Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 7:23:00 GMT
Well, Martin Watson, for example, cannot be voted off the board as it has already been stated that he will be serving the second year(?) of a ? year spell.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 7:31:08 GMT
Well, Martin Watson, for example, cannot be voted off the board as it has already been stated that he will be serving the second year of a ? year spell. My understanding is that all board members have to be re-elected annually. However if indeed I am wrong about it then the memberships tool is the tabling of a no confidence motion for members to vote on at the AGM if they want to remove someone who isn't required to be re-elected. Like any democratic organisation the mandate for power is given and removed by its members regardless of "terms of office" For the record I am not saying for a moment anyone needs to be removed. Nor am I saying they don't. Simply saying that if change is required then the people shouting for it have to be prepared to make it happen rather than demand that it either just happens or someone else does it for them. If people aren't prepared to do this they can hardly cry foul when nothing happens. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 7:37:38 GMT
Well, Martin Watson, for example, cannot be voted off the board as it has already been stated that he will be serving the second year of a ? year spell. My understanding is that all board members have to be re-elected annually. However if indeed I am wrong about it then the memberships tool is the tabling of a no confidence motion for members to vote on at the AGM if they want to remove someone who isn't required to be re-elected. Like any democratic organisation the mandate for power is given and removed by its members regardless of "terms of office" For the record I am not saying for a moment anyone needs to be removed. Nor am I saying they don't. Simply saying that if change is required then the people shouting for it have to be prepared to make it happen rather than demand that it either just happens or someone else does it for them. If people aren't prepared to do this they can hardly cry foul when nothing happens. To be honest, I can no longer find the article from which I took that information, so my point might as well be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Aug 25, 2015 7:47:23 GMT
Two year term for CW and MW. Which, frankly, in my view is exactly right. Bluntly the last thing the club needs is the cluster feck that would ensue if they were removed/step down.
It's early days, so it's time for a bit of perspective.
IMO of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 7:48:48 GMT
My understanding is that all board members have to be re-elected annually. However if indeed I am wrong about it then the memberships tool is the tabling of a no confidence motion for members to vote on at the AGM if they want to remove someone who isn't required to be re-elected. Like any democratic organisation the mandate for power is given and removed by its members regardless of "terms of office" For the record I am not saying for a moment anyone needs to be removed. Nor am I saying they don't. Simply saying that if change is required then the people shouting for it have to be prepared to make it happen rather than demand that it either just happens or someone else does it for them. If people aren't prepared to do this they can hardly cry foul when nothing happens. To be honest, I can no longer find the article from which I took that information, so my point might as well be ignored. I have just checked the HUST constitution and you are indeed correct. The period of office of a HUST board member is 2 years. All initial board members were required to stand down (with the option of standing for re-election) at the last AGM. Therefore by my rough calculations anyone who was elected or re-elected at the last AGM will not be required to stand again this year as they will only be 1 year into their two year terms. However, as pointed out above, a no confidence motion is the route to go down if required. Of course its also worth pointing out that an unsuccessful no confidence motion can effectively strengthen the position of its target. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 7:52:36 GMT
To be honest, I can no longer find the article from which I took that information, so my point might as well be ignored. I have just checked the HUST constitution and you are indeed correct. The period of office of a HUST board member is 2 years. All initial board members were required to stand down (with the option of standing for re-election) at the last AGM. Therefore by my rough calculations anyone who was elected or re-elected at the last AGM will not be required to stand again this year as they will only be 1 year into their two year terms. However, as pointed out above, a no confidence motion is the route to go down if required. Of course its also worth pointing out that an unsuccessful no confidence motion can effectively strengthen the position of its target. In reality, we all know that a vote of no confidence would not be successful. |
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 8:00:39 GMT
I have just checked the HUST constitution and you are indeed correct. The period of office of a HUST board member is 2 years. All initial board members were required to stand down (with the option of standing for re-election) at the last AGM. Therefore by my rough calculations anyone who was elected or re-elected at the last AGM will not be required to stand again this year as they will only be 1 year into their two year terms. However, as pointed out above, a no confidence motion is the route to go down if required. Of course its also worth pointing out that an unsuccessful no confidence motion can effectively strengthen the position of its target. In reality, we all know that a vote of no confidence would not be successful. I have no idea which way it would go to be honest. There seems to be a lot of loud voices in here that would I guess support it but its impossible to gauge how many of them are HUST members, how many of them are actually real people. I guess it would be down to anyone planning to propose any motion to ascertain the level of support for it prior to proposing it. For my money though the real key to the future direction of HUST isn't removing people who are there now. Its who fills the vacant slots that is important in my opinion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 8:05:33 GMT
I guess it would be down to anyone planning to propose any motion to ascertain the level of support for it prior to proposing it. I suppose they could put an article on Bulls News or the HUST website to gauge levels of support. |
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 8:08:07 GMT
I guess it would be down to anyone planning to propose any motion to ascertain the level of support for it prior to proposing it. I suppose they could put an article on Bulls News or the HUST website to gauge levels of support. Oh no. You clearly don't understand politics do you ? Surely its whispered conversations, nods and winks that gets things done ?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 8:10:45 GMT
I suppose they could put an article on Bulls News or the HUST website to gauge levels of support. Oh no. You clearly don't understand politics do you ? Surely its whispered conversations, nods and winks that gets things done ? OK, I'll get on to Martin Watson to see if it would be OK for him to publish an article about a vote of no confidence! |
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 8:16:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 25, 2015 8:18:01 GMT
In reality, we all know that a vote of no confidence would not be successful. I have no idea which way it would go to be honest. There seems to be a lot of loud voices in here that would I guess support it but its impossible to gauge how many of them are HUST members, how many of them are actually real people. I guess it would be down to anyone planning to propose any motion to ascertain the level of support for it prior to proposing it. For my money though the real key to the future direction of HUST isn't removing people who are there now. Its who fills the vacant slots that is important in my opinion. Which would make the forthcoming elections critical. Speaking of which hust have yet to announce who the required independent vote counter/ election chairman will be.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 8:20:27 GMT
I suppose they could put an article on Bulls News or the HUST website to gauge levels of support. Getting someone else to do your work again. Grayham, I don't want a vote of no confidence. As I have said, I believe it would be pointless. My advice is for people to leave HUST entirely, if only for the short term. |
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 8:21:14 GMT
I have no idea which way it would go to be honest. There seems to be a lot of loud voices in here that would I guess support it but its impossible to gauge how many of them are HUST members, how many of them are actually real people. I guess it would be down to anyone planning to propose any motion to ascertain the level of support for it prior to proposing it. For my money though the real key to the future direction of HUST isn't removing people who are there now. Its who fills the vacant slots that is important in my opinion. Which would make the forthcoming elections critical. Speaking of which hust have yet to announce who the required independent vote counter/ election chairman will be.... Do they have to be independant of the board or the whole organisation ? Last time if I remember rightly it was Keith hall ? I would imagine it would be the same again ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 8:29:56 GMT
Grayham, I don't want a vote of no confidence. As I have said, I believe it would be pointless. My advice is for people to leave HUST entirely, if only for the short term. But what does leaving HUST achieve? And what does people not putting themselves forward for a board position achieve? If you want change, surely you have to be a member first to propose it ? The people currently in charge do not make it easy for open dialogue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 8:30:14 GMT
Getting someone else to do your work again. Grayham, I don't want a vote of no confidence. As I have said, I believe it would be pointless. My advice is for people to leave HUST entirely, if only for the short term. Yes. There's nothing we can salvage from it, I'd suggest we let the old girl die and start a new one. There"s no other option. This time we should make it a fan run trust instead of the club controlling it. |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 25, 2015 8:47:24 GMT
Which would make the forthcoming elections critical. Speaking of which hust have yet to announce who the required independent vote counter/ election chairman will be.... Do they have to be independant of the board or the whole organisation ? Last time if I remember rightly it was Keith hall ? I would imagine it would be the same again ? I'm 95% sure that there should be an independent election committee of hust members appointed before the start of the election process chaired by somebody independent of HUST. I will check the hust election policy later and confirm. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 9:18:14 GMT
The people currently in charge do not make it easy for open dialogue. Sorry but I don't buy that argument. The HUST board should have 5-9 directors. So the "people in charge" would have no choice but to engage in open dialogue if four or five " militants " were to put themselves forward. Not an ideal situation of course, but it would mean that the 5 new members would be in a position to not only keep an eye on the "people in charge" but also be in a position to influence policy. The HFC board members (who are themselves selected by the HFC 'Super-Share' shareholders) select which HUST board members go on the HFC board as representatives of HUST. If you're not wanted by the people who hold the power then you will not be selected. If your face doesn't fit then you won't be seen, and if you're singing from a different hymn sheet then your voice will not be heard. This is the problem with the whole set up. A disabling supporters trust and a selective community club. |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Aug 25, 2015 9:24:35 GMT
Are you still going to stand for election Graham ? I have no friends to propose me and if I did no one would vote for me. Everyone hates me. So it's not looking good. On the other hand, people might do a Jeremy Corbyn, join HUST just to vote me in, so that HUST loses all credibility !! Grayham.
I would vote for you. However, due to my immediate doubts regarding the motives of those setting up The Trust I chose not to join. I think my doubts have been shown to be well founded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 9:30:58 GMT
The HFC board members who are selected by the HFC 'Super-Share' shareholders select which HUST board members go on the HFC. If you're not wanted by the people who hold the power then you will not be selected. If your face doesn't fit then you won't be seen, and if you're singing from a different hymn sheet then your voice will not be heard. This is the problem with the whole set up. A disabling supporters trust and a selective community club. Sorry, I thought we were talking about the HUST board. The only guaranteed HUST director on the HFC board is the chairman of HUST. The rest of the positions would be decided by HUST, not HFC. Yes, they have a veto, but if they ever used it against someone chosen by HUST members to sit on the HFC board all hell would break loose. I haven't seen any evidence of any of that. |
|
