-------------------------------------------------- From: "Dilwyn Jones" <dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:09 PM To: <ql-us...@q-v-d.com> Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] [QL-Users] Sandy Futura (PDF from Urs) Snip
John Gilpin will be standing down from his numerous committee roles at the AGM and the new post holders should quickly find that his emails suddenly arrive in their inbox, provided we (or Geoff, any ideas???) don't invent devious ways to force him to stay against his wishes ;o))
Dilwyn asked me a question just before Christmas which I deliberately did not answer as I did not wish to interfere with the democratic election process. I know nothing about the current state of nominations, but as the deadline is Monday it is time to reply.
I don't know why I am bothering. About a year ago I posted a detailed clause by clause interpretation of the Quanta Constitution arguing that the committee had misunderstood the constitution and that John Gilpin did not have to step down from the committee until 2012. I invited people to dispute my interpretation on legal grounds and no one, but no one, has done so. Not even Quanta who cannot justify their own interpretation in the same detail.
Instead of taking my advice the committee stuck two fingers up at me - or more correctly as there were 6 committee members at the time - 12 fingers.
What the committee did last year was absolute crass stupidity. It was not their intention, of course, but they have almost certainly placed Quanta on the wrong side of British law. And not just civil law.
Should anyone doubt my qualifications for expressing such a firm opinion may I remind you that for a quarter of my working life I was an officer of the British law courts.
Somewhat perversely Quanta's breach of the constitution and of British law could be its salvation this year.
John Gilpin was appointed treasurer in two clear breaches of the constitution. As he voluntarily resigned from the committee at the 2010 AGM he lost his status as an officer and the full rigours of clause 5.2 applied to him. Under the constitution he became not just ineligible but, more strongly, forbidden to be treasurer. The co-option was also irregular as the committee have no powers to co-opt an officer. Clause 5.8 only permits the co-option of ordinary committee members.
In other words neither the constitution nor British law recognised John as a valid committee member or a valid treasurer. Legally he did not sit on the committee last year. By the next AGM he will not have been a committee member for a year and thus can stand again for office. However this has to be by the nomination of two members before 1st February. As he was not legally on the committee last year, he will also have to pay his £14 subscription before the nomination paper is signed.
Having written all this let me be the first person to state in public that the time has come for Quanta to be wound up. When an organisation is reduced to breaching its constitution to survive it has become a gigantic farce. If we needed Quanta we would be using it. In practice the active members of Quanta represent under 10% of the UK QL community and under 5% of the international QL community. The demise of Quanta is something the QL community can survive,
Best Wishes, Geoff _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
