BEARGER 1,829 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) If the attendees withheld information that the meeting was happening from other board members until after it took place then they should resign They did and they won't. Edited February 1, 2015 by BEARGER 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 If the attendees withheld information that the meeting was happening from other board members until after it took place then they should resign Exactly BD. Where was the meeting held btw? Anyone know? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yep, and I replied to you. And apart from this last sentence, I won't indulge in talking for talking's sake any more. it was BH who said that... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 the 3 people who attended this are either collaborating in our demise, utter morrons or unbelievably naive. i am not sure it matters which. None of them are morons; but IMHO two of them certainly are naive. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Not all RFB were aware of the meeting!!!! Only 3 members of RFB were able to attend, one reason being "a request of confidentiality by Rangers board members". What does that mean? They don't trust some of their hand picked RFB members? I don't know why you keep peddling this nonsense. All the candidates were selected on the basis of their CV's by the Nominations Committee who were independent of the Club and the election was conducted by an organisation independent of the Club. All the Board members were democratically elected. I can assure you that with my record, I'm the last person the Club would have hand picked for membership of the RFB, a fact that is perhaps proved by subsequent events. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I don't know why you keep peddling this nonsense. All the candidates were selected on the basis of their CV's by the Nominations Committee who were independent of the Club and the election was conducted by an organisation independent of the Club. All the Board members were democratically elected. I can assure you that with my record, I'm the last person the Club would have hand picked for membership of the RFB, a fact that is perhaps proved by subsequent events. The club decided who would vote, the club decided who would pick those that could stand for election. If you have someone in this case a minister deciding who can stand then it's not an election in my book. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) They should not have attended without the others, or at least made an attempt to discuss it with them. I suspect that what happened is that the Chair, Tom Clements, got a call inviting a maximum of three to a meeting with the two Directors on the proviso that other RFB members were not notified or invited. There's some sense in the Directors not wanting to meet the full RFB between meetings but there are no grounds for the other members not to be notified that the meeting was taking place. TC may well have reasoned that a mini meeting was better than no meeting at all. The RFB has the power to form sub committees: 18.1 RFB may delegate any of their powers and discussions to any sub-committee consisting of two or more Elected Representatives; they may also delegate to the Chairman (or the holder of any other post) such of their powers as they may consider appropriate. but I don't read that as saying that the Chair has the power effectively to appoint such a sub-committee without the knowledge never mind the consent of the RFB. If I'm right he was wrong to accept the invitation without the agreement of the rest of the Board. Edited February 1, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 18.1 RFB may delegate any of their powers and discussions to any sub-committee consisting of two or more Elected Representatives; they may also delegate to the Chairman (or the holder of any other post) such of their powers as they may consider appropriate. but I don't read that as saying that the Chair has the power effectively to appoint such a sub-committee without the knowledge never mind the consent of the RFB. It reads to me that the full RFB can delegate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) The club decided who would vote, the club decided who would pick those that could stand for election. If you have someone in this case a minister deciding who can stand then it's not an election in my book. You are correct that the Club decided that the constituency was the members and that they selected the members of the Nomination Committee which was chaired by the Rev MacQuarrie. I had a number of disagreements with the good Rev but I did accept his assurance that they operated a scoring system that he has used elsewhere to decide the best qualified candidates (although in one or two categories they did not have a plethora of choices). However, at the end of the day there was a democratic election; none of the members of the RFB were "hand picked". Edited February 1, 2015 by BrahimHemdani typos 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) 18.1 RFB may delegate any of their powers and discussions to any sub-committee consisting of two or more Elected Representatives; they may also delegate to the Chairman (or the holder of any other post) such of their powers as they may consider appropriate. but I don't read that as saying that the Chair has the power effectively to appoint such a sub-committee without the knowledge never mind the consent of the RFB. It reads to me that the full RFB can delegate. I agree. Only the full RFB can delegate powers to the Chair or any sub committee. Therefore unless the full RFB had delegated such powers to the Chair (and I don't recollect reading that in the Minutes of any of the Meetings) then he did not have the power effectively to form such a sub-committee. Of course he might argue that he just accepted an invitation to a formal or informal meeting and was entitled as Chair to accept the conditions placed on that meeting. Chairs generally have or trend to take on themselves quite wide ranging powers which they can enjoy subject to the confidence of the Board but in the case of the RFB the Chair's duties were set out as follows: The Role of the Chair • To plan the annual cycle of RFB meetings and set the agendas; • To chair meetings of RFB; • To be the first point of contact between the Club and RFB, liaising with the Elected Representatives and senior executives as appropriate; • To be responsible for the good working of RFB, including managing any issues regarding the conduct of elected Representatives or their ability to undertake their role. • To intervene to resolve disputes between Elected Representatives and remedy any complaints or observations on the standards of behaviour of any Elected Representatives. Edited February 1, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.