Apologies, 3 Points and Parties

[craig 5,199]

Personally I think that the onus of responsibility to clarify the situation with those resignations lies squarely with the RST.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Personally I think that the onus of responsibility to clarify the situation with those resignations lies squarely with the RST.

 

How so Craig? If you resign it is because you are not happy and therefore you should make clear your reasons.

[pete 2,499]

Personally I think that the onus of responsibility to clarify the situation with those resignations lies squarely with the RST.

 

Disagree totally Craig the people who made the action should clarify their motives. The people on the RST board are sitting pretty, why in gods-name will they come out say they were wrong. I don't want to put any pressure on Frankie but i feel this action has split the RST and i feel the seven should now stand up again and name the problems and say what it would take for them to get back on board and pull the support together. Yes this could backfire but when David Murray offered a place on the board to one of these people and a reputed 2-4000 people resigned their membership(assumption not knowledge) then they must have been doing something right. The seven and the RST have to get together and look for a way forward. Out of sight is not always out of mind.

 

I will also add i have never been a member of the trust so i really have no right to speak.

[craig 5,199]

How so Craig? If you resign it is because you are not happy and therefore you should make clear your reasons.

 

So privacy isnt a virtue that should be accepted ?

 

Those who resigned have their own reasons for doing so and if they dont wish them to be publicised then they shouldnt be. Quite simple from where I stand.

 

And if they told the RST they didnt want the reasons published then the RST should be bound by that too and I understands that means the RST cant, or shouldnt, give their perspective on why the resignations took place, but cest la vie.

 

Sure, it doesnt provide the solutions we all want but that is the reality - these people were volunteers and are under no obligation to provide their reasoms for resignation. It is, and should be, their choice.

[craig 5,199]

Disagree totally Craig the people who made the action should clarify their motives. The people on the RST board are sitting pretty, why in gods-name will they come out say they were wrong. I don't want to put any pressure on Frankie but i feel this action has split the RST and i feel the seven should now stand up again and name the problems and say what it would take for them to get back on board and pull the support together. Yes this could backfire but when David Murray offered a place on the board to one of these people and a reputed 2-4000 people resigned their membership(assumption not knowledge) then they must have been doing something right. The seven and the RST have to get together and look for a way forward. Out of sight is not always out of mind.

 

I will also add i have never been a member of the trust so i really have no right to speak.

 

Read my post after yours.

 

Explain to me just why people who are volunteering their time and expertise should feel that they are obligated to clarify their reasons for doing so ?

 

Regardless of whether this has split the RST these people have no obligation to you or I to give their reasons for resignations. If they stated (as I think some did) that they resigned for personal reasons then that is as good as it needs to get.

 

What right do you or I have to know specifically why they resigned ?

 

The above isnt satisfactory for many and, personally, I would like to know exactly why they resigned too but I can see that I have no right to know even as a RST member.

 

I haver seen plenty of corporate situations where this happens and the public reasons for resignations are nowhere near the ACTUAL reasons.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

So privacy isnt a virtue that should be accepted ?

 

Those who resigned have their own reasons for doing so and if they dont wish them to be publicised then they shouldnt be. Quite simple from where I stand.

 

And if they told the RST they didnt want the reasons published then the RST should be bound by that too and I understands that means the RST cant, or shouldnt, give their perspective on why the resignations took place, but cest la vie.

 

Sure, it doesnt provide the solutions we all want but that is the reality - these people were volunteers and are under no obligation to provide their reasoms for resignation. It is, and should be, their choice.

 

The RST are also similarly under no obligation. Why do you ask them to provide the reasons?

[craig 5,199]

The RST are also similarly under no obligation. Why do you ask them to provide the reasons?

 

I actually agree with that. After I posted my last response I realised it was contradictory to what I had said previously.

 

See, I can even change my own mind when I think things through.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

I actually agree with that. After I posted my last response I realised it was contradictory to what I had said previously.

 

See, I can even change my own mind when I think things through.

 

 

For what it's worth, clarity would be welcome on both parts but I can fully understand the reasons for none.

[Zappa 0]

I totally agree with Craig on this, but I can also see exactly where pete's coming from because this 'issue' is constantly being brought back up & it's now getting to the point where the perpetual bickering, side swipes or even just the constant to & fro of sly little digs is becoming very VERY tiresome as well as being a mutherfucker of a hurdle in this mad 'unity' concept.

[craig 5,199]

 

For what it's worth, clarity would be welcome on both parts but I can fully understand the reasons for none.

 

I agree. I think it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont.

 

From the perspective of those who resigned I would guess they just wanted out and to go back to their own lives with as little fuss as possible.

 

From the Trust perspective, as pete says, the remaining Board members have little to gain if they publicise what happened, especially if it is to their detriment. If they DO publicise it and it is not exactly the truth then it will be shot down (IIRC.... actually, I think this may have happened in Frankie's instance - could be wrong but I thought the Trust did give vague reasons for the resignations and Frankie refuted that. Apologies if wrong).

 

Ultimately that cloud unfortunately still hangs over the Trust. And I dont know how they get rid of that to be honest.