RST AGM Tomorrow

[Frankie 8,569]

 

The former Secretary was not told he could make the statement later.

 

The parting comment I heard from your new Chairman was "hopefully he resigns from the board too". Not really a sign of board unity, that.

 

 

I guess Frank Hovis was correct above then...

 

There seems to be a problem again within the Trust board and the reluctance of the chairman to allow discussion on this disappointing.

 

One wonders if Mr Harris' statement will be made available to the members.

[Tannochsidebear 2,413]

TB, KP had the document with him and said that anyone at the meeting could have a look at it. I'm not sure if anyone asked to see it. I'm not sure of the usefulness of publishing that particular document on the website as it was written on the basis that the funding was being underwritten and was very specific to this particular case. I'm afraid I don't understand the 'nudge nudge wink wink' comment but perhaps we could speak about that.

 

I dont want to have a private look at it, I want it published on the website as a testiment to all the good work KP and others put in, to show that the Trust can produce good quality work, and to stimulate debate on the issue. It could certainly be published with some appropriate notes to remind the reader of the context in which it was written.

 

The nudge nudge wink wink comment was in relation to all the "unnamed person", "we can all guess who" "make your own mind up" comments that were issued from the top table when discussing this. I stand by my disgust at the way the membership was treated in a private meeting by some of the board, who should not be hiding behind such wording when addressing the people they represent. The way it was finally discussed was the way it should have been discussed from the start. It appears some (not you) dont get this "representation" thing.

[andy steel 0]

That's a blistering post.

[plgsarmy 111]

I dont want to have a private look at it, I want it published on the website as a testiment to all the good work KP and others put in, to show that the Trust can produce good quality work, and to stimulate debate on the issue. It could certainly be published with some appropriate notes to remind the reader of the context in which it was written.

 

The nudge nudge wink wink comment was in relation to all the "unnamed person", "we can all guess who" "make your own mind up" comments that were issued from the top table when discussing this. I stand by my disgust at the way the membership was treated in a private meeting by some of the board, who should not be hiding behind such wording when addressing the people they represent. The way it was finally discussed was the way it should have been discussed from the start. It appears some (not you) dont get this "representation" thing.

 

 

Okay I get what you mean now. I'll get it discussed at our next Board meeting about the document being published, I think there will be mixed views just in case 'you know who' comes back to the table. Sorry if you feel members were treated badly. The truth is that we have never been told by the third party who their client is. The Sunday Herald says it was Jim McColl and I think we all believe that to be the case but we just can't come out and say it definitely was him. I'll certainly pass on your comments but I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to treat members badly.

[Tannochsidebear 2,413]

Thanks plg.

 

I understand the reluctance, but even if Mr Big comes back to the table, things have moved on and the document, I'm guessing, would need altered to reflect the current situation, and therefore wont be the same document that would be used in future negotiations.

 

I do feel we were treated badly, when a simple statement giving the facts, but giving us the boards best guess at who was involved, would have been the way to go, and that is of course what happened eventually, but not before a lot of messing around.

 

I'm also quite sure there was no deliberate intention to treat members badly, given there were so few of us there and it basically was the same old faces as last year, and the year before........, but perhaps it is a sign of the RST's declining stature that things like this can happen unintentionally.

 

Things just dont seem to be heading in the right direction and another year has passed with the club in a mess and the RST still fire-fighting more than being forward-thinking and productive, and even when it is productive, it cant get any credit for it as it doesnt tell anybody about how productive it has been. I appreciate you see things differently from inside, but on the outside it is still cold and pretty much silent.

[rbr 1,256]

Thanks plg.

 

I understand the reluctance, but even if Mr Big comes back to the table, things have moved on and the document, I'm guessing, would need altered to reflect the current situation, and therefore wont be the same document that would be used in future negotiations.

 

I do feel we were treated badly, when a simple statement giving the facts, but giving us the boards best guess at who was involved, would have been the way to go, and that is of course what happened eventually, but not before a lot of messing around.

 

I'm also quite sure there was no deliberate intention to treat members badly, given there were so few of us there and it basically was the same old faces as last year, and the year before........, but perhaps it is a sign of the RST's declining stature that things like this can happen unintentionally.

Things just dont seem to be heading in the right direction and another year has passed with the club in a mess and the RST still fire-fighting more than being forward-thinking and productive, and even when it is productive, it cant get any credit for it as it doesnt tell anybody about how productive it has been. I appreciate you see things differently from inside, but on the outside it is still cold and pretty much silent.

 

Or perhaps they have realised that in the past they have published things that haven't came to pass , the guy behind this document is first class , believe me.There is a new belief that quality of work must come before quantity and maybe it time to cut them a bit of slack , though I still believe certain people, MD, should step aside first .

[Tannochsidebear 2,413]

Or perhaps they have realised that in the past they have published things that haven't came to pass , the guy behind this document is first class , believe me.There is a new belief that quality of work must come before quantity and maybe it time to cut them a bit of slack , though I still believe certain people, MD, should step aside first .

 

I know the guy behind the doc, and I agree with you. I have spoken with him both online and in person, the latest being before the AGM on Sunday, and that was a main reason I cannot understand it not now being published, as I am confident in it being a quality document that could only enhance the rep of the RST, we all know it needs it just now.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

plg, my comment on loads of changes was in relation to the 8 elected members to the board. As BD has related to, the speed at which this was done, coupled with the fact that looking at the accounts and seeing dates and resigned/appointed beside a lot of the names there, was where I got my info from. As you correctly state (and I had forgotten) some board members have to retire by rotation, and I accept that with these people included the true figure is not as large as I may have made out. An honest mistake i'm sure you will accept, but given the poor fashion in which this was done by the acting chair (no doubt nervous i'm sure and his first go at it) you will see how I came to this conclusion.

 

The former Secretary was not told he could make the statement later.

The parting comment I heard from your new Chairman was "hopefully he resigns from the board too". Not really a sign of board unity, that.

 

I appreciate your intentions and I know you have worked long and hard for a number of years on the board, and as you say it makes sense to pass on the Treasurer's role to the CA.

 

was this said in open meeting or in private to you?

[Tannochsidebear 2,413]

It wasnt said to me at all and it was not in open meeting.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

It wasnt said to me at all and it was not in open meeting.

 

it is being strongly denied on FF, I was just wondering.