On 12/02/07, Guy Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve > Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >On 12/02/07, Brian Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > My initial reactioin is that in principle I agree with the > approach, provided the "trustees" are elected by a vote of the whole > membership.
Absolutely. This is a key point, and it no use trying to denigrate the importance of the trustees by suggesting as it does in the consultation document that actually the trustees not really very important because they're only going to be 'concentrating on formulating overall policy for the charity' and that the rest is somehow going to be delegated to other committees. Pull the other one. The fact is, the trustees will run the organisation. And it is right that they should run itt. There should be no qualifications on who stands as a trustee, any more than who stands for an MP. And election should be by some form of universal suffrage, postal or electronic; not hands raised at some out-of-the-way AGM like a union strike vote in some 1970s car plant car park. This is a critical decision for the organisation. It is hemorrhaging membership, it is unwieldy and unrepresentative. Now is the time to put it right. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
