As anyone reading this will probably not know, the ‘Trust Centre’ will be holding an EGM, following failure to hold a quorate AGM some… let’s see… four months back. The normal procedure, that is to say, what the trust’s rules say, is that when an AGM is inquorate, another meeting is arranged for seven days later, and however many residents turn up, the meeting is judged to be quorate. Despite attempts to point this out, the chairwoman was of the view that such a meeting ‘might not be quorate’ and the secretary, Bren McInerney, refused to acknowledge the facts, so the emergency meeting is finally taking place tomorrow. As you would expect, this meeting would have to be heavily promoted, to ensure that there would be minimal risk that it ‘might not be quorate’. Not a bit of it. No posters, no mention on the charity’s web site news page (well, there hasn’t actually been any news on it since over a year ago, even when the partnership asked it to promote our own AGM), no notice on the trust’s entrance display, nothing.
The general concensus is that this means the managment committee have no interest in residents turning up, and therefore no interest in the trust surviving its present financial difficulties, and that they intend to dissolve the trust and sell the building. This would have serious consequences for, among others, the radio station founded by the chairwoman’s husband, so I’m quite sure a lot of thought has gone into this. What exactly the committee has in mind, though, we won’t know until tomorrow evening…
Joe K's Blog 
July 8, 2011 at 10:24 am
So what happened Joe?
July 8, 2011 at 11:47 am
Well, in short, it wasn’t quorate, Barry. Just seventeen people, including one proxy (questionable, but I didn’t). No behind the scenes efforts to make it so, I guess. I finally understood, as we waited half an hour to see if anyone else would turn up, that the committee really believe that if they send out notification letters to 62 members (which turns out to be the tally now, wnen it used to be very close to a hundred), they expect at least twenty people to turn up. In my personal experience, that has never happened in the past, and the only time one was decently attended two or three years back, with about 24 members, was when I put up three posters on telegraph poles around the neighbourhood. When I explained this at the meeting to our resident Marxist trustee, Brenda Yearwood (honestly, I’m really starting to get a Clare Fox vibe off her), who is now claiming that the trust hasn’t had any quorate AGMs in recent years, she bluntly told me that this could not possible have helped because the people who attended had to be members. Wouldn’t hear it when I said that there were a few non-members (but still residents) there, but that the members present still made up the quorum easily. Between her and Bren McInerney, and the former chairman (who came in for a bit of subtle criticism over how he ran things from the trustees themselves), the trust has been badly served, and yes, it really seems to be on the point of dissolution.
To top things off, even if we had been quorate, the man with all the facts, Howard Francis of Barton Tredworth Developments, didn’t attend the meeting, and so no meaningful discussion could be had anyway. I was genuinely quite surprised by the degree of hostility displayed towards Francis at the meeting (I’ll name no names to protect spouses :))
End of story, in accordance with the trust’s rules, but delayed by four months needlessly, there will be another meeting next week*, which won’t needs to be quorate, but we will make a serious effort to advertise it this time, because lots of residents attending is obviously better than a handful. It will be on the radio, in the newspaper, (on posters?), and the BTNP website, for what it’s worth. More than the BTNP’s, that for sure. It would also be really good if a discussion was had on the Gloucestershire Boards, but I can’t do it, and I guess Sonia Friend, Shaun Moore and Jerry Jenkinson won’t. Really, whatever happened to Chris Maltby? Dire straits for GFM if the building is sold off, surely?
The community needs to be involved in this debate like never before, although it was my insistence on this kind of resident involvement three years ago that got me bounced off the committee…
*not necessarily exactly a week, as laid down, because the trustees will contact us (more letters), and there was some talk about ten days, just to muddle the issue a bit further. Worth noting that at the beginning of the meeting, when it became clear that it wouldn’t be quorate, we were told we had a ‘choice’, to carry on with the meeting (presumably without making any decisions), or hold it next week. We didn’t actually have any such choice according to the constitution, although as individuals, I suppose there was nothing stopping us having a discussion if the staff/trustees didn’t want to thow us out (and maybe not even then).
July 8, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Drop me an email
July 8, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Off to PetsAtHome now (when did everyone’s comment approval expire?)
I’ll try to write something later in the evening…
NotW, what’s up with that that?
July 10, 2011 at 3:01 pm
So the post is up on the Gloucestershire Boards now, albeit without the last line, edited out by Eddie because it ‘made no sense’ to him…
‘Hoping for a big turnout, but the brainstorming starts here (and maybe on TiG, a bit, but it won’t be called ‘brainstorming’).’
I’ve had the additional thought that, as well as GFM having reason to be concerned about their future, Gay-Glos should as well, and should have had a representative at the meeting. Perhaps, though, they have some kind of ‘covenant’ with the council, city or county, that a place will be found if they lose their present offices, through no fault of their own, and getting away from the staff of GFM is an enticing prospect…