Results of Supporter Liaison Officer Election

I see the moderators have been swift to lock the Dictatorship thread.

I have to say I am very disappointed that there is no information on the results of the SLO election on either this website or the Supporters Society website. For an organisation, whose self-professed aim is to be positive, inclusive and representative, their communications have been abysmal.....more North Korean than North Somerset. Even after Marc Monitor's request for the results  two days ago there has still been no response. The Society may feel that as long as its inner circle has the information then that's OK. It ain't.

This lack of inclusion of its members is a very inauspicious start to the Society's supporter liaison.

I believe they are on their way.

Yes, the secretary is abroad at present but someone else will be downloading the minutes from Monday's meeting to the Society website very shortly and members will be sent a link.

I should have added that the result will be included in the minutes and they couldn't be signed off until last night's committee meeting.

Firstly, my request was merely as I wasn't sure whether they were elsewhere on the Forum and i had missed them rather than alluding to any sort of subterfuge.

Secondly, as a Society, not only are we are trying to make democracy easier and elections to the Board with electronic voting (which will inevitably come with teething problems) but also following proper procedures and good practice (hence the delay until the minutes were signed off).

The idea of a democratically appointed committee being an 'inner circle' is ludicrous. We are in a position where the minutes of an important meeting like Monday's - where a Board member was democratically voted onto the board by the Society membership - will be made public within the week. That is so far away from a 'lack of inclusion of its members' that it is possible to be.

The minutes are now available under the 'about the society' section of the society website and I will also send an email to all members with a copy.

Why so fragile, MM?

IGM minutes and election results published just three hours after my posting.

Objective achieved.

Fragile?

Good grief, one thing I have never been accused of is being 'fragile'. Indeed, 'robust' is rather more pointed in my direction (and gladly accepted).

IGM minutes and election results published just 24 hours after the Supporters' Society Committee meeting as intended. Objective of democratic good practice achieved.

Of course it is even more inclusive to actually attend the meeting.

I was poorly!

Marc, please don't pound the democratic line. 2016 has shown that it is not the panacea to all ills.

Bloody hell, people, it is very simple. A football club is not a country or a business, it is a very different beast. Leaving aside my political persuasions, a football club should be run by its supporters for the good of the club and, indeed, football in general. They are the only ones that stick by the club through thick and thin (which is often taken advantage of by outsiders) - players, managers and, very often, owners and directors are transitory figures. Supporters are not only the heart of the club but they are the ones who have most invested in the club's long-term future.

I am saying this even though the wheels of democracy - committee meetings, votes etc - irritate me greatly. I think that I should just be able to do the things I want to do and follow through my ideas as they are right. Which is exactly why I - and, every other despot - should be curtailed by democratic checks and balances. As I have mentioned before, I have seen a club destroyed and become a soulless carapace of what it once was by a succession of the sort of oligarchical rich businesssmen that were probably the only alternative left to this club. Nothing else could convince me more that community ownership is the only future for this, if not all, football clubs.

Anyway, democracy has won the day here so there is no point arguing the toss now.

I am the Secretary who is abroad.

While city awayday's criticisms are phrased in hyperbolic language, they are fundamentally sound and belong at my door.

I made two mistakes during this IGM process. One, I allowed the winner of a contested election to be announced at the IGM without the tally being revealed. This was contrary to our Elections Policy. It has now been corrected in the IGM minutes.

Two, I failed to post the result on the Society website or to email members once the result was known (regardless of the tally, which I did not know until seeing the minutes just now). I had a few days to do this before going abroad but didn't - I saw it had gone out on twitter and basically left it until the minutes were published, which was clearly too late.

I apologize to members for this oversight. It does not reflect a culture of secrecy among the Society Board, it is an individual error.

As recorded in the minutes, I am standing down as Secretary in the new year. This is because I am finding it increasingly difficult to fulfill the role to the standard required, as this episode shows. I encourage any members with an interest in governance and a willingness to champion members' rights and interests to get in touch with us. A job description for the Secretary role is on the Society website.

Needless to say, Oliver, such is the new democratic process that any oversights or mistakes are not yours alone but shared by all in the Supporters' Society committee but it is customarily generous of you to take responsibility.

I look forward to applications from those who feel they can improve on the current good practice and transparency that, I know, you champion. I won't be applying myself as it is way above my skillset.

Marc Monitor wrote:I was poorly!

This wasn't aimed at you Marc. I just think it is a bit rich to complain about secrecy if you do not go to the important meetings and get involved. 

It is for this reason I am not a big fan of the web based voting as it encourages people to stay at home.

But that is just my opinion.

I take your point Ben but the reason we provide a web based option is partly because our membership is now spread across a wider area and not everyone will be able to attend in person. The fact that nearly 200 people choose to vote this way is surely a positive sign of their engagement with what we are trying to do. Also the web based option is a lot less time consuming to administer when juggling this alongside everything else us volunteers are doing for the club.

More than happy to get feedback from members on the way best way forward

BenE wrote:It is for this reason I am not a big fan of the web based voting as it encourages people to stay at home.

But that is just my opinion.

Of course one can vote on line to assist democracy i.e. the counting and attend.

I know, Ben, I joke 'cos I love.

With all the hoo-ha, it seems to have passed everyone's attention that almost half the membership voted for all the candidates and the successful candidate was nominated to the Board with over half the votes. This completely gives lie to the original thread premise. Martin is hardly the next Fidel Castro and you would be hard pressed to find a board appointment at a football club more democratically made especially so early in the community ownership model.

I think that James and Oliver have been notably honest about teething problems but I have also seen the painstaking efforts to keep communications and the democratic process clear and open to every member. In particular, great efforts are made to be inclusive to all those members who do not have access to the internet as well as those who depend on it for their communication

James Marc and Colin - good points well made.

Those results in full, by the way.

Jon Blain: 40
Martin Powell: 125
Phil Weaver: 66