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 Is this now an out of date request?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.
Thoughts about the resolutions?
With respect to resolution 7 i feel that the proposed changes to Clause 16.8 are a good start
I am concerned though that as I read it ,one has to either die or be 80 and have completed at least 25 years Permanent Membership, to automatically qualify to surrender the Holiday Certificate. I believe that the 25 year period is to cautious and means that we could have members who are much older than 80 who still do not automatically qualify to surrender their Holiday Certificates other than under the terms of revised Clause 16.9. .How was the 25 year period arrived at ?
With respect to revised Clause 16.9 the process of dealing with the applications to surrender their certificates on a first come first seems basis seems very arbitrary and does not take account of age or the length of time a member has been a Permanent Member.
Surely these should be factors that are taken into account not just how quick anyone can get ones name on the Register. E.G a permanent member with a couple of years membership could get their name on the register and leave it there (as a form of insurance) since there is no qualification to go on the register other than being OUTWITH those quoted in Clause 16.8.
With respect to Clause 8,D does this mean that we can surrender Permanent Membership and convert to Term Membership at a cost to be advised but will not have to pay the 3 years maintenance fees on surrender of the Permanent Holiday Certificate ?
I am concerned though that as I read it ,one has to either die or be 80 and have completed at least 25 years Permanent Membership, to automatically qualify to surrender the Holiday Certificate. I believe that the 25 year period is to cautious and means that we could have members who are much older than 80 who still do not automatically qualify to surrender their Holiday Certificates other than under the terms of revised Clause 16.9. .How was the 25 year period arrived at ?
With respect to revised Clause 16.9 the process of dealing with the applications to surrender their certificates on a first come first seems basis seems very arbitrary and does not take account of age or the length of time a member has been a Permanent Member.
Surely these should be factors that are taken into account not just how quick anyone can get ones name on the Register. E.G a permanent member with a couple of years membership could get their name on the register and leave it there (as a form of insurance) since there is no qualification to go on the register other than being OUTWITH those quoted in Clause 16.8.
With respect to Clause 8,D does this mean that we can surrender Permanent Membership and convert to Term Membership at a cost to be advised but will not have to pay the 3 years maintenance fees on surrender of the Permanent Holiday Certificate ?
Firstly Mr. Wiggins I was heartened to read in your first sentence that the proposed changes are a good start and I can understand your concerns in what you have written in the remainder of your post. Can I ask you to look on the proposed changes as a "First step". At the moment most of us on the committee are only co-opted and we can only hope that the other owners will feel confident to vote us on to the committee proper at the AGM. From then we will be working to constantly improve all aspects of the club and the way in which it operates. Various tasks are being devolved to different committee members for us to study and report back on prior to the AGM, as well as keeping abreast of the current situation and trying to make sense of past events. We do read the posts on the forum and we take heed so I can only ask that you bear with us and don't lose faith. Regards, Ron Benson
Thanks for the reply from our committee member, R Benson, and Mr Wiggins.
The resolution 7 ideas are good, especially if we see them as a starting position. In conjunction with a concerted effort to raise the value of visits to the Club it can't help but raise the saleability of weeks and that in itself may also offer a way to relinquish unwanted weeks.
My ongoing questions are about Resolutions 1 and 3.
Does anyone have information about the Web SIte and its ongoing development being good or bad enough to sway the voting on Res 1?
Is there really a need for a separate independent audit following the accounts publication?
I do like this civilised discussion BTW.
The resolution 7 ideas are good, especially if we see them as a starting position. In conjunction with a concerted effort to raise the value of visits to the Club it can't help but raise the saleability of weeks and that in itself may also offer a way to relinquish unwanted weeks.
My ongoing questions are about Resolutions 1 and 3.
Does anyone have information about the Web SIte and its ongoing development being good or bad enough to sway the voting on Res 1?
Is there really a need for a separate independent audit following the accounts publication?
I do like this civilised discussion BTW.
I hope you will be attending the AGM Willis (sorry, I don't know if you are a Mr., Mrs., Ms or some other title) where the resolutions will be discussed and, hopefully, satisfactory answers given to you and other owners with similar concerns. Regards, Ron Benson