Fans Board Statement 31/01/15

[Zappa 0]

I do - its just disappointing that they are ignored hence why the warnings you refer to are' date=' as you say, frequent.[/quote']

 

Just as the admin & mod team aren't on here 24/7 reading and moderating posts, neither are all of our forum members on here 24/7 reading posts, so moderation requests and warnings will obviously be missed by a proportion of Gersnet users.

 

Very few people on here deliberately ignore warnings and when they do, they generally aren't here for long.

[BEARGER 1,830]

I must be missing something here. Who has been insulted and by whom ? Handbags?

[Zappa 0]

I must be missing something here. Who has been insulted and by whom ? Handbags?

 

No handbags, just one or two slight misunderstandings.

 

Let's get back on topic please folks.

[colinstein 294]

Gersnet is streets ahead of the pish talked on other forums. People on here ( not me btw) actually know what they're talking about.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Email to Gary Gillan, Secretary of the RFB and replies in red.

 

Gary,

 

I'd like to ask you officially as Secretary of the RFB if you were aware PRIOR to the meeting last Wednesday that it was taking place. No

 

I'd also like to know who instigated the meeting and exactly when and by what means the invitation was issued? I believe that Derek Llambias instigated the meeting following conversations with Tom Clements and Jim Hannah (separately) in the earlier part of the day. There was no formal invitation sent - it was done via conversation.

 

Did the Club stipulate either the number of people who could attend or the exact people who were invited to attend or that specific people could not attend? Not at all. The club asked that RFB keep the numbers low and suggested no more than 3 people attend. At no time whatsoever was there a request for a particular person to attend or not attend.

Did the Club stipulate that other members of the RFB were not be advised that the meeting was taking place and if so was the prohibition restricted to certain individuals (if so who) or general i.e. the other 7 or 8 including or exluding you? Not to my knowledge. They left it to RFB to organize.

 

On the face of it a sub-committee consisting of the Chair and two other members of the Board met with Directors of the Club and this appears to be inconsistent with the Rule:

 

18.1 RFB may delegate any of their powers and discussions to any sub-committee consisting of two or more Elected Representatives; they may also delegate to the Chairman (or the holder of any other post) such of their powers as they may consider appropriate.

 

if as stated "Not all members of RFB were aware of ........ the meeting".

 

If members weren't aware of the meeting how could they delegate their powers to the sub-committee. This was initially intended to be an informal 'clear the air' discussion. It was not requested to be off the record per se, but there was a level of discreteness required so as not to exasperate the sensitivity of RFB's vote of no confidence.

The Chair has the power ceteris paribus:

 

• To plan the annual cycle of RFB meetings and set the agendas;

 

• To chair meetings of RFB;

 

• To be the first point of contact between the Club and RFB, liaising with the Elected

 

Representatives and senior executives as appropriate;

 

but I don't read that as saying that the Chair has the power effectively to appoint such a sub-committee without the knowledge never mind the consent of the RFB. We have subsequently met as the RFB this past Monday to have open conversations with each other about this particular topic, and a variety of others. At this meeting we did discuss the powers of office bearers and the communications gaps that existed during the process. If faced with a similar situation in the future then we will follow appropriate constitutional and communications protocols. It was an exceptional circumstance and one that we will definitely manage better in the future.

 

I followed by asking if the meeting this past Monday had been minuted.

 

The reply was "The meeting last week was simply an open conversation between RFB members. I did indeed take my own notes, but not minutes per se due to the flowing nature of the conversation. I personally wouldn't classify it as an official RFB meeting, therefore do not intend to publish the minutes."

 

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

I have since been able to establish that the "meeting" was in fact a conference call.

 

As previously mentioned the only person apart from those present who I have been able to establish that was aware of the meeting with the directors was the VC Christine Murdoch, who was unable to attend. I have been able to confirm that four other members of the board including Gary and FS (as stated by him on here), were not aware that the meeting was taking place.

Edited February 6, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[forlanssister 3,114]

It was nice of you to put my forum name in brackets when sending the emails to all the Fans board members.

 

I wasn't aware that anyone was unaware who I am as I've never hidden who I am, but at least I know for sure now that they all know!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It was nice of you to put my forum name in brackets when sending the emails to all the Fans board members.

 

I wasn't aware that anyone was unaware who I am as I've never hidden who I am, but at least I know for sure now that they all know!

I think you have misunderstood FS and perhaps I should have drawn a line under the end of the email exchange. I've done that now for clarity

 

This

 

As previously mentioned the only person apart from those present who I have been able to establish that was aware of the meeting with the directors was the VC Christine Murdoch, who was unable to attend. I have been able to confirm that four other members of the board including Gary and FS (as stated by him on here), were not aware that the meeting was taking place.

 

was not in the email, though as you say I believe your forum identity has been linked to your real name on numerous occasions and like me you make no secret of that fact.

[forlanssister 3,114]

This

 

was not in the email, though as you say I believe your forum identity has been linked to your real name on numerous occasions and like me you make no secret of that fact.

 

I was referring to the (forlanssister) after my email address.....

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I was referring to the (forlanssister) after my email address.....

 

OK I see that now, apologies.

 

I think what has happened is that I have you in my phone contacts for the GN Dinner with full name and pseudonym (as all the others) and because I also have gmail in my phone it has picked it up from there even although it is a separate conact list; or perhaps vice versa because gmail picks up the phone contacts as well.

 

So I do apologise, I guess that's modern technology.

 

That said, as you mentioned, I don't believe that your identity is a secret and apart from GN, it is most certainly known on RM & FF.

 

I also wonder if this type of comment would not be better restricted to a PM or personal email, particularly as the exposure was only seen by the recipients of the email (I spent some time fruitlessly looking for it in my posts on here) as I am sure your intention was no more to embarrass me, than mine was to expose your identity.

 

And I'll save you the trouble of saying I embarrassed myself, but I don't think that's really the case in this instance.