"Its not in the Trust's best interests "
We have received our copies today and have to express how disappointed we are that we have not been given the chance to put our case to the membership.
We did request this but were refused permission.
(We reproduce the series of E mails in full below.)
The WST has nearly a 1000 members. Only around 20% will attend the AGM and many members have no access to the Internet.
Therefore the only information that these members will receive to help them make up their minds is contained in the newsletter. They have received a very distorted, biased and unbalanced view on the subject.
We feel that in the interests of balance we should have been given the opportunity to put our case to the membership.
The proxy votes will be crucial in both the outcome of the election and the resolutions adopted by the society. It cannot be to the benefit of the WST that debate is quoshed in this way and that decisions are made on such a shaky basis.
We were willing to fund the mail-drop ourselves in the interests of democracy and frankly we are stunned that Vice Chairman Rob Griffiths has taken this high handed and undemocratic decision.
After the AGM we feel that as a matter of urgency this whole episode needs to be reviewed and that guidelines are set which reflect the democratic principles of the society.
Correspondence between WST and Members relating to the Newsletter
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com ] Sent: 26 May 2007 01:19To: jrgriffiths@nospam.comCc: Bruce.Clapton@nospam.com; bruce@nospam.com
Subject: newsletter
Rob/Bruce
Pete Jones mentioned at the meeting last night that there was a newsletter going out soon explaining the resolutions put forward by the board in more detail.
In the interests of balance and healthy debate I would like to ask for the facility to do the same for the resolutions that myself and Phil have proposed.
I would be grateful if you could advise on timelines etc.
Regards, Lindsay.
#################################################
Message Received: May 26 2007, 10:37 AMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.com, "'kebmoe2003'" Cc: Bruce.Clapton@nospam.com
Subject: RE: newsletter
Hi Lindsay,
It's too late to consider this request. The next newsletter is already printed and ready for distribution. It includes all of the resolutions and sets out guidance for members on each, as we are required to do.
best regards
Rob
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com] Sent: 26 May 2007 20:24To: Rob Griffiths
Subject: RE: newsletter
thank you rob,
would we be able to add an insert to this?
regards, lindsay
Message Received: May 26 2007, 08:32 PMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.comCc:
Subject: RE: newsletter
Sorry Lindsay, it is too late this time to consider your request
Regards
Rob
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com] Sent: 26 May 2007 21:04To: Rob GriffithsSubject: RE: newsletter
No problem rob,
Would the board of the WST allow us access to the membership database so that we could organise a mailing ourselves/i understand that there may be data protection issues but I am sure there would be a route around this.
regards, lindsay.
========================================
Message Received: May 26 2007, 10:25 PMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.com Cc: WST-Board@nospam.comSubject: RE: newsletter
Lindsay, data protection would certainly be an issue and there is also the issue of whether we would consider your proposed mailing to be in the Trust's best interests. I cannot see how we could agree to this, but I will ask the other board members for a view.
regards,
Rob
ps what do you mean by 'ourselves' in this context?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So if is was to join the trust you think it would be ok for anyone who had a point to make or wanted to stand for election should have access to my personal details? Should the club's owners have access too in order to put their view?
I agree you need to make all members aware of your stance to make the election fair though.... for this you should utilise the media (Leader etc). Why have you avoided this and why have others been criticised for using it?
if the board were committed to the democratic process we would have been invited to submit something.
we werent asking to see anybodys details.we would have delivered up our printed statement in stamped envelopes ready to have stickers attached.
this is academic anyway because the board decided that our message was not in the best interests of the membership.
Thank you for your reply
If I was a member I would be uncomfortable with the thought of my details being available to other members. Your point about the WST board addressing the envelopes covers this... was the board made aware that this was what you wanted or did they think that you wanted the data?
Did you leave it too late as they suggest? Was Lindsay invited to meet to discuss the issue but not show?
I haven't seen the delivered packs but I take it your concerns etc were on there, what was missing that you wanted included?
I was verbally crucified some time ago for criticising the WST democratic process; it was the core reason for me changing my mind about membership at the time... are you saying I was right to question it?
if you read the e mails that went back and forth it answers most of your questions.
we were too late for the printing and i accept that we may have been too late for inserting the flyer.
however it doesnt really matter because underlying it is the fact that they didnt want us to put our case to the membership,as he freely admits.
the newsletter was basically their "interpretation" of all the resolutions and gave us no right of reply.
i disagree that the wst has been "dodgy" in the past(please give examples) but this is certainly an election that would win the admiration of mr mugabe.
when the dust has settled the new board must sort it out or you will end up with a self serving clique running it.
the trust will then die.
I didn't use the word 'dodgy' I said that I previously got stick for saying that the WST democratic process has been flawed in the past. It was... a show of hands in the pub in the presence of some very aggressive negotiators etc. But that suited you I feel and I got stick for criticising it... but that's in the past.
A self-serving clique. Look at the candidates... you all know each other really well... and you're all friends with the current board regardless of the apparent differences shown here. It'll always be a bit of a clique wont it?
It's another reason why you may be better standing down... give Wayne a chance on his own, he still knows at least some of the cuurent board very well indeed but I think he's the best guy on offer here.
You're too radical and aggressive for the current situation and the others, except Phil Wynn who would be ok bar for an issue regards his constituents, seem largely clueless.
Post a Comment