| FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 26006 views | Darran |
How many co-oppers have applied for co-option and when will we find out who’s been co-opted? |  |
| |  |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:42 - Nov 30 with 2901 views | Bobby_Fischer |
Members should definitely be made aware of how all board members voted on major issues - otherwise when re-election time comes around you are just voting blindly based on a 250 word statement which could be absolute bollocks. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:48 - Nov 30 with 2884 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 18:53 - Nov 30 by Shaky |
So to be clear, Lisa supports imposing a gagging order on Trust board members so they can not express dissent in respect of decisions taken.
She is against them being allowed to speak out - as she only very recently encouraged board members to do - and instead wants then to resign in order to speak, in the process removing them from the decision-making process. Who else supports that?
I personally think it is madness, and aptly illustrates the huge pitfalls of indiscriminately calling for the election of people to positions of responsibility without having the first clue about what their intentions or agenda actually are.
The hypocrisy is simply staggering. The simultaneous call is for Trust board application statements to be infused with meaning, but at the same time the call is for certain individuals to be elected uncritically.
And to be clear this has noting to do to with my views on the proposed candidates aptitude either relative to sitting board members or in absolute terms. Instead my objection is entirely procedural.
For me the obvious and sustainable solutions to the Trust's current malaise, is to implement institutional reform.
For example, for me the 12 year rule is something of a red herring. What i would like to see is scope to remove any board member who is doing a bad job regardless of tenure. But for that sort of accountability to exist there must first be transparency, otherwise nobody has a fcuking clue what is going on.
And to preempt any higher level discussion on this subject i will only say that piecemeal institutional reform always trumps short-term fixes based on cult of personality hands down.
But an echo chamber favouring the latter has clearly developed in PS. Plus it is superficially much, much easier, so I really can't be arsed to pursue this argument right now. |
No. To be clear, if that's what I thought, that's what I would have said.
You've just made that up.
I said it was difficult. And I said if people have a fundamental disagreement with the direction of the board as a whole they should resign and explain why. As you so recently congratulated Matt for... |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:58 - Nov 30 with 2845 views | whoflungdung |
Why would anyone want an old ,senile nutter like me banned
This is heavy stuff ,boys and girls
We need some relief and not just on the field of play | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:06 - Nov 30 with 2828 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:58 - Nov 30 by whoflungdung |
Why would anyone want an old ,senile nutter like me banned
This is heavy stuff ,boys and girls
We need some relief and not just on the field of play |
The day Sumbler hands this site over to me youre dust Butt. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:07 - Nov 30 with 2819 views | whoflungdung |
In that case I ll simply learn the Piccolo | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 20:27 - Nov 30 with 2787 views | Nookiejack |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 18:53 - Nov 30 by Shaky |
So to be clear, Lisa supports imposing a gagging order on Trust board members so they can not express dissent in respect of decisions taken.
She is against them being allowed to speak out - as she only very recently encouraged board members to do - and instead wants then to resign in order to speak, in the process removing them from the decision-making process. Who else supports that?
I personally think it is madness, and aptly illustrates the huge pitfalls of indiscriminately calling for the election of people to positions of responsibility without having the first clue about what their intentions or agenda actually are.
The hypocrisy is simply staggering. The simultaneous call is for Trust board application statements to be infused with meaning, but at the same time the call is for certain individuals to be elected uncritically.
And to be clear this has noting to do to with my views on the proposed candidates aptitude either relative to sitting board members or in absolute terms. Instead my objection is entirely procedural.
For me the obvious and sustainable solutions to the Trust's current malaise, is to implement institutional reform.
For example, for me the 12 year rule is something of a red herring. What i would like to see is scope to remove any board member who is doing a bad job regardless of tenure. But for that sort of accountability to exist there must first be transparency, otherwise nobody has a fcuking clue what is going on.
And to preempt any higher level discussion on this subject i will only say that piecemeal institutional reform always trumps short-term fixes based on cult of personality hands down.
But an echo chamber favouring the latter has clearly developed in PS. Plus it is superficially much, much easier, so I really can't be arsed to pursue this argument right now. |
I don't agree with you that the 12 year rule is a red herring.
Here are the pros and cons of term limits.
https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/term-limits-for-non-profit-board-members/
"Term Limits-Pros
Amending the bylaws to include term limits lets a board reestablish itself every few years. A lot of good can come from that. Knowing that their time on the board is limited, board members may be inclined to stay intensely focused on their role during the time they serve the board. Having term limits offers boards the time to evaluate the type of talent the board needs for a well-rounded, efficient board and to make well-thought out plans for recruitment. Having turnover on the board brings a fresh crop of volunteers, new ideas, and hopefully some new fundraising ideas and expanded networks.
Term limits also give boards the chance to let go of board members whose attendance or participation is poor. Establishing term limits and staggering terms assures a revolving door of new board members. It’s a protocol that preserves the balance between old and new directors. The balance makes it easier for new board members to have their voices heard. When boards decide to incorporate term limits, it’s best to stagger terms so that the entire board is not up for re-election at the same time.
Even though most non-profit boards have term limits, there are benefits for organizations with regard to keeping a strong cadre of tenured board members.
Term Limits-Cons
If the workings of the board are moving along well without term limits, it may not make sense to rock the boat by incorporating them. When the best decision is to move forward without term limits, non-profit boards are wise to be aware of the pitfalls of keeping board members on the board long-term. New board members who claim a spot on a board of long-timers may be hesitant to bring their ideas forth for fear of them not being well-received. Seasoned board members may fear that new members will slow down the momentum that they worked hard to achieve. Over relying on a small niche of people who seem to have all or most of the power can stagnate and stall an organization’s progress. When long-serving board members are unproductive, it can be difficult to relieve them of their duties, even for the good of the organization. Supporters of not having term limits support their perspective by stating that using the nomination and evaluation processes are sufficient to relieve unproductive board members from their terms when necessary.
Rather than add term limits or embarrass a long-standing board member with a demotion, there are a couple of alternatives to opening up some new board seats. Long-term board members may appreciate the opportunity to serve on the advisory board. Another alternative is to require a break after two to three terms. The board should make clear that a mandatory break in between terms is more than an elongated vacation. It should be a time to evaluate the makeup of the board and the best interests of the organization.
A couple of other issues may signal a step down from the board. Ethical issues, such as legal or other high profile problems that may reflect poorly on the organization, are a valid reason for a change in board membership. Non-profits are also trending towards asking a board member to step down if the member has a status change, moving out of the organization’s field." | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:39 - Nov 30 with 2763 views | swanforthemoney |
There are some pertinent points in there Nookie. I'd like to see the term reduced to 8 years. With at least a two year break before being able to serve again. Advisory Board is an interesting concept |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:10 - Nov 30 with 2698 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:39 - Nov 30 by swanforthemoney |
There are some pertinent points in there Nookie. I'd like to see the term reduced to 8 years. With at least a two year break before being able to serve again. Advisory Board is an interesting concept |
Yes Swanforthemoney
I have previously argued for 3 years given all the 'show business' associated with a football club (and lots of money floating about as well - which you then have to be mindful of - given Trust's 21% stake). People can get seduced by the glamour - in addition to the pros for term limits stated in that article.
When you take a look at other articles on the internet on this issue - it appears a number of Non-Pofit Boards appear to go for 3 terms of 2 years consecutively (6 year max in total).
I am not against having a 2 year break then allowing people to serve again. However recommend practice then seems to be that it is a total break.
You also want things to be uncovered if anything untoward has ever happened - you don't get this if Board members serve into perpetutity and keep it all a closed shop. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:39 - Nov 30 with 2652 views | longlostjack |
I get the bit about members of the Trust Board not discussing or undermining decisions made by the Board in their role as Board member but I'm sure that I read that under the new rules the gagging order continues even after that member resigns. It struck me as being a bit like the Official Secrets Act. [Post edited 30 Nov 2017 21:43]
|  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:14 - Dec 1 with 2543 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 20:27 - Nov 30 by Nookiejack |
I don't agree with you that the 12 year rule is a red herring.
Here are the pros and cons of term limits.
https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/term-limits-for-non-profit-board-members/
"Term Limits-Pros
Amending the bylaws to include term limits lets a board reestablish itself every few years. A lot of good can come from that. Knowing that their time on the board is limited, board members may be inclined to stay intensely focused on their role during the time they serve the board. Having term limits offers boards the time to evaluate the type of talent the board needs for a well-rounded, efficient board and to make well-thought out plans for recruitment. Having turnover on the board brings a fresh crop of volunteers, new ideas, and hopefully some new fundraising ideas and expanded networks.
Term limits also give boards the chance to let go of board members whose attendance or participation is poor. Establishing term limits and staggering terms assures a revolving door of new board members. It’s a protocol that preserves the balance between old and new directors. The balance makes it easier for new board members to have their voices heard. When boards decide to incorporate term limits, it’s best to stagger terms so that the entire board is not up for re-election at the same time.
Even though most non-profit boards have term limits, there are benefits for organizations with regard to keeping a strong cadre of tenured board members.
Term Limits-Cons
If the workings of the board are moving along well without term limits, it may not make sense to rock the boat by incorporating them. When the best decision is to move forward without term limits, non-profit boards are wise to be aware of the pitfalls of keeping board members on the board long-term. New board members who claim a spot on a board of long-timers may be hesitant to bring their ideas forth for fear of them not being well-received. Seasoned board members may fear that new members will slow down the momentum that they worked hard to achieve. Over relying on a small niche of people who seem to have all or most of the power can stagnate and stall an organization’s progress. When long-serving board members are unproductive, it can be difficult to relieve them of their duties, even for the good of the organization. Supporters of not having term limits support their perspective by stating that using the nomination and evaluation processes are sufficient to relieve unproductive board members from their terms when necessary.
Rather than add term limits or embarrass a long-standing board member with a demotion, there are a couple of alternatives to opening up some new board seats. Long-term board members may appreciate the opportunity to serve on the advisory board. Another alternative is to require a break after two to three terms. The board should make clear that a mandatory break in between terms is more than an elongated vacation. It should be a time to evaluate the makeup of the board and the best interests of the organization.
A couple of other issues may signal a step down from the board. Ethical issues, such as legal or other high profile problems that may reflect poorly on the organization, are a valid reason for a change in board membership. Non-profits are also trending towards asking a board member to step down if the member has a status change, moving out of the organization’s field." |
What I meant by the 12 year role being a red herring is this.
Institutionally it is far more important to have the ability to remove a board member who is doing a very bad job taking a series of catastrophic decisions, or who is perhaps is on the take, than to remove an average member who sits for 13 years doing nothing.
People doing nothing is the norm. instead the main purpose of institutional design is to put in place safeguards to protect against the worst leaders and limit the damage they can do.
In regular boards CEOs and board chairmen are regularly obliged to provide indepth reporting to shareholders, maybe the press, etc and as a result are subjected to constant scrutiny.
In the case of the Trust the gag order effectively encases them in a little bubble free from any real scrutiny, since noboy outside has any clue what is going on inside. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:28]
|  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:27 - Dec 1 with 2518 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:14 - Dec 1 by Shaky |
What I meant by the 12 year role being a red herring is this.
Institutionally it is far more important to have the ability to remove a board member who is doing a very bad job taking a series of catastrophic decisions, or who is perhaps is on the take, than to remove an average member who sits for 13 years doing nothing.
People doing nothing is the norm. instead the main purpose of institutional design is to put in place safeguards to protect against the worst leaders and limit the damage they can do.
In regular boards CEOs and board chairmen are regularly obliged to provide indepth reporting to shareholders, maybe the press, etc and as a result are subjected to constant scrutiny.
In the case of the Trust the gag order effectively encases them in a little bubble free from any real scrutiny, since noboy outside has any clue what is going on inside. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:28]
|
. . .That said Nookie, I congratulate you for taking an analytical approach to this.
But i would also urge you to take a critical approach.
For example, in company boards and government there is a tradition of confidentiality and collective responsibility.
And in fact that makes sense when critically examined; companies don't want to alert their competitors about what they're up to, while governments are taking decisions about whole industries and groups of people that have all sorts of real world impacts and are what is known as market sensitive in stock and currency markets.
But as a general matter none of that stuff really applies to Trust affairs. Yes, there may be exceptional cases where confidentiality is warranted, but in my view that should quite obviously be the exception as opposed to the rule. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:30]
| |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:40 - Dec 1 with 2493 views | monmouth |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:27 - Dec 1 by Shaky |
. . .That said Nookie, I congratulate you for taking an analytical approach to this.
But i would also urge you to take a critical approach.
For example, in company boards and government there is a tradition of confidentiality and collective responsibility.
And in fact that makes sense when critically examined; companies don't want to alert their competitors about what they're up to, while governments are taking decisions about whole industries and groups of people that have all sorts of real world impacts and are what is known as market sensitive in stock and currency markets.
But as a general matter none of that stuff really applies to Trust affairs. Yes, there may be exceptional cases where confidentiality is warranted, but in my view that should quite obviously be the exception as opposed to the rule. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:30]
|
Yes this was my point too. It is not a corporate entity, it is a representative board of football supporters. Any agency issues should be solved by freedom of speech being enshrined as a shining principle, except where it would be provably detrimental to do so (and I don't mean to the Trust Board, but to the supporters interest) Those very few 'secret' areas should be highlighted and explained why secret in the minutes.
Everything else should be fully transparent and accountable to the members, in fact I would say wider supporter base, which is what theTrust must become about, not 800 people, and that transparency should include any voting records (including the 'secret' bits once resolved) as per government, to inform future elections.
The Trust needs a searchlight on it, and to be whiter than white, in form and in substance. Unlike the scum that sold the family silver and the american hedge fund. Otherwise, what's the difference. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:44]
|  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:02 - Dec 1 with 2457 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:40 - Dec 1 by monmouth |
Yes this was my point too. It is not a corporate entity, it is a representative board of football supporters. Any agency issues should be solved by freedom of speech being enshrined as a shining principle, except where it would be provably detrimental to do so (and I don't mean to the Trust Board, but to the supporters interest) Those very few 'secret' areas should be highlighted and explained why secret in the minutes.
Everything else should be fully transparent and accountable to the members, in fact I would say wider supporter base, which is what theTrust must become about, not 800 people, and that transparency should include any voting records (including the 'secret' bits once resolved) as per government, to inform future elections.
The Trust needs a searchlight on it, and to be whiter than white, in form and in substance. Unlike the scum that sold the family silver and the american hedge fund. Otherwise, what's the difference. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:44]
|
Well said.
So why not find out what is the procedure for tabling a resolution at the January AGM, and edit your post into a principle that can be voted on and incorporated into some sort of circular for Trust members? | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:06 - Dec 1 with 2446 views | monmouth |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:02 - Dec 1 by Shaky |
Well said.
So why not find out what is the procedure for tabling a resolution at the January AGM, and edit your post into a principle that can be voted on and incorporated into some sort of circular for Trust members? |
I'm waiting to see what happens with this co-opting before I press the button on my tenner. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:08 - Dec 1 with 2439 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 11:06 - Dec 1 by monmouth |
I'm waiting to see what happens with this co-opting before I press the button on my tenner. |
Your choice, monmouth, but with the distraction of all this posturing and bickering going on, be careful the deadline for actually submitting something tangible doesn't pass you by. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:30 - Dec 1 with 2378 views | Nookiejack |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:27 - Dec 1 by Shaky |
. . .That said Nookie, I congratulate you for taking an analytical approach to this.
But i would also urge you to take a critical approach.
For example, in company boards and government there is a tradition of confidentiality and collective responsibility.
And in fact that makes sense when critically examined; companies don't want to alert their competitors about what they're up to, while governments are taking decisions about whole industries and groups of people that have all sorts of real world impacts and are what is known as market sensitive in stock and currency markets.
But as a general matter none of that stuff really applies to Trust affairs. Yes, there may be exceptional cases where confidentiality is warranted, but in my view that should quite obviously be the exception as opposed to the rule. [Post edited 1 Dec 2017 10:30]
|
Fair arguments Shaky | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 15:46 - Dec 1 with 2323 views | Swanzay |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:06 - Nov 30 by Darran |
The day Sumbler hands this site over to me youre dust Butt. |
Contradictionary twit |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:51 - Dec 1 with 2248 views | trampie |
I heard a while back that the FAW council voted in age related rules, something like anyone standing for election between 2016 and 2020 had to be under 70, from 2020 it is down to 65 and life members will be come non voting privileged life members when they become 80.
Has the Swans supporters trust got any age related rules ? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:43 - Dec 4 with 2115 views | Oldbull |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:51 - Dec 1 by trampie |
I heard a while back that the FAW council voted in age related rules, something like anyone standing for election between 2016 and 2020 had to be under 70, from 2020 it is down to 65 and life members will be come non voting privileged life members when they become 80.
Has the Swans supporters trust got any age related rules ? |
Nothing in the existing rules that membership is age related.
Existing rules are however very specific:
Rule 58 states: "No member can be a member of the Society Board who:
a) has been a member of the Society Board for 12 consecutive years.
AND
Rule 98 states: "… No change to these rules shall be valid until registered".
Any changes to the above have not been registered; Trust Board can wriggle as much as it likes but the above remain part of the ' Rules' currently in place [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 11:45]
| | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:26 - Dec 6 with 1983 views | Vetchfielder |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:40 - Nov 27 by Vetchfielder |
Ah OK Ux, I'm getting there slowly.
So the Trust's 2001 "Model Rules" document is not to be superseded by the 2012 "SD Rules" document - my mistake.
You are referring to the "Board Membership Policy" document which is dated Feb 2017 as you rightly say, and not 2016 as you said previously. But Board Membership is only one aspect of the 2001 Model Rules document, so what you now seem to be saying that the 2001 Model Rules is superseded by SEVERAL documents, rather than just one.
There are 10 documents listed on that link to the SD site , so could you please list the ones that will comprise the set of documents that the Trust proposes will supersede the our current single Model Rules document?
Sorry to harp on with this but I'm just trying to be clear as to what the Trust propose the new rules are to be - all the rules , not just Board Membership.
Thanks |
Bump for Uxbridge please.... |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:52 - Dec 14 with 1823 views | Vetchfielder |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:40 - Nov 27 by Vetchfielder |
Ah OK Ux, I'm getting there slowly.
So the Trust's 2001 "Model Rules" document is not to be superseded by the 2012 "SD Rules" document - my mistake.
You are referring to the "Board Membership Policy" document which is dated Feb 2017 as you rightly say, and not 2016 as you said previously. But Board Membership is only one aspect of the 2001 Model Rules document, so what you now seem to be saying that the 2001 Model Rules is superseded by SEVERAL documents, rather than just one.
There are 10 documents listed on that link to the SD site , so could you please list the ones that will comprise the set of documents that the Trust proposes will supersede the our current single Model Rules document?
Sorry to harp on with this but I'm just trying to be clear as to what the Trust propose the new rules are to be - all the rules , not just Board Membership.
Thanks |
2nd bump for Uxbridge please | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 12:19 - Dec 14 with 1766 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:52 - Dec 14 by Vetchfielder |
2nd bump for Uxbridge please |
The proposed Model Rules will be provided to Members prior to the forthcoming AGM. Those links I provided weren't the right ones, and I can't find a link to the base model rules.
PS If I'm not around, could you contact the Trust email address instead? Best way of guaranteeing a quick response and bumping stuff specifically to me is just going to turn things into an issue if I'm not around or miss a thread. Cheers. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 12:54 - Dec 14 with 1740 views | Vetchfielder |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 12:19 - Dec 14 by Uxbridge |
The proposed Model Rules will be provided to Members prior to the forthcoming AGM. Those links I provided weren't the right ones, and I can't find a link to the base model rules.
PS If I'm not around, could you contact the Trust email address instead? Best way of guaranteeing a quick response and bumping stuff specifically to me is just going to turn things into an issue if I'm not around or miss a thread. Cheers. |
Ok thanks Ux.
I did actually email the Trust asking for this information back in November but unfortunately I have not received a response. | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 13:00 - Dec 14 with 1732 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 12:54 - Dec 14 by Vetchfielder |
Ok thanks Ux.
I did actually email the Trust asking for this information back in November but unfortunately I have not received a response. |
Fair enough. I'll ask the question on that. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
