Talk:EGM 2013/Resolutions
Amendment: resign vs retire
- 16.4 If some Directors appointed at an Annual General Meeting are required to
resignretire at the next Annual General Meeting under Article 16.3,
Deryck Chan (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think "Directors" should read "Elected Directors" in several places in 16.3 and 16.4, as well. --Tango (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Who?
The Land (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be Chair of the Board? Gordo (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought you knew? I'm against putting titles of any sort in signatures, and I would hope that the handful of members who are interested in looking at pages on WMUK are familiar with who was most recently elected to the board, though if in any possible doubt they can click on the link. Posting this page need not have been done by the Chair, so emphasising that the Chair has posted this does not make any material difference to its status, in particular the board of trustees has not agreed it, yet. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed Articles 16.3 and 16.4
I think there is a drafting error in 16.3 which fails to distinguish between "maximum size of the Board" and "maximum number of Elected Trustees", assuming that 14.3 passes. The proposal at present would require that if fewer than 3 Elected Trustees are not due for re-election at an AGM, then 5 of the Elected Trustees will have to retire at the next AGM. This cannot "have the effect of balancing the numbers of Elected Directors stepping down each year, so that no more than half the maximum number of Elected Directors should retire each year" as Stone King suggests. The part which states:
- "half the maximum size of the Board (rounded down, if necessary)"
should read:
- "half the maximum number of Elected Trustees (rounded down, if necessary)"
if it is to attempt to rebalance the number of Trustees due for election each year to be closer to half.
The reason that the number of Trustees due for election in a given year will vary from approximately one-half is that Trustees step down before the end of their term. The problem of lack of continuity on the Board will not be solved by forcing Elected Trustees into shorter terms; on the contrary, if we wanted a scheme to improve continuity, then we should be considering a standard term of three years - not at all uncommon for directors.
On balance, I don't think that proposals 16.3 and 16.4 are at all helpful under present circumstances. If we ever found ourselves with a very settled board, or the likelihood that an upcoming AGM would have to elect too many new Trustees, then we could revisit the idea of changing the standard two-year term for some of the Trustees. In the meantime, I'll be opposing 16.3 and 16.4 as very unlikely to achieve their intended purpose. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about having to elect too many new trustees, it's about having to elect too few. The clause is there to ensure the 2 year terms stay staggered and we don't end up with no (or few) seats available up for election in some years. And, as I pointed out to Andrew on the mailing list, it's not new. It's in the current Articles and has been there since we introduced multi-year terms. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Having to elect more than half new trustees one year is what leads to having to elect less than half the next. They are inextricably linked so trying to unpick them is futile. The clause may be intended to keep the two-year terms staggered but fails epically as long as we have loss of Trustees during a year, and as a side-effect increases the churn by forcing some newly Elected Trustees into one-year terms. You seem to think that short terms benefit to the charity, but they don't, and the fewer Trustees that we have to replace each year, the happier we should be, so I don't share your evident worry about not having enough elections in a given year. I'm told by Greyham that the preferred term in the charities sector is actually three years, and I believe that increasing the stability of the Board is far more beneficial to WMUK than pandering to unnecessary paranoia about the need to replace the entire board - as if section 168 didn't already cover that in any case. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The first resolution to move to two-year terms was formally proposed by me, so I would ask that you refrain from making assumptions about what I think - you clearly aren't very good at it. You also don't seem to understand what the rebalancing clause does... I thought it through very carefully when I wrote it and am I entirely confident that it does what it is intended to do. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Having to elect more than half new trustees one year is what leads to having to elect less than half the next. They are inextricably linked so trying to unpick them is futile. The clause may be intended to keep the two-year terms staggered but fails epically as long as we have loss of Trustees during a year, and as a side-effect increases the churn by forcing some newly Elected Trustees into one-year terms. You seem to think that short terms benefit to the charity, but they don't, and the fewer Trustees that we have to replace each year, the happier we should be, so I don't share your evident worry about not having enough elections in a given year. I'm told by Greyham that the preferred term in the charities sector is actually three years, and I believe that increasing the stability of the Board is far more beneficial to WMUK than pandering to unnecessary paranoia about the need to replace the entire board - as if section 168 didn't already cover that in any case. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)