CLUB1872 Members Meeting

[SteveC 150]

Lucy , as much as I agree in principle , this was very very simple and CH has been let down very badly in the advice given to him by both JB and A W , it was so obvious that he should have recused himself from that meeting , a meeting that he himself admitted he didn't need to attend as two other club1872 were attending , and as Sos of Struth aren't a fans group there was no other reason for him to be there .

 

This was not a resignation issue , no one other than CH made it out to be a resignation issue , this was about being transparent and being fair on every other club1872 member who had applied for the SLO position , something that CH had every right to apply for 100% no issue with the guy applying for the position but he shouldn't have went to the meeting , he had already been pulled from a club1872 Q&A with Stewart Robertson for the same reason .

 

He had also been spoken to several times by both JB and AW with regards his conduct and behaviour to the females on club1872s board , as well as the way he talked to Christine Sommerville .

 

But you are 100% correct that club1872 lacks very basic core principals , something that I brought up at the hustings but that JB was adamant was going to be his first priority , a code of conduct for the directors , but so far nothing , it's pathetic .

As for Alex Wilson , he reminds me of David Somers in his attitude to the members , I've never been to patronised as I was last night , why he's on the board I have no idea he brings nothing to it .

 

That they can't even agree on the need for a chairperson or for a casting vote speaks volumes IMHO , the sooner we get elections the better and none of the current 4 should stand for re-election .

 

What does this part (emboldened) refer to?

 

What sad reading this thread has made.

[Gaffer 1,665]

Lucy' date='

 

Im not certain this really is factional infighting, nor is it about individuals. There may well be different opinions being expressed on various forums based around individual's popularity etc but as far as Im concerned its about principles not individuals or popularity.

 

I believe what transpired constituted a situational conflict of interest in that by attending the meeting Craig could gain a situational advantage over other candidates - a concern which came to fruition when a situation was discussed at the security meeting which actually featured in the candidates questions during interview.

 

But as rbr will tell you - as was dicussed at the meeting last Thursday - Craig and I are in agreement over the circumstances, its just the interpretations which differ. For me it is unequivocal, for others it has been referred to as "a grey area".[/quote']

 

That makes sense, but what I don't understand is why you resigned over this. As a board member, surely it would be prudent for you to take this issue to a board meeting and discuss the issue and agree a way forward from there. Even if this risk of conflict had materialised already (i.e. the meeting took place before you got together as a board), it would have made sense to debate this as a board and have appropriate minutes of the discussion and any actions taken. If a board member was found to have taken actions that should have been declared as a potential conflict, I'd then expect a board to deal with that accordingly.

 

I accept that I don't know all the facts behind this, but I think the three that resigned made an error in doing so in that way. If as a board you couldn't agree, and therefore you felt you could not be associated (which is reasonable), then surely that was the point to resign - not before.

 

As an outsider looking in, I get the feeling that this is being run more like a golf club committee rather than a proper board. What surprised me also was that board meetings are taking place without due regard for minutes and actions of the previous meeting. Before any board meeting, the governance requires a set of minutes to be agreed from the previous meeting, and these appear to be well behind (as far as I was told by members). That's just not good enough for such an important board, and if here's a lack of diligence on such matters, it makes me wonder about the overall attitude to transparency and governance. This also then begs the question of what skills and experience these board members have if they don't understand this.

 

I saw the note referencing 40k per month in funds coming into the club, and that's great. If this club can appoint the proper people, I can only imagine how much more investment they could attract from a support just desperate to invest money in this concept. As soon as I have confidence, I'll be investing and I know plenty of others who will too.

[rbr 1,254]

What does this part (emboldened) refer to?

 

What sad reading this thread has made.

 

It's as said , his behaviour was lets just say confrontational , so much so both JB and AW had to speak to him about it , he also accused Joanne Percival of skimming profits from the lionbrand strip range , it's been ongoing since club1872s beginning , but it's very difficult for the resignees to get their side out without them throwing more dirt at club1872 .

 

The bottom line is the 2 directors who were elected on of all things their governance has been found sadly lacking and until there are fresh elections we are stuck with them .

[der Berliner 3,450]

IMHO, people running C1872 should not come from the previous organisations, which will obviously be rather difficult to manage. For one reason or another, members of the older organisations will most likely carry some sort of baggage (or perceived baggage) and thus there will be some sort of opposition, one that simply goes down to a personal level.

 

Finding such people was always a monumental task, perhaps one can ask Walter Smith or John Greig to step in for the time being?

Edited April 9, 2017 by der Berliner