Rangers First board election: Gersnet's voting poll...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The minutes from the first meeting of the RFB contained the proposal below......which when you read between the lines makes perfect sense regards the interests of he who proposed it

 

 

"Alan Harris proposed, “Elected representatives shall not write, send or post any comment on social media or internet forums or the like which a reasonable person would interpret as denigrating any other Elected Representative” After discussion the Motion was agreed subject to adding “ or the Club or supporters body” after the words ‘Elected Representatives. This would be incorporated into the Code of Conduct for RFB Members."

 

 

http://rangers.co.uk/images/FansBoard/Minutes/RFB_Minutes_061014.pdf

ps. doesn't mention who took them but they were obviously considered 'official'.

 

YES, those were the "official" Minutes.

 

The Minutes are correct but I didn't take them; they are not written in my style. I do not write bullet point Minutes and I most certainly would not have said "Alan Harris discussed the website navigation and how difficult it is to find the RFB today, and potentially considering our own website", for example. If I had written that I would have said "Alan Harris raised the subject of website navigation.........

 

The suggestion was that I had written and published the Minutes prematurely which I couldn't have done as I didn't take them. FS confirmed that from his recollection.

 

I did say that I thought the Rev MacQuarrie took those Minutes but I am not certain. However, since it appears to be important to you to know for some reason I will ask around.*

 

In any event I am not sure the point you are trying to make here; but just in case you are still confused, I raised that and it was agreed unanimously IIRC, because certain members were indeed making comments about others online that I regarded as denigratory and I wanted it stopped.

 

You appear to be trying to make a comparison between what is recorded in that Minute and the RF Election. Once again, I did not make any negative comments about any candidate in the Election. I simply stated that IMO certain candidates should have been debarred due to what I considered to be conflicts of interest and acceptance of hospitality that might lead a reasonable person to take the view that their impartiality might be compromised in discussions with the Club. A number of other respected posters on here agreed with that view in some way, shape or form (and one person in particular was quite vociferous about it at the AGM) and others disagreed which is fair enough. Quite how you can equate that with making denigratory comments about a candidate is beyond me.

 

I do recall being criticised for dominating that meeting with issues that "away fans" asked me to raise; whereas you will see that ACD aside (and GG about canvassing) no one else had any issues to raise. That was in part at least because I had been pro active here, on RM and Rangers Chat asking for issues that any "away fan" wanted to be raised.

 

Hope that helps you.

 

*EDIT: One former member has come back, without prompting, saying he thinks it was Rev MacQuarrrie.

Edited February 21, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[rbr 1,247]

There should be a full minuted brief for all RF members that were unable to attend , just remember what nearly every member that was elected promised in their election spiel , openness and greater transparency , well if we can't get the minutes of the meeting its a very poor start , and for the record the RST are equally appaling at sending out minutes of their meetings .

[buster. 4,808]

In any event I am not sure the point you are trying to make here; but just in case you are still confused, I raised that and it was agreed unanimously IIRC, because certain members were indeed making comments about others online that I regarded as denigratory and I wanted it stopped.

Thanks for the reply BH !

 

The simple point I was trying to convey was that there is an ironic and perhaps interesting connection in what you posted last night and your prosposal in the RFB minutes that you had been talking about.

 

Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani

I get in bother for so many things that I don't remember them all though there's usually someone who will remind me.

 

and the RFB minutes

"Alan Harris proposed, “Elected representatives shall not write, send or post any comment on social media or internet forums or the like which a reasonable person would interpret as denigrating any other Elected Representative” After discussion the Motion was agreed subject to adding “ or the Club or supporters body” after the words ‘Elected Representatives. This would be incorporated into the Code of Conduct for RFB Members."

 

 

Last night on Gersnet you said that you get "in bother for so many things" and when at an board meeting of the RFB you were actively proposing for a mechamism that could allow for a degree of censorship on those who sat on the board with you and had a 'front row' seat.

 

There is a considerable time gap between the meeting and last night but it would also be accurate to say a lot of "bother" was caused prior to that first RFB board meeting.

 

My point is that the censorship you were proposing was/is very unhealthy (blatant abuse could have been reported) and was hypocritical for someone who today champions transparency whilst seeming to somewhat flippantly, recognize past "bother"........and that it looks like that proposal was probably made in the interests of the proposer.

Edited February 20, 2016 by buster.

[Zappa 0]

I'm surprised at that view Zappa and of course they would be my own notes not any attempt to create official Minutes. (It wasn't clear if anyone was taking official Minutes although I suspect that that would amount to a very short record that official statements were read and a Q&A followed.)

 

I would also point to a "LIKE" from newly elected Director, Greg Marshall posting as the Louden Tavern on RM when I said the same thing on that site and his post

 

 

which suggests to me that he doesn't see any issue.

 

The point was also made that the press were present and I'm quite sure that there is a lot already out there on Twitter but if the powers that be don't want me to post anything on here then fair enough, you guys call the shots.

 

EDit: I'll add that a picture of the meeting was posted on RM which shows my baldy head and no one asked my permission to do that, nor am I in the last bit concerned. (And yes I know that that is RM and this is Gersnet but either it's a meeting that can be reported or it isn't.)

 

I'm not interested in what you do on RM, so if you want to bore them over there with your 11 page RF AGM report then please feel free.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thanks for the reply BH !

 

The simple point I was trying to convey was that there is an ironic and perhaps interesting connection in what you posted last night and your prosposal in the RFB minutes that you had been talking about.

 

Originally Posted by BrahimHemdani

I get in bother for so many things that I don't remember them all though there's usually someone who will remind me.

 

There is a considerable time gap between the meeting and last night but it would also be accurate to say a lot of "bother" was caused prior to that first RFB board meeting.

 

My point is that the censorship you were proposing was/is very unhealthy (blatant abuse could have been reported) and was hypocritical for someone who today champions transparency whilst seeming to somewhat flippantly, recognize past "bother"........and that it looks like that proposal was probably made in the interests of the proposer.

 

Firstly I see no connection between the two situations. I was not trying to censor anything just to stop blatant denigratory comments and that was agreed by ALL RFB Members.

 

Secondly I said I get in bother, it's something of a jump to say I cause all of that though I recognise that I do bring some of it on myself. Some of the stuff that is written about me is utter nonsense.

Edited February 21, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm not interested in what you do on RM, so if you want to bore them over there with your 11 page RF AGM report then please feel free.

 

I did not say I would be writing an 11 page report I said I had 11 pages of notes in a shorthand notebook.

 

However you have made your point about Gersnet so I won't publish anything here even although Richard Scott who chaired the meeting has confirmed "this Meeting was in the public domain (with Press there etc)" and in answer to the specific question you posed says "I do not see any reason why not".

 

I doubt anyone will find the notes of the meeting boring.

[Frankie 8,150]

I don't think we mind an accurate and succinct record of the meeting business being posted.

 

What Zappa and I don't want is one-sided opinions of such.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't think we mind an accurate and succinct record of the meeting business being posted.

 

What Zappa and I don't want is one-sided opinions of such.

 

I wasn't planning to make any comments simply to post what was said according to my notes.

[Frankie 8,150]

I wasn't planning to make any comments simply to post what was said according to my notes.

 

Even notes can be one-sided (see James Doleman) but I guess we'll be the judge of that if you post them.

 

But, please keep them succinct and accurate. I doubt any of the forum members fancy another 50 page thread of he said-she said.

[craig 5,195]

BH has, IMHO, always done a good job at simply posting what happened. I would appreciate knowing what was discussed