| Vote of no confidence thread. 18:21 - Dec 15 with 27933 views | E20Jack |
Not a member but will happily join again if this was to get off the ground.
Any members have any ideas how to do this?
Looks like the only way of stopping this deal now. I have asked several times what are the benefits of this deal, it cannot be continuing to have a voice as conceding drag rights will probably mean the Trust survives as an organisation for a shorter period than if it was to go legal. They are not long term owners.
...those who recommended the deal still have not answered.
Swans Trust,
12 Dynevor Avenue,
Neath,
SA10 7AG
I, the undersigned member, believe the current committee no longer represents the wishes of this organisation's members. I would like to register a vote of no confidence and ask you to call and extraordinary meeting of all Trust members so that we can be heard. We would like to table a motion that the following committee members should stand down and call an election at the earliest opportunity.
Alan Lewis
Stuart McDonald
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
Cath Dyer
Viv Williams
Sian Davies
Yours,
................................
** any Trust members for the deal I have missed out feel free to add or any I have included that are against it then again feel free to omit. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 20:43]
|  |
| |  |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:54 - Dec 16 with 1462 views | exiledclaseboy |
I think talk of a vote of no confidence is misplaced and counterproductive at this stage. It's a red herring. The first priority of anyone who wants a re-vote on the deal (which is what I'll be urging) is to let the Trust know the strength of feeling of its members. . Some of you did it on Thursday, others who are members have to do it now, and urgently. There's a contact section on the Trust website, it has a twitter account and facebook page and an email address. Forums like this are easily dismissed as being representative of nothing other than the forum itself. Having used it for around 15 years I know that's wrong and those who dismiss it at times like this are making a rod for their own backs. If you're a Trust member and feel strongly enough that there should be a re-vote,. use all available communications channels to tell the Trust that. And do it quickly. If you're not a member and have strong concerns about the deal and want your say, rejoin - and then do the above. Keep it clean, keep it polite, keep it non-personal. But do it.
And do it now. Please. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:56 - Dec 16 with 1453 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:48 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I know.
But you need a resolution to be able to vote on in the first place. You can't vote on a resolution which is not on the table.
And there will be a resolution for the 4 that have to offer themselves for re-election. It's mandatory so there's no way of it being avoided.
We don't know what's needed to get a resolution for the others. It may be onerous. It may not. I've pointed out what is possible irrespective of the answer to that.
It's not difficult Shaky. |
i agree it is not difficult so why not refrain from spreading more uncertainty, doubt, as well as the usual hot air? |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:56 - Dec 16 with 1454 views | monmouth |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:54 - Dec 16 by exiledclaseboy |
I think talk of a vote of no confidence is misplaced and counterproductive at this stage. It's a red herring. The first priority of anyone who wants a re-vote on the deal (which is what I'll be urging) is to let the Trust know the strength of feeling of its members. . Some of you did it on Thursday, others who are members have to do it now, and urgently. There's a contact section on the Trust website, it has a twitter account and facebook page and an email address. Forums like this are easily dismissed as being representative of nothing other than the forum itself. Having used it for around 15 years I know that's wrong and those who dismiss it at times like this are making a rod for their own backs. If you're a Trust member and feel strongly enough that there should be a re-vote,. use all available communications channels to tell the Trust that. And do it quickly. If you're not a member and have strong concerns about the deal and want your say, rejoin - and then do the above. Keep it clean, keep it polite, keep it non-personal. But do it.
And do it now. Please. |
Yep, and vote off the four at the AGM to show the strength of feeling.
Sorry shouldn’t have quoted you. Know you can’t possibly comment on that one. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 14:58]
|  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:58 - Dec 16 with 1441 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:56 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
i agree it is not difficult so why not refrain from spreading more uncertainty, doubt, as well as the usual hot air? |
What the hell are you on about? |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:06 - Dec 16 with 1413 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:54 - Dec 16 by exiledclaseboy |
I think talk of a vote of no confidence is misplaced and counterproductive at this stage. It's a red herring. The first priority of anyone who wants a re-vote on the deal (which is what I'll be urging) is to let the Trust know the strength of feeling of its members. . Some of you did it on Thursday, others who are members have to do it now, and urgently. There's a contact section on the Trust website, it has a twitter account and facebook page and an email address. Forums like this are easily dismissed as being representative of nothing other than the forum itself. Having used it for around 15 years I know that's wrong and those who dismiss it at times like this are making a rod for their own backs. If you're a Trust member and feel strongly enough that there should be a re-vote,. use all available communications channels to tell the Trust that. And do it quickly. If you're not a member and have strong concerns about the deal and want your say, rejoin - and then do the above. Keep it clean, keep it polite, keep it non-personal. But do it.
And do it now. Please. |
And there you have it, the great white hope ECB urges caution, not to rock the boat really, and to lobby for change via the Trust website feedback form.
The other option is to go for the jugular, as I have outlined.
Wake me up when something happens. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:13 - Dec 16 with 1388 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:06 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
And there you have it, the great white hope ECB urges caution, not to rock the boat really, and to lobby for change via the Trust website feedback form.
The other option is to go for the jugular, as I have outlined.
Wake me up when something happens. |
"First priority", Shaky. That's all. At the moment it's easy to dismiss the strength of feeling on here as just that, just strength of feeling on here. It'll be ignored and dismissed, this I know beyond doubt. All I'm trying to do is to get people to put their views directly to the people who can actually effect change at the moment - the Trust and specifically the Trust board. I'm not urging caution, I have no vested interest in keeping the current trust board (most of whom I've met a grand total of once) in place. All I'm trying to do at the moment is to get people who feel strongly about this to direct those views towards the people and organisation who have to become aware of them. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:14 - Dec 16 with 1383 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:06 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
And there you have it, the great white hope ECB urges caution, not to rock the boat really, and to lobby for change via the Trust website feedback form.
The other option is to go for the jugular, as I have outlined.
Wake me up when something happens. |
Shaky.
You are missing the point. It will not be possible to get signatures, arrange a special meeting etc etc in less than a few weeks. There are required notice provisions etc.
The deal could be signed on Monday. In my opinion it won't be, but theoretically it could be.
ECB's point is that the first priority must be to make sure as far as possible, this doesn't happen. Because if the deal is signed, any change in Trust board will be completely bloody irrelevant.
My point, which you obviously miss, is that it also won't be possible to get a special meeting before the AGM anyway, and no one knows what is needed for a new resolution at that AGM. So I was pointing out what's possible anyway whilst in the meantime answers to those questions can be sought. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:18 - Dec 16 with 1372 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:13 - Dec 16 by exiledclaseboy |
"First priority", Shaky. That's all. At the moment it's easy to dismiss the strength of feeling on here as just that, just strength of feeling on here. It'll be ignored and dismissed, this I know beyond doubt. All I'm trying to do is to get people to put their views directly to the people who can actually effect change at the moment - the Trust and specifically the Trust board. I'm not urging caution, I have no vested interest in keeping the current trust board (most of whom I've met a grand total of once) in place. All I'm trying to do at the moment is to get people who feel strongly about this to direct those views towards the people and organisation who have to become aware of them. |
"First priority", Shaky. That's all. At the moment it's easy to dismiss the strength of feeling on here as just that, just strength of feeling on here. It'll be ignored and dismissed, this I know beyond doubt"
Regardless of what you, I, or anybody else think, a shareholders meeting is without doubt the right place to air this kind of discussion.
It is what corporate governance rules are specifcally designed to achieve, and what's more the result has genuine democratic legitimacy given all members have a chance to cast a vote.
And there is an ideal window of opportunity to do this in the very near future, but as i said I few weeks ago people need to pull their fingers out sharpish. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 15:24]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:20 - Dec 16 with 1358 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:14 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky.
You are missing the point. It will not be possible to get signatures, arrange a special meeting etc etc in less than a few weeks. There are required notice provisions etc.
The deal could be signed on Monday. In my opinion it won't be, but theoretically it could be.
ECB's point is that the first priority must be to make sure as far as possible, this doesn't happen. Because if the deal is signed, any change in Trust board will be completely bloody irrelevant.
My point, which you obviously miss, is that it also won't be possible to get a special meeting before the AGM anyway, and no one knows what is needed for a new resolution at that AGM. So I was pointing out what's possible anyway whilst in the meantime answers to those questions can be sought. |
"There are required notice provisions etc. "
Not according to the Trust statutes there aren't. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:20 - Dec 16 with 1355 views | wobbly |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 14:30 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky, I'll explain it slowly in case you don't understand.
The rules don't make it clear what numbers you have to have to get a resolution to get rid of all board members at an AGM. As I said, Phil may well know. Or, as you point out, an email to Nigel could get that info. However, they do make it clear what you need to pass a vote on a resolution that is proposed at an AGM.
So given 4 of the elected members have to offer themselves for reelection anyway at this AGM, if it's not possible to get numbers to do anything further, you are at least able to vote to get rid of 4 in a few weeks, irrespective of anything else. It seems an easier ask in the time.
And if you were less concerned about appearing 'clever' and more concerned with what the discussion on here is trying to achieve, it may be more useful. In my opinion of course. |
This all seems very complicated? At last years AGM, they took a censure motion proposed from the floor, which was seconded and then voted on by the attendees following which the selling shareholders were sent to the naughty step. No issues of quorum, notice, proposing resolutions etc. Just did it.
Why not just wait for the AGM and do something similar. Everything else looks overly complicated to me.
It's all in the minutes if you go and read them. |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:21 - Dec 16 with 1351 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:18 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
"First priority", Shaky. That's all. At the moment it's easy to dismiss the strength of feeling on here as just that, just strength of feeling on here. It'll be ignored and dismissed, this I know beyond doubt"
Regardless of what you, I, or anybody else think, a shareholders meeting is without doubt the right place to air this kind of discussion.
It is what corporate governance rules are specifcally designed to achieve, and what's more the result has genuine democratic legitimacy given all members have a chance to cast a vote.
And there is an ideal window of opportunity to do this in the very near future, but as i said I few weeks ago people need to pull their fingers out sharpish. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 15:24]
|
What if the deal is signed before that?
I don't understand how you can't see the point that's being made. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:23 - Dec 16 with 1346 views | E20Jack |
I am still edging towards the letters.
I think a focused effort by 120 members will also make them more likely to attend the meeting off the back of their letter than a general AGM. We still have to get 2/3rds of the room to vote in the favour of this at the end of the day.
If we don't get the 120 letters then that doesn't hurt the chances of the fallback which is the 20 showing of hands at the AGM does it? | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:26 - Dec 16 with 1332 views | exhmrc1 |
the problem is that according to the Trust the people are elected to 31 July each year. Their terms don't end at the AGM so unless there is a no confidence motion they continue until then. Furthermore they don't elect 4 a year but 6 one year and 5 the next. Don't know where this comes from. It appears likely they have not been elected in accordance with the model rules in place at the time.
There are six vacancies to be filled for the 2017 election year
This is taken off the elections section of the website | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:28 - Dec 16 with 1323 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:21 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
What if the deal is signed before that?
I don't understand how you can't see the point that's being made. |
Nothing you can do about that.
But an EGM requires 28 days notice, and once given extends any meeting and conclusion into the second half of January.
According to Uxbridge an AGM will happen before then and sets a significantly lower bar to pass resolutions. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:30 - Dec 16 with 1320 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:20 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
"There are required notice provisions etc. "
Not according to the Trust statutes there aren't. |
Read Clause 33 and Clause 34.
They are allowed up to 28 days before holding a special meeting called in response to a members requisition (clause 33). The minimum notice that can be given is 14 days (clause 34).
In the meantime, the deal gets signed.
And that doesn't allow for the time taken to collect over 110 signatures. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:31 - Dec 16 with 1311 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:26 - Dec 16 by exhmrc1 |
the problem is that according to the Trust the people are elected to 31 July each year. Their terms don't end at the AGM so unless there is a no confidence motion they continue until then. Furthermore they don't elect 4 a year but 6 one year and 5 the next. Don't know where this comes from. It appears likely they have not been elected in accordance with the model rules in place at the time.
There are six vacancies to be filled for the 2017 election year
This is taken off the elections section of the website |
The company statutes have preeminence, setting out the powers of the members voting at the AGM/EGM.
And they give members the power to remove officers at an AGM. Clearly.
There is no discusison about that, only a relatively minor point about how resolutions need to be tabled, but judging by Wobbly's comment and my earlier conjecture that is not an issue. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 15:35]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:33 - Dec 16 with 1303 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:30 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Read Clause 33 and Clause 34.
They are allowed up to 28 days before holding a special meeting called in response to a members requisition (clause 33). The minimum notice that can be given is 14 days (clause 34).
In the meantime, the deal gets signed.
And that doesn't allow for the time taken to collect over 110 signatures. |
Lisa, the AGM is not a special meeting! | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:35 - Dec 16 with 1294 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:28 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Nothing you can do about that.
But an EGM requires 28 days notice, and once given extends any meeting and conclusion into the second half of January.
According to Uxbridge an AGM will happen before then and sets a significantly lower bar to pass resolutions. |
I know. That's why I said there are notice provisions, which you disagreed with in the last post, and are now quoting.
And yes the AGM sets a lower bar to pass resolutions (which was the point I made) but doesn't say what is required to get a resolution onto the agenda. Which is why I said that Phil may know.
But we know of one resolution that has to be there, which is the reelection of four Trust board members.
ECB is trying to address the deal getting signed before that.
If the deal is signed before the board is changed, it is all completely irrelevant. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:36 - Dec 16 with 1291 views | swanseajack4eva |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:14 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky.
You are missing the point. It will not be possible to get signatures, arrange a special meeting etc etc in less than a few weeks. There are required notice provisions etc.
The deal could be signed on Monday. In my opinion it won't be, but theoretically it could be.
ECB's point is that the first priority must be to make sure as far as possible, this doesn't happen. Because if the deal is signed, any change in Trust board will be completely bloody irrelevant.
My point, which you obviously miss, is that it also won't be possible to get a special meeting before the AGM anyway, and no one knows what is needed for a new resolution at that AGM. So I was pointing out what's possible anyway whilst in the meantime answers to those questions can be sought. |
So Lisa is there a reason that you and the new Trust Board members do not do what is suggested in the post with link below? This would reduce the likelihood that the Trust Chairman signs the deal on Monday, which as you say would make changes to the Trust Board irrelevant. Maybe you and the new Trust board members have taken these steps already? The new Chairman certainly acts as though he badly wants to sign this deal ASAP.
FAO new Trust board members: action on the proposed share sale by Outsider 16 Dec 2017 8:14Please can you collectively request in writing to the Trust chairman and existing board members that the proposed share sale be paused until you have had adequate time to review the proposal properly, with external specialist assistance as necessary, and decide on your considered opinions.
I would recommend that you also inform the chairman and other board members that if they do not agree to this request in writing, that you plan to resign immediately, which I believe would leave the board non-quorate again and therefore not able to legally proceed with the proposed share sale. Article 54 of the Trust Model Rules states “With effect from the society’s first annual general meeting, the society board is to have not less than 12 and not more than 15 members …”
With ex-chairman Phil Sumbler confirming in writing yesterday that he no longer believes the proposed share sale is in the best interests of the Swans Trust (which means the vote by Trust members in the summer was influenced by information that Phil Sumbler no longer supports), there are material grounds to insist that the Trust board does not proceed with the proposed share sale and re-examines its options, including legal action, and further consults with ordinary Trust members.
Without making your expectations to the chairman and other board members very clear and documenting them, there is risk that the existing Trust board will proceed to sign-off on the proposed share sale based on the mandate they received from the member vote in the summer. The opinions expressed by the Trust chairman and other board members at the Trust forum meeting last Thursday illustrates the reality of this risk.
Thank you for representing the ordinary members of the Trust and ensuring that the Trust board takes decisions that are in the best interests of the Trust.
|  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:36 - Dec 16 with 1289 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:35 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I know. That's why I said there are notice provisions, which you disagreed with in the last post, and are now quoting.
And yes the AGM sets a lower bar to pass resolutions (which was the point I made) but doesn't say what is required to get a resolution onto the agenda. Which is why I said that Phil may know.
But we know of one resolution that has to be there, which is the reelection of four Trust board members.
ECB is trying to address the deal getting signed before that.
If the deal is signed before the board is changed, it is all completely irrelevant. |
You are going round in circles. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:36 - Dec 16 with 1287 views | wobbly |
The AGM will also happen before any EGM gets scheduled. It has to. And Uxbridge has already said that there is very little chance of the deal getting done before the AGM. Lawyers have Christmas holidays too,
So, go to AGM, propose motion, second it. Vote on it. If more than half the room vote in favour, it passes. Job done. The rest of the posts around special meetings, notices, 120 letters etc is just noise. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:37 - Dec 16 with 1280 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:33 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Lisa, the AGM is not a special meeting! |
I know that.
I said that if a special meeting is convened it requires more time as there's are notice provisions. You said there weren't. I have just shown you there are.
Shaky, I think you're missing my point here. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:38 - Dec 16 with 1271 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:36 - Dec 16 by wobbly |
The AGM will also happen before any EGM gets scheduled. It has to. And Uxbridge has already said that there is very little chance of the deal getting done before the AGM. Lawyers have Christmas holidays too,
So, go to AGM, propose motion, second it. Vote on it. If more than half the room vote in favour, it passes. Job done. The rest of the posts around special meetings, notices, 120 letters etc is just noise. |
Great, so are you going to push the members to attend this meeting? | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:40 - Dec 16 with 1258 views | wobbly |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:38 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Great, so are you going to push the members to attend this meeting? |
I strongly believe The members should go to the AGM and vote on the motion. Either for or against, according to their views.
One of the members should propose the motion. And take a friend to second it.
There you go, buddy. Job done. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:40 - Dec 16 with 1257 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:20 - Dec 16 by wobbly |
This all seems very complicated? At last years AGM, they took a censure motion proposed from the floor, which was seconded and then voted on by the attendees following which the selling shareholders were sent to the naughty step. No issues of quorum, notice, proposing resolutions etc. Just did it.
Why not just wait for the AGM and do something similar. Everything else looks overly complicated to me.
It's all in the minutes if you go and read them. |
They probably don't have to accept a motion from the floor unless they want to, choosing to accept one one year doesn't mean they have to do the same another year.
As I said, someone would need to check. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
