United Kingdom: ME Association news

Is there any precedent of a medical charity that has gone rogue being successfully tackled by patients?

I know we're in a BPS hellscape but we surely can't be the only patients ever to be badly served by a charity. There are weird ideas and vested interests all over the place.

@dave30th - Did you ever come across such a situation with HIV/AIDS, or any other medical condition?

 

Does this mean that the following are not being included:

- the motion that was put forward regarding trustees and length of time

- the issue regarding the article by Neil Riley

?

Or do those items get covered in any other business without any heads up to anyone about eg the motion or the Neil Riley article?

 

So, in the details of the AGM, no reference to election/re-election of BoT, no mention of the minor difficulties they have been having of late, not the motion put forward, BAU then..

Also, not open to no -members (AfME for all their faults, had an AGM open to anyone and it was a pretty well run meeting).

ETA the motion, had forgotten that.

 

Nothing to see here, basically is how I take it all.

ETA; A closed shop.

 

Can any member force an item to be covered under AOB? I have no clue about the rules that govern meetings.

 

Motion might be included under AOB - but I have no confirmation of this.

 

ah the old 'what are they going to do about it anyway' approach?

 

Would that mean that there were no postal votes in that situation?

 

I don't know, bobbler, whether the motion is being discussed under AOB, or discussed and voted on. If it is being voted on there should be a postal vote. If there is a postal vote, ballot slips should be included in the magazine.

 

A percentage of board members retire by rotation every two years (but can stand for re-election). This may be a year in which no board member is due for retirement but is re-standing. There may be no nominations for new trustees. But if there were trustee elections, my understanding is that notice should have been given weeks in advance and this has not been the case.

"23.
(a) Not less than ten weeks prior to an annual general meeting at which one or more of the directors retire, the company shall give notice to members asking for nominations for members to become directors of the company..."​

 

Does this mean there’s been no formal meeting of the trustees since the last AGM?

 

My understanding is that the minutes of an AGM are approved at the next AGM, not at the next routine meeting of the board but I am happy to be corrected.

 

I didn’t think that’s how it worked at the Appg AGM but I really have no idea

 

On the basis of the Agenda, this is this case. The managing group (ie the Trustees) will probably have discussed the draft minutes of the previous AGM at their first meeting after the AGM and initiated what they regard as appropriate action, but the minutes will only be formally adopted by the next AGM (or possibly a subsequent EGM).

Presumably if members feel after this AGM that it was unconstitutional because of inadequate notice their only course of action would be to seek to call an EGM or to object to the minutes at the next AGM in a year’s time.

 

According to Twitter, the motion will not be included in the AGM..subject to further discussion.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1862139470369177807


This whole thing just gets murkier and murkier.

 

I guess, if the motion is not included and none of the BoT is for re-election, other than signing off the last AGM minutes, there is nothing for anyone to vote on.

Would be interesting if anyone here is a member and able to attend online, what actually goes on.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1862151863144960024


Peter W
@mediumwhite
So people know the history here - 2.5 years ago, I and another raised the
@MEAssociation
’s financial hoarding with them, and the longevity of trustees. The issues we raised were dismissed, but we hoped it would be resolved in time. It has not been.

 

Sorry, I'm lost as haven't been following this in full - who is Nicky Proctor and what is her motion?

 

Two people put together a document raising concerns about the management of the MEA including their accumulating excessive reserve funds. They proposed a motion that the MEA should adopt the recommendations of the Charity Governance code, which would effectively prevent trustees from serving longer than 9 years. The whole thing can be read here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zqPp0tdq0T41N469H6JJ2s4pBlNgk-LAsUnEqOE22lI/edit?tab=t.0

 

APPGs are informal cross party groups convened to pursue a particular topic or interest. The running of these groups is subject to the rules for APPGs as set out by the Parliamentary Committee on Standards:

https://www.parliament.uk/globalass...-groups/rules/guide-to-the-rules-sep-2023.pdf


The MEA is a company limited by guarantee, registered with Companies House and the Charity Commission and subject to the Companies Act 2006, and its Articles of Association. The trustees are also directors of the charity for the purposes of the Act.