It depends what you mean. there was an AGM of the poetry Society at
which a vote was taken on its proposed new constitution. There seems to
have been quite a vociferous debate and the current board of management
(or whatever they're called) were forced to seek a full ballot of the
membership.
I received my ballot form yesterday, along with the proposed new
Articles of Association of the Society. I actually have not paid much
attention to the details, but the dispute seems to centre around their
plans to separate the membership into two groups: 99.9% of the current
members would become 'Friends', retaining all the current membership
benefits, but they would only be able to vote for the 2 board members
available to said Friends. The Board has a minimum of 5, maximum of 14
members. The other Board members would be appointed. (I'll have to read
the fine print to find out exactly who does appoint these people...).
This apparently anti-democratic move is coupled with a move to permit
postal / proxy voting by the Friends for such matters as are given to
them to vote upon: currently, postal / proxy voting is not permitted at
all, which ensures that the AGM, for instance (which is always held in
London), is definitely not democratic, in so far as a large proportion
of the current membership are unable to attend it.
I get the impression anyway that the Board is a largely co-opted group,
but perhaps I am being unfair. I should add that the majority of the
changes being proposed to the Articles of Association appear to be
intended to bring the statutes into line with current legislation
governing charitable bodies, and establishing the limited liability of
the Board (which, again, as I understand it) will in fact be the only
Members in future. Their liabililty seems to be capped at 25p....
If I find out anything more I'll let you know. I may even vote, once
I've figured what I'm voting about.
Tony
On 8 Apr 2004, at 16:45, Patrick McManus wrote:
> I have not been following this -has anybody? cheers Patrick
>
|