Following our board meeting of 27^th February we would like to thank you for giving us the time to get our rules registered and accounts signed.

The last two months have been very difficult, double family bereavements have made normal day to day activities difficult to undertake and we thank you for bearing with us.

Working closely with Supporters Direct Scotland we have now been able to register the model rules and have the accounts signed.  The board now has 6 members who are working hard to take the society forward and we would like to invite a further four enthusiasts to join us. 

We need to know what’s important to you and how you want to make your voice heard.  We are currently in the process of setting up a meeting with the Graeme Rae, ICT Chairman.

We are actively working to update membership records so we would like to encourage you to respond promptly.  Remember to check your junk mail and filters to allow Supporters Trust emails from [email protected] .

I think it's quite important to supporters to know who the six board members are?

Edited February 27, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

I would in general find it very interesting to hear more about the chair person or directors and find out if we as people can do more things to support them since I am considering myself  in the near future since my own business sales is growing quite well  currently to  become sponsor of Caley but if that kind of thing did happen I would want a say in like for example I say give £50,000 to buy a great player and agreed to pay his wage a month or give say  £5000 to say help the people in charge of Caley be able to arrange things better like for example better accounting program to make the money management easier .  Maybe  I am to Highland but the way I taught to be proper Highlander is to always ask people questions straight forward. Regarding someone outside business such as someone going to the after life  ones to me, that's private matter  for example my gran mother died 6 years I never really told anyone else that since to me it's not their concern what I go though  so I had to support my mother before over that period when I do jobs or things, in general, I feel it's not really my business of someone loss unless we say close friends or business friends or the person openly wants to admit  then I will do whatever I can to help them.

Thanks for the confirmation that cjt has risen from what seemed to be the ashes. it is so important that the 10% voting rights are retained. it would be good to have the names of current board members. Thanks again.

 

What an extraordinary statement from CJT.

CJT held an AGM on 5th December 2017.  As is evident on a very lengthy thread elsewhere, very short notice was given  for this meeting and many members received no notification.  Due to the short notice, I was unable to attend but it seems as though the meeting was a shambles.

I am not aware that CJT have issued any report or minute of that meeting but Caley D summed up his impression of the meeting by posting "Long and short of it.....the society is currently in abeyance due to having insufficient board members.  An EGM will be held at some point in the future (no timescale was given) to rectify this and bring it back into proper operating order."

In CJT's statement above there is reference to a Board meeting being held; that the Board is now up to 6 members and that this Board is now seeking 4 more members.  But there is no mention of holding an EGM.  Why not?

The statement says "We need to know what’s important to you".  I would have thought what is important to us is clear from the 6 page thread elsewhere on the forum.  We want a supporters' body which is representative of the supporters, which actively works in the interests of the supporters and which keeps the supporters fully informed.  Instead, we appear to have a self-appointed group who, over many years, appear to have done very little in representing supporters' interests, have consistently failed to communicate with the members and who appear to be acting unconstitutionally by simply ignoring what I understand was an unopposed call at the AGM for an EGM.

The statement goes on to say "We are actively working to update membership records so we would like to encourage you to respond promptly."  Just what exactly are people supposed to respond to?  Is this supposed to mean that yet again members are expected contact CJT to tell them we are members?  And if we don't, will we be deemed not to be members?

The statement refers to a proposed meeting with Graeme Rae.  Surely it is quite inappropriate for such a meeting to take place before the EGM takes place?  It is vital that communication with the club on behalf of the supporters is carried out by people who have a remit from the supporters.

It seems strange that after weeks of silence, this anonymous statement should appear so soon after Davie's  recent post in which he stated that he would attempt  to call an EGM with the aim of calling for the resignation of the existing Board membersand electing a new Board to take CJT forward.  I will be interested to hear what progress Davie is making in due course.  But one thing is clear.  This mess has to be cleared up ASAP both to protect the voting rights and to give the supporters a genuine voice within the club.  We have to have an EGM as soon as possible to establish a new Board to take things forward.  That will  provide a platform for the existing Board members to state their case and argue as to why they think they should continue in post.  It will then be for the members to decide.

Whilst a welcome change from the months of silence, that original post is utterly inadequate and raises far more questions than answers.

Further clarity and explanation is required in the very near future. By that, I would suggest hours or, at most days, rather than further weeks or months.

I think before any meeting between CJT and the chairman it is better to address the issues within CJT, firstly not automatically releasing names & positions of board members and the process that facilitated this.

This is how far away CJT is currently (disregarding the fact that there has been no viable website for years) as an example, if this is really needed, to highlight the yawning gap in where we are:

http://www.pompeytrust.com/our-board

So let me get this straight - what we now have is an anonymous claim that a (so far - BUMP!) anonymous group of six people has apparently, and in the absence for some time of a General Meeting of the Society, appointed itself to run the said society (if it still legally exists) and  hence control 10% of the voting rights (one of the biggest single allocations) of a company with a turnover of several million pounds per annum.

Presumably applications for the remaining four positions should be lodged with the Society's secretary - Mr D Trotter, Nelson Mandela House, Peckham, or the Chairperson Mr A Daley, c/o The Winchester Club, East London.

Edited February 28, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

2 hours ago, Glover said:

I think before any meeting between CJT and the chairman it is better to address the issues within CJT

Actually, I think that an early meeting between CJT and the Chairman is important, to resolve something that I keep banging on about, and that Charles has mentioned above.

That is, to allow the CJT board to state their case and present their credentials in support of any claim that they may make to be in control of 10% of the voting rights. The Chairman and the ICT Board should then decide whether or not they will accept such a claim, possibly after taking legal advice. In fact, the CJT board should themselves probably take legal advice before making any such claim.

If CJT don't make such a claim - or if the ICT board reject it - then the next question is who the hell does control these votes.

Settle that first - then you can start discussing the state of the path between the car park and the stadium.

Edited February 28, 20188 yr by snorbens_caleyman

There are probably many supporters who would consider joining or assisting CJT but are simply being put off by the actions of the CJT board. While a family bereavement is hugely upsetting, the reason you have a board is that others can step in when required. CJT seem bereft of any understanding of why their role is so important. There is certainly also some blame to be attached to fans not getting involved previously, myself included, but there does appear to be a genuine upsurge in interest which CJT should be encouraging, not ignoring.

18 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Actually, I think that an early meeting between CJT and the Chairman is important, to resolve something that I keep banging on about, and that Charles has mentioned above.

That is, to allow the CJT board to state their case and present their credentials in support of any claim that they may make to be in control of 10% of the voting rights. The Chairman and the ICT Board should then decide whether or not they will accept such a claim, possibly after taking legal advice. In fact, the CJT board should themselves probably take legal advice before making any such claim.

If CJT don't make such a claim - or if the ICT board reject it - then the next question is who the hell does control these votes.

Settle that first - then you can start discussing the state of the path between the car park and the stadium.

I absolutely agree that CJT need to discuss the voting rights  with the Club Board before anything else, but in order to do that, it is essential to establish that the people representing CJT are doing so legitimately and have the backing of the membership.  We need an EGM and then it should be the CJT Board which emerges from that which takes the issue forward.

23 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Actually, I think that an early meeting between CJT and the Chairman is important, to resolve something that I keep banging on about, and that Charles has mentioned above.

That is, to allow the CJT board to state their case and present their credentials in support of any claim that they may make to be in control of 10% of the voting rights. The Chairman and the ICT Board should then decide whether or not they will accept such a claim, possibly after taking legal advice. In fact, the CJT board should themselves probably take legal advice before making any such claim.

If CJT don't make such a claim - or if the ICT board reject it - then the next question is who the hell does control these votes.

Settle that first - then you can start discussing the state of the path between the car park and the stadium.

A meeting with the Chairman is a priority but, after the chaos of recent months, it's vital that it is established that the current board is properly constituted and that any officials who approach the club have the legitimate locus to do so which is one reason why further clarity is urgently required.

I’m swithering between being really hacked off or delighted at the OP from CJT. The statement is disingenuous, shows an utter disregard for the membership and displays an arrogance that people who are members of CJT really need to challenge. It’s dreadful but judging by the replies thus far the challenge is exactly what is happening.

This Board (whoever it might be) cannot be constituted properly and cannot be valid. The last meeting (the AGM) broke up after being mismanaged (as was the case with the previous AGM) and the Board at that time was left without sufficient members to continue (2 or 3 depending on your viewpoint about electing a treasurer). The Board was not in any way endorsed from the floor. The only thing that was agreed was that Laura should redouble efforts to establish an accurate membership figure and then come back to that membership with a properly constructed AGM/EGM under the rules. No information was given (despite repeated requests) about the rules being submitted for approval or any other business. No minutes have been published.  The Board were not “given time” to do anything in regard to appointing casual or co-opted directors and its rules don’t allow for it in the numbers stated. I am told that the input from SDS has been limited to giving CJT the model rules and advising on completing them. Nothing more.

It’s important to state that people on this forum and elsewhere have not “borne with” CJT on this. They have become increasingly concerned and exasperated to the point of moving to demit this Board and that is presumably what has prompted this fairly disgraceful statement. DD has asked all of the questions that I would have, I’m not holding my breath on answers. Let’s just get to an EGM and elect a Board who can actually do the job. We still need people to commit to putting their names to the call for a special meeting, can I respectfully ask you to give me a direct message with your membership number and I’ll add you to the list and I will respond to each and every message. We need as many as possible.

I appreciate that there exists bad blood between former board members, those who purport to be current officials and various others who may have been disappointed at not been elected in the past but acrimony and public blood letting does not help.

If we are united in one thing it's the continuing existence of the club and with the hard fought for fan representation and share holding.

It doesn't really matter how we got here. It's clear that mistakes have been made and matters probably concealed but there is no nothing to be gained from blaming or finger pointing. What is important is that the matter is retrieved before it becomes too late.

The OP is a modest start but those who have chosen the 'burden' of office bearers must now stand up to the plate and be more forthcoming or be prepared to step aside voluntarily.

An anonymous post, with no details, a 'board' composed of 6 unidentified people, and a vague promise to put things right, whilst appearing not to have a clue who the members are of this organisation. What is your remit to make any announcement at all, and who do you represent? Not the supporters because they have no way of knowing who you are or what you intend to do, especially as they have been shut out and ignored for months, if not years. The whole thing needs scrapped and reformed, with open, identifiable people answerable to their members and supporters. I expect another two to six months of complete silence. Graeme Rae will throw you out on your ear, quite rightly, until a responsible, professional organisation is established.

Thank you for your comments.  I'm sorry that we haven't been able to respond sooner but we are a group of volunteers who all have other commitments.

First of all we would like to confirm that the board is indeed correctly constituted and valid as we have worked closely with Supporters Direct to ensure that this is the case.  The board is made up as follows

Chair - Liz MacRae

Appointed Company Secretary - Hamish Wood

Appointed Treasurer - Kath Fraser

Director - Laura Grant

Director - Cliff Sim

Co-opted Membership Secretary - Issy Fairclough

Thank you to those of you who have come forward with offers of help,  we look forward to meeting with you as soon as possible.  

Ok, so now we know who the six individuals are, we can move on to the next questions:

In what appears (correct me if I am wrong) to be the absence for some time of a fully concluded AGM or General Meeting of any kind, what was the process by which the six board members were appointed?

Which of them hold board positions and offices still active since the last properly concluded and transacted General Meeting of the Society?

Which of them have been coopted, and what are the Board's powers of cooption under the Society's Constitution/ Articles of Association?

By which, if any, other means have any of them been appointed to the Board or to their offices?

How much input has the Society's membership had into the formation of this board?

Hence, to what extent have the Board's actions carried a mandate from the membership?

And indeed, has the Society's membership even been properly defined?

Edited February 28, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

Whilst I am grateful that we now know the names of the "Board" members of CJT, the rest of the statement is, shall we say, disappointing.  Several of the concerns  and questions raised following the first statement have simply been ignored. Charles asks valid questions that demand an answer.  I will add just one comment to what he has said.

The second statement says "we would like to confirm that the board is indeed correctly constituted and valid as we have worked closely with Supporters Direct to ensure that this is the case."  The original statement says "Working closely with Supporters Direct Scotland we have now been able to register the model rules".  I take it from this that the  "correctly constituted and valid" Board has been appointed in line with newly registered model rules and/or constitution/articles of association. As it would appear from the statement that a Board can appoint itself with no reference to the membership. it is therefore vital that members can have access to these documents.  I would be grateful if the CJT would make these document available to the members as a matter of urgency.  These documents should, of course, be available on the CJT website but that website has had no content put on it since it was established nearly 2 years ago.

10 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Ok, so now we know who the six individuals are, we can move on to the next questions:

In what appears (correct me if I am wrong) to be the absence for some time of a fully concluded AGM or General Meeting of any kind, what was the process by which the six board members were appointed?

Which of them hold board positions and offices still active since the last properly concluded and transacted General Meeting of the Society?

Which of them have been coopted, and what are the Board's powers of cooption under the Society's Constitution/ Articles of Association?

By which, if any, other means have any of them been appointed to the Board or to their offices?

How much input has the Society's membership had into the formation of this board?

Hence, to what extent have the Board's actions carried a mandate from the membership?

And indeed, has the Society's membership even been properly defined?

There remains a great deal unsaid or ambiguous. 

It is good that some progress has been made and some limited information shared. However, members have an entitlement to question and, if necessary, challenge the actions of the office bearers. The organisation belongs to the members and is not the private domain of the committee.

These are extraordinary circumstances and the only way proper way forward now is to call an Extraordinary General Meeting.

There remains doubt and suspicion on the part of some about the actions and motives of others. That is not healthy and it's a boil that needs to be lanced before the whole body perished through sepsis.

Delaying calling a meeting is merely putting off the inevitable.

2 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

.These are extraordinary circumstances and the only way proper way forward now is to call an Extraordinary General Meeting.

Absolutely! That is actually what should have been done instead of the procedure adopted earlier this week. An EGM is priority number one and indeed what I find most astonishing about this whole unfortunate saga has been the apparent long term reluctance by those apparent self-appointees to  engage directly with the body itself - ie the membership.

It looks to me as if CJT has been allowed to go through a period of total inactivity and then, without any recourse whatsoever to the membership, a "board" has declared itself to have been appointed by itself.

Presumably one of the agenda items on any requisition for a meeting would need to read something along the lines of: "To hold such votes among members as are necessary to appoint a board, by confirmation in whole or in part of the body which self-declared on 27th February 2018, or by other constitutional means determined by the membership at the meeting."

Edited March 1, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

This is just a tentative suggestion which I will post just once on this public forum and should anyone wish to discuss it with me I would be obliged if they would PM me thereafter.

I have been a fan and, very minor, shareholder of ICT since our inception and of Inverness Thistle for very many years before that.

I have never been or wished to be a member of CJT together or any other supporters group let alone sought office. I have no intention in the future of becoming a member of CJT or any successor organisation let alone seeking office therein. I do know some of the protagonists, on both sides of this 'divide' to speak to but have no friendship with or allegiance to any. By the same token, I have no emnity towards any either.

On that basis, should parties wish, I would be prepared to try to act as 'honest broker' between factions and individuals who clearly have different and but sincerely and strongly held views on the matter.

I would be happy to organise and chair a meeting between all interested parties to see if consensus could be reached, with minimum further delay, on a way forward in the best interests of CJT and the wider supporter community in general.

Although, in law and in particular, in terms of the articles of association, such a meeting could have no formal locus, there would have to be an element of formality in the form of a written agenda and written submissions made in advance to the chair and circulated, prior to the meeting, to all other parties to prevent it from becoming a general mud slinging free for all which would get us nowhere.

Feel free to tell me to wind my neck in and mind my own business but, should anyone be inclined to take me up on this offer, feel free to send me a private message.

Two points......

1.  That board is not constitutional, even by the newly registered ruleset (see point 2).

As per the recently registered rules...

I've removed irrelevant points from the quoted text, but a full copy of the rules are attached...File 180108_ictss_rules.pdf. (As previous requests for copies of anything from the society board were not met, I paid to get these directly from the FCA.)

Quote

56. The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than five and not more than ten persons.

58. Elected directors shall be elected only in accordance with the Election Policy adopted by the Society.

62. New Directors shall be elected in accordance with the Society’s Election Policy including by authenticated electronic means and postal ballot. The Society’s Election Policy is to comply with any guidance issued by Supporters Direct.

63. The Society Board may at any time co-opt any Member of the Society or the representative of an organisation which is a Member to fill a casual vacancy in the Board of Directors, provided that at no time shall more than one-third of the members of the Society Board be co-opted members. A casual vacancy shall be deemed to exist if the number of Directors should drop below the minimum prescribed in these Rules or below the number elected at the preceding Annual General Meeting.

64. The Society Board may co-opt up to five external Directors to the Society Board in addition to the number of Directors specified in these Rules provided that at all times the total number of external directors and Members co-opted under Rule 65 shall be in the minority. A Director co-opted in accordance with this rule shall serve for a fixed period determined by the Society Board at the time of co-option, subject to a review at least every twelve months, may be removed from office at any time by a resolution passed by a majority of the members of the Society Board, and may be remunerated in an amount (to be disclosed in the published accounts) from time to time, as fixed by the Society Board. External Directors shall Model Rules for a Supporters Community Mutual - 13 of 20 be selected by virtue of their specialist skills and experience considered to be of benefit to the Society.

65. In the event that the size of the Society Board should drop below the minimum number of members prescribed in these Rules, the Directors may act to increase their number or to call a General Meeting of the Society, but for no other purpose.

66. The Society Board shall ensure that the business of the Society is conducted in accordance with these Rules and with the interests of the community and in accordance with any byelaws, policies or procedures adopted by the Society.

As per the message from CJT we have 6 Directors.  3 Elected, 2 External (Appointed) and 1 Co-opted.

That would appear to satisfy the rule that there must be a minimum of 5 directors...however!  The 3 elected are fine and the one co-opted is within the rules for no more than one third co-opted.  However, as per rule 64...external directors should be considered to be in addition to the number of directors specified in the rules, and not part of.  This means that the board make-up is not constitutional.  Even if you argue that the two external directors can be included in the number then the board is still not constitutional as (per rule 64) the total number of external and co-opted board members must be in the minority and that is not the case with the current board.

I also fail to see how they can invite people to fill an additional 4 positions without calling an EGM to have them (and/or others) elected properly.

2.  The rules registered with the FCA have not been approved by a General Meeting of the organisation and differ from the rules approved by the AGM in 2012.  There has been no resolution at any GM since then to approve any alternative rules.  The two main differences are that the number required for an operational board has been reduced (previously between 6 and 12, it now shows between 5 and 10)....and the rule that allowed for members to demand a performance audit of the society has been removed.  Given the recent goings on, I find this to be too much of a coincidence.

Copy of the rules as agreed by the society AGM in 2012 are also attached to allow people to do their own comparison. File 120817_ictss_rules.pdf

As can be seen from the attached, that submission of the rules has been passed to the FCA with a declaration that they have been adopted as per the society's rules.  That is clearly not the case and you can all draw your own conclusions as to the implications of that and decide how you proceed from here.

On 2/27/2018 at 5:28 PM, CaleyJagsTogether said:

Following our board meeting of 27^th February we would like to thank you for giving us the time to get our rules registered and accounts signed.

The last two months have been very difficult, double family bereavements have made normal day to day activities difficult to undertake and we thank you for bearing with us.

Working closely with Supporters Direct Scotland we have now been able to register the model rules and have the accounts signed.  The board now has 6 members who are working hard to take the society forward and we would like to invite a further four enthusiasts to join us. 

We need to know what’s important to you and how you want to make your voice heard.  We are currently in the process of setting up a meeting with the Graeme Rae, ICT Chairman.

We are actively working to update membership records so we would like to encourage you to respond promptly.  Remember to check your junk mail and filters to allow Supporters Trust emails from [email protected] .

This statement concerns me. I understand and sympathise deeply for the personal tragedies that have befallen two of the board members in the last few months. Despite the 10% shareholding in the club at a time of turmoil, those circumstances would make CJT quite irrelevant if it happened to most of us in our own lives. However, as unsympathetic as this may sound, those on the board should look inward at that point. That is where the other (4?) members need to pick up the slack and take on things that Laura and Liz may have understandingly let lapse. If they cannot or will not take up the slack, then quite frankly, why are they on the board in the first place? What were they doing while L&L were grieving?  

I note the comment about getting rules registered and accounts signed etc.  Are these the same rules that were already registered back in 2012 or thereabouts or are these new rules? If new rules then how were these approved without approval from the membership? The membership doesnt answer to the board. its the other way round !!! 

I note the comment about now having 6 members. Again, the same question. How was this board elected and when?  A properly elected board, still within its defined term, can legitimately co-opt others onto it but there is no clear indication of when/where the mandate was confirmed or extended. The previous board cannot simply declare itself as the new board without the proper process. This is not some informal committee operating in the way that the old supporters club used to be able to, this is a formal setup with legal rules and processes which, from the outside looking in do not appear to be getting followed.    

How are you actively working to update memberships ? Where can people go to check if they are members or not ? Over the years the society has offered both term memberships and permanent memberships. How can a former member find out which they are. 

 

1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

This is just a tentative suggestion which I will post just once on this public forum and should anyone wish to discuss it with me I would be obliged if they would PM me thereafter.

I have been a fan and, very minor, shareholder of ICT since our inception and of Inverness Thistle for very many years before that.

I have never been or wished to be a member of CJT together or any other supporters group let alone sought office. I have no intention in the future of becoming a member of CJT or any successor organisation let alone seeking office therein. I do know some of the protagonists, on both sides of this 'divide' to speak to but have no friendship with or allegiance to any. By the same token, I have no emnity towards any either.

On that basis, should parties wish, I would be prepared to try to act as 'honest broker' between factions and individuals who clearly have different and but sincerely and strongly held views on the matter.

I would be happy to organise and chair a meeting between all interested parties to see if consensus could be reached, with minimum further delay, on a way forward in the best interests of CJT and the wider supporter community in general.

Although, in law and in particular, in terms of the articles of association, such a meeting could have no formal locus, there would have to be an element of formality in the form of a written agenda and written submissions made in advance to the chair and circulated, prior to the meeting, to all other parties to prevent it from becoming a general mud slinging free for all which would get us nowhere.

Feel free to tell me to wind my neck in and mind my own business but, should anyone be inclined to take me up on this offer, feel free to send me a private message.

I am in the same boat as you here. I am, and always have been, willing to do whatever I can to help ICT. At various stages over the last 25 years I have served on the supporters club board (pre-CJT), have assisted the club with various technical things, operated this site as both an unofficial and official site, and provided hosting and/or websites where requested to numerous groups associated with ICT including but not limited to Highland March, CJT, Social Club and ICT itself. 

We (I) stand here again willing to offer help to any legitimate group that is associated with ICT. The only condition on that offer is that any group offered services or resources must have transparency of deed and actions and be operating legally under any constraints placed on them by law or by other external agreements. The forum platform itself is open to all and as users are responsible for their own posts then simply posting here is open and free to all without constraint. 

One of the frustrating things about CJT (for me) has indeed been the personalities involved. At least 3 of the people I think could do a great job for CJT and who I have varying degrees of friendship and/or interaction with, are at odds with each other. These are all really good people, all of whom are intensely focused on the well-being of ICT, and I think having a mediator could possibly be a good way forward. To regain any legitimacy that it previously may have had CJT needs to put a really solid foundation in place and for at least two of those 3 I refer to -- both of whom have indicated they have no desire to be on the board -- to be content that the rules and processes are in place for the society to follow in years to come. The current board can stay in place (if re-elected) but if there is any suggestion of impropriety or bypass of process still lingering then its pointless because any legitimacy they do manage to regain will not be retained.  

   

 

58 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Lots of helpful stuff

 

Don, are you in a position to advise why the rules needed to be amended?  I have a vague recollection that you had previously posted that there was a need to update them to comply with changes in legislation  or perhaps they weren't quite compliant with existing legislation?  Thanks. 

The current board is only in place at present to protect the 10% shareholding.  In my view if the people who are currently listed as board members had not stepped up to resolve all the issues there was a real possibility CJT would fold and the shareholding lost. 

There has been many appeals for people to step forward to take key roles.  There has been letters issued, e-mails sent and also posts on here to try and get people to come forward.

We have been accused of impropritories however, have been working hand in hand with supporters direct who have confirmed that the board is legitimate.

I, as the chair am more than happy to stand down at any time, however, there has been nobody who is willing to take on the role so im stuck.  As a lot of you know my personal sircumstaces changed drastically last year following the death of my 16 month old grandson, priorities changed. 

An EGM can easily be called and the current board totally replaced if thats what is required, however, im not wasting my time organising that if only 20 people turn up and nobody is prepared to take on the roles that are required.

The roles that are currently needed to be filled with people who have the time on their hands to deal with everything are:

Chairperson

Vice Chairperson

Treasurer

Secretary

Membership secretary

On top of these roles, general board members are also required.

Ahead of the last AGM which unfortunately I could not attend, there were requests for new board members to stand, we got nobody.

So all those people who are quick to shoot me and the other office bearers, please feel free to step, e-mail you intention to stand for board membership and we can put the wheels in motion to get CJT back on track.

Scotty - anyone who wants to check their current membership position can also e-mail the new CJT e-mail addess in the opening post and it will be confirmed.

 

Liz MacRae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Don, are you in a position to advise why the rules needed to be amended?  I have a vague recollection that you had previously posted that there was a need to update them to comply with changes in legislation  or perhaps they weren't quite compliant with existing legislation?  Thanks. 

I prepared a document back in 2011 which was made available to the members at the time and before they were asked to vote on the implementation at the GM in 2012....attached for those who like a little bedtime reading!!

ST Rules Comparison.pdf