I cannot attend the AGM as I am about to go away for two weeks but I do not support the resolution as it stands, for two reasons: 1. I can see that there is a strong argument for widening the pool of potential trustees where specialist knowledge or skills are needed, but I would be uncomfortable with a constitution that potentially allowed the entire Board of Trustees to be people with no real connection to the Society. I would support an amendment which ensured that a majority of the Board consisted of persons who had been members of the Society for say 3 years before election, and that the rest were members at the time of their election. (If we allow some trustees to be elected as soon as they join the Society, then the qualifying period for the majority need not be as short as one year.) Surely the main specialist knowledge that at least a majority of our trustees should have is a basic understanding of genealogical research? 2. The present draft does not make sense, from a technical point of view. If what it means to say is that no-one shall be elected as a trustee unless they are a member of the Society at the time of their election, and undertake to remain a member for as long as they remain a trustee, then it should say precisely that. We would then need to add a provision that a trustee automatically ceases to be a trustee on ceasing to be a member of the Society. Presumably "throughout the term of his or her election" is intended to mean "throughout the term for which he or she was elected", though it really isn't clear. If so, the draft seems to say that no-one can be elected as a trustee unless it is known that they will be a member throughout the term of their trusteeship. This involves the impossible task of predicting the future. Chris Pitt Lewis On 11/06/2014 11:40, Alec Tritton wrote: > Hi Julian > I shall be at the AGM this year after voting with my feet last year. > Once again we will have a change to the > constitution forced upon us by the Trustees (many > of which are hardly ever there apart from > meetings of the Trustees) without adequate debate > by the membership. We can talk about the change > at the AGM as much as we like but in reality > there will be more than enough proxy votes to > "out vote" the meeting, so it won't matter a > stuff what those who have bothered to attend think. > This clause will allow the Trustees to go to such > organisations as http://www.do-it.org.uk/ and > advertise for Volunteer trustees that they want. > May be sensible, but surely they should first > advertise for set skills amongst the membership > first? We should have considerable safeguards > built in. After all it is only a small step from > there for the Trustees to recommend certain > individuals above genuine volunteers for committee. > Proxy voting originally prevented our current > chairman from being re-elected and only by > intervention at the relevant AGM forced the then committee to co-opt him. > Actually the only way to object to constitutional > changes without discussion would be to NOT attend > the AGM so that it would not be quorate > > At 10:51 11/06/2014, jjgduffus@gmail.com wrote: >> âDear all I have now had a chance to >> read the special resolution and find that >> the proposed new wording doesn't make sense, >> as it should be presumed that you'd be a >> member of an organisation that you aspire to >> direct. The present arrangements where by >> you have to be a member for a year prior to >> taking responsibility for the society. A >> familiarity with the society must rank as a >> useful skill when being a trustee. Looking >> forward to catching up with folk at the >> AGM Julian >> Duffus Jjgduffus@gmail.com Member Sog >> 1978 to Present Sent from my BlackBerry 10 >> smartphone. ------------------------------- To >> unsubscribe from the list, please send an email >> to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7660 - Release Date: 06/11/14 > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

On 11/06/2014 2:21 PM, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote: > I cannot attend the AGM as I am about to go away for two weeks but I do > not support the resolution as it stands, for two reasons: > > 1. I can see that there is a strong argument for widening the pool of > potential trustees where specialist knowledge or skills are needed, but > I would be uncomfortable with a constitution that potentially allowed > the entire Board of Trustees to be people with no real connection to the > Society. I would support an amendment which ensured that a majority of > the Board consisted of persons who had been members of the Society for > say 3 years before election, and that the rest were members at the time > of their election. (If we allow some trustees to be elected as soon as > they join the Society, then the qualifying period for the majority need > not be as short as one year.) Surely the main specialist knowledge that > at least a majority of our trustees should have is a basic understanding > of genealogical research? > > 2. The present draft does not make sense, from a technical point of > view. If what it means to say is that no-one shall be elected as a > trustee unless they are a member of the Society at the time of their > election, and undertake to remain a member for as long as they remain a > trustee, then it should say precisely that. We would then need to add a > provision that a trustee automatically ceases to be a trustee on ceasing > to be a member of the Society. > > Presumably "throughout the term of his or her election" is intended to > mean "throughout the term for which he or she was elected", though it > really isn't clear. If so, the draft seems to say that no-one can be > elected as a trustee unless it is known that they will be a member > throughout the term of their trusteeship. This involves the impossible > task of predicting the future. > > Chris Pitt Lewis Is there no provision in the Constitution for the Trustees to co-opt to their number member[s] with the required expertise in particular field[s]? [I fear I have no time at the moment to check the small print of the Constitution.] Such a practice, with or without restrictions on such things as numbers/voting powers/terms of office/need for membership of the organisation is, in my experience, by no means uncommon among voluntary organisations. Kind regards, John Henley > > On 11/06/2014 11:40, Alec Tritton wrote: >> Hi Julian >> I shall be at the AGM this year after voting with my feet last year. >> Once again we will have a change to the >> constitution forced upon us by the Trustees (many >> of which are hardly ever there apart from >> meetings of the Trustees) without adequate debate >> by the membership. We can talk about the change >> at the AGM as much as we like but in reality >> there will be more than enough proxy votes to >> "out vote" the meeting, so it won't matter a >> stuff what those who have bothered to attend think. >> This clause will allow the Trustees to go to such >> organisations as http://www.do-it.org.uk/ and >> advertise for Volunteer trustees that they want. >> May be sensible, but surely they should first >> advertise for set skills amongst the membership >> first? We should have considerable safeguards >> built in. After all it is only a small step from >> there for the Trustees to recommend certain >> individuals above genuine volunteers for committee. >> Proxy voting originally prevented our current >> chairman from being re-elected and only by >> intervention at the relevant AGM forced the then committee to co-opt him. >> Actually the only way to object to constitutional >> changes without discussion would be to NOT attend >> the AGM so that it would not be quorate >> >> At 10:51 11/06/2014, jjgduffus@gmail.com wrote: >>> âDear all I have now had a chance to >>> read the special resolution and find that >>> the proposed new wording doesn't make sense, >>> as it should be presumed that you'd be a >>> member of an organisation that you aspire to >>> direct. The present arrangements where by >>> you have to be a member for a year prior to >>> taking responsibility for the society. A >>> familiarity with the society must rank as a >>> useful skill when being a trustee. Looking >>> forward to catching up with folk at the >>> AGM Julian >>> Duffus Jjgduffus@gmail.com Member Sog >>> 1978 to Present