Originally Posted by
alwaysinjured
It is also a convenient misrepresentation. The executive try to deflect this as a criticism of committee in general whereas, The criticism has been directed at a few members of the executive, and certainly less inflammatory and rude than public statements made by them in multiple forum accounts. Would "george" for example like to identify themselves, directly criticising Andy or hide away in shame - it can only be one of three people, and I can have a shrewd guess at which!
The criticism of committee if there is one, is by now they must clearly accept that the july rules for example should not have been approved. There were a lot of basic problems. So clearly it questions the committee dynamic or the due diligence done by each member by which that document was approved, and it certainly question the lack of proactive consultation with such as Wynn, so clearly something is not right. Self reflection needed. Andy is the only one that I have seen "hold his hands up" for that ,saying he should have looked under the hood! for which I respect him enormously, others should do the same.
Secondly, Andy clearly wanted a motion voted. It is his basic right to do that if he wants it so. They should have supported his right to a hearing, not necessarily his position, against the attempts to prevent it. If they did not want it, fine, allow the vote and vote it down!.
He also won a "consensus" at a meeting in preston in as far as anyone (including the secretary) can tell which was removed from minutes. There is no justifiable reason for sitting on sidelines allowing either vote to be supressed.
When the first one in preston was discounted because it is was argued no "formal show of hands" was made (nowhere mandated in the constitution for committee) , Andy did the right thing. He then and as a consequence proposed a written motion instead then for a proper vote, to avoid the uncertainty, that was then refused a hearing or a vote! Committee should have acted to allow proper process even if voting against. For that the whole committee are guilty of standing by and letting it happen.
As far as I am aware , no actual show of hands was done on approval of the letter to coroner, nor can there have been, since some wording was not discussed till after, as far as I am aware from Andy no show of hands took place, and I doubt if a written motion was passed. Yet that is presented as UNANIMOUS! when an actual consensus at Preston meeting was ignored because the chair didnt like it! Committee - these things have to stop!
Thirdly the ad hominem attacks and misleading statements in multiple accounts on this forum by several committee are clearly not right. The rest of committee are guilty by association unless they act to prevent that, resulting in moderators resigning now.
So committee have some soul searching. Brett should not have to put up with a load of **** which is not right and not of his making, and that needs directing at those at the helm doing such things.
Reply With Quote
