21-12-2015, 12:19 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Patrick. Authorised by the 2102 AGM - well OK, but the minutes of 2015 don’t reflect the issues raised on this matter, or the way it was ‘authorized ‘ - objections were quite rudely overridden. What’s the problem with just making nominations in the normal way - a self-propagating ‘integrity’ committee ‘authorized’ in this way is not democratic.
Thanks Ian for positive slant, as ever, though it’s not so much whether rules are stringent or not, but the circumstances in which they are bent! One the one hand we are told how important it is to have a SC (and it could of course turn out to be important) but on the other it’s fine for the membership to be kept at arms length in deciding its composition, and a nod and a wink at the AGM should be enough by way of explanation.
Cheers
Thanks Ian for positive slant, as ever, though it’s not so much whether rules are stringent or not, but the circumstances in which they are bent! One the one hand we are told how important it is to have a SC (and it could of course turn out to be important) but on the other it’s fine for the membership to be kept at arms length in deciding its composition, and a nod and a wink at the AGM should be enough by way of explanation.
Cheers