Jump to content

TRR - new Forum Rules


Recommended Posts

Interesting thought Dave.

If I try to access the forum I just get that 'Updated Terms of Use' rules page - presumably because I am recognised as a user. I wonder what someone brand new trying to access the forum sees?

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, PGB BME said:

Hamish

I think you are right in what you say, what gets me is the self righteous attitude shown by some Board Members and their willingness to play by different rules to everyone else.

Phil

Phil

Quite so, but I was also surprised to see the number of members who voted against the limitation to directors' length of service.  According to the TRR report:

9.5. Limitation of Directors' tenure

Proposed by: Ian Cornish Seconded by: Ian Brown

  • For: 256
  • Against: 437

63% against – rejected.

Whatever were people thinking of..?

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

Interesting thought Dave.

If I try to access the forum I just get that 'Updated Terms of Use' rules page - presumably because I am recognised as a user. I wonder what someone brand new trying to access the forum sees?

Rod

Rod if you delete the TR register cookie in your browser and then go back into the forum from the TR home page it doesn't know who you are and you don't get that screen. You can read all posts except the Alec's Inn ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

Interesting thought Dave.

If I try to access the forum I just get that 'Updated Terms of Use' rules page - presumably because I am recognised as a user. I wonder what someone brand new trying to access the forum sees?

Rod

I believe that it is a "feature" of the software that any registered user has to go through this, I don't think that it's something driven by TRR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PaulAA said:

Phil

Quite so, but I was also surprised to see the number of members who voted against the limitation to directors' length of service.  According to the TRR report:

9.5. Limitation of Directors' tenure

Proposed by: Ian Cornish Seconded by: Ian Brown

  • For: 256
  • Against: 437

63% against – rejected.

Whatever were people thinking of..?

Paul

I imagine that many of that 437 allowed their vote to be used as their proxy (the Chair) determined. It seems that there is a large group that simply follow and want to ensure the status quo. Why do they do this, I really don't know - because that is what they are blindly encouraged/told to do through the Boards's recommendation on the voting papers, and/or they are happy to be led/told how to vote, or are genuinely happy with how things are being run by the Board???

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod

Its called "apathy" the total numbers that voted is a fraction of the membership, so looking at the groups which there are 50+ at say average 20 members = 1000 members. I would assume that the majority of voters came from that pool of group members, most of the forumites that voted I would suggest are group members. That leaves the 5000 or so "remainers" as those who just receive there magazine.

IF the voters are from group members then the influence of GL's would make sense as to why the voting was strongly in favour of the Board .

Just my interpretation

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PaulAA said:

Phil

Quite so, but I was also surprised to see the number of members who voted against the limitation to directors' length of service.  According to the TRR report:

9.5. Limitation of Directors' tenure

Proposed by: Ian Cornish Seconded by: Ian Brown

  • For: 256
  • Against: 437

63% against – rejected.

Whatever were people thinking of..?

Paul

That is the perennial problem with clubs, any clubs (from cars to bowling, badminton to trains) 

While a certain amount of fresh blood is desirable, finding volunteers can be very very difficult. Daughter Lucy was on the committee of our local motorsport club when she was 14, as membership Secretary (small membership, circa 60 IIRC). She learnt a lot doing that over a few years... Anyway, when she went off to Uni they couldn't find anybody to take the position, and it was picked up by one of the other committtee members. And that is teh case 5 years on, nobody new has come forward to help. And that is a local club.

Move to a national club, and realistically any committee members need to live within a distance that they can get to the meetings. And be prepared to attend just about all the meetings. And also be involved in many of the club events over the year. It is a massive commitment that few people are prepared to undertake. So "we" are often stuck with people runningthe club for a veeeery long time. Or indeed, individual within a club become increasingly powerful if they are prepared to take on more and more roles. 

A double edged sword. We should appreciate these volunteers, but we may not always like what happens. Then it is old old adage. If you don't like it, you need to volunteer...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about the board (as a collective) recommending how members should vote on any particular proposed resolution. On the one hand, if the resolution was extremely detrimental to the club, then I can see that members should be warned. However, such cases would be rare. I do not believe that any resolution put forward this year could be seen as detrimental and yet the board recommended voting against many of them. Why would that be?  

If there is a good case for the board to make recommendations on how to vote on a resolution, then I think members should know how each individual board member views the resolution. I know that not all directors would have been against all the resolutions that the board recommended voting against. Yet, the board always reaches a unanimous decision (because they are directed to). It shouldn't be like that in my opinion. As a voter (Ex), I would want to know where each individual on the board stands on each resolution.

If it were not so upsetting to me, this latest allegation that I "instigated the misuse of proxy voting" would be laughable. I'll say again, the accusation was not put to me by the board or the panel in my interviews with them. It only appeared when the panel's report was published. When the panel was questioned on the details of the allegation, I was finally told that I was accused of coercing group members in to how to vote (either in 2016 or 2017) at a club AGM. Once again, I've not been told who made this allegation, although I assume that it is the same person who was unhappy about me discussing club matters in the group. I've been given no chance to make an official response, but I'll say here that it is ridiculous. I have never carried a proxy vote to a club AGM, and as far as I know all my members who voted in 2016 and 2017 attended the AGM. What I have done, is always been open with members when asked my thoughts on any particular issue. If that is coercing them into how to vote, then I'm astonished. There is nothing in the rules to say that I cannot be open about my views when asked by members. I wonder if there would have been a problem if my views had been totally inline with the board's! And what exactly is it when a board is directed to vote unanimously on a matter, even when some individual directors disagree with it? And what is it when the board recommends on how members should vote on resolutions? Coercion?

When I was GL, I did occasionally feel learned on by a certain director, not that it made a difference to me in terms of how I ran the group. I suspect I wouldn't be where I am now if I'd have played the corporate game, but that's not what I expect in a club where I paid my subs just like every other member. I expected an equal say ... and I demanded it for my members too.  

Darren  

                

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zetecspit said:

If you don't like it, you need to volunteer...

I tried, when I first joined, and received a very short answer.

I don't buy the belief that there are too few candidates to replace the incumbents.  But I do subscribe to the view that a position can be made to look unappealing to would-be candidates.  I also see a fair bit of evidence to suggest that candidates are being dissuaded or actively blocked from disrupting the status quo.  Darren's situation being a case in point.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't get me wrong. I have no axe to grind here. Just pointing out why an enforced turnover of directors is not usually desirable (ie what happens if there are not enough replacements?)

Maybe before they will accept volunteers, the said volunteer needs to get a track record, maybe in helping run an area or organising at a lower level? that would make some sense. Could have been explained better than just a short answer..... 

All clubs are wary of new blood wanting to get into "powerful" positions quickly. A brilliant landlords association got aggressively taken over by another larger organisation. They got loads of people to turn up the the AGM, voted on a load of new directors. Shortly after it was "absorbed" and was monetised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zetecspit said:

please don't get me wrong. I have no axe to grind here. Just pointing out why an enforced turnover of directors is not usually desirable (ie what happens if there are not enough replacements?)

Maybe before they will accept volunteers, the said volunteer needs to get a track record, maybe in helping run an area or organising at a lower level? that would make some sense. Could have been explained better than just a short answer..... 

All clubs are wary of new blood wanting to get into "powerful" positions quickly. A brilliant landlords association got aggressively taken over by another larger organisation. They got loads of people to turn up the the AGM, voted on a load of new directors. Shortly after it was "absorbed" and was monetised. 

Sorry... I didn't meant to sound so emphatic.  Challenging week in the office and venting on a couple of ST threads seems to have been my one relief!

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zetecspit said:

please don't get me wrong. I have no axe to grind here. Just pointing out why an enforced turnover of directors is not usually desirable (ie what happens if there are not enough replacements?)

Maybe before they will accept volunteers, the said volunteer needs to get a track record, maybe in helping run an area or organising at a lower level? that would make some sense. Could have been explained better than just a short answer..... 

All clubs are wary of new blood wanting to get into "powerful" positions quickly. A brilliant landlords association got aggressively taken over by another larger organisation. They got loads of people to turn up the the AGM, voted on a load of new directors. Shortly after it was "absorbed" and was monetised. 

I think there is some truth in there not being enough people willing to volunteer or stand for positions, but it's catch 22. If the members hear that those who have put themselves forward to help have been ignored, or treated poorly when they do help, then less will be inclined to put themselves forward. I know of some members that won't stand for positions because they do not want to challenge an incumbent. 

In my opinion, in a club setting at least, it is not healthy to have directors in position for more than a few years (6 or 7 max.). I can see your point about management not wanting new members getting into powerful positions quickly, but really that's for the membership to decide, not for the board to block. 

After all, nobody expects the TR inquisition. Their chief weapons are ... (complete as you see fit)!       

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an awful lot of truth in the the old adage "power corrupts".  Often seen in politicians, senior figures in big companies and so on.  Not all people suffer from it to the same extent but those who seek out such positions do seem to be over-represented.  There is a good reason why the US presidency (and others) are limited to two terms.  At least one term too long in some cases though where the incumbent arrives pre-corrupted!

Also familiar with the flip side as in a small village such as ours, once you have (perhaps naively/unwisely) got involved with a club, society or parish council, you pretty much have to move away or die to escape!

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TSSC has some system for fixed terms, and people can stand for re-election. Usually voted back in. 

A few years ago they did reduce the number of spaces on the CoM. Basically there were more spaces than actual serving members. So if I could have got 10 (or whatever) people to stand with just a handful of votes each, I could have taken the club over. And then asset stripped it one way or another. 
What is interesting is that there is a steady turnover of CoM members. It is a thought, does having to stand fr re-election give people the chance to escape? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Nick Jones said:

 

Also familiar with the flip side as in a small village such as ours, once you have (perhaps naively/unwisely) got involved with a club, society or parish council, you pretty much have to move away or die to escape!



Yes that rings a bell. I used to live in a block of flats where the residents owned the freehold and ran the management company.  I was asked to be secretary at first but then had to take over the function of treasurer too because no-one else would do it.  In effect I ended up running the whole thing for some years until I moved away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Board elections and new blood I would comment as below

Firstly I have no axe to grind with our newly appointed NE Director nor our newly appointed VC but I would make this comment.

In TRAction 308  it stated that to stand for Area Director election that person had to "LIVE" in the area they were serving, that rule immediately reduced the number of people eligible to stand, but it was the BOD's who instigated the rule.

Now at the AGM P Hogan (Past Chairman) queried the legality of the candidate standing and was rudely shouted down by our new VC, who correctly apologised to Paul after the meeting, I also said my bit about and was shouted at by the VC, at an appropriate time the VC then asked me to step out and we discussed the matter at the rear of the Hall. I was told that I didn't understand the issue correctly and as the Candidate had a foot in White Rose Group and a Sheffield postcode it was ok for him to stand. He also said that no one else had offered to stand as NE Director. 

Two things are relevant here, firstly the rule in TRAction stated that you had to "LIVE" in the area you were serving not that you visited a nearby group nor had a postcode which suited. I was told by the new VC that this was ok and basically I didn't know the facts, well sorry I go by the rules. No the candidate lives in DERBYSHIRE

Secondly, Is it correct to accept a candidate by manipulating the rule just because no one else stood?, my answer to that is NO, the successful candidate is a former GL and is known to support several of the Board Directors to the hilt, his appointment only serves to stifle Boardroom discussion/policy and maintain the status quo.

If the BOD's were serious about opening up positions for new candidates they shouldn't have restricted choice, I believe they did it so as to favour their candidates, it stinks!. It will be almost impossible for a member who is not a GL to get elected in future.

Regards

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to say that until the rule for election was published in TRAction I was considering standing as Midlands Director, I live near Derby. Probably wouldn't have been successful as the current Director has been in that position for some 22 years, yes 22 years!

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil - I would suggest it is also totally unacceptable for the VC to shout at anyone, in a formal AGM setting - or anywhere for that matter. No wonder people feel disinclined to volunteer!

Nick - I agree, I've been a Parish Councillor in my small village here in W Sussex, for many years, but just recently stepped down. Whereabouts in Somerset (the county of my youth) are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PGB BME said:

I forgot to say that until the rule for election was published in TRAction I was considering standing as Midlands Director, I live near Derby. Probably wouldn't have been successful as the current Director has been in that position for some 22 years, yes 22 years!

Phil

Yes, and rude and incompetent with it, in my experience. Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TR5tar said:

After all, nobody expects the TR inquisition. Their chief weapons are ... (complete as you see fit)!       

Our Chief weapon is secrecy,     secrecy and evasion...evasion and secrecy...….....Our two weapons are evasion and secrecy      and ruthless indecision...…....Our three weapons are evasion, secrecy and ruthless indecision         and an almost fanatical devotion to Independent Review Panels...…..... Our four    no     Amongst our weaponry - are such elements as evasion, secrecy, ruthless indecision and a fanatical devotion to Independent Review....

Now, Darren you are accused of heresy on three counts - thought, deed, word,      and heresy by action...…….. on four counts - how do you plead?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zetecspit said:

A few years ago they did reduce the number of spaces on the CoM. Basically there were more spaces than actual serving members. So if I could have got 10 (or whatever) people to stand with just a handful of votes each, I could have taken the club over. And then asset stripped it one way or another. 
 

It's an interesting point you make. A few years ago a club asset (a car) was sold and many members were unhappy about the way it was handled, in that there was no consultation with the membership about the sale.  Not long after, I put the point to the club's now chair and argued the case for restrictions on the sale of high value assets as well as on high value purchases. In other words, limits on what the board could sell or purchase without first consulting the membership and providing good reasons for the proposed transaction. We had a number of lengthy email exchanges on the subject. His position was that the board had been elected by the members and ipso facto had the right to conduct affairs as it pleased. 

One of my concerns was the ability for directors to co-opt others into directorial positions. A resolution was put forward this year to stop the practice, but the recommendation was to vote against and members did. I think that those supporting the resolution could imagine a scenario where a handful of directors could co-opt a few mates in order to gain complete control. That would be a dangerous situation, for the reasons you outlined.   

37 minutes ago, PGB BME said:

Regarding Board elections and new blood I would comment as below

Firstly I have no axe to grind with our newly appointed NE Director nor our newly appointed VC but I would make this comment.

In TRAction 308  it stated that to stand for Area Director election that person had to "LIVE" in the area they were serving, that rule immediately reduced the number of people eligible to stand, but it was the BOD's who instigated the rule.

Now at the AGM P Hogan (Past Chairman) queried the legality of the candidate standing and was rudely shouted down by our new VC, who correctly apologised to Paul after the meeting, I also said my bit about and was shouted at by the VC, at an appropriate time the VC then asked me to step out and we discussed the matter at the rear of the Hall. I was told that I didn't understand the issue correctly and as the Candidate had a foot in White Rose Group and a Sheffield postcode it was ok for him to stand. He also said that no one else had offered to stand as NE Director. 

Two things are relevant here, firstly the rule in TRAction stated that you had to "LIVE" in the area you were serving not that you visited a nearby group nor had a postcode which suited. I was told by the new VC that this was ok and basically I didn't know the facts, well sorry I go by the rules. No the candidate lives in DERBYSHIRE

Secondly, Is it correct to accept a candidate by manipulating the rule just because no one else stood?, my answer to that is NO, the successful candidate is a former GL and is known to support several of the Board Directors to the hilt, his appointment only serves to stifle Boardroom discussion/policy and maintain the status quo.

If the BOD's were serious about opening up positions for new candidates they shouldn't have restricted choice, I believe they did it so as to favour their candidates, it stinks!. It will be almost impossible for a member who is not a GL to get elected in future.

Regards

Phil

This practice of manipulating rules in order to achieve the desired outcome needs to be stopped. I've experienced it first hand time and time again. On each occasion I challenged it, but when the level of control is absolute it's impossible to beat it. Many of those that have made it onto the board say they were marginalised. 

What is particularly appalling to hear is that members have been shouted at by directors. Of course, having been on the end of such behaviour myself, it comes as no surprise.    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First I must thank you for accepting me to this forum, and Darren for telling me of it earlier today. I think many of you will know me, having been a TR owner and member for nearly 45 years, a three times GL and having spent 6 years on committee. 

I echo almost all that has been said above, especially by Rod 1883, PGB  BME, Brian C and Peter C, and of course Darren.

Not able to get to the AGM and hearing bad reports from many i decided to take a look at the forum and was faced by the new rules. I exploded! I saw the proposal on the proxy form and firmly voted against it. No right minded believer in democracy could sign that, my whole integrity would never let me sign up to such communist babble. Sadly it is a sign of the times as we see more and more freedom of speech challenged with safe spaces and revisionist to history. It has to stop.

Needing to vent I expressed my opinions on a TR group mail server on which I am a member, I will not name them as by enlarge they are a good crop, but I did not get the response I expected. I told them I was done with the TRR and will let my membership expire, while I was comforted by their attempts to get me to change my mind and stay, most did not see the issue, were at the AGM unlike my own group, and were in agreement with all the results. This tells me a lot.

My last response to them was as follows in response to  a lengthy exchange that was for the independence of Groups and the benefits of face to face membership that ended with;

 I find forata frustrating, which is why I avoid Facebook, except to contact friends via Messenger & send occasional birthday wishes.

" many groups work very well independently from the TRR. Which begs the question what does the TRR provide for its members? How does it treat errant Groups well ask VoWH, which in itself is interesting as each group is an independent entity from a legal standpoint so in effect they have no right to dictate to VoWH.
Now to dictate to members what they can and cannot say, I agree some rules are necessary as in remaining polite etc, existing company insurance should cover the very unlikely event of a member being upset and suing. When one does not get to a local group the forum is a very useful means to communication. This is all about the BoD and Ego's who completely fail as managers as they do not understand the power of positive communication in building strong teams, they prefer to create a divide in order to maintain their positions through threat etc.
I can be critical of my government, my Dr, my Council  my wife at some personal risk, but not the Gods running my car club? really! You need to go to some third world dictatorship to find a similar situation."
 
From past experiences at Committee level I have no doubt that hidden forces ar at play, and hands are up puppets backsides or pulling strings. The recent AGM most certainly was stage managed, numbers garnered etc. The whole sordid episode with Darren brings shame on ever BoD member who presided over it. In my view the whole lot should have been removed. Do we really need all those people anyway. Yes some not on committee have too much influence, but I see this too as a failing of the BoD
 
I could go on ad infinitum, but you get the picture....I still have steam rising. Need to cool for a day or two. But I am done with the TRR.
Duncan
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not agree more Duncan

As a member who does not attend group meetings the forum is my only means of communication with other TRR members.

In my opinion there is a small but very vocal group that are anti forum & they have the ear of at least some of the board.

They have said that all the forum does is critisise but in reality TRA & the IWE get praised & most critisism is of lack of communication from the BoD.

The only communications I get is TRA which mostly tells me what has happened (sometimes as in Darrens case a very one sided view) & the annual renewal reminder.

When did TRA ever include any meaningful content on what the BoD were planning for the future of the TRR or try to canvas members views.

In my view the forum is a wonderful advert for the TRR. I have witnessed the efforts o forumites to get a seiously ill Badfrog from France to the IWE & back, the support given to Alec Pringle during his long illness & numerous othe acts of kindness carried out through the old AtB. All a wonderful advert for the TRR noe lost

I have reluctantly agreed to the new forum rules as I only renewed my membership on 1st Nov in order to vote but I will be writing to the chairman to express my views.

Dave M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...