Calling all IPSE Members

[SimonMac]

I'm a current member.

Then I urge you to read

IPSE AGM — Why I am voting against the Special Resolution to change the Articles of Association

or

IPSE CC - Why the stand and EGM?

And get your proxy registered for the AGM before tomorrow's deadline

IPSE - Notice of Annual General Meeting | IPSE

[ladymuck]

If you're going to vote, you must register your proxy by the links above BEFORE 10:00 tomorrow (Thursday 24th January).

Irrespective of your opinion it's important you do vote as it's the only way the Board can gauge the opinion of a membership that hasn't been consulted on the changes and haven't been told the whole truth about the full scope of the changes.

RANT/

Even if you think the CC should burn in hell, at least make sure you vote knowing that you accept EVERY change that's covered by the pithy Special Resolution wording and don't rely on the crappy seven whitewashed bullet points that gloss over the fact that the Members' Forum and structure of NomCo are NOT covered by the AoA and so can be dropped/changed without consulting anyone.

/RANT

[SimonMac]

To add to LMs point.

Rejecting the changes does not mean we reject change, just we reject the change on offer.

[malvolio]

To add to LMs point.

Rejecting the changes does not mean we reject change, just we reject the change on offer.

A fine distinction...

I would also encourage everyone whose interested to read the other side of the story - basically go here and read the links on the right of the page - and make their own decisions

[mudskipper]

A fine distinction...

I would also encourage everyone whose interested to read the other side of the story - basically go here and read the links on the right of the page - and make their own decisions

Agreed - whilst I will be voting "no", anyone who is voting should read both sides and make their own mind up.

[Pondlife]

Agreed - whilst I will be voting "no", anyone who is voting should read both sides and make their own mind up.

And in doing so bear in mind that this is about how a future BoD might choose to prioritise issues and membership funds on.

[malvolio]

And in doing so bear in mind that this is about how a future BoD might choose to prioritise issues and membership funds on.

Oh grow up. That kind of panic mongering is destroying your case. There is much more to it than the CC losing a role that they don't actually have. People need to decide on merits, not some future doomsday scenario

[ladymuck]

Oh grow up. That kind of panic mongering is destroying your case. There is much more to it than the CC losing a role that they don't actually have. People need to decide on merits, not some future doomsday scenario

One example:
The new AoA do not define who sits on NomCo they just say that such a body exists. Therefore, a future board could put anyone they like on it and that body will define how elections will operate. This isn't a doomsday scenario, I don't have a stash of tin foil hats on hand. It's a real concern that the lack of ToR for such an important body will be removed should the current AoA and The Rules be abolished.

You may say, aha! But in the leaflet on the IPSE website it says NomCo will be made up of two members (no info on how they will be selected), two board members and an independent chair! Yes it does say that. Please don't confuse a sales leaflet with the legally binding AoA though. One isn't worth the time spent drawing it up (it still rankles that #7 isn't a change and shouldn't be numbered), the other has had a lot of legal man hours spent on it to make it compliant to the Companies Act but be as wooly as possible.

[malvolio]

One example:
The new AoA do not define who sits on NomCo they just say that such a body exists. Therefore, a future board could put anyone they like on it and that body will define how elections will operate. This isn't a doomsday scenario, I don't have a stash of tin foil hats on hand. It's a real concern that the lack of ToR for such an important body will be removed should the current AoA and The Rules be abolished.

You may say, aha! But in the leaflet on the IPSE website it says NomCo will be made up of two members (no info on how they will be selected), two board members and an independent chair! Yes it does say that. Please don't confuse a sales leaflet with the legally binding AoA though. One isn't worth the time spent drawing it up (it still rankles that #7 isn't a change and shouldn't be numbered), the other has had a lot of legal man hours spent on it to make it compliant to the Companies Act but be as wooly as possible.

Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

[SimonMac]

Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

Whether it’s the doomsday scenario or death by a thousand cuts, the results are the same. The difference is at the moment the transparency and openness allows us to better challenge the facts laid in front of us, if SR4 is approved this will not be the case going forward.