stewarty 1,920 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 wrt to James Blair - he has said on Twitter than he will not stand for re-election. In fairness to him, that is exactly what he said he would do, once he had completed the work that was in train. With the new constitution coming soon, hopefully we can move on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,422 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 wrt to James Blair - he has said on Twitter than he will not stand for re-election. In fairness to him, that is exactly what he said he would do, once he had completed the work that was in train. With the new constitution coming soon, hopefully we can move on. When he stood for election, he did not disclose the fact that he was acting on behalf of King on the share issue. He implied that there was not any conflict of interest when there obviously has been and it seems that it's prevented C1872 from making enquiries about the subject and from putting the board of the club under and scrutiny. He's in the directors' box for every game and I've not seen anything that suggests that his C1872 position is any sort of a priority. Is the new constitution coming soon? Does it really take a lawyer over 7 months to produce one? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 I am uncomfortable with the Poll that has been sent out because it asks members to vote for both Laura and Joanne to be re-appointed to the Board, whereas some people may wish to vote for the appointment of one but not the other. The poll should have had separate boxes to tick or cross against each name not just a YES or NO to the general question; or a separate Poll for each person. I have emailed Club 1872 accordingly. This is a matter of principle and does not necessarily reflect my own personal views. It's just poor governance once again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 16, 2017 Author Share Posted May 16, 2017 I am uncomfortable with the Poll that has been sent out because it asks members to vote for both Laura and Joanne to be re-appointed to the Board, whereas some people may wish to vote for the appointment of one but not the other. The poll should have had separate boxes to tick or cross against each name not just a YES or NO to the general question; or a separate Poll for each person. I have emailed Club 1872 accordingly. This is a matter of principle and does not necessarily reflect my own personal views. It's just poor governance once again. Good point BH - as you are well aware though there is also the possibility that they want to be considered "in concert" i.e. as a package. I'm not saying that is the case - I suspect you are right in your summation though and that C1872 didn't think through the poll. On the flip side of that, both ladies were voted in at the original elections and it is likely both would be accepted again - but.... the circumstances have changed and opinions may also have changed. C1872 should have had a poll for each, not a "concert" poll. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 I am uncomfortable with the Poll that has been sent out because it asks members to vote for both Laura and Joanne to be re-appointed to the Board, whereas some people may wish to vote for the appointment of one but not the other. The poll should have had separate boxes to tick or cross against each name not just a YES or NO to the general question; or a separate Poll for each person. I have emailed Club 1872 accordingly. This is a matter of principle and does not necessarily reflect my own personal views. It's just poor governance once again. I disagree as this is not an election. You are just being asked whether they should be allowed to take up their old position. It is yes or no and not pick and choose. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 Good point BH - as you are well aware though there is also the possibility that they want to be considered "in concert" i.e. as a package. I'm not saying that is the case - I suspect you are right in your summation though and that C1872 didn't think through the poll. On the flip side of that, both ladies were voted in at the original elections and it is likely both would be accepted again - but.... the circumstances have changed and opinions may also have changed. C1872 should have had a poll for each, not a "concert" poll. I disagree as this is not an election. You are just being asked whether they should be allowed to take up their old position. It is yes or no and not pick and choose. Whilst they both resigned at the same time, they must have done so individually or if they didn't then it should have been taken as such. Directors aren't elected collectively so can't resign collectively even although they may do it at the same time; so shouldn't be re-appointed collectively. The question should have been asked in the case of each person separately. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,422 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 I disagree as this is not an election. You are just being asked whether they should be allowed to take up their old position. It is yes or no and not pick and choose. I'd agree with that. It's more the principle of whether they should be allowed to rejoin the board and not a re-election. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 16, 2017 Author Share Posted May 16, 2017 I disagree as this is not an election. You are just being asked whether they should be allowed to take up their old position. It is yes or no and not pick and choose. Are they really being asked if they are taking up their old position ? They have resigned and therefore are simply rank and file members like the rest of us. What is the process of bringing them back on board ? The constitution should speak to this... if there was one 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 (edited) I'd agree with that. It's more the principle of whether they should be allowed to rejoin the board and not a re-election. I disagree because if a person wants to vote YES to one and NO to the other they are forced to vote NO to both or YES to both. Edited May 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 16, 2017 Author Share Posted May 16, 2017 Whilst they both resigned at the same time, they must have done so individually or if they didn't then it should have been taken as such. Directors aren't elected collectively so can't resign collectively even although they may do it at the same time; so shouldn't be re-appointed collectively. The question should have been asked in the case of each person separately. Resignations and appointments are two different situations - you can't combine them as you have tried to do. Whilst Director positions aren't elected collectively the two individuals CAN run in concert - either you accept both or neither would accept re-appointment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.