Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

To be fair (?), I am not aware - and of course I don't know if anyone else on this forum is aware - exactly what the Board may or may not have said to Anne, so there may well be a process of communication going on behind the scenes. That does not exclude the fact that - at face value - the Board has handled the situation badly and is leaving the membership in limbo as to the status of the planned AGM :-(

 

I think firstly that we have no idea what the lady herself is thinking. She may be happy to have her nomination pulled.
Secondly, it's highly unlikely that the charity commission will want to get involved. They are far too busy looking at charities who have embezzled £100s of Ks, may be supporting terrorism or involved in organised crime. A spat in a small charity in Devon is highly unlikely to even register on their radar. If its going to be sorted, you will need to do it yourselves.
Ian

 

Just to observe that issues with the WSRA didn’t see intervention despite rather clearer malpractice. And the intervention I referred to has the appearance, to this outsider at least, of rewarding bad behaviour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

“Dear Mr Fenwick,

I have been away and just seen your message.

You may not be aware that Anne Belsey currently faces a disciplinary
investigation on serious - potentially criminal - charges. It would not be
fair on her for me to say more but it would clearly be inappropriate for
her to stand for election as a Trustee until the matter has been resolved.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Nicholson”

Might I suggest that those into bashing the current Trustees avoid the alleged Anne matter please?

As Churchward was once quoted, “This cock won’t fight”.

 

The statements in the email may be fair, but the action is not. It is a decision for the electorate to take, not the trustees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

For what reason please?

By all means consider that any internal disciplinary proceedings are an internal Trust issue best left out of the public domain.

But the alleged mishandling of her election nomination is a different matter. The membership must be able to trust the Board to act i/a/w the same M&AoA rules as it expects the members to follow. If the board fails to so do then there is a breakdown in trust and IMHO is quite valid for members to ask questions.

 

Just quickly as my garden is needing more attention than the Internet right now (plants to plant, shrubs to clip, etc etc etc, while the weather is lovely, go outside and see for yourselves! I'm currently taking a break sat in the patio with a cuppa!), I echo JMA's post above and feel as Tony has indicated their may be an investigation then it's probably wise to not discuss or debate the situation.

That's all for now!

 

Thank you the insight into the situation - although I am not sure whether this should have been posted on a open forum

 

There was a reason I didn't post this yesterday, but people requested the whole email chain.

I don't see anyone 'bashing the current Trustees', @jma1009 . What I do see is a variety of people seeking to understand why, and under what powers, a valid nomination for the Trustee election has not appeared on the ballot paper.

It is very disappointing that, increasingly clearly, the answer is that Tony Nicholson as Company Secretary (and NB, not a Trustee if I understand correctly) has refused to do his job properly, and it beggars belief that he acted without consulting with / direction from at least some of the other Trustees and the Chairman.

If Tony Nicholson had vetoed Anne's nomination on his own initaitive and without the support/connivance of at least some of the Trustees, he would have been sacked by them already, and the Trustees would have made a statement to the Members that the AGM will be delayed in order for the Trustee election to be run correctly, with all of the valid nominations - including Anne's - to be put to the Membership for a vote.

The fact that no such annoucement has been made less than a fortnight before the AGM strongly suggests that at least some of the Trustees agree with the illegal veto of Anne's candidacy and/or did nothing to stop Tony Nicholson from excluding her from the ballot.

Any of the Trustees who knew of the veto of Anne's candidacy and did not attempt to stop this illegal action should join Tony Nicholson in resigning with immediate effect.

 

Again rather dramatic

 

Do you think it's ok for Trustees to ignore the rules, @Red5 ? I'm intrigued...

 

Reading the message you have posted, a reason for the trust nominations has been explained. Why not move on, and allow whatever investigation is happening to take place. Fairly simple really

 

@Red5 - do you believe in guilty until proven innocent? Funny old thing, I don't.

 

Not really :-( With respect, you appear to be conflating two separate issues:-

1. The 'investigation' into the nominee's conduct. This must be independent of the AGM nomination process and can continue apace.

2. The apparent failure to conduct the election according to the M&AoA is a different issue and - as yet - there is no sign that the Board is tackling that issue.

Are you not at all bothered / worried about the fact that the Board appears (a) unable/unwilling to follow the Trust's own rules and (b) reluctant to do anything about it ?

 

One might ask also what the Board hopes to achieve by its 'investigation'. For example, does it expect that it might lead to a situation where it might decides to terminate someone'e membership, because if so then how would it do that anyway?

The M&AoAs contain Clauses relating to the disqualification and removal of Trustees, but nothing about similar action for members. The only references to such actions are a brief mention within Clause 69, from which the relevant extracts would seem to be as follows:-

"69. (1) The trustees may from time to time make such rules or bye laws as they may deem necessary or expedient or convenient for the proper conduct and management
of the Charity and..........by such rules or bye laws regulate:
(i) ........ the terms on which members may ...... have their membership terminated.........

(2) The Charity in general meetings shall have the power to alter, add to or repeal the
rules or bye laws and the trustees shall adopt such means as they think sufficient to
bring to the notice of members of the Charity all such rules or bye law,..... {my emphasis}

So - do any such relevant rules or bye-laws actually exist, and if so when and by what means have they been brought to the attention of the members?

 

A spat in a small charity in Devon is highly unlikely to even register on their radar. If its going to be sorted, you will need to do it yourselves.

Well they certainly sorted out the Trust in 2004/5 and some Trust Board members resigned as a consequence.

 

I’ve said all I want to say on this except that some posters on here seem to be fixated upon a certain narrow issue without regard to matters such as Director’s disqualification, the Company Acts, Common Law, and Charity Law.

 

Always happy to learn more as relevant

 

What exactly is being missed, @jma1009 ?

 

I’ve said quite enough on here.

My late Grandma loved the old L&BR and travelled on it in it’s last 2 summers when working in Devon where she met my late Grandpa at Porlock.

Let’s move on from this nastiness. Get a life some of you!