TRF Forums

I notice that Lifetime membership is a blanket £450 irrespective of a persons age. Would it not be fairer if it was based on a sliding scale of age and number of years previous membership?

Hi Tom

The VMCC have a model that reduces the cost of life membership encouraging conversion and I would like to introduce one to the TRF

Currently the time is not right- as first we have to fix the constitution at the AGM this month

However it is already on the to do list for the future hopefully for the 2016 AGM

what about the automatic life membership for those members who have been paying full membership for 25 years.

Proposed, voted for and carried unanimously in the 2013 AGM. This does not appear to be in the new articles or bylaws.

or have i missed it

we should be looking after the rights of existing members as well as entertaining proposals from non members. ( Only going on Black name title apologies if already a member)

The suggestion certainly has merit.

The barrier is that the proposal, like so much other good work, has become a casualty of attempts to regress the trf 8 years.

I've found AGM "notes" but no minutes and no proof that the motion was lawfully carried:

http://www.trf.org.uk/members-area/docu ... nutes.html

The proposed byelaws are a starting point for development by the post AGM board. Mechanisms are included to facility further policy development in conjunction with the membership and augmented by National Conferences.

If the proposed articles and byelaws are adopted by the Fellowship, then the incoming directors will be the first to benefit from a clearly lawful set of articles.

If proof is forthcoming that the automatic life membership was lawfully passed, then the post AGM board can consider it.

Hidden in plain sight October 13th 2013 AGM notes as prepared by the secretary and posted on this website. As you Know notes were made instead of proper minutes. the notes even refer to the early mutterings of why the members got the ar$e with the then directors. The beginnings of the period when the Directors decided they were more important than the members were and when our problems started to bubble to the surface

Original proposal in the agenda document. item 4.2

http://www.trf.org.uk/members-area/docu ... -2013.html


4. Subscriptions.
4.1 Membership rates for 2014 as per Article of Association 3.7
4.2 Long Term Membership Reward (Mike Irving).

Proof or what stood for proof in the day and in mine and the 28 members present that voted for it
http://www.trf.org.uk/members-area/docu ... notes.html



4.2 If a member has been a paying member for 25 years reward them with free like membership, Mike Irving, seconded Charlie Morriss
This would affect 70 people in 2013, 30 are already life members, so 40
20-30 people lapsed last year
The reasoning is that we would like to keep them on-board, many of them would continue to contribute, and we would not lose much in monetary terms.
Mario supported the idea that for the evidence at planning inspectorate enquiries.
This would need to be termed a life a membership, as opposed to an honorary membership which is bestowed by the members at an AGM.
28 in favour, 0 objections, 2 abstentions

as for legality......this same AGM confirmed Mario taking on the role as Marketing Director. Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in my book

I remember the life membership for 25 years.........also discretionary life membership given out too.

Do you get it reduced for good behaviour?
A good proposal though.

Mike,

I suggest you endeavour to move forward on this one instead of using it as a points scoring exercise. You'll end up drowning in your own sauce especially as the same notes highlight that your position was to be ratified. For whatever reason you carried on as a de-facto director and failed to ensure the so called "articles", which are no more than a list of exemptions from table A, were properly amended. At least this explains why you were never registered at companies house as a TRF director. It would seem that this kind of behaviour and shady governance was the subject of concern raised by the member. If that was the beginning of the period "when directors decided they were more important than the members", it would appear that you were a de-facto director throughout.

As said, I think there is merit in the suggestion. Without a concrete set of AGM minutes and proof of a special resolution, which is required to change the aspects of the Constitution that relate to membership, I'm not going to lump the incoming directors with the sort of mess that presently exists. I'm certainly not going to burden them with "notes" pretending to be AGM minutes.

Outside of that issue it is a concern that such a significant proposal can be actioned as a result of the wishes of 28 members. Hardly a meaningful proportion of the membership. Glad they weren't voting to condemn standing on the pegs.

Of course, you could have brought this to the table during the consultation exercise in good time for it to be considered. For reasons best known to yourself you didn't make a representation to the consultation outside of your presentation.

I suggest that the most effective way to pursue this is to support the proposed articles and bye-laws. If the Fellowship successfully introduces a legal framework by adopting the directors proposals, it will allow the post-agm board to progress this matter in conjunction with the members.

Greetings,

So, rather than us arguing the toss here as to who did or did not say what, how can I propose this item to be a subject at the coming AGM

TTFN

Hugh.

The deadline (end of August) for such a proposal has passed.

However, the post AGM board may be able to action this if the directors articles and byelaws are approved. They allow for such policy changes to be introduced following a full consultation with the membership.