Row over snub at village hall (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Row over snub at village hall
7:40am Saturday 6th October 2012 in News
A FORMER Worcester mayor claims he is being excluded from the running of a popular village hall in the city.
Councillor Aubrey Tarbuck has hit out over the running of St Peter’s Village Hall saying he is angry after being told to step down from the management committee.
The veteran Conservative politician, who represents St Peter’s, was told to leave in March because the city council no longer pays the lease.
He has since turned up to at least one meeting to observe discussions and says he is concerned about the way the site is run claiming it’s being managed on an unsatisfactory basis. But sources have told your Worcester News that he is making up allegations purely because he is bitter about being sidelined.
Coun Tarbuck said: “I maintain I’m being excluded and frankly I’m not happy with it.
“The hall built up a £100,000 fund in 2005, but the position, I gather, has stagnated and even worsened recently.What I want to do is help make this centre viable. I want to know what’s happening with that money, but meetings are going on and I’m not being invited.
“I’ve been asking for minutes, but haven’t got any. It’s not good enough.”
But Coun Tarbuck’s comments have angered residents who look after the hall.
Fellow Tory Councillor Roger Knight also stood down at the same time as part of the agreement. Coun Knight has since returned to the committee, but as a resident only, as he lives nearby, whereas Coun Tarbuck would not qualify to sit in that capacity because he lives in Hallow, near Worcester.
One member of the committee, who did not wish to be named, said: “Between £50,000 and £60,000 is being spent on improving the hall so there is investment going in. The committee decided that they were able to function without city council representatives – it was that simple.”
Tesco, which paid for the facility to be built in the early 1990s as part of the deal for a new supermarket, recently extended the lease on the hall for 15 years. This lease is now paid for by the committee.
As part of the new lease the site is no longer run under a city council management agreement meaning that there is no need for politicians to be involved in its future.
Comments(8)
reflector
says...
9:11am Sat 6 Oct 12
If the Council no longer has a financial stake in the hall, surely it's not surprising that it is no longer represented on the Management Committee. Councillor Tarbuck, as a resident of Hallow, presumably isn't even a user of the hall so what on earth has it got to do with him?
CJH
says...
11:18am Sat 6 Oct 12
I have said many times that Mr Tarbuck should not represent St Peters. As reflactor has said, he lives in Hallow. How does someone who lives in a cottage in a rural village know what it's like to live in St Peters? It's absurd. There should be residential qualifications for anyone (councillor or MP) who represents a locality. I have lived in St Peters for over 20 years, and never even seen the bloke!
CJH
says...
11:22am Sat 6 Oct 12
...and by the way, copies of the minutes are available on the St Peters website so Mr Tarbuck can read them anytime. Why does he need to be sent them?
MikeA
says...
7:28pm Sat 6 Oct 12
From: Anthony Warburton
Chartered Management Accountant and Chartered Secretary
To: St Peters Village Hall Association Limited,
10 Stroma Avenue,
St Peters,
Worcester WR5 3PJ
23rd April 2012
To St Peters Village Hall Association Limited (the Company) and to each of its Directors
Dear Sirs,
I wrote to you, on 10th April 2012, on behalf of Mr Michael Arnold, a resident of St Peters. In that letter I posed a number of questions on his behalf. I have not received a reply.
In summary those questions were:
1/ Mr Arnold would be grateful for an explanation of the exact nature of the expenditure of £10217, incurred in 2007 and the directors’ comments on his concerns about the fact that the financial statements suggest that the Company’s funds are increasing when, in reality, that suggestion relies entirely upon unrealised gains in the value of certain investments, which gains which might prove to be illusory and;
2/ Mr Arnold asked the directors please to state the terms under which the Company has tenure of the St Peters Village Hall and, if known, for how long it is likely to be able to occupy it without incurring a rental charge and;
3/ Mr Arnold seeks and would be grateful for an explanation of the directors’ strategy for achieving the provision of a new community centre and;
4/ Mr Arnold would be similarly grateful if the directors would supply him with a list of those persons who have been or are now presently Members of the Company, the dates upon which the Annual General Meetings for 2007 through and including 2011 were held and copies of the minutes of those Meetings and;
5/ The Company’s Articles of Association are stated, in its financial statements, to be the rules under which it is incorporated. They make no mention of the preceding St Peters Hall Association (the Association) or of its Constitution (the Constitution).
Despite this, the minutes of a meeting the “St Peter’s Village Hall Committee”, held on 19th March 2012 refer to “Amendment to constitution”. They state that it was “recommended that the constitution be change (sic) to alleviate any confusion over the need for city councillors to sit on the committee”. It was resolved that the “section on page two, section 3 of the Constitution reading (quotation)……be deleted”. This suggests that this Committee regards the Constitution of the former Association as relevant and binding upon it. The directors were invited to explain this dichotomy and formally to state the view they hold in respect of the position of the Constitution in relation to the Company’s governance arrangements and;
6/ If, despite the minutes referred to, the directors do not regard the Constitution as an integral part of the Company’s governance arrangements, Mr Arnold would be grateful if they could explain their strategy for the maintenance of democratic control over the affairs of the Company that was clearly intended to be maintained after the transfer of the Association’s undertaking and assets to it.
My client has asked me to express his disappointment that, as before, no response has been received to his questions. The purpose of this letter is to again request answers to these questions within seven days of receipt of this letter.
He has asked me to make it clear that, in the absence of a satisfactory response, he will feel constrained to give this matter the public airing he feels it justifies.
Yours faithfully
Anthony Warburton
Chartered Management Accountant and Chartered Secretary
To: St Peters Village Hall Association Limited,
10 Stroma Avenue,
St Peters,
Worcester WR5 3PJ
23rd April 2012
To St Peters Village Hall Association Limited (the Company) and to each of its Directors
Dear Sirs,
I wrote to you, on 10th April 2012, on behalf of Mr Michael Arnold, a resident of St Peters. In that letter I posed a number of questions on his behalf. I have not received a reply.
In summary those questions were:
1/ Mr Arnold would be grateful for an explanation of the exact nature of the expenditure of £10217, incurred in 2007 and the directors’ comments on his concerns about the fact that the financial statements suggest that the Company’s funds are increasing when, in reality, that suggestion relies entirely upon unrealised gains in the value of certain investments, which gains which might prove to be illusory and;
2/ Mr Arnold asked the directors please to state the terms under which the Company has tenure of the St Peters Village Hall and, if known, for how long it is likely to be able to occupy it without incurring a rental charge and;
3/ Mr Arnold seeks and would be grateful for an explanation of the directors’ strategy for achieving the provision of a new community centre and;
4/ Mr Arnold would be similarly grateful if the directors would supply him with a list of those persons who have been or are now presently Members of the Company, the dates upon which the Annual General Meetings for 2007 through and including 2011 were held and copies of the minutes of those Meetings and;
5/ The Company’s Articles of Association are stated, in its financial statements, to be the rules under which it is incorporated. They make no mention of the preceding St Peters Hall Association (the Association) or of its Constitution (the Constitution).
Despite this, the minutes of a meeting the “St Peter’s Village Hall Committee”, held on 19th March 2012 refer to “Amendment to constitution”. They state that it was “recommended that the constitution be change (sic) to alleviate any confusion over the need for city councillors to sit on the committee”. It was resolved that the “section on page two, section 3 of the Constitution reading (quotation)……be deleted”. This suggests that this Committee regards the Constitution of the former Association as relevant and binding upon it. The directors were invited to explain this dichotomy and formally to state the view they hold in respect of the position of the Constitution in relation to the Company’s governance arrangements and;
6/ If, despite the minutes referred to, the directors do not regard the Constitution as an integral part of the Company’s governance arrangements, Mr Arnold would be grateful if they could explain their strategy for the maintenance of democratic control over the affairs of the Company that was clearly intended to be maintained after the transfer of the Association’s undertaking and assets to it.
My client has asked me to express his disappointment that, as before, no response has been received to his questions. The purpose of this letter is to again request answers to these questions within seven days of receipt of this letter.
He has asked me to make it clear that, in the absence of a satisfactory response, he will feel constrained to give this matter the public airing he feels it justifies.
Yours faithfully
Anthony Warburton
MikeA
says...
8:06pm Sat 6 Oct 12
From: Anthony Warburton
Chartered Management Accountant and Chartered Secretary
To: St Peters Village Hall Association Limited,
10 Stroma Avenue,
St Peters,
Worcester WR5 3PJ
10th April 2012
To St Peters Village Hall Association Limited (the Company) and to each of its Directors
Dear Sirs,
Mr Michael Arnold, a resident of St Peters, has told me that he has requested certain information from the Company, which has not been forthcoming. He has, in consequence, sought my advice in connection with its affairs and constitution.
His interest is founded in the fact that the Company’s origin lies in the St Peters Hall Association (the Association), the primary objective of which was, according to its Constitution, to promote “the benefits of the inhabitants of the St Peters neighbourhood of Worcester”.
He has provided me with a copy of the Company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, to which is attached two copies, one of a document entitled “St Peters Hall Association, Constitution” and the other of a contract of transfer between the Company and the Association.
In addition he has provided me with copies of the Company’s financial statements for the years ended March 2007 through 2011 and a copy of the “St Peter’s Village Hall Committee Minutes” which relate to a meeting held on 19th March 2012.
His initial instructions were that I undertake an analysis of those financial statements for the five trading years mentioned and I have done that and reported my findings to him. He has asked me to summarise them to you.
The statements show that, over that period, a total income of £74444 has been raised from activities. The costs incurred have been £75213 so that an operational deficit of £769 has thus been incurred. I hasten to add that the costs incurred do not include £10217, from 2007, which I refer to below.
A further £3235 has been generated by way of the Multi Use Games Arena (MUGA) and that this has incurred costs of £2900, resulting in a surplus of £335. Taken together these produce an operational deficit of £434.
Investment income has totalled £7929 and a further £741 income has been included by way of “fund raising and other income”.
Leaving aside the £10217 referred to, there would be a surplus of income over expenditure of £8236. The “cost of generating funds” analysis appearing as note 3 to the financial statements for the year to 31st March 2007 states that this expenditure relates to “New centre”, without further explanation. It seems that expenditure was of a revenue, rather than a capital, nature as it has not resulted in any addition to the assets of the Company.
The inclusion of this last cost results in a deficit, over five years, of £1981. I have suggested to Mr Arnold that, from reading the financial statements, this is not immediately obvious to the layman. The total funds of the Company do not fall to reflect this deficit because it has been its policy to revalue its financial investments to market value and to include in its total funds the surplus or deficit resulting from doing this. Over five years there have been surpluses and deficits upon the comparison of the carrying value of investments with their market value but, in total, a surplus of £11960 has been added to the Company’s funds.
Their movement, over five years, can be demonstrated:
£ £
Opening balance of funds 1st April 2006 85212
Activities deficit < 769>
MUGA surplus 335
Investment and other income 8670
8236
“New centre” expenditure 2007
Deficit < 1981>
Balance of funds, 31st March 2011, before
revaluation of investments 83231
Revaluation of investments 11960
Total funds Balance 31st March 2011 95191
Mr Arnold is concerned that the reader of these statements would likely conclude that the Company’s funds are increasing when the apparent increase is due entirely to the recognition of gains, thought to exist within the financial investments, but which are unrealised. Investment values can, as we are warned, go down as well as up and these recognised surpluses might not, in the event, results in realised gains, become, that is, real and tangible.
I have explained to Mr Arnold the several ways in which changes in the market value of investments may be dealt with in financial statements. He has agreed with my suggestion that it might be better if the investments, valued at £29960 in the Balance Sheet of 31st March 2011, were to be related to a revaluation reserve of £11960 or, perhaps more prudently, to be carried at their cost of £18000, with a note disclosing their market value. Given that the only disposal of investments in the last five years gave rise to a small loss or just the recovery of their cost, following this practice might better reflect reality.
He is further concerned about the trend in the deficit of activities income over expenditure. Leaving aside the matter of the surplus or deficit arising from the MUGA activity, the analysis discloses that until March 2008 a surplus was produced but that, since then, there has been a deficit which has grown consistently, £334 in 2009, £2829 in 2010 and, in the year to March 2011, £3605.
Mr Arnold would be grateful for an explanation of the exact nature of the expenditure of £10217 in 2007 and the Trustees’ comments on his concerns about the fact that the financial statements suggest that the Company’s funds are increasing when, in reality, that suggestion relies entirely upon unrealised gains which might prove to be illusory.
It is understood that the Company pays no rent for the village hall, rather that its use is provided, free of charge by Worcester City Council which itself holds a lease in respect of it. Can you please state the terms under which the Company has tenure of the hall and, if known, for how long it is likely to be able to occupy it without incurring a rental charge?
It follows that when, if at all, a rental is required to be paid the Company’s costs would increase by the its amount and, without an improvement in its ability to generate income, its funds would be thus depleted. Those funds would give the Company time, but only some time, before, without an injection of further funds, it could not continue to operate the hall.
In that case the first objective of the Company, which is stated to be to run and maintain the hall for the benefit of the local community, would be rendered unachievable. The second objective is to raise funds to build a new community centre. Since it is arguable that the Company’s funds have really fallen, absolutely, during the last five years and certainly the case, if inflation is taken into account, they have done so , the prospects for achieving this latter objective look, at the very least, to be slender. Mr Arnold would be grateful for an explanation of the directors’ strategy for achieving the provision of a new community centre.
Turning to the question of corporate governance, I have advised Mr Arnold that the Company is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. Dating from 31st March 2005, the Memorandum is of a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. Members are required to contribute no more than £1 to the assets of the Company in the event of its being wound up. I have told him that this structure is commonly employed for ventures of a social nature, the object being to protect those directing an otherwise unincorporated entity’s affairs in the event of claims being made against them personally.
The Company’s objects, which make up most of the Memorandum, are those commonly used for a commercial business, one operated with the primary objective of making a profit. The Company’s objects are not limited to, nor, indeed, do they even include running and maintaining the St Peters Village Hall for the benefit of the local community and the raising of funds to build a new community centre.
The Articles of Association limit Membership of the Company to the three subscribers to the Memorandum and such other persons whose application to become a Member is “approved by the directors”. Annual General Meetings must, and other General Meetings may be called by “the directors” or “on the requisition of members pursuant to the provisions of the (Companies) Act”.
Mr Arnold would be grateful if you would supply him with a list of those persons who have been or are now presently Members of the Company, the dates upon which the Annual General Meetings for 2007 through and including 2011 and copies of the minutes of those Meetings.
The copy of the “St Peters Hall Association Constitution”, that I have already referred to, provided that its affairs should be administered by a Committee of Management of six members who should be elected to serve upon it. Further persons could be co-opted to serve upon the Committee as “representative members”. More importantly the Constitution provided that an Annual General Meeting be held each year and that “all inhabitants of the area of benefit (earlier defined as the St Peters neighbourhood) of eighteen years of age and upwards shall be entitled to vote at” it. Whilst it is not specifically stated, the Constitution clearly implies that members of the Committee of Management should be elected at an Annual General Meeting,
In support of this, Article 3 vi (a) states that members of the Committee shall hold office from “the end of the annual general meeting at which they were elected”. It is clear that the Constitution of the Association provided for a level of democratic control of the Association, by the residents of the St Peters neighbourhood, that is entirely absent in management of the affairs of the Company.
The agreement providing for the transfer of the undertaking and assets of the Association from it to the Company makes no mention of the Constitution. The financial statements make it clear that the Company is established under its Memorandum and Articles of Association which, similarly, make no mention of the Constitution. This being so, it would seem that, as a result of the transfer of the Association’s undertaking and assets, the democratic control that previously existed has disappeared and been replaced by oligarchy exercised by the directors of the Company who answer to no one but themselves and those they choose to admit to their number. It seems unlikely that those who approved, for good practical reasons, the aforementioned transfer, intended such an outcome.
Article 38 of the Company’s Articles of Association provide that the “directors may delegate any of their powers to any committee” and they have done so. In some contrast to the provisions of the Articles, item 1 of the minutes of a meeting the “St Peter’s Village Hall Committee”, held on 19th March 2012 refers to “Amendment to constitution”. It is stated that it was “recommended that the constitution be change (sic) to alleviate any confusion over the need for city councillors to sit on the committee”. It was resolved that the “section on page two, section 3 of the Constitution reading (quotation)……be deleted”. This suggests that this Committee regards the Constitution of the former Association as relevant and binding upon it.
Can you please explain this dichotomy? If the Constitution is regarded as part and parcel of the Company’s governance arrangements then its provisions, suitably adapted, should be incorporated into revised Articles of Association without delay. The directors should declare the relevance of the Constitution and arrangements be made for the election of directors at the next Annual General Meeting.
If it is not so regarded then Mr Arnold would be grateful if the directors could explain their strategy for the maintenance of democratic control over the affairs of the Company that was clearly intended to be maintained after the transfer of the Association’s undertaking and assets. Given the likely public interest in these matters, he would appreciate your response within the next seven days.
Yours faithfully
Anthony Warburton
Chartered Management Accountant and Chartered Secretary
To: St Peters Village Hall Association Limited,
10 Stroma Avenue,
St Peters,
Worcester WR5 3PJ
10th April 2012
To St Peters Village Hall Association Limited (the Company) and to each of its Directors
Dear Sirs,
Mr Michael Arnold, a resident of St Peters, has told me that he has requested certain information from the Company, which has not been forthcoming. He has, in consequence, sought my advice in connection with its affairs and constitution.
His interest is founded in the fact that the Company’s origin lies in the St Peters Hall Association (the Association), the primary objective of which was, according to its Constitution, to promote “the benefits of the inhabitants of the St Peters neighbourhood of Worcester”.
He has provided me with a copy of the Company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, to which is attached two copies, one of a document entitled “St Peters Hall Association, Constitution” and the other of a contract of transfer between the Company and the Association.
In addition he has provided me with copies of the Company’s financial statements for the years ended March 2007 through 2011 and a copy of the “St Peter’s Village Hall Committee Minutes” which relate to a meeting held on 19th March 2012.
His initial instructions were that I undertake an analysis of those financial statements for the five trading years mentioned and I have done that and reported my findings to him. He has asked me to summarise them to you.
The statements show that, over that period, a total income of £74444 has been raised from activities. The costs incurred have been £75213 so that an operational deficit of £769 has thus been incurred. I hasten to add that the costs incurred do not include £10217, from 2007, which I refer to below.
A further £3235 has been generated by way of the Multi Use Games Arena (MUGA) and that this has incurred costs of £2900, resulting in a surplus of £335. Taken together these produce an operational deficit of £434.
Investment income has totalled £7929 and a further £741 income has been included by way of “fund raising and other income”.
Leaving aside the £10217 referred to, there would be a surplus of income over expenditure of £8236. The “cost of generating funds” analysis appearing as note 3 to the financial statements for the year to 31st March 2007 states that this expenditure relates to “New centre”, without further explanation. It seems that expenditure was of a revenue, rather than a capital, nature as it has not resulted in any addition to the assets of the Company.
The inclusion of this last cost results in a deficit, over five years, of £1981. I have suggested to Mr Arnold that, from reading the financial statements, this is not immediately obvious to the layman. The total funds of the Company do not fall to reflect this deficit because it has been its policy to revalue its financial investments to market value and to include in its total funds the surplus or deficit resulting from doing this. Over five years there have been surpluses and deficits upon the comparison of the carrying value of investments with their market value but, in total, a surplus of £11960 has been added to the Company’s funds.
Their movement, over five years, can be demonstrated:
£ £
Opening balance of funds 1st April 2006 85212
Activities deficit < 769>
MUGA surplus 335
Investment and other income 8670
8236
“New centre” expenditure 2007
Deficit < 1981>
Balance of funds, 31st March 2011, before
revaluation of investments 83231
Revaluation of investments 11960
Total funds Balance 31st March 2011 95191
Mr Arnold is concerned that the reader of these statements would likely conclude that the Company’s funds are increasing when the apparent increase is due entirely to the recognition of gains, thought to exist within the financial investments, but which are unrealised. Investment values can, as we are warned, go down as well as up and these recognised surpluses might not, in the event, results in realised gains, become, that is, real and tangible.
I have explained to Mr Arnold the several ways in which changes in the market value of investments may be dealt with in financial statements. He has agreed with my suggestion that it might be better if the investments, valued at £29960 in the Balance Sheet of 31st March 2011, were to be related to a revaluation reserve of £11960 or, perhaps more prudently, to be carried at their cost of £18000, with a note disclosing their market value. Given that the only disposal of investments in the last five years gave rise to a small loss or just the recovery of their cost, following this practice might better reflect reality.
He is further concerned about the trend in the deficit of activities income over expenditure. Leaving aside the matter of the surplus or deficit arising from the MUGA activity, the analysis discloses that until March 2008 a surplus was produced but that, since then, there has been a deficit which has grown consistently, £334 in 2009, £2829 in 2010 and, in the year to March 2011, £3605.
Mr Arnold would be grateful for an explanation of the exact nature of the expenditure of £10217 in 2007 and the Trustees’ comments on his concerns about the fact that the financial statements suggest that the Company’s funds are increasing when, in reality, that suggestion relies entirely upon unrealised gains which might prove to be illusory.
It is understood that the Company pays no rent for the village hall, rather that its use is provided, free of charge by Worcester City Council which itself holds a lease in respect of it. Can you please state the terms under which the Company has tenure of the hall and, if known, for how long it is likely to be able to occupy it without incurring a rental charge?
It follows that when, if at all, a rental is required to be paid the Company’s costs would increase by the its amount and, without an improvement in its ability to generate income, its funds would be thus depleted. Those funds would give the Company time, but only some time, before, without an injection of further funds, it could not continue to operate the hall.
In that case the first objective of the Company, which is stated to be to run and maintain the hall for the benefit of the local community, would be rendered unachievable. The second objective is to raise funds to build a new community centre. Since it is arguable that the Company’s funds have really fallen, absolutely, during the last five years and certainly the case, if inflation is taken into account, they have done so , the prospects for achieving this latter objective look, at the very least, to be slender. Mr Arnold would be grateful for an explanation of the directors’ strategy for achieving the provision of a new community centre.
Turning to the question of corporate governance, I have advised Mr Arnold that the Company is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. Dating from 31st March 2005, the Memorandum is of a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. Members are required to contribute no more than £1 to the assets of the Company in the event of its being wound up. I have told him that this structure is commonly employed for ventures of a social nature, the object being to protect those directing an otherwise unincorporated entity’s affairs in the event of claims being made against them personally.
The Company’s objects, which make up most of the Memorandum, are those commonly used for a commercial business, one operated with the primary objective of making a profit. The Company’s objects are not limited to, nor, indeed, do they even include running and maintaining the St Peters Village Hall for the benefit of the local community and the raising of funds to build a new community centre.
The Articles of Association limit Membership of the Company to the three subscribers to the Memorandum and such other persons whose application to become a Member is “approved by the directors”. Annual General Meetings must, and other General Meetings may be called by “the directors” or “on the requisition of members pursuant to the provisions of the (Companies) Act”.
Mr Arnold would be grateful if you would supply him with a list of those persons who have been or are now presently Members of the Company, the dates upon which the Annual General Meetings for 2007 through and including 2011 and copies of the minutes of those Meetings.
The copy of the “St Peters Hall Association Constitution”, that I have already referred to, provided that its affairs should be administered by a Committee of Management of six members who should be elected to serve upon it. Further persons could be co-opted to serve upon the Committee as “representative members”. More importantly the Constitution provided that an Annual General Meeting be held each year and that “all inhabitants of the area of benefit (earlier defined as the St Peters neighbourhood) of eighteen years of age and upwards shall be entitled to vote at” it. Whilst it is not specifically stated, the Constitution clearly implies that members of the Committee of Management should be elected at an Annual General Meeting,
In support of this, Article 3 vi (a) states that members of the Committee shall hold office from “the end of the annual general meeting at which they were elected”. It is clear that the Constitution of the Association provided for a level of democratic control of the Association, by the residents of the St Peters neighbourhood, that is entirely absent in management of the affairs of the Company.
The agreement providing for the transfer of the undertaking and assets of the Association from it to the Company makes no mention of the Constitution. The financial statements make it clear that the Company is established under its Memorandum and Articles of Association which, similarly, make no mention of the Constitution. This being so, it would seem that, as a result of the transfer of the Association’s undertaking and assets, the democratic control that previously existed has disappeared and been replaced by oligarchy exercised by the directors of the Company who answer to no one but themselves and those they choose to admit to their number. It seems unlikely that those who approved, for good practical reasons, the aforementioned transfer, intended such an outcome.
Article 38 of the Company’s Articles of Association provide that the “directors may delegate any of their powers to any committee” and they have done so. In some contrast to the provisions of the Articles, item 1 of the minutes of a meeting the “St Peter’s Village Hall Committee”, held on 19th March 2012 refers to “Amendment to constitution”. It is stated that it was “recommended that the constitution be change (sic) to alleviate any confusion over the need for city councillors to sit on the committee”. It was resolved that the “section on page two, section 3 of the Constitution reading (quotation)……be deleted”. This suggests that this Committee regards the Constitution of the former Association as relevant and binding upon it.
Can you please explain this dichotomy? If the Constitution is regarded as part and parcel of the Company’s governance arrangements then its provisions, suitably adapted, should be incorporated into revised Articles of Association without delay. The directors should declare the relevance of the Constitution and arrangements be made for the election of directors at the next Annual General Meeting.
If it is not so regarded then Mr Arnold would be grateful if the directors could explain their strategy for the maintenance of democratic control over the affairs of the Company that was clearly intended to be maintained after the transfer of the Association’s undertaking and assets. Given the likely public interest in these matters, he would appreciate your response within the next seven days.
Yours faithfully
Anthony Warburton
grumpy woman
says...
7:18pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Aubrey Tarbuck lives in Hallow. He very rarely visits St Peters. Full stop. Could this be why he is not welcome?
Everything he votes for in Hallow does not help St Peters.
Why is he still voted in time and time again? He is taking St Peters for a ride.
Everything he votes for in Hallow does not help St Peters.
Why is he still voted in time and time again? He is taking St Peters for a ride.
CJH
says...
7:35pm Mon 8 Oct 12
grumpy woman wrote:It's the same reason Prodger is still voted for in Bedwardine. People are voting for the political party rather than thinking 'is the best person (not party!) to represent me'.
Aubrey Tarbuck lives in Hallow. He very rarely visits St Peters. Full stop. Could this be why he is not welcome? Everything he votes for in Hallow does not help St Peters. Why is he still voted in time and time again? He is taking St Peters for a ride.
spider666 says...
8:40am Sat 6 Oct 12