A LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE

We have today sent the following letter to the Secretary of the Wrexham Supporters Trust.



To the Secretary Wrexham Supporter Trust

This letter is a follow up to Colin Bithell’s telephone call to yourself on Sunday.

I am writing to you, on behalf of the candidates listed below, to register our protest regarding the manner in which the WST AGM 2007 has been handled by the Board of the Trust. This is not done lightly, but we feel that, irrespective of whatever the results of the Board elections and the resolutions, democracy in the WST has not been served well. It is also our opinion that the Board have acted without thought to Rule 39 of the WST Constitution, which states:
“It is the responsibility of the Society Board, the Chair of the meeting and the Secretary to ensure that, at any general meeting:
a) the issues to be decided are clearly explained;
b) sufficient information is provided to members to enable rational discussion to take place;
c) where appropriate, members of the Executive Board, experts in relevant fields or representatives of special interest groups are invited to address the meeting.”

In outlining our concerns,I deal with these matters under separate headings for the sake of simplicity.

AGM Pack

The AGM pack sent out to members properly listed the Resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. However, in a departure from normal WST practice the Board has commented on all of the Resolutions, expressing the Board view on whether the membership should support or reject the proposal. Further, in an additional departure from the norm, with regards to two of those resolutions put forwards by ourselves (F and J) the Board have seen fit to explain, briefly, their reason for opposing the resolutions. In our view this action, together with the failure to allow us to put forward our reasons for the resolutions, is undemocratic and in breach of rule 39(b). It must be obvious, and as the board will be aware, it is quite possible that the number of proxy votes will exceed the number of members who attend the meeting in person. Without access to the internet those members who have sent in a proxy vote will have had no sight of a view alternative to that presented by the Board.

“Seconders” of the Resolutions

For certain of the resolutions proposed for consideration, the names of some members who seconded those proposals have been excluded. In some cases the names of twenty to thirty members are missing. The view of the Vice Chairman of the WST is that members, in effect, need not see any pre-vote show of support. This view is a departure from all previous AGM packs, which have listed ALL ‘seconders’ to ALL resolutions proposed. In our opinion the view of the Vice Chairman is also at odds with the Board’s own stance in relation to each resolution, where the Board’s members, in essence, have expressed a pre-vote show of support or of opposition.

WST Newsletter

Following the issuing of the AGM pack the Board of the WST issued a newsletter to the membership of the society that outlined the Board’s view on all resolutions put to the AGM. Within that newsletter the Board discuss the resolutions proposed by non-Board members (Resolutions F to K inclusive) and give reasons for supporting or opposing those resolutions. It is our contention that, in a Society purporting to be democratic, the proposer/seconders of those resolutions should have had the opportunity of responding to the Board’s concerns for the benefit of those members in receipt of that newsletter. Our request for that courtesy was refused by the Vice Chairman, on the basis that the Board may not consider that action to be in the WST’s best interests. That is a view that, quite frankly, astonishes us. Surely, in relation to resolutions validly proposed and seconded, it is for the membership to decide whether they are in the WST’s best interests, and that can only be done, under Rule 39, if the members are in possession of sufficient information. In our view the Board has failed to discharge its duty impartially under the WST Constitution.

Press briefings

We believe that the Board of the WST has abused its’ access to the local media in relation to the AGM. Within an article in the Evening Leader on May 27th, it is our contention that the Chairman of the WST made statements in relation to the Resolutions put forward by members which have no basis in fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the resolutions proposed by the membership will have any adverse effect upon the football club and it is something that we always bore in mind when formulating the Resolutions. Further, in stating within that article that the proposer/seconders of the members’ Resolutions HAVE foreseen that they are a threat to the existence of the football club but have chosen to ignore such a threat is an insult to many members who worked tirelessly on behalf of both the WST and the Club when it WAS threatened with extinction.

Board/Members Resolutions

We note, with some alarm, that the Board appears to have seen fit to involve Geoff Moss in their ‘campaign’. It is apparent, from the newsletter already referred to, that he was invited to consider resolutions F to K and express his view. The Board also expressed their view. Both these views were contained within the newsletter However, the persons who actually proposed those resolutions were not asked for to provide their views on their own resolutions!

As stated our request for such an opportunity was refused, meaning that the membership were able to read criticism provided by a non member of the WST yet were barred from reading an explanation for the Resolutions from the members of the WST who had proposed them.
It must be further noted, and commented upon, that the board met to discuss the Board Resolutions on 10th May, the closing date for submissions. Further, another meeting was held by the Board to discuss those Resolutions some four days after that closing date.

It is sad to note that, in a democratic Society, the first of those meetings has not been minuted and this, in our view, is in breach of clause B4 of the Board’s Membership Policy, which requires the vote taken by the Board on such matters to be included in the pack sent to WST members.

The only other alternative is that the Board has not voted on the Resolutions that it proposes, which is fanciful in the extreme. Further, by failing to comply with Clause B4 of the Policy the Board has failed to comply with the very thing it is asking the members to endorse at Resolution E!!

In short we feel that the organization and conduct of the 2007 AGM has fallen well short of the standards previously set by the WST. Taken separately the failures of the Board to properly and fairly run the process, as we have outlined above, are bad enough. The combined effect is many times worse, with the quashing of reasoned and fair debate and the effective disenfranchisement of the members who are not in attendance at the AGM and able to hear our Resolutions explained.

The failures we have highlighted leave us fearing for the future of the WST itself. In short, we feel that in this instance the Board has failed to discharge its duties to the membership of the Society and has prejudiced the outcome of the election and the voting on the resolutions. We feel that the only equitable solution would be to adjourn the AGM and allow us to properly respond to the partiality shown by the Board in relation to these important votes.

I await your response.

Lindsay Jones
Colin Bithell
Phil Wynne
Wayne Price
Len Willett.