THIS POST IS AIMED AT ONLY TRUST MEMBERS WHO INTEND TO RESPOND TO THE TRUST CONSULTATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.

In order to avoid what now my be regarded as a wasted effort, to keep the survey questions privy to Trust members, I have not set out the actual questions on the survey. Please refer to the survey form for the questions referred to below..

Q1 It seems that if you don't want the Trust to continue AT ALL, your option is to answer 'No' and then the rest of the question about what role it plays is irrelevant. You can say why you don't want it to continue AT ALL in the text box. It is also logical that if you don't want the Trust to continue that you don't answer any further questions.

Q2 It's a straight 'yes/no' answer.

Q3 I think what is the obvious main purpose of the Trust, in most members eyes, is that it is entirely AFC support focused. All of the listed purposes reflect that except point 5, which mentions '”supporting community activity”. However, the Trust Board considers that the Trust is a community benefit society (CBS), which requires that its focus be on benefiting the community and not a private limited company, which it does not legally control. Therefore, in my opinion, virtually all the purposes listed in this question do not meet with the requirements of being a CBS.

Q4 For me, this question has also to be read in conjunction with question with Q7, as follows:

Q7 There are no applicable current Trust rules that relate to appointment of directors to an independent organisation, i.e. the AFC.

If any AFC director nominated by the Board has to be approved by HJ, that is, he has a 'veto' - what is the point of elections? However, on the other hand does the Trust want 'Yes men or women' solely on the basis that HJ would approve them? The Trust, in their list of additional responsibilities (see Q4), indicate that the directors should take a strong position on the AFC board on behalf of the Trust. It's difficult to see how these two positions can be reconciled. Perhaps the Trust needs an assurance from HJ that he will not oppose any Trust director nominations, even if he has the power to do so, on the condition that the Trust will objectively involve his criteria in appointing the directors?

The appointment process needs thought, in my opinion. This is particularly so if AFC directors are not to be elected. So, would it be better to let the Trust board have unfettered choice of whom they nominate (jobs for the boys, maybe) or should it be a recruitment process open to all Trust members that the board manages and accepts the result of?

All, of these things also assume that there will be more than two persons who are Trust members and who are interested in becoming AFC directors on behalf of the Trust. If there are insufficient Trust members interested, as there are no Trust Rules relating to these nominations, such a candidate need not be a member of the Trust.

Q5 I think the second part needs to be looked at in the context of the next survey question, question 6.

Q6 There is a text box where a different option 6, i.e. your own alternative choice(s) choice could be indicated.

The 'fly in the ointment' here might be - how the Trust can ensure that money allocated is spent on specific purposes rather than disappearing into the profit and loss account?

Option 4 is also interesting, as to the extent it might be seeking to duplicate the work of County in The Community (CITC). However, it could mean that some part of the Trust contribution to the AFC must be made available to CITC to fund some of it's activities.

Q8 This seems to be essentially an administrative change, with a view to making the elections process more efficient .
 

Having read through the email I also received, what concerns me is that this has been drawn up by those who have been overseeing what has gone on over the last few years, IMO a election process should be carried out first, that way NO one can complain about the newly elected persons they voted in.

flat4 wrote: April 6th, 2024, 12:46 pm Having read through the email I also received, what concerns me is that this has been drawn up by those who have been overseeing what has gone on over the last few years, IMO a election process should be carried out first, that way NO one can complain about the newly elected persons they voted in.

Two things in response. The first is that I think what the existing Board wanted to do was to give the new Board a 'running start' in implementing what the members wanted to be doing. The second thing is that if sufficient new people do not stand for election as Trust Board Director then it is likely that the old Board and the new board will be more or less exactly the same thing, anyway.