Guest guest Posted October 23, 2006 Report Share Posted October 23, 2006 In message <1161605452.1325.70145.m20 >, writes > Message about Vegan Society AGM > Posted by: " Ian McDonald " ian > I'm glad Michael is double-checking what we wrote in the letter, > but someone is feeding him false information. .... > The two previous Company Secretaries did *not* remove explanations > from motions. For example, the 2003 AGM material (if you happen to have > kept it) shows a motion with a *lot* of explanation. I think Ian must have been looking at page " v " " Proposals for Special Resolution " at the centrefold of the document " 2002-2003 Annual Report & Accounts " where considerable explanation is indeed given. That is because this is part of the minutes of the 2002 AGM (see heading on page iv opposite). The " Proposals for Resolution " relating to the 2003 AGM are on page " vii " . Motion A arrived with a great deal of explanatory material, but only the proposition for which the AGM's endorsement was sought is printed. Resolution B had no explanatory material attached in the first place since Council was already well aware of the issue, having discussed and passed it as Society policy earlier in the year. Oddly enough, there is a very substantial overlap between the staff who opposed Resolution B at the 2003 AGM to the extent of distributing anonymous material with the registration documents and those whose names have been attached to the recent letter, as a swift glance at the staff list in The Vegan in the period before the AGM that year and at the minutes of the 2003 AGM (see page v of " 2003-2004 Annual Report & Accounts " ) will confirm. There were no Motions for Resolution that year. However, the following year (see page vii of " 2004-2005 Annual Report & Accounts " ) there was one Proposal for Resolution, regarding the adoption of an ethical purchasing policy. This also came with explanatory material in addition to the quoted motion, but only the motion itself is printed. The Company Secretary in the latter case was not the same person as the Company Secretary in the earlier case, though on both occasions it was the CEO of the day. Both simply followed the usual practice. > > I'm not aware of everwhere where Michael posted this, and don't > necessarily have membership; Michael, how would you feel about > cross-posting this where you posted your letter? It would be useful if Ian's confirmation or rebuttal of my first paragraph above could be circulated in the same way to avoid further confusion. I'm sure this was purely accidental and that there was no intention to give false information - indeed, I almost made the same assumption myself when I first looked back at the previous three years' AGM documentation to check. > > Hope to see you at the AGM, Yes indeed - I'm especially looking forward to another encounter with Shambhu's Kitchen! In the meantime, I hope the above rather laboured explanation of how the AGM documentation is made up will be of assistance to anyone who's really interested. Good wishes, Vanessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Firstly, it was good to speak to you and Stephen about this at London Vegans yesterday, including hearing your arguments in person, and I'm grateful to Stephen and the VS staff for getting many of the old annual reports to me quickly. As you said, it's very interesting to go through the old AGM minutes. interveg wrote: > In message <1161605452.1325.70145.m20 > <1161605452.1325.70145.m20%40>>, > <%40> writes > > > Message about Vegan Society AGM > > Posted by: " Ian McDonald " ian > <ian%40mcdonald.me.uk> > > ... > > The two previous Company Secretaries did *not* remove explanations > > from motions. > > I think Ian must have been looking at <snip> the minutes of the 2002 AGM > I was talking about 2003 motion A, of which the first two-thirds is rationale. I asked the then Company Secretary, and he says he printed it in full. The proposer, Arthur Ling, is sadly no longer alive, or I'd ask him to confirm this. > > However, the following > year (see page vii of " 2004-2005 Annual Report & Accounts " ) there was > one Proposal for Resolution, regarding the adoption of an ethical > purchasing policy. This also came with explanatory material in addition > to the quoted motion, but only the motion itself is printed. > I contacted Kevin Watkinson, and he tracked down his copy of what he sent to the then Company Secretary. The only " explanatory material " it came with was the rationale which came at the end of the motion. Both Kevin and the then Company Secretary will be at the AGM if you'd like to check this with them. Compare this with 2006 motion 6, which had the rationale at the end removed by the Company Secretary, whose girlfriend the motion is about. (Removed without the consent of the proposers). Even if anyone else would have made exactly the same decisions (and I don't believe they did) this must pose a conflict of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.