A final contribution to the debate

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I am making this statement as my final contribution to the debate regarding the Trust Accounts and the AGM, and in so doing, I want to announce publicly my resignation from the Board of Rangers Supporters Trust; notice of which was submitted to the Chair and Acting Secretary a short time ago.

 

I should preface this statement with some information about the role of the Secretary. Whilst the Secretary is a servant and advisor to the Board, he or she is also a servant of the members. In an ideal world, the interests of the members and the board would coincide, but unfortunately this is not always the case. In such situations, the Secretary has a critical role in bringing potential conflicts to members' attention. That is not to say that whenever a Secretary does so, the Secretary is right and the Board is wrong. Such decisions ultimately are for the members, the Secretary's role is to make sure the members are aware of everything they need to know in order to arrive at their own conclusions. I am advised that the Secretary’s responsibility to the members is greater than any responsibility owed to the Board or its advisors.

 

In addition to my responsibility to members, as someone who makes a living in financial services, I also have a responsibility to my family and my business.

 

I believed that issues brought out by the audit of the Trust’s accounts gave rise to breaches of very important Rules in the Trust's Constitution. Although some might quibble over whether these issues and the amounts involved merited my actions, I can only say that it is not the place of the Secretary to second guess the members’ interpretation of the circumstances, any more than it is the job of the police to second-guess a jury in a court case. It is simply my job to make the members aware so that they can make a judgment, which is the role accorded to them in the Trust's Rules and the law of the land.

 

Bearing in mind these principles, I was very uncomfortable with the first draft of the auditor’s management letter. Therefore, I asked them to consider including references to certain matters, and at the time they agreed that these references were appropriate. It is a fact that the auditors concluded that the breaches of Rules that I had identified could lead to action by the FSA or HM Revenue and Customs. Furthermore they concluded that controls over income and expenditure were weak and that this could lead to wrong amounts being paid, expenses not being recovered, the possibility of inaccurate accounts and an increased likelihood of errors and misappropriations. These were not my words; these were the auditor’s words.

 

Under the circumstances I determined that I could not sign the accounts. At the same time, I resolved to resign as Secretary, both in line with the diktats of my conscience and business ethics and in order to be able to speak more freely if necessary at the forthcoming AGM.

 

The auditor’s management letter is a tool to assist in the improvement of financial controls. Therefore I sent it to every member of the Board. The only agenda or “goal” that I had in so doing was to demonstrate the auditor’s support for the new financial management procedures that I had written some months earlier and thereby increase the probability of their being adopted. In am aware that the management letter was subsequently amended again but the Board’s recent statement appears to confuse the management letter with the Audit Report attached to the Accounts.

 

Following my resignation I was not involved in the Board’s final preparations for the AGM but I can say that I fully expected them to make full disclosure to the members either in the published accounts or by way of a statement at the AGM. Frankly I was astonished that the Board's preferred outcome would be to prevent members being made aware of what I considered material facts in relation to the Accounts.

 

At the AGM, I was prevented from making a statement when the accounts were being discussed. The Trust Board's statement in recent days suggests that I was told I could speak later in the meeting; I did not hear that said and neither did a number of others. Regardless, this is to miss the critical point. By the latter part of the agenda, the members would have agreed the accounts, and so closed the book on these matters. Had members heard my statement and wished to take action later in the meeting, it would have been too late in law. At the time, I did momentarily consider staying and trying to reintroduce my statement later in the meeting but by that time it could not have had any impact, which is the reason why I left at that point.

 

My immediate thoughts were to find a means by which I could communicate the pertinent information to the people who needed to know it, the members. It was whilst considering this that my attention was drawn to reports of the meeting starting to be discussed on message boards. As these matters were already in the public domain, and since my actions were subject to discussion, I felt the only proper response was to place my thoughts on record, lest they be subject to further speculation. I did this with a very heavy heart, because in so doing, these matters came to the attention of non-members. I can only say that I had never intended for this to be so, but the action was forced upon me by the failure of the AGM Chair to allow me to speak at the critical point and to the subsequent reporting of events by some of those present.

 

Whilst there is much with which I could take issue in the Trust’s statement, I see nothing to be gained by a further war of words. However, I reject as utter nonsense, the suggestion that my claims were in anyway exaggerated. On the contrary the Trust’s statement confirms the exact amount of the debt quoted by me, Ã?£2,690 and concedes that this was outstanding for an “extended period of time”, which is a polite way of saying from 12 to 23 months.

 

However, in my opinion, the single most important point in the Trust’s statement is that their legal advice confirms my view that there was indeed a conflict of interest arising from the debt owed by Mr. Mark Dingwall. The statement omits to mention that neither Mr. Dingwall nor the Chair brought this debt, or the conflict of interest arising, to the attention of the Board.

 

When I resigned as Secretary, several other Directors persuaded me to remain as a Director. However, the statement of the Trust Board makes it abundantly clear that their views are now vastly different to mine. Therefore, I can see that little positive can emerge for the Trust, its members or I from my continued membership of the Board. Furthermore, I cannot in all conscience remain in membership of a Board which takes such a different view of critical matters for the organisation and so I have tendered my resignation as a Director of the Trust.

 

I am glad to have had the opportunity to serve as a Director and Secretary of RST and I am proud of my contribution. At all times I have acted in the best interests of the Trust and the wider trust movement which I now serve as Director of Supporters Direct. My actions have only ever been in fulfillment of my legal and ethical responsibility to enable the members to have possession of information that is rightfully theirs, and having done so, I will be making no further comment.

 

I remain a member of the Trust, and a supporter of its goals of supporter involvement at the highest possible level in the ownership and governance of Rangers Football Club, and wish it every success in pursuit of these objectives.

 

Alan S Harris

2 October 2010

Edited October 2, 2010 by BrahimHemdani
Spelling error

[bossy 0]

You just blew it pal.

 

You just admitted trying to nobble the management letter behind the backs of the board and trying to pass off your comments as those of the auditor.

 

Any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window.

[Zappa 0]

You just blew it pal.

 

You just admitted trying to nobble the management letter behind the backs of the board and trying to pass off your comments as those of the auditor.

 

Any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window.

.

Since it's your first post here bossy, I'd just like to say welcome to the forum.......

[maineflyer 0]

You just blew it pal.

 

You just admitted trying to nobble the management letter behind the backs of the board and trying to pass off your comments as those of the auditor.

 

Any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window.

 

If that's true then you must be seeing it between the lines because I can't see where he says anything of the sort. Perhaps you could offer some support for your claims by pointing out the exact sentences in his statement where you find this information.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Simple question and still unanswered, one that explains the whole fiasco...... why, if they did indeed change their stance on matters, did the auditors do so, also has the rst not had a CA on the board for several months, if so what is and was that CA's take on the matter.

 

...........................................................

 

PS...how others see things....

 

 

Grandmaster_Suck

http://tinyurl.com/FollowFollowFacebook

 

Join Date: 06-03-2005

Location: The Disco Inferno

Posts: 14,737

 

Re: Trust statement

Quote:

Originally Posted by forlanssister

Ok i'll bite and mention the elephant in the room.

 

Would it not be for the greater good of the RST as a whole,and it's long term aims, if the Dingwall chap to resign from the board?

 

 

 

 

 

*prepares to be thrashed with the banning stick*

 

 

It's juvenile to tie your arguement to martyrdom.

 

I have of course considered that course whilst the Trust Board was under the lash of Mr Harris's assorted threats to wreak havoc. However, giving into such dishonesty would not have been decent and it would have been deserting my colleagues who would have still had to cope with his behaviour.

Edited October 2, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Bluedell 5,329]

You just blew it pal.

 

You just admitted trying to nobble the management letter behind the backs of the board and trying to pass off your comments as those of the auditor.

 

Any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window.

 

So you are trying to say that if a staff member of one of your clients highlighted an issue that had been excluded from an initial draft of a management letter prepared by yourselves, that you would identify that staff member as having no credibility or integrity?

 

I've done the same in the past in my company. There are times when I ask for things to be removed and there are times when I ask for things to be added. It's then up to the auditors to word it in a way that they see as being appopriate. Standard business practice.

[boss 0]

So you are trying to say that if a staff member of one of your clients highlighted an issue that had been excluded from an initial draft of a management letter prepared by yourselves, that you would identify that staff member as having no credibility or integrity?

 

I've done the same in the past in my company. There are times when I ask for things to be removed and there are times when I ask for things to be added. It's then up to the auditors to word it in a way that they see as being appopriate. Standard business practice.

 

I agree with Bluedell.

 

A management letter is something of a negotiation between client and auditor and can go through a number of drafts. I have had input at both ends, as auditor and as client. I have asked for things to be put in and I have asked for things to be taken out. Indeed, the client's "reply" to the management letter is also often agreed between client and auditor before the auditor issues the final management letter!

 

The poster "bossy" has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to management letters, so best to ignore what he has said. So "bossy", "any credibility and integrity you might have had just went out the window".

 

P.S. I hope no-one is mixing up "boss" with "bossy". :admin:

[Zappa 0]

P.S. I hope no-one is mixing up "boss" with "bossy". :admin:

.

Your first sentence wouldn't have ended with 'pal' .. boss...

[boss 0]

.

Your first sentence wouldn't have ended with 'pal' .. boss...

 

You saying I've got no pals? :box:

 

 

 

You're probably right.

[Guest carson1912]

First post lads, Carson1912 on VB and SOU1999 on RM. I also have a log in for Borrow Borrow which I do not use.

 

I joined Gersnet because I often agree with Frankie's outlook on things and the dignity he posts it with. This is the sort of guy who should be leading the RST.

 

I have never been a member of the RST but I would consider it if the current board were ousted.

The problem being Egotists will never relinquish power, power is a drug to them.

 

It is obvious to everyone that the Rangers support does not have any faith in the current regime in the RST.

 

Do the right thing and resign and give the RST a chance to accomplish its aims.

 

I have read all the threads on this and I have to say the most noticeable thing is the patronising and condescending appalling attitude of the people who are trying to fight the corner of the RST.

Do they consider normal Rangers fans below them ?

Where do they get this elitist attitude ?

Are all these bears who resigned from the RST wrong ?