RST AGM - Secretary's statement

[bmck 117]

Before I reply I'd like to hear Alan's responses to the questions I posted last night and were obviously missed.

 

Just to be clear Alan, did you or did you not offer to sign off the accounts if certain Board members resigned and various other demands were met?

Did you fail to attend the last 2 Board meetings where much of this could have been cleared up? Did you make the excuse for not attending the last meeting (our pre-AGM meeting) that there was no time and venue given, even though the notice said Saturday and the venue was going to be one of two we use about 500 yards from each other. Going by our constitution, then technically you were correct but with such important matters to discuss I'm surprised you didn't make the effort as no other member of the Board objected to it.

What is your version of what GD actually said to you at the AGM? Did you try to make it clear that your statement was pertaining to the accounts? Why did you not try to force the issue?

Did you try to clarify the circumstances of the debt by asking Mr Dingwall?

 

Do you think Alan's dishonest, and a trouble maker? Instead of trying to discredit one of your colleagues, why don't you answer Frankie's questions, or any of the number of decent reasonable ones on the thread?

Edited September 30, 2010 by bmck

[plgsarmy 111]

Do you think Alan's dishonest, and a trouble maker? Instead of trying to discredit one of your colleagues, why don't you answer Frankie's questions, or any of the number of decent reasonable ones on the thread?

 

Where did I say that? Do you not think my questions are not valid? I'm not trying to discredit anyone but sometimes there are two sides to stories.

[bmck 117]

Where did I say that?

 

I never said you did. I'm just (naively perhaps) asking you a straight question and expecting a straight answer.

 

Do you not think my questions are not valid?

 

To be blunt, no. I think they're an attempt to redirect focus from the actually valid questions you (and the RST) continually refuse to answer.

 

I'm not trying to discredit anyone but...

 

Sounds strangely similar to "I'm not saying this issue isn't important but..." and "I'm not a racist but..."

 

I'd started to type out the questions again, but my honest opinion, from what I've read here, is that you're not genuinely interested in answering questions, and so I won't waste my time or yours. I honestly think you'd argue a square was a circle if it defended the trust. This shows commendible loyalty to the board colleagues you like, and your friends, but a regrettable lack of loyalty to the people, the members of the trust, with genuine questions to whom you're supposed to be responsible. Lots of people from both sides of the debate here have defended you personally, and I'm quite sure that actually knowing you they're right, but that's what I think and I'm only going by what I've read here.

Edited September 30, 2010 by bmck