Talk:2015 Annual General Meeting/Resolutions

"the Charity Commission's recommended level"

The reference to the Charity Commission having a "recommended" quorum strikes me as odd. I double checked against the CC website, and I think there's an important distinction here. The CC say that they "recommend that the quorum for a trustees’ meeting is a minimum of one-third of the total number of charity trustees plus one" (my emphasis). I guess you could read "minimum" as simply implied by the concept of a quorum, but I would assume it is there to say, "look, you should think carefully about this, but don't go lower than 1/3". That is, I really don't think the CC were intending to put downwards pressure on existing quora, but the presentation on-wiki suggests they are. Perhaps this could be clarified, if others agreed? Jarry1250 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2015 (GMT)

Having re-read the CC advice, I think you may be right. I've suggested a slightly different presentation to avoid any inadvertent implication. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2015 (GMT)

Election Rules

The Election Rules cannot be changed by an ordinary resolution, it has to be a special resolution.... -- KTC (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2015 (BST)

Corrected, thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2015 (BST)

Suggestions for additional resolution

I'd like to propose a resolution something along the lines of:

"This meeting requests the Board, as a matter of priority, to examine the systems in place to recruit new members and to approve applications for membership, with a view to putting into place better procedures at the earliest opportunity."

I think that it is becoming urgent for us to examine ways in which we could increase membership significantly, and to make sure that the application process runs as smoothly as possible. Although I'm aware that there are interconnected issues, such as the associated IT systems, I believe that identifying more precisely what we want those systems to do would allow us to anticipate problems and deal with them pro-actively, rather than reactively.

Is there anyone who would be prepared to second a motion along those lines (formerly if you prefer, although I'm happy to liaise with anyone who wanted to speak)? Any suggestions for improvement would be gratefully received. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2015 (BST)