Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 30/01/2011 09:29, gdgqler wrote: On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I like the story - however, why would a jointly owned computer need an AGM ?? -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 30 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Rich Mellor wrote: On 30/01/2011 09:29, gdgqler wrote: On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I like the story - however, why would a jointly owned computer need an AGM ?? A company was set up jointly owned by Scottish Widows and Standard Life to run the computer. When the computer was being built, representatives of the two offices went to see the work in progress. They were rather annoyed to see the notice attached to their machine. It read Scottish Life, a different company in Edinburgh. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
On 30/01/2011 10:16, gdgqler wrote: On 30 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Rich Mellor wrote: On 30/01/2011 09:29, gdgqler wrote: On 29 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Geoff Wicks wrote: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? If the bank accepts the signature it doesn't matter whether it is legally binding or not. Many years ago Standard Life and Scottish Widows jointly owned a computer. Every year an AGM was held. There were just three people there and I was one. There were supposed to be directors and shareholders. The Scottish Widows representative was a stickler for accuracy and protocol. He was filled to the brim with chagrin when, one year, it was pointed out that all the meetings to date were invalid because of some legal technicality such as shareholders not being present or having sent proxies. The moral is that the legal situation does not matter at all unless someone complains. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I like the story - however, why would a jointly owned computer need an AGM ?? A company was set up jointly owned by Scottish Widows and Standard Life to run the computer. When the computer was being built, representatives of the two offices went to see the work in progress. They were rather annoyed to see the notice attached to their machine. It read Scottish Life, a different company in Edinburgh. George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm Hee hee - that is fun - maybe it would have been much better to have left the original label on it - Sinclair QL -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services http://www.rwapsoftware.co.uk http://www.rwapservices.co.uk -- Try out our new site: http://sellmyretro.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
But this is a discussion we should have had a year ago when I first posted on this issue. And in reply to your private email - no I'm not angry, Best Wishes, Geoff PS Guess who I have upset by posting this at the top! -- From: John Gilpin thegilp...@btinternet.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:15 PM To: ql-users ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Having read with interest Geoff Wicks' musings about the errors in QUANTA's ways, I would like to give you all, the facts that both me and the QUANTA Committee considered to be in accordance with the current (at that time) QUANTA Constitution. I joined the QUANTA Committee in April 2001 - see copy of the minutes of the A. G. M. for that year - as an ordinary Committee member and was asked to take on the duties of (head) librarian - there being no other librarians anyway. At the A. G. M. in the following year - 2002 - following the resignation of both Bill Newell and John Taylor I was nominated as Treasurer to the QUANTA Committee - a post that was amalgamated with that of Membership Secretary - two posts that were seen to be connected by the payment of subscription and the handling of QUANTA funds. Similarly, the posts of Software Controller and Librarian were also combined - a post undertaken by the then Software Controller John Gregory which meant that I relinquished my previous role of Librarian. Early in 2005, QUANTA Committee discussed and then decided that moves ought to be put in place to limit the length of time served by committee members (Officers and Ordinary members) with the result that members were asked to approve Special Resolution No. 1 (Changes to clause 5 of the QUANTA Constitution) at the A. G. M. in April 2005. The original discussions on this topic came from comments heard that the QUANTA Committee were getting stale and had nothing further to offer.The Resolution was approved and the Constitution was duly updated and re-issued to all members in February 2006 as Issue 2 Revision 0. This revision was deemed to be effective from that date. At the date of the A. G. M. 2009, both John Mason (Chairman) and John Gilpin (Treasurer), under the new clause 5 of the constitution were due to stand down and in accordance with Clause 5.5 they, JM JG, by agreement decided that John Mason would stand down since he had served slightly longer than John Gilpin on the Committee without a break. The following year (April 2010), having served continuously on the committee since 2001, (over 6 years) and as an officer since 2002 (over three years), John Gilpin tendered his resignation from the committee (under clauses 5.2 and 5.4 of the constitution). At this point, April 2010, John Gilpin's QUANTA membership status reverted to that of Ordinary Member.There were no nominations for the post of Treasurer/Membership Secretary and immediately following the A. G. M. the new committee held a meeting where they co-opted John Gilpin (Ordinary Member) onto the committee under clause 5.8. By agreement of all concerned, John Gilpin was asked to carry out the duties of Treasurer/Membership Secretary until The Next A. G. M. - see clause 5.8. - to see if anyone had decided to take on this role. One has to pay quite a lot of money to have clauses drafted which are word perfect with no errors and/or ambiguities by a professional and the committee having submitted the Special resolution approved at the AGM in 2005 to it's members and having not received any requests to amend the same the then committee deemed that the suggested modifications were adequate for the purpose intended - to limit the time served on the committee to six continuous years for ordinary committee members of which not more than three continuous years may be served as an officer With all Geoff Wicks' working experience as an officer of the British law Courts, surely he could have spotted what he seems to feel are these anomalies while they were still at committee stage and suggest further discussion (even if that would have meant putting any ill feeling between himself and other Committee member(s) in abeyance for a while!) rather than find objections some six years later. My suggestion to him and any other QUANTA Members now is this: If there is anything about QUANTA that you don't understand or that you disapprove of then drop a line to the Secretary expressing your concerns and give the Committee the opportunity to discuss the matter(s) instead of joining the vast majority of QUANTA Members in their apathy. Perhaps he could also suggest the basis of a Special resolution to be put before the Members at the coming A. G. M. in April in order to remove what he feels are errors in the constitution.. What we DON'T want is a document which is far more wordy and difficult to understand than the one we already have. QUANTA's Constitution
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
Hi Geoff, Suggest you look up transactional analysis in google especially critical parent and willful child roles. In law in the UK there is a differentiation between criminal and civil law. Any perceived violations of Quanta's constitution will fall in to civil law, unless you are suggesting fraud according to the criminal definition of this. If not then if there is a legal case to be made because of some injury, someone, an individual or group of individuals, needs to sue. It seems on this list at the moment only you feel there is a case to be made. The question then is are you going to sue Quanta. If not then what is your purpose. Kind Regards Duncan -Original Message- From: Geoff Wicks gtwi...@btinternet.com To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:42 Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer But this is a discussion we should have had a year ago when I first posted on this issue. And in reply to your private email - no I'm not angry, Best Wishes, Geoff PS Guess who I have upset by posting this at the top! -- From: John Gilpin thegilp...@btinternet.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:15 PM To: ql-users ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Having read with interest Geoff Wicks' musings about the errors in QUANTA's ways, I would like to give you all, the facts that both me and the QUANTA Committee considered to be in accordance with the current (at that time) QUANTA Constitution. I joined the QUANTA Committee in April 2001 - see copy of the minutes of the A. G. M. for that year - as an ordinary Committee member and was asked to take on the duties of (head) librarian - there being no other librarians anyway. At the A. G. M. in the following year - 2002 - following the resignation of both Bill Newell and John Taylor I was nominated as Treasurer to the QUANTA Committee - a post that was amalgamated with that of Membership Secretary - two posts that were seen to be connected by the payment of subscription and the handling of QUANTA funds. Similarly, the posts of Software Controller and Librarian were also combined - a post undertaken by the then Software Controller John Gregory which meant that I relinquished my previous role of Librarian. Early in 2005, QUANTA Committee discussed and then decided that moves ought to be put in place to limit the length of time served by committee members (Officers and Ordinary members) with the result that members were asked to approve Special Resolution No. 1 (Changes to clause 5 of the QUANTA Constitution) at the A. G. M. in April 2005. The original discussions on this topic came from comments heard that the QUANTA Committee were getting stale and had nothing further to offer.The Resolution was approved and the Constitution was duly updated and re-issued to all members in February 2006 as Issue 2 Revision 0. This revision was deemed to be effective from that date. At the date of the A. G. M. 2009, both John Mason (Chairman) and John Gilpin (Treasurer), under the new clause 5 of the constitution were due to stand down and in accordance with Clause 5.5 they, JM JG, by agreement decided that John Mason would stand down since he had served slightly longer than John Gilpin on the Committee without a break. The following year (April 2010), having served continuously on the committee since 2001, (over 6 years) and as an officer since 2002 (over three years), John Gilpin tendered his resignation from the committee (under clauses 5.2 and 5.4 of the constitution). At this point, April 2010, John Gilpin's QUANTA membership status reverted to that of Ordinary Member.There were no nominations for the post of Treasurer/Membership Secretary and immediately following the A. G. M. the new committee held a meeting where they co-opted John Gilpin (Ordinary Member) onto the committee under clause 5.8. By agreement of all concerned, John Gilpin was asked to carry out the duties of Treasurer/Membership Secretary until The Next A. G. M. - see clause 5.8. - to see if anyone had decided to take on this role. One has to pay quite a lot of money to have clauses drafted which are word perfect with no errors and/or ambiguities by a professional and the committee having submitted the Special resolution approved at the AGM in 2005 to it's members and having not received any requests to amend the same the then committee deemed that the suggested modifications were adequate for the purpose intended - to limit the time served on the committee to six continuous years for ordinary committee members of which not more than three continuous years may be served as an officer With all Geoff Wicks' working experience as an officer of the British law Courts, surely he could
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
-- From: matras...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:49 PM To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer Hi Geoff, Suggest you look up transactional analysis in google especially critical parent and willful child roles. In law in the UK there is a differentiation between criminal and civil law. Any perceived violations of Quanta's constitution will fall in to civil law, unless you are suggesting fraud according to the criminal definition of this. If not then if there is a legal case to be made because of some injury, someone, an individual or group of individuals, needs to sue. It seems on this list at the moment only you feel there is a case to be made. The question then is are you going to sue Quanta. If not then what is your purpose. Answer a simple question, but the answer has to be not as a layman would answer but as a lawyer would answer: Can a person who has been appointed treasurer of Quanta in a breach of the constitution - a legally binding document - legally sign cheques under British law? Best Wishes, Geoff _ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [Ql-Users] Finally a reply - from the Treasurer
I asked a friend who could give an opinion and she said: The question here is, If a person is appointed to a position in contravention of the Constitution, is the appointment invalid or is it merely improper. If the appointment is invalid, the person is not the position holder and cannot conduct the actions of the position lawfully. If the appointment is improper, they can - the failing not occurring in their actions but in the actions of their election. Another, broader concept applies here. The Constitution is the rules of the organization, and they can be nullified by a vote which ignores or overrides them. In this case, the election of an individual to a position they are explicitly barred from holding is a nullification of those elements of the Constitution, and is improper. It is not illegal. The organization should then revisit and revise the Constitution. The person holding this position in this case can lawfully sign a cheque. Opinion of Jacqui Webb, Head of Commercial Law, Partner. So that's that. I'm sorry to see Quanta falling into this type of problem as the membership shrinks. It would be prudent for Quanta to recognize their new role as Guardian of the Data and to trim the burden of their Constitution to better face the reality of the world in which they now operate. Good luck! Dave Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
