27-06-2015, 12:25 PM
StevieHilton wrote:
I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership
I personally take strong exception to this and find this allegation extremely offensive and unfounded. I respectfully request that this statement be retracted.
Jim,
I had no intention of offending anyone, but I am not withdrawing the point because to me the point you raised about the use of an SGM to remove someone in a vote of no confidence is inhibited by a deposit of £100 being required in anti democratic and does discourage dissent in my view, which I have the perfect right to express.
On what grounds do you find my words offensive ?
Andy,
AGMs are no longer about election of Directors (as they are going to be staggered) meaning there is more time to discuss matters brought up by members. Personally I think that is a major plus.
Sorry Andy I have to strongly disagree with you on that point. If we as an organisation cease to include annual elections then we cease to be a democratic organisation.
the costs of staging a SGM does inhibit those who may wish to remove a director/ official in a vote of no confidence.
I understand the points being made a planning long term, but that should not stopa director/official being removed if a vote of no confidence is passed. Nothing wrong in long term plans being made
I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership
I personally take strong exception to this and find this allegation extremely offensive and unfounded. I respectfully request that this statement be retracted.
Jim,
I had no intention of offending anyone, but I am not withdrawing the point because to me the point you raised about the use of an SGM to remove someone in a vote of no confidence is inhibited by a deposit of £100 being required in anti democratic and does discourage dissent in my view, which I have the perfect right to express.
On what grounds do you find my words offensive ?
Andy,
AGMs are no longer about election of Directors (as they are going to be staggered) meaning there is more time to discuss matters brought up by members. Personally I think that is a major plus.
Sorry Andy I have to strongly disagree with you on that point. If we as an organisation cease to include annual elections then we cease to be a democratic organisation.
the costs of staging a SGM does inhibit those who may wish to remove a director/ official in a vote of no confidence.
I understand the points being made a planning long term, but that should not stopa director/official being removed if a vote of no confidence is passed. Nothing wrong in long term plans being made