Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I must have imagined the around 150 new members Clive and I registered in the past ten weeks or so then - the Trust may be a lot of things, but it can hardly be called a closed shop.
Increased membership by almost 50%? Well done you. Its a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on the board but you kid yourself its not.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J R Hartley
Increased membership by almost 50%? Well done you. Its a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on the board but you kid yourself its not.
How on earth can it be a closed shop when
1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
How on earth can it be a closed shop when
1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.
There are a lot of good suggestions in the letter of withdrawal, which I think the Trust should and will adopt in the coming months / years. Plenty of new blood and expertise to drive those along as well.
However, given the way this came about and some of the individuals involved, how many people believe that this was the entire agenda of that group?
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
How on earth can it be a closed shop when
1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.
Surely you are conflating 'membership' with 'the trust board?' Whilst new members have been allowed to join the makeup of the trust board is the same, hence an accusation of closed shop surrounding its governance. There are spare seats on the TB which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a hotile reaction to these new members.
On your second point the trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surley the TB would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.
For the record I think the new members should bide their time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats avaiable. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the trust as it would be case of the same old etc
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NinianKnight
Surely you are conflating 'membership' with 'the trust board?' Whilst new members have been allowed to join the makeup of the trust board is the same, hence an accusation of closed shop surrounding its governance. There are spare seats on the TB which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a hotile reaction to these new members.
On your second point the trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surley the TB would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.
For the record I think the new members should bide their time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats avaiable. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the trust as it would be case of the same old etc
The board had every right to oppose the motion but was prepared for it to go to a vote. It is the proposers who have bottled out.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TDA
There are a lot of good suggestions in the letter of withdrawal, which I think the Trust should and will adopt in the coming months / years. Plenty of new blood and expertise to drive those along as well.
However, given the way this came about and some of the individuals involved, how many people believe that this was the entire agenda of that group?
I assume their agenda would been made clear in their representations during the election process? But since this has been denied for now, we will have to wait and see.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NinianKnight
I assume their agenda would been made clear in their representations during the election process? But since this has been denied for now, we will have to wait and see.
I seriously doubt that would have become apparent until they had overall control of the board.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NinianKnight
I assume their agenda would been made clear in their representations during the election process? But since this has been denied for now, we will have to wait and see.
Nothing has been denied. They have withdrawn their motion.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NinianKnight
Surely you are conflating 'membership' with 'the trust board?' Whilst new members have been allowed to join the makeup of the trust board is the same, hence an accusation of closed shop surrounding its governance. There are spare seats on the TB which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a hotile reaction to these new members.
On your second point the trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surley the TB would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.
For the record I think the new members should bide their time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats avaiable. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the trust as it would be case of the same old etc
I wish you wouldn't repeat nonsense about a closed shop - because it is completely wrong. A member can stand for election to the board EVERY single year. Three members put their names forward and joined the board, two in 2024 and one this year. It is up to members to put their name forward with their platform and the skills they would bring. So next year there will be another opportunity for members to stand for election.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TDA
There are a lot of good suggestions in the letter of withdrawal, which I think the Trust should and will adopt in the coming months / years. Plenty of new blood and expertise to drive those along as well.
However, given the way this came about and some of the individuals involved, how many people believe that this was the entire agenda of that group?
I agree that it would be good to get more of an idea about what they might offer in terms of social media aimed at a younger age group.
As you imply though, the feel has always been one of a hostile takeover and, for all of the talk of closed shops, the facts are that the Trust have been more than willing to incorporate new blood on to the Committee on a regular basis.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
I’ll be at the SLO meeting tonight. As ever, happy to chat through any or all of the above. Just say hi, I promise I’m not as sinister as some might claim.
You’ll also note, as with all our emails to the board, we’re yet to receive a response, even an acknowledgement. The same themes pop up again and again, must be more politics to play, rather than trying to get stuff done.
Re: Sent out to Trust members this morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Canton Stand Blue
I’ll be at the SLO meeting tonight. As ever, happy to chat through any or all of the above. Just say hi, I promise I’m not as sinister as some might claim.
You’ll also note, as with all our emails to the board, we’re yet to receive a response, even an acknowledgement. The same themes pop up again and again, must be more politics to play, rather than trying to get stuff done.
I've know idea who you are, don't assume everyoneon this board is ITK.
When you talk about "our emails to the board" who are you speaking on behalf of? I assume you mean emails to the trust board. Were the people who sent the emails members of the trust when the emails were sent?
