jc
Junior Member
Having a small psychotic episode - will be back yesterday, maybe!
Posts: 482
|
Post by jc on Sept 3, 2015 22:44:39 GMT
No your misunderstanding the rule most likely because of the poorly way the document is constructed.
The directors quorum of a minimum of three is needed to hold the AGM meeting.
For the business of the AGM, which involves any vote such as elections, receiving the accounts, resolutions etc, there must a quorum of 20 members or 5% of the members eligible to vote at the meeting.
There are two separate occurrences.
It is possible to have an AGM where nothing is voted on and it becomes purely and information type meeting.
Likewise, if it is planned to have something where a vote is needed and insufficient members are in attendance for that vote to take place, then the Directors must ensure that they stop that piece of business from taking place. That doesn't stop the meeting continuing on the matters not requiring any vote though.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Sept 4, 2015 0:46:39 GMT
No your misunderstanding the rule most likely because of the poorly way the document is constructed. The directors quorum of a minimum of three is needed to hold the AGM meeting. For the business of the AGM, which involves any vote such as elections, receiving the accounts, resolutions etc, there must a quorum of 20 members or 5% of the members eligible to vote at the meeting. There are two separate occurrences. It is possible to have an AGM where nothing is voted on and it becomes purely and information type meeting. Likewise, if it is planned to have something where a vote is needed and insufficient members are in attendance for that vote to take place, then the Directors must ensure that they stop that piece of business from taking place. That doesn't stop the meeting continuing on the matters not requiring any vote though. still a bit puzzled by this sorry JC. Have you read the standing orders for general meetings? They are pretty clear that a general meeting can proceed without any board members present. |
|
bullinkiddy
Senior Member
Just when you thought it was all over......it is now
Posts: 1,247
|
Post by bullinkiddy on Sept 4, 2015 0:46:48 GMT
Quorum sounds like a very posh word for group.
|
|
jc
Junior Member
Having a small psychotic episode - will be back yesterday, maybe!
Posts: 482
|
Post by jc on Sept 4, 2015 7:56:51 GMT
No I haven't read the standing orders, would you PM a copy as it may well be the constitution says one thing and another document says something else.
Unless there is a consistent set of documents in one place it all becomes a miss match of interpretation .
I know the Constitution as available on the HUST website is a bust document (Clause 1 states the club is "Hereford United" which does t exist anymore for example.
The problem I see at present is we cannot be sure what rules are in place and what aren't. That will always be a wide open door to abuse if some choose that path or an big misunderstanding for those trying to do the right thing.
It's very frustrating and given that the Constitution is in desperate need of updating to reflect the serious changes of the past 9 months, I think it should be given a priority by the HUST to ensure its fit for purpose and transparent so the fans know exactly what is going on, why it's being done and what they can expect HUST to do.
Yes Quorum is a fancy word for group.
|
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Sept 4, 2015 9:07:30 GMT
Exactly how many vacancies are there? It is an important point. Technically they only need 5 elected reps on the HUST board. They could then co-opt 4 more to make up the 9. The number of positions has not been advertised as far as I am aware. |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Sept 4, 2015 9:17:54 GMT
Exactly how many vacancies are there? It is an important point. Technically they only need 5 elected reps on the HUST board. They could then co-opt 4 more to make up the 9. The number of positions has not been advertised as far as I am aware. no i don't think it has. although the requirement to notify members of the number of positions appears to have been removed from SD model election policy in the version adopted by HUST. |
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Sept 4, 2015 9:28:05 GMT
Also worth noting that all the Trust officers need to be re-appointed by the new board as its first task.
What would happen to the Hust reps on the HFC board if they were not re-appointed to their Hust positions ?
Would HFC require the new Chair etc to step up to the plate ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 10:04:15 GMT
Earlier this week I was told there had been five nominations Thanks Organic. Any chance of a Bulls News piece outlining who they are, what they stand for, and what they hope to bring to the board. It would be nice to have an idea of who we will be potentially voting for. THIS would be excellent. IMO even better if HUST or the candidates themselves were trying to run a little campaign like Grayham was on here, so at least we know what they stand for. Failing that, a piece on BN would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Sept 4, 2015 10:55:47 GMT
Thanks Organic. Any chance of a Bulls News piece outlining who they are, what they stand for, and what they hope to bring to the board. It would be nice to have an idea of who we will be potentially voting for. THIS would be excellent. IMO even better if HUST or the candidates themselves were trying to run a little campaign like Grayham was on here, so at least we know what they stand for. Failing that, a piece on BN would be great. at the risk of being dull. the SD model election policy requires all candidates to provide a short statement on what they stand for. HUST have amended their version of the policy so candidate statements are optional. |
|
