Voting at AGMS

The comments as to limitations on successive periods of directorship and the recruitment and retention of people of proven and deliverable capability ring all too true.

Professionals who lead the trading company into perdition, but are backed by volunteer directors who either are afraid to act on their powers to direct, control, or discipline, or who have gone native with their employees is a disastrous combination; and this is where a REAL AGM where members have the power to hold boards etc to account is so important. It is also important that Board's can respond as we have all seen cliques and power groups formed in attempts to hijack organisations too.

Bodies like the Charity Commission or the HRA should also be equippied with supervisory powers that they actually exercise. Sixteen years ago Eightpot and I had a Charity Commission representative actually run - and I do mean run - away from a dossier that we had prepared. Sixteen years later everything that we foretold is coming true - its not nice being proved right when the result is disaster - but its a whole sight better than ruing the day when you kept quiet so as not to offend - which gets me in whole heap of trouble with the mods on here - but so be it. I have learnt over the years and act accordingly. Hopefully they will too - in time

If AGMs have been allowed to become a tea and biscuits rubber stamping convention then there is no point beyond compliance with holding them. That is why I have not attended the AGM of the particular organisation mentioned - because it isn't worth even a free train ride - but it may be a necessity this time.

 

With American Presidents they can serve two terms only, ever. But I do agree with the general point. I think it is preferrable to have Directors stand for re-election at least. The only problem with them having to stand down for a period is that you can get situations where it would be preferrable for them not to, but they have to. The main thing in my view, is to make sure that the chairman doesn't make excessive use of proxies granted to him by all his "mates", especially when they don't turn up to the AGM. I've often wondered if proxies should be allowed at all. Better to have a postal vote on specific issues if that is needed.

 

This sounds good for the EOR setup where the railway is owned by a private company which, ultimately, calls the shots although the company must of course be careful to create an atmosphere which attracts and retains volunteers. The kind of difficulties discussed here seem to concern those railways which are owned by their membership and which owe their existence to their first generation of volunteers many of whom may still be involved.

 

I meant to add in my posting that the idea of Directors standing down for a period would give the opportunity for new blood to stand,sorry if I have confused anyone.

Regards
Chris:

 

It all depends on the society, doesn't it? I can think of societies where the board members have remaied unchanged because no-one else comes forward to stand for the various roles. This can be the case even in well established and successful groups, and making people stand down for the sake of it runs the risk of destroying the group by other means.