Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: AGM appointments

Expand Messages
  • bruce562901
    From an INDIVIDUAL position. There seems to be some confusion accruing on this site. Firstly I noted Mr Plunkett s comments regarding the `self-serving Board
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 16 5:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      From an INDIVIDUAL position.

      There seems to be some confusion accruing on this site.

      Firstly I noted Mr Plunkett's comments regarding the `self-serving' Board members. I ask that he places on this site his reasons for making this comment about myself. If he cannot do that then I would welcome his apology for making that accusation.

      Secondly Ian Kirk has referred to the `Rules Reform' that he and Mike Marritt were asked to undertake. This is completely untrue. Those two gentlemen were charged with the job of ensuring that the Articles of Association, Guild Rules and Guild Code of Practice were in agreement with each other. Reformation of the rules was not an issue until that had been done – as it was at last years AGM. I am very sure about this as I was the person who put forward Ian's name for the job.

      Thirdly there is discussion concerning Board appointments. There has only been ONE volunteer for the position of Guild Secretary. There were TWO volunteers for the position of Chair of Technical committee but one gentleman withdrew his offer, I have seen his letter of withdawal, leaving only one remaining. Whilst the Guild could manage without a TC Chairman, to the members' detriment, it certainly would be at a great disadvantage without a Secretary. As such I shall be casting my vote for both these volunteers and offer both support and constructive criticism if I feel it necessary.

      I refrain from comparing Artytype and the Gazette to any other group magazine because words, in one instance, would fail me. Yes, Artytype do charge us for what they are asked to do but I happen to know that our Treasurer keeps his watchful eye on them just as he does on all things pertaining to the finances of the Guild.

      Finally may I state very clearly that I am always prepared to listen to, and act upon where practical, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism either about the way I discharge my duties as a member of the Guild's Board or in the running of the E & T Service.

      Bruce Pinchbeck
      Gauge 0 Guild Executor & Trustee Chairman


      --- In Gauge0@yahoogroups.com, Ian Kirk <iankirkmodels@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hi Sandy,
      >
      >
      >
      > Roy is correct in his remembrances up to a point. Although there is nothing in the rules barring people who had resigned standing again for office I am fairly sure there was in the last code of practice. Since we seem to be recycling ex chairmen you could check with Richard Clark who was the chairman under whose auspices this code of practice was drawn up. I suspect that this was included to ensure that a specific director who had resigned at that time could not return but having been imposed it should be imposed for everyone without exception. To answer the question someone asked about the reasoning behind it I understood that the idea was that if someone resigned because for example they did not get their own way or had been asked to resign for some reason then they had demonstrated their unsuitability for a seat on the Board. My memory is perhaps not what it was and I can not remember the sanitised version given for Raymond's resignation from the Chairman's position but I do remember that it coincided with a unilateral attempt to expel Brian Lewis from the Guild. I have nothing against Raymond personally but that last was more than a little error of judgement so for that reason alone I question the wisdom of this appointment.
      >
      >
      >
      > While on the subject of old established practices and ideas I am sure that if you consulted the Vice Presidents you would find an on going opposition to traders in Board positions. Again not in the rules but established nevertheless. It was certainly always pointed out to me if ever I put my head above the parapet. The idea was I believe that it could give an unfair advantage with access to a list of 5000 potential customers. At least two of the proposed Board members are Traders. Has this thinking been abandoned? I have heard that an area rep who has recently become a trader will be asked to stand down at the end of his term ( why is it OK now but not next year? I would have thought it must be immediate or not at all) how does this sit with appointing two traders to the Board? Before anyone queries it I am defining Trader as someone who makes money from O gauge modelling. Professional modelling= trader.
      >
      >
      >
      > Perhaps this should be sorted out once and for all. I might apply for a post then!
      >
      >
      >
      > best wishes,
      >
      >
      >
      > Ian
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.