Rangers First board candidates

[forlanssister 3,114]

FS

 

That was proposed by Rev MacQuarrie, completely contrary as you say to the Constitution, as was a propsal for rotational office bearers and the delay in the election process which was supposed to be conducted at the first meeting. As you say Rangers' solicitors advised Rev MacQuarrie to follow the Constitution i.e. to conduct the elections on the first past the post system.

 

In all my many years on various committees and boards I never saw such unnnecessary delay and such a convoluted process as was proposed for the election of office bearers in the RFB when the process was clearly set out in the Constitution and one can only speculate as to why these delays occurred and why these proposals were brought forward.

 

You had ample opportunity to raise the matter with other members prior to the meeting and at the meeting itself but you lacked the moral fortitude and honesty to do so.

 

The rest of your post is pure conjecture unless that is you were one of the two board members who were alleged to have made complaints.

 

You know full well I wasn't the source of any complaint against you. However you did complain to Rangers about me prior to the election for the initial board.

 

It's fact not conjecture that you embarked on an email campaign behind your fellow Board members backs.

 

It's fact not conjecture that you sat throughout the meeting and did not raise any objection during the meeting.

 

It's fact not conjecture that you agreed that we should proceed with the method discussed during the meeting.

 

It's fact not conjecture that you fired off an email early in the morning rendering the previous nights meeting an utter waste of time.

 

What is not conjecture is that I rejected overtures from three members to run for Vice Chair and was one of two candidates for election to the post of Secretary; and when I was removed from the Board, that left the other candidate to be elected unopposed.

 

Don't flatter yourself I myself encouraged at least three members to participate in the election and received a couple of approaches despite my clearly stated intention at the outset that I had no interest in being an Office Bearer as I was there simply to draw attention to the plight of my fellow wheelchair fans not to fluff an ego.

 

Actually you weren't a candidate for the post of Secretary your own actions ensured that. You thought you were Machiavelli but the others unlike yourself could see further than the end of their noses.

 

But you are absolutley right to draw attention to one thing about me.

 

I believe that Rules and Constitutions are there for a reason, the proper conduct of business; and I will always oppose those who try to ride roughshod over the Constitution of any body of which I am a member.

 

One day you'll get tired writing all this guff about me but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Good for you and I hope those who take part in the vote note that.

 

However if I had a vote I'd be looking for candidates who are open, transparent, honest, team workers and willing to put the greater good ahead of their own self interest; during your albeit brief spell on the RFB I never saw you demonstrate those traits.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

I am sure Mr Graham can speak for himself but would you not agree that it is out of order for a RST Board Member to comment on the conduct of the RF election?

 

You've just been accusing him of attending board meetings in order to boost your own credentials so, in this instance, not really.

[Fury 0]

Dear Mr Graham

 

I hesitate to respond to one such as your good self whose debating and commentating skills are legend but there area number of inaccuracies in your post that I need to correct.

 

Firstly, I did not insinuate anything about you. I made a comment about "at least one of those who is taking part in the merger talks"; if you took that to refer to yourself then that's up to you. I also wonder why you chose to make that post here since the apparently offending post was made on RM?

 

I am sure that members of RF will be indebted to you for your advice (although I have no idea why you as an RST Board member would feel it is appropriate step into this debate) but whilst you are correct that RF is not currently a member of SD, you are quite wrong to suggest that if RF was a member it could opt out of its rules. I believe that as a former main board member of SD and Chair of SDS I have somewhat more experience in these matters than you. I am advised that the question of SD membership has been discussed by RF on a number of occasions and remains a "live" topic.

 

RF was founded with considerable assistance from SDS. Andrew Jenkin of SDS was appointed as an "independent person involved within the process." (AJ). Approximately 20 hours after nominations closed all candidates were sent the Supporters Direct Code of Conduct for Directors and asked to get "in touch if there is anything within this which you feel does not make you suitable to become a Director of Rangers First."

 

The Code of Conduct for Directors states inter alia:

 

6.4 Directors must "avoid conflicts of interest"

 

24.0 Directors should not be in receipt of hospitality ..... that may compromise their position or lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organisation has been compromised.

 

It also states that all Directors must be elected in an election conducted under the organisation's election policy and have complied with that policy.

 

The SD Election Rules Policy states inter alia:

 

4(a) Candidates must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

In addition, all Members seeking election to the Society’s Board, Council or Advisory bodies will be required to sign a declaration on the nomination form to confirm that they will comply with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT which states inter alia:

 

2. Qualifications for office. To qualify for elected office with Supporters Direct individuals must not be an employee of Supporters Direct.

 

So again in this context candidates should not be an employee of Rangers FC or Rangers IFC

 

and expands on Conflicts of Interest and Prejudicial Interest and in particular stresses that the member "must consider whether 'an ordinary member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would think that their personal interest was so significant that it would prejudice their decision on this matter'".

 

5 (e) Declaring Gifts and Hospitality Elected members should not be in receipt of hospitality, goods, services, gifts or any other benefit, that may compromise either their position or that of the organization, or may lead others to perceive that the integrity or policy of the organization or of the member has been compromised.

 

So anyone who is standing in this election has committed themselves to abiding by the SD Code of Conduct for Directors, which implies compliance with the SD Election Rules which in turn require compliance with The SD ELECTED MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT.

 

However, if the election is not being conducted under SD Rules, why were candidates asked to signify compliance with the Code of Conduct for Directors which itself requires compliance with the SD Rules & Election Policy which prohibit conflicts of interest or the acceptance of hospitality? On the other hand if SD Rules do not apply to this election then precisely what rules do apply and where can I find them? These questions are not directed at you, Mr Graham, since you are not a member of RF.

 

Even if no rules at all apply to the election a director must avoid conflicts of interest and must not accept benefits from third parties. As a company director yourself thoise are Statutory Duties with which you will be familiar are you not?

 

Since the entire business of RF is to purchase shares and fund other areas in Rangers FC I would contend that it would be more or less impossible for any person elected to the Board who has a conflict of interest through financial involvement with the Club or is an employee of the Club to take part in any board discussion so it would be impossible for such a person to function as a Director of RF.

 

Fascinating stuff.

 

You made the insinuation. The posts you made have been copied and pasted to this site. You failed to quote your entire conversation but I believe quoting parts of rules/conversations etc. is your speciality.

 

And here you are quoting rules again. All very interesting but still not applicable to this election. I'm amazed you are standing for election without knowing which rules apply to you and your fellow candidates. Especially since you are so experienced in these matters. Perhaps you should have prepared better?

 

My comments were more with regard to you, your false insinuation about me and your attempt to mislead people by quoting rules that don't apply, rather than the RF elections themselves. I'm not commenting as an RST board member and had you not made your false insinuation about me on RM I probably wouldn't have commented at all. That said, as an organisation for which I have a lot of respect, I think it is important for RF members not to be misled by candidates so I'm glad I was able to point out your mischief making.

 

Best of luck with your election and best of luck to the other elected board members of RF if you are somehow successful.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Fury

[SiamBear 0]

Fascinating stuff.

 

You made the insinuation. The posts you made have been copied and pasted to this site. You failed to quote your entire conversation but I believe quoting parts of rules/conversations etc. is your speciality.

 

And here you are quoting rules again. All very interesting but still not applicable to this election. I'm amazed you are standing for election without knowing which rules apply to you and your fellow candidates. Especially since you are so experienced in these matters. Perhaps you should have prepared better?

 

My comments were more with regard to you, your false insinuation about me and your attempt to mislead people by quoting rules that don't apply, rather than the RF elections themselves. I'm not commenting as an RST board member and had you not made your false insinuation about me on RM I probably wouldn't have commented at all. That said, as an organisation for which I have a lot of respect, I think it is important for RF members not to be misled by candidates so I'm glad I was able to point out your mischief making.

 

Best of luck with your election and best of luck to the other elected board members of RF if you are somehow successful.

 

All I can take from this thread is Mr Harris comes across as a self centred drama queen who could not be trusted to represent RF without causing division. I for one will definitely not be voting for him.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I like Alan however he's one of the few rangers fans who just formulate their opinions based on being anti rst.

 

Chris Graham in the rst bad.

Dave King talks to rate bad.

Paul Murray likes rst bad.

 

Charles green not Paul Murray good.

Leach and lambias hate dave king good.

 

The trouble is formulating opinions based on others opinions makes you look daft.

 

Especially when your chosen ones end up in court.

 

It shows a startling lack of judgement that should most certainly see no one vote for Alan if they have an ounce of sense.

 

Of course the other half dozen rst bad anti rst good cabal will love him.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Is he a member of RF ?

 

He said himself in his post that he is not.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You had ample opportunity to raise the matter with other members prior to the meeting and at the meeting itself but you lacked the moral fortitude and honesty to do so.

 

 

 

You know full well I wasn't the source of any complaint against you. However you did complain to Rangers about me prior to the election for the initial board.

 

As previously stated, I raised these matters in writing before the relevant meeting.

 

You are correct that I complained about you because you were making critical posts about a fellow candidate in the election.

 

I know that one member of the public made a complaint about me that was subsequently proven to be completely false. I do not know the identity of the two board members who were alleged to have made complaints; but I am sure that you, even with all your enmity towards me, would agree that it was out of order for Rangers to deny me natural justice by not setting out the alleged complaints, providing the names of the alleged complainers and allowing me an opportunity to defend myself.

 

Unlike you, I did not seek a legal remedy against the Club despite being advised that that was open to me.

Edited February 14, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[forlanssister 3,114]

As previously stated, I raised these matters in writing before the relevant meeting.

 

Behind the backs of your fellow board members. You also had the opportunity to raise the matter at any time during the lengthy meeting but chose not to, why?

 

You are correct that I complained about you because you were making critical posts about a fellow candidate in the election.

 

The outcome of that entirely spurious complaint was that it was laughed away but it was a nice indicator to Rangers of your modus operandi.

 

I know that one member of the public made a complaint about me that was subsequently proven to be completely false. I do not know the identity of the two board members who were alleged to have made complaints; but I am sure that you, even with all your enmity towards me, would agree that it was out of order for Rangers to deny me natural justice by not setting out the alleged complaints, providing the names of the alleged complainers and allowing me an opportunity to defend myself.

 

I've already told you numerous times that the complaint in regards to your appearance on Rangers Chat was surreal and Pythonesque.

 

The complaints from board members weren't alleged they were real.

 

You were not dismissed without reason, you were dismissed as the the result of your own actions however that fact seems something you are totally unable to countenance.

 

 

Unlike you, I did not seek a legal remedy against the Club despite being advised that that was open to me.

 

You must be getting pretty desperate if you're trying to equate my use of the Companies Act with your own lamentable personal behaviour whilst a member of the RFB.

[jhunter 0]

 

 

I've already told you numerous times that the complaint in regards to your appearance on Rangers Chat was surreal and Pythonesque.

 

 

what was this?

[rbr 1,266]

FS and BH , you guys need to take this off public view and if necessary carry on via pm , but that's just my opinion