observant. |
Strangely, it's exactly where it is in every single document I've ever seen. So less observant and more stating the bloody obvious.
| | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:39 - Nov 16 with 1181 views | Phil_S |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:26 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Phil, is it possible to say whether by majority you mean 8 to 7 or 10 to 5 or 13 to 2?
It has a bearing on whether new board members can actually make a difference. |
It’s probably not that simple - my view was a simple the deal had changed from what was prese ted and therefore we should cut ties and return to members
The overwhelming majority of the board wanted to continue negotiating and some “red line” terms were drawn as what had to be conceded to be able to come back with a recommendation
One of the red line items I felt was essential was not the majority ty view and that placed my position as such that I could never see myself recommending a deal that had that in
Would be far easier to explain if I could give details but unfortunately I am under NDA for those 😕 | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:57 - Nov 16 with 1139 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:39 - Nov 16 by Phil_S |
It’s probably not that simple - my view was a simple the deal had changed from what was prese ted and therefore we should cut ties and return to members
The overwhelming majority of the board wanted to continue negotiating and some “red line” terms were drawn as what had to be conceded to be able to come back with a recommendation
One of the red line items I felt was essential was not the majority ty view and that placed my position as such that I could never see myself recommending a deal that had that in
Would be far easier to explain if I could give details but unfortunately I am under NDA for those 😕 |
Ok - thanks.
You'll be unsurprised to learn that my view would have been the same as yours as you've indicated in the first sentence... | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 21:33 - Nov 16 with 976 views | Garyjack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:06 - Nov 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Right, I've just read it.
Interestingly both ECB and exhmrc are correct.
In a spectacularly lopsided piece of drafting, it's 10% of members or 20, whichever is LOWER if you do it at an AGM, and 10% of members or 20' whichever is HIGHER at what they term a 'special meeting'.
Another interesting clause (I've obviously never looked at these before), is that someone can only stay on the Trust board for a maximum of 12 years, so Phil S would have had to step down shortly anyway. [Post edited 16 Nov 2017 19:07]
|
So did Phil become Chairman immediately after Dineen's departure or was there an interim chairman in between? Anyone know? |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 21:52 - Nov 16 with 940 views | E20Jack |
So Phil had to step down anyway? That was kept quiet.
The cynic in me says it looks better to bow out for what seems a noble reason rather than leave because your term was up with the organisation in one hell of a mess. I am not for one second suggesting that is what happened here but yet again this lack of communication will lead people to wonder.
At the end of the day the decision to get in bed with these people was done when all of these now 'noble deserters' were very much at the helm.
Its like making people vote to allow sharks into swimming pools and then resigning because they start biting people, 'which was never the initial agreement'. Unfortunately a shark acting like a shark should have been something that was obvious to those who had a responsibility to protect. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
