Recommended Posts

All evidence will be available in a hard copy at the AGM for people to look at should they wish to.

The vote of no confidence was formally proposed, seconded and carried with a majority.  A further vote was taken to remove Annette Bell from the committee, which again was formally proposed, seconded and carried with a majority.  Both votes were open to the entire committee including Annette, no committee members have been excluded from voting at any time.  All this can be seen in evidence at the AGM.  Annette claimed that we could not have a vote of no confidence as the charity was suspended, contrary to what the charity commission had told us in a recorded (with permission) telephone call where they told us that we are still a fully functioning charity.  We have asked Annette for written evidence from the charity commission to prove her claims numerous times, which Annette has been either unwilling or unable to produce.  It is Annette’s unilateral word against the word of the Charity Commission, who are the people from whom she claims to have the authority.  You need to bear in mind that Annette was happy to accept the result of vote to vote her in as chair in November and other votes that have been held (several she ran were not seconded), yet she refuses this vote considering that it was formally proposed, seconded and supported by the majority of the committee.

The committee is behind the fact that some things need modernising and we need to fulfil our legal requirements.  However this need to be done correctly, one of the main reason that we have asked that legal advice is sought on the matter.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dunc said:

True Stephen, and I'd like to hear both sides. But, not on Facebook.  I think a members only area should be set up on the society web pages and all the evidence from both parties deposited there for the membershìp to review. As I doubt this will be easily resolved I think it should then be for the membership to decide. 

I will put this suggestion to the rest of the committee, Dunc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunc, I agree that the discussions should not take place on Facebook. The Cps post is however extremely personal and not helpful to the situation! I am happy to facilitate discussions twixt the committee and the “rebel alliance”....

Adrian, not being part of the discussions relating to the options for the society, the way it was explained to me was that we were not fulfilling our legal obligations as a charity, and if we did not want to be a charity then one option is to reform as a non-charitable society, a suggestion I believe, no more....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Picavorus said:
All evidence will be available in a hard copy at the AGM for people to look at should they wish to.

The vote of no confidence was formally proposed, seconded and carried with a majority.  A further vote was taken to remove Annette Bell from the committee, which again was formally proposed, seconded and carried with a majority.  Both votes were open to the entire committee including Annette, no committee members have been excluded from voting at any time.  All this can be seen in evidence at the AGM.  Annette claimed that we could not have a vote of no confidence as the charity was suspended, contrary to what the charity commission had told us in a recorded (with permission) telephone call where they told us that we are still a fully functioning charity.  We have asked Annette for written evidence from the charity commission to prove her claims numerous times, which Annette has been either unwilling or unable to produce.  It is Annette’s unilateral word against the word of the Charity Commission, who are the people from whom she claims to have the authority.  You need to bear in mind that Annette was happy to accept the result of vote to vote her in as chair in November and other votes that have been held (several she ran were not seconded), yet she refuses this vote considering that it was formally proposed, seconded and supported by the majority of the committee.

The committee is behind the fact that some things need modernising and we need to fulfil our legal requirements.  However this need to be done correctly, one of the main reason that we have asked that legal advice is sought on the matter.

 

I thought that anyone dismissed for “bringing the society into disrepute “ had to be given written notice and a chance to appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has been dismissed from the Society. Who told you that? This is rumourmongering.

The vote of no confidence was formally proposed, seconded and carried with a majority.  

 

Edited by Flick
Spacing.
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now