United Kingdom: ME Association news

No. They can legally operate with a minimum of 4 trustees.

 

A minimum of 3 trustees is required to be present for a quorate meeting.

Quorum for directors’ meetings

14.
14.1. At a directors’ meeting, unless a quorum is participating, no proposal is to be voted on, except a proposal to call another meeting.

14.2. The quorum for directors’ meetings may be fixed from time to time by a decision of the directors, but it must never be less than three, and unless otherwise fixed it is three.

14.3. If the total number of directors for the time being is less than the quorum required, the directors must not take any decision other than a decision:
(a) to appoint further directors, or
(b) to call a general meeting so as to enable the members to appoint further directors​

 

So they could get by on five full trustees and advertise for nominations for the next AGM and in the meantime, co-opt up to 3 co-opted (non membership elected) trustees.

 

He could (and probably has already) carried out much the same role in various positions in the organisation. He wouldn't lose influence, or become a less authoritative voice in the wider community, by not being a trustee.

 

But after 20 years, he has chosen not to stand down.

If he were to stand down, the remaining trustees and maybe some new blood could elect to create a senior management role or a CEO. Then he could find himself losing influence within the organisation and this is why I think he has continued on the board for so long.

He's 73 years old, he had an encephalopathy type illness following chicken pox in his mid twenties, he claims to be putting in a full working week - but he doesn't have to. As I've said many times before, he could have retired from the board by now and had a less onerous work load as a paid or honorary medical adviser - but he chooses not to.

 

And the thing is whilst I’m as wary of ‘what could happen’ if Charles were to end up with less of what sounds like a control put in place back in 2003 to ensure there wasn’t a continual threat of bps takeover which would have been exhausting/attrition (and the most common strategy used against us so we get nowhere as we are continually fending off what I will term ‘narcissists’) actually it’s only going to be worse and harder to do and find a path forward the longer it is left [to find the next plan] and even worse if done in a rush because something happens

just like we do need some sort of new generation of medical heroes as those who have kept us alive for so long can’t be around forever whatever we might all hope for . So there is also the hope of overlap and being able to ensure Charles can participate in getting that next mantle correct (and him handing on perhaps the experience of all these battles and insitutuonal memory warnings etc)

the Neil Riley situation is on the other hand telling us a whole other set of lessons. And bringing up another bunch of cliches.

I think all of which need to be heeded. And which do balance each other out to say there needs to be a lot of thought on bith governance but succession plans so that a point of changeover doesn’t leave the charity wide-open to opportunism and being taken over by the wrong type if there are lots of posts in a short time vs a very small amount of spare energy in the ‘genuine/goodetc’ community of me/cfs fir obvious reasons. Advertising jobs tgat need too many hours will risk meaning the only people who can fill them don’t have the right mindset , so time to think about whether the mindset is more important than the current job design etc so this needs to be tackled to in redesigning how those work to make trustee jobs more accessible and focused on the right essential requirements taking priority

 

@Fainbrog Do you have a copy of the Spring 2024 ME Essential? Does it have a summary of the December 2023 AGM which was held in person and via video?

If so, does the summary say how many attended in person and how many via video? Or if there was an election ballot that year, how many votes cast in person and how many postal ballot votes, from which the number attending might be estimated.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1863981600834244690


CJB
@ChrisjbofYorks

33m
The only problem now is it sounds like very few people have heard back yet regarding the attendance requests? It could end up with just the Chairman and Trustees sat there, which would be convenient!! #pwME #MEcfs #MyalgicEncephalomyelitis

------------------------------

For those who received the magazine, today, there are now just five clear days' notice instead of 21 days.

My understanding is that the meeting is not open to non members.

Comments are closed on the board's statement today on both MEA Facebook and Twitter/X. Listening to their members and the wider ME community?

 

I received my magazine today and have emailed the relevant address asking for a link to the AGM.

Not sure if I will manage it healthwise even if a link is forthcoming at such short notice. I've never paid attention before but this year it all does seem very untransparent compared to other organisations I'm a member of. I've never attended before but recent events perturb me.

I notice in their magazine who's who, Dr Shepherd is listed as "Honorary medical adviser" so he does actually hold two different roles in the charity at the moment and would only need to step down from one to meet those guidelines. I do hope the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater though as he makes an immense contribution.

My main concern is the behaviour and stance of the current chairman. They do need to think seriously about succession planning and encouraging diversity though.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1863993390968324336


https://twitter.com/user/status/1863993396446064681


Elisabeth Klaar | Oak Tree Studio
@lammas_leaves
·
35m
@NickyProctor
and I are getting a lot of questions about procedures for the
@MEAssociation
AGM. We are very sorry, but we just don't know the answers. We have been guided by them regarding processes, timing and so on and have asked as many questions as we could to ensure we

submitted our motion correctly and on time. We have no idea about how any voting will be done or when people attending online will get a Teams link. We assume members can vote and non members will observe but that is an assumption. We understand the email address you

need to write to to say you want to attend is admin@meassociation.org.uk but not sure what info they need from you other than email address for sending link to. As longstanding trustees with decades experience of running AGMs we assume they'll be on top of all details including special requirements.

As trustees of a disability charity they'll doubtless be aware of any reasonable adjustments required by their beneficiaries and stakeholders and have facilities in place to encourage full participation. We ask you to contact them direct with queries.

 

I hope this is intended to be read as tongue in cheek if not, I am lost for words.

 

Sorry, I don't receive it, told them where to stick their membership (metaphorically, by not renewing) a few years back.
Did have a quick scout around their website in case by some miracle they had shared any useful info, but of course, nada.

 

I mean that maybe the balance of the board needs a voter like CS.

 

OK, thanks.

 

I guess so, but "We have no idea about how any voting will be done..." is somewhat ironic given that any votes that were taken at an invalid meeting would be invalid. As the two advocates writing this understand that the meeting is invalid, I am still struggling to understand why they would want to discuss anything at an invalid general meeting, when no business can be transacted at an invalid general meeting other than the decision to adjourn the meeting.

37.6. No business may be transacted at an adjourned general meeting which could not properly have been transacted at the meeting if the adjournment had not taken place.​

 

Maybe because the MEA is treating it as valid? If the charity has decided to steamroller over any objections, the advocates won't want to risk missing the opportunity. If at some point the AGM were to be declared invalid, it will have to be run again (with all the business and any motions) anyway.

 

I would imagine the two advocates are acting professionally in public, Neil has been caught out telling others that the advocates knew and were ok with their motion not being included. The advocates were not aware and so are still of the understanding their motion (proposed in due time and correctly) will be in the meeting, or to be told properly why it will not.
For the MEA to steam ahead with the AGM is another nail in the coffin - let’s face it they will do so, without the motion and then there will be a fat pile of evidence for the Charity Commission.

 

The MEA's public statement, published yesterday, states:

"We have agreed to initiate discussions around this at our upcoming AGM on Monday 9 December at 2 pm, after which further statements will be issued."

 

Here's the thing. The board does know its obligations to its members:

Back in 2005, the board had called an EGM to propose four resolutions for changes they wished to make to their governing document - two of which gave them greater control over who could and who could not stand for trustee election.

The EGM had been scheduled for 28 June.

The MEA's printers inadvertently failed to send out magazines to a large number of the members. This rendered the EGM meeting invalid.

The printers paid for a notice to be mailed out to all members explaining the situation and giving the date for a rescheduled meeting, which would now take place on 3 September 2005.

The MEA handled the mistake correctly.


Although some MEA members did receive the latest issue of the magazine on Monday, others did not get their copy until yesterday. This means that a percentage of members have been given only 5 days clear notice and the rest just 6. Some members may not get round to reading the magazine for several days, by which time it will be too late to make arrangements for travelling or to register for access to the Teams meeting.

But none of the members have been given adequate and constitutional notice of this year's AGM and many will be disenfranchised from participating in this meeting because of the late provision of notice and the scant information included in the magazine.

Yet the board appears unwilling to acknowledge this and make appropriate re-arrangements, as were put in place in 2005.

All six members of the board will be well aware that they have screwed up and they will know what should be done, now, to meet the requirements of their governing document.

I'm told that emails requesting the link and instructions for joining the meeting via video are not being responded to quickly. Nor are requests for documents.

It is unclear whether non members will be able to observe the proceedings via video and I emailed their HO yesterday for clarification. It is utterly shambolic.

If they can sort this in 2005 they can sort in now.


2005 EGM notice and voting slip:






Extract from MEA's 2005 letter to all members notifying them of the rescheduling of the EGM and the reason why this was necessary.




Current Articles (2014 version):

Voting general

38 . . .Postal votes are allowed provided they are received by the company at least five working days before the holding of a general meeting takes place. Any votes received after will be null and void.​