jc
Junior Member
Having a small psychotic episode - will be back yesterday, maybe!
Posts: 482
|
Post by jc on Sept 11, 2015 12:09:20 GMT
I am not on the board of HUST so I do not know what HUST then do.
What I do know is that there is supposed to be an Election Policy which dictates what should happen.
I have spent some time trying to obtain it from HUST but a definite version has not been forthcoming.
This is where I thank Andy Carr whom first gave me what he thought was the policy, and when I queried it, he later came back and apologised saying he gave me the wrong one and an earlier version was then provided.
It appeared from that document several points had either not been followed or were circumnavigated. I am not suggesting that was deliberate as having the two documents in place would always lead to confusion.
Several questions regarding the validity of any of the coming elections have now been asked of the EGM chairman, Roger Groves of ShrewTrust.
I have not heard that those queries have been answered yet.
This is where transparancy is needed.
My opinion at present is the AGM including the elections should be delayed until it is determined exactly what procedures and methods are going to be democratically deployed.
If after that the very same nominations are approved then they will have my fullest support
|
|
|
|
Post by bazbodenham on Sept 11, 2015 12:09:55 GMT
In answer to Oldmeadowender:-
Or joining it and changing it from inside!
Bl**dy 'ell, you type fast JC.
|
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Sept 11, 2015 12:11:05 GMT
The concept of an interview to stand for election seems pretty mad, unless it's just to check that the person standing really is a H(U)FC fan, which should be the only real requirement. Actually I disagree. I think an interview is very appropriate. In a round about way there is a requirement for any HUST board director to pass the owners and directors test as there is a possibility of being elected to the HFC board. There will also be those ineligible or incapable of doing the job say because they live in New Zealand or at Her Majesties Pleasure and wouldn't be able to attend the monthly meetings.
The interview should be a way of explaining to the potential candidate the duties and responsibilities expected and for the potential candidate to consider if they are still suitable for the role. Interviews work both ways I might indeed be languishing in a New Zealand prison, but I will only tell Martin Watson face to face (when I'm released). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 12:14:21 GMT
I see, with some amusement, these people are
"Nominees"
(Messrs. Watson, Williams and Langford).
I presume these people are actually "nominators"?
A nominee is somebody who is nominated, or are they nominating themselves, forgetting just who they themselves are?
More tinpot.
FFS.
|
|
jc
Junior Member
Having a small psychotic episode - will be back yesterday, maybe!
Posts: 482
|
Post by jc on Sept 11, 2015 12:16:13 GMT
Yes I am aware of someone eligible to stand whom had two nominees from non HUST Board members submitted on time whose details are not presently on the list of those to be consider for election. Will they be at the HUST meeting so they can ask why they aren't on the list? I doubt it. The person is a retired solicitor and has a reputation for being firm but fair and is not afraid to ask the difficult questions and get to the difficult answers. The person feels they are and will be unwelcome now within the HUST board and will not be able to do the job justice due to the way this matter has been handled. They feel attending the AGM now will just antagonise an already difficult situation and all they want is to move on. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Sept 11, 2015 12:31:15 GMT
I see, with some amusement, these people are
"Nominees"
(Messrs. Watson, Williams and Langford).
I presume these people are actually "nominators"?
A nominee is somebody who is nominated, or are they nominating themselves, forgetting just who they themselves are?
More tinpot.
FFS.
Perhaps Watson, Williams and Langford are standing again, and the poor grammar is a ruse? Very cunning. |
|
Skomer
Junior Member
Posts: 442
|
Post by Skomer on Sept 11, 2015 12:32:05 GMT
JC's comments above explain why I am finding it difficult to locate the election rules - but the following is interesting:
Rule 64 of HUST constitution: The society's election policy will comply with the guidance issued by Supporters Direct
From supporters direct:
2.6 “EMG” means the Election Management Group.
3.1. In advance of the commencement of the election, the Society Board will appoint members of the Society (who with the exception of the Secretary may not include serving Society board members) to form the EMG
3.3. Members of the EMG shall not be eligible to nominate candidates nor be a candidate themselves and shall ensure that they are not associated closely with any candidates and have proper regard to maintaining the integrity of the election process.
The EMG shall make the final decision as the eligibility of candidates, nominations and valid votes
So who is the HUST EGM, have they nominated any candidates and are they associated with any candidates?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 12:41:57 GMT
I see, with some amusement, these people are
"Nominees"
(Messrs. Watson, Williams and Langford).
I presume these people are actually "nominators"?
A nominee is somebody who is nominated, or are they nominating themselves, forgetting just who they themselves are?
More tinpot.
FFS.
Perhaps Watson, Williams and Langford are standing again, and the poor grammar is a ruse? Very cunning. Well, the plot certainly thickens. In the case of one of them, it is eminently possible that he's lost track of who he is?
|
|
|
|
Post by lexington on Sept 11, 2015 12:46:39 GMT
JC's comments above explain why I am finding it difficult to locate the election rules - but the following is interesting: Rule 64 of HUST constitution: The society's election policy will comply with the guidance issued by Supporters Direct From supporters direct: 2.6 “EMG” means the Election Management Group. 3.1. In advance of the commencement of the election, the Society Board will appoint members of the Society (who with the exception of the Secretary may not include serving Society board members) to form the EMG 3.3. Members of the EMG shall not be eligible to nominate candidates nor be a candidate themselves and shall ensure that they are not associated closely with any candidates and have proper regard to maintaining the integrity of the election process. The EMG shall make the final decision as the eligibility of candidates, nominations and valid votes So who is the HUST EGM, have they nominated any candidates and are they associated with any candidates? In other words, the HUST board have not rejected any applications. It is the EMG. Whether or not HUST or the EMG have Munselyed a candidate, isn't it all a bit odd. I mean, HUST is actively crying out for board members. Of course, if a potential nominee is at HM's pleasure then fair enough. But, I can't think of any other reason why a candidate shouldn't be allowed to stand, other than they somehow buggered up their application. But again, if HUST needs board members, wouldn't the prudent thing to do be to overlook incorrect form filling? Do we now need to seek out the EMG Chair and have a face to face? |
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Sept 11, 2015 12:47:26 GMT
I have had concerns regarding the election and the AGM for some time. I have written to the Chair of the EMG with these concerns.
This was done before reading this thread and there are issues being raised that cause further concern.
Just summarising the points being made.
# There is absolutely no requirement for an interview.
# Were all candidates subject to this and why?
# It is astonishing that a candidate that, allegedly, stated that he would hold the board to account and then find himself (herself) not on the list.
# It is even more astonishing that the Secretary, who would be party to this decision, has personally nominated most of the accepted candidates.
# Further to this there arent any candidates who have not got the endorsement of the Trust board and by extension HFC. What price independence.
This must be the worst election ever held by the worst trust in the UK.
I have never met any of the principals involved but my suspicion is that representatives of North Korea will be attending next thursday night and will be making copious notes on what passes for process in Hereford.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 11, 2015 12:48:37 GMT
JC's comments above explain why I am finding it difficult to locate the election rules - but the following is interesting: Rule 64 of HUST constitution: The society's election policy will comply with the guidance issued by Supporters Direct From supporters direct: 2.6 “EMG” means the Election Management Group. 3.1. In advance of the commencement of the election, the Society Board will appoint members of the Society (who with the exception of the Secretary may not include serving Society board members) to form the EMG 3.3. Members of the EMG shall not be eligible to nominate candidates nor be a candidate themselves and shall ensure that they are not associated closely with any candidates and have proper regard to maintaining the integrity of the election process. The EMG shall make the final decision as the eligibility of candidates, nominations and valid votes So who is the HUST EGM, have they nominated any candidates and are they associated with any candidates? In other words, the HUST board have not rejected any applications. It is the EMG. More to the point, although the Secretary (Martin?) can be on the EMG, he cannot (as an existing Board member) nominate a candidate?
Seems we have no candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexington on Sept 11, 2015 12:53:09 GMT
I have had concerns regarding the election and the AGM for some time. I have written to the Chair of the EMG with these concerns. This was done before reading this thread and there are issues being raised that cause further concern. Just summarising the points being made. # There is absolutely no requirement for an interview. # Were all candidates subject to this and why? # It is astonishing that a candidate that, allegedly, stated that he would hold the board to account and then find himself (herself) not on the list. # It is even more astonishing that the Secretary, who would be party to this decision, has personally nominated most of the accepted candidates. # Further to this there arent any candidates who have not got the endorsement of the Trust board and by extension HFC. What price independence. This must be the worst election ever held by the worst trust in the UK. I have never met any of the principals involved but my suspicion is that representatives of North Korea will be attending next thursday night and will be making copious notes on what passes for process in Hereford. Kim Jong Mun might be putting in a special appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by HamptonParkBull on Sept 11, 2015 12:54:04 GMT
In other words, the HUST board have not rejected any applications. It is the EMG. More to the point, although the Secretary (Martin?) can be on the EMG, he cannot (as an existing Board member) nominate a candidate?
Seems we have no candidates.
Is Martin Secretary of HUST? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 12:56:53 GMT
More to the point, although the Secretary (Martin?) can be on the EMG, he cannot (as an existing Board member) nominate a candidate?
Seems we have no candidates.
Is Martin Secretary of HUST? He was last time there was an update, although he might have handed it over to Munsley by now. Edit - oh I see, perhaps he's just HFC secretary. That makes it all OK then. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmeadowender on Sept 11, 2015 12:57:51 GMT
In answer to Oldmeadowender:- Or joining it and changing it from inside! Bl**dy 'ell, you type fast JC. That hasn't seen our democracy improve since I stopped voting. If you'd all stopped voting too, there would have been panic and a better system would have been born out of it. Instead we got illegal wars...sorry I'm beginning to bore MYSELF now... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 13:01:46 GMT
Tell me grayham, who are the EMG?
|
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Sept 11, 2015 13:02:14 GMT
In other words, the HUST board have not rejected any applications. It is the EMG. More to the point, although the Secretary (Martin?) can be on the EMG, he cannot (as an existing Board member) nominate a candidate?
Seems we have no candidates.
As a board member he can nominate people. However as somebody involved with, or part of, the EMG he cannot. Of course the membership of the EMG has not been made public. The Chair is Roger Groves of the Shrews Trust. rogermgroves@btinternet.com Mr Groves has to rely on the judgement of the Secretary (Mr Watson) in deciding eligibility. It is difficult to ascertain the clear blue water between Mr Watson and the election process. |
|
|
|
Post by BullRush on Sept 11, 2015 13:04:08 GMT
I have had concerns regarding the election and the AGM for some time. I have written to the Chair of the EMG with these concerns. This was done before reading this thread and there are issues being raised that cause further concern. Just summarising the points being made. # There is absolutely no requirement for an interview....... correct. The person involved had an informal chat.# Were all candidates subject to this and why?.... No, unless they too asked for a chat# It is astonishing that a candidate that, allegedly, stated that he would hold the board to account and then find himself (herself) not on the list...... HUST do not choose who is on the list. It is the EMG.
# It is even more astonishing that the Secretary, who would be party to this decision, has personally nominated most of the accepted candidates.... see above # Further to this there arent any candidates who have not got the endorsement of the Trust board and by extension HFC. What price independence..... no other candidates, if there were any others, were deemed suitable by the EMGThis must be the worst election ever held by the worst trust in the UK...... Seems to be not the case from the answers I have givenI have never met any of the principals involved but my suspicion is that representatives of North Korea will be attending next thursday night and will be making copious notes on what passes for process in Hereford. The above answers are my take on the matter only. I'm sorry but I suspect you're speaking on behalf of somebody. I was also under the impression you were going to stand? |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 11, 2015 13:05:16 GMT
More to the point, although the Secretary (Martin?) can be on the EMG, he cannot (as an existing Board member) nominate a candidate?
Seems we have no candidates.
Is Martin Secretary of HUST? No idea, but he's certainly a HUST Board member. Likewise, other Board members like Chris Williams are also forbidden from nominating candidates according to the SD directive.
Hence, there are no candidates?
|
|
|
|
Post by HamptonParkBull on Sept 11, 2015 13:06:04 GMT
Is Martin Secretary of HUST? He was last time there was an update, although he might have handed it over to Munsley by now. Edit - oh I see, perhaps he's just HFC secretary. That makes it all OK then. That's my thinking. He's HUST Vice Chsirman |
|
