March 7, 2021 at 1:26 pm #4349WillisParticipant
In the documents sent out I refer to item 3 “Resolutions” with its contents.
Resolution 1 proposes that an independent IT company is contracted to make both on-site connectivity improvements and to build a more workable site for external users.
Is this still the correct picture? Are there still problems with connectivity and is the website really close to being usable for bookings, requirements and voting? It doesn’t seem to be being maintained in that the logon for Forum access still has the long page of rules which need to be accepted and I can’t see a booking page yet. Is the internal part of the site integration, for staff to view rotas, bookings and so on working correctly?
If anyone knows please could they give us all some insight?
Resolution 2 proposes that local area people who wish to work at the club should be given priority when hiring. It seems like a very good move, but is it legal? I can’t see how supporting the local area could be, but I don’t know.
Resolution 3 calls for an independent audit of the club finances. Is this now an out of date request? Are the accounts acceptable as they are now?
Resolution 4 proposes that the club starts talks with regard to closer integration with the owners of the Loch Rannoch Hotel and even a buy out of the club for a nominal fee by the hotel owners. It sounds like a good idea to use Mr Pattie’s expertise, but is there a danger that owners’ costs could be controlled by any new owner and rise? It is a good idea to use Mr Pattie as a manager, but maybe not to sell everything to his company. If both options can be separated is this a good move?
Does anyone have arguments they would be happy to put in a reply to this?
Resolution 5 proposes that no committee member, past or future (post the AGM) can be employed by the club. This is a reaction to the perceived actions of the committee in the last year or so. Right or wrong it seems to separate oversight from employment and feels like a good idea.
Is this about right or is there an opportunity being closed down prematurely?
Resolution 6 proposes that 3 named people are removed from the committee. 2 Of them have resigned already leaving only the last name to be affected.
I have not met her, but perhaps a clean sweep is not a bad starting point for an incoming committee. Is this a misreading of the situation?
Resolution 7 proposes a way to end the in-perpetuity clauses of the membership contract.
It proposes that:
(a) When an owner dies or reaches 80 years old and has 25 years membership their ongoing ownership responsibility can be surrendered for the cost of 3 years fees
(b) Any owner can apply to surrender their ownership for the same costs, subject to an upper limit of such surrenders in a given year. There are also some term ownership options for such surrenders.
This seems like a good start , especially the age triggered option along with the exit due to death. Both options (a) and (b) are voluntary so if the owners or their family wish to retain ownership they are able to.
Does anyone have views they wish to share on this?
It would be nice to have a few views prior to the AGM if anyone would be happy to chip in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.