Post by tommytainant on Sept 11, 2015 14:24:00 GMT
My Complaint to the EMG Chair was sent yesterday before this thread was started.
I thought that I would publish it here in the interests of transparency.
###########################################################################################
I have some concerns as to the running and validity of this election and would like to run through them in brief.
As you are aware any standing orders for the conduct of elections “must comply with any guidance from Supporters Direct.”
I take this to mean that Supporters Direct guidelines, policies and best practice documents , as a minimum must be followed. Any changes agreed to by the HUST board must be in addition to the Supporters Direct policies and not in place of. Neither should sections of the policies be jettisoned in their entirety.
These policies include:
Trust Constitution
Election Policy
Board Membership Policy
Supporters Direct best practice document
SD and the Co-opertive movement have a wealth of experience in running free and fair elections and not following their guidance is something that should not be taken lightly and should also be explained to the wider membership.
A board that alters these policies should justify their alterations and be prepared to discuss their thinking. Not to do so runs the risk of an accusation of being self serving.
There are changes that have been made in regards to the Election Policy which concern me.
In particular;
The recommended SD policy states this.
4.2. The Board shall agree the number of vacancies to be elected; if the numbers to be elected differs from the numbers elected in previous years, or changes the number of places to be elected in total on the Society Board, then the reasons why the change has been made shall be communicated to members in the form soliciting nominations.
The Hust policy states this.
4.2. The Board shall agree the number of vacancies to be elected.
Under the HUST policy there is no requirement on the board to inform members as to the number of positions available. The dangers here are obvious. The HUST board comprises of 9 places. However only 5 need to be elected and the Board can then co-opt the other 4 in order to make up the numbers.
There is no indication how many places are available.The potential is there for the board to count the votes and then decide how many of the candidates it wants. Supporter Trusts face a constant battle for credibility with the wider public. It is vital that all Trusts stick to the script and run a transparent and fair election.
Supporters Direct best practice document lists the above as required.
Nomination notices should clearly indicate:
- How many people will be elected
This policy should not have been altered and the revision should not form the basis for an election.
Your notice on the 29th of June made no mention of this.
I need to clarify that I am not accusing the current board is guilty of anything. However the door is open and the potential is there for those less principled.
My second point , I am sorry to say, is a criticism of yourself and your colleagues on the EMG.This concerns the actual timetable of the election.
You originally sent out a notice of the nomination process on June 29th. This is well within the timetable of the election policy
4.3. The Secretary will circulate a nomination form with advance notice of the AGM at least eight weeks before the AGM.
However the mistake has been made with regards to the closing dates for nominations which was given as September 3rd. You will be aware that the HUST constitution requires notice of an AGM to be given 14 days before the date of the meeting. This notice requires that it includes the following action.
35.2.4 indicate the business to be dealt with
No notice has been sent out to date and there are just 7 days till the election. Of course there is a rough idea of what could happen at the AGM. But currently there is no list of candidates and their election statements.
There is no indication that there will be an election or an affirmation process. There is no indication if proxy votes will be allowed or what that process would be.
The Trust have been mute on the election issue and have given no guidance on any aspect of it.
Outside of the election the same holds true for the other AGM business where members have not been provided with any indication of the business to be transacted. There havent even been financial accounts produced.
I believe that the EMG should have brought forward the closing date for nominations in order to give yourselves time to produce the required election and AGM notice.
All of the points raised are at variance with the SD best practice document which, as you will be aware lists points as either “required” or “recommended”.“Required” , as you can imagine has to be actioned or risk the whole process falling into disrepute.
Finally , it has taken me several days and several e mails to be given your details as the Chair.I believe that these should have been listed on the HUST website at the start of the process. The impression given is that the whole process is shrouded in secrecy and this does not give confidence.
I have also been shown two versions of the HUST election poliy and there seems to be some confusion as to which one is being used for this election. There are no policies on the trust website apart from the constitution.
As a former Trust official I do appreciate that there is a lot to do and sometimes this is where errors creep in.
I believe that the Election shoud be postponed until such time as the above can be rectified. In my experience members would appreciate this.
Failure to run the election properly brings the trust into disrepute and risks any decision taken by the board being challenged by others.
Herefords fan base are a radicalised bunch and there are some who would be happy to trash the good name of the Trust.
Once again thank you for taking some time to consider this and best of luck for the rest of the season.
I thought that I would publish it here in the interests of transparency.
###########################################################################################
I have some concerns as to the running and validity of this election and would like to run through them in brief.
As you are aware any standing orders for the conduct of elections “must comply with any guidance from Supporters Direct.”
I take this to mean that Supporters Direct guidelines, policies and best practice documents , as a minimum must be followed. Any changes agreed to by the HUST board must be in addition to the Supporters Direct policies and not in place of. Neither should sections of the policies be jettisoned in their entirety.
These policies include:
Trust Constitution
Election Policy
Board Membership Policy
Supporters Direct best practice document
SD and the Co-opertive movement have a wealth of experience in running free and fair elections and not following their guidance is something that should not be taken lightly and should also be explained to the wider membership.
A board that alters these policies should justify their alterations and be prepared to discuss their thinking. Not to do so runs the risk of an accusation of being self serving.
There are changes that have been made in regards to the Election Policy which concern me.
In particular;
The recommended SD policy states this.
4.2. The Board shall agree the number of vacancies to be elected; if the numbers to be elected differs from the numbers elected in previous years, or changes the number of places to be elected in total on the Society Board, then the reasons why the change has been made shall be communicated to members in the form soliciting nominations.
The Hust policy states this.
4.2. The Board shall agree the number of vacancies to be elected.
Under the HUST policy there is no requirement on the board to inform members as to the number of positions available. The dangers here are obvious. The HUST board comprises of 9 places. However only 5 need to be elected and the Board can then co-opt the other 4 in order to make up the numbers.
There is no indication how many places are available.The potential is there for the board to count the votes and then decide how many of the candidates it wants. Supporter Trusts face a constant battle for credibility with the wider public. It is vital that all Trusts stick to the script and run a transparent and fair election.
Supporters Direct best practice document lists the above as required.
Nomination notices should clearly indicate:
- How many people will be elected
This policy should not have been altered and the revision should not form the basis for an election.
Your notice on the 29th of June made no mention of this.
I need to clarify that I am not accusing the current board is guilty of anything. However the door is open and the potential is there for those less principled.
My second point , I am sorry to say, is a criticism of yourself and your colleagues on the EMG.This concerns the actual timetable of the election.
You originally sent out a notice of the nomination process on June 29th. This is well within the timetable of the election policy
4.3. The Secretary will circulate a nomination form with advance notice of the AGM at least eight weeks before the AGM.
However the mistake has been made with regards to the closing dates for nominations which was given as September 3rd. You will be aware that the HUST constitution requires notice of an AGM to be given 14 days before the date of the meeting. This notice requires that it includes the following action.
35.2.4 indicate the business to be dealt with
No notice has been sent out to date and there are just 7 days till the election. Of course there is a rough idea of what could happen at the AGM. But currently there is no list of candidates and their election statements.
There is no indication that there will be an election or an affirmation process. There is no indication if proxy votes will be allowed or what that process would be.
The Trust have been mute on the election issue and have given no guidance on any aspect of it.
Outside of the election the same holds true for the other AGM business where members have not been provided with any indication of the business to be transacted. There havent even been financial accounts produced.
I believe that the EMG should have brought forward the closing date for nominations in order to give yourselves time to produce the required election and AGM notice.
All of the points raised are at variance with the SD best practice document which, as you will be aware lists points as either “required” or “recommended”.“Required” , as you can imagine has to be actioned or risk the whole process falling into disrepute.
Finally , it has taken me several days and several e mails to be given your details as the Chair.I believe that these should have been listed on the HUST website at the start of the process. The impression given is that the whole process is shrouded in secrecy and this does not give confidence.
I have also been shown two versions of the HUST election poliy and there seems to be some confusion as to which one is being used for this election. There are no policies on the trust website apart from the constitution.
As a former Trust official I do appreciate that there is a lot to do and sometimes this is where errors creep in.
I believe that the Election shoud be postponed until such time as the above can be rectified. In my experience members would appreciate this.
Failure to run the election properly brings the trust into disrepute and risks any decision taken by the board being challenged by others.
Herefords fan base are a radicalised bunch and there are some who would be happy to trash the good name of the Trust.
Once again thank you for taking some time to consider this and best of luck for the rest of the season.
