#28002
scapegoat
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Dear Lady Penelope

    Thanks for your reply, which I only just saw after I replied to JT. As you can see, for the first time this year, the motion on honorariums did not appear on the AGM agenda, but was instead agreed by the EC only, in the presence of the recipient. She is, in fact, the Treasurer and has been in the position for some 40 years now. (She has also consistently argued that the accounts Not be audited. The motion always passes because everyone knows that she becomes impossible if challenged).

    No explanatory information has ever appeared with the motion when it did appear on the AGM agenda. Getting any information about the how the AGM agenda is compiled is almost impossible – the Treasurer appears to have complete control of that process – the minutes to the AGM held most recently does not even include a date for the next AGM. This has been included in the past. 

    Given that this year, this decision was made by the EC only, is it a valid decision? If it isn’t, can I appeal?

    Thanks

    PS: “unseemly” doesn’t even come close . . . ‘incompetent’ is closer, but taking the motion off the AGM agenda now strikes me as very underhand (at the very least) in light of your advice. Thanks again.