thanks Tony it does not sound -as I suspected very democratic seems like a
take over at 25p a head we just lose our vote-it could be taken over by a
company selling porn??????or worse arms tradersor even worse a vanity
press??
could be a poem here-highwaymen etc :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Frazer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: the poetry society (betterton st) vote
> 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
> >
>
|