Question for Jon Wood/Mariners Trust

Quoted from barralad

I dont normally bother with red crosses but in the interest of good debate would the two red crossers (to date) of this post be interested in explaining what it is about the principles of representative democracy they don't agree with?

Yes see above. You can’t call yourself a representative democracy if the members don’t elect the MT board/MT representative on the GTFC board.

Quoted from barralad

There are some startling assumptions being made in this thread.

For the record:- Jon Wood is entirely accountable to the Trust Board and reports back on a very regular basis. It is not practicable or desired for the Trust Board to mandate our representative to every single meeting. When you elect a representative you do so on the understanding that they will listen to the arguments put forward and then vote accordingly on any occasion where it is necessary. This is what happens the world over in representative democracies. I'm confident that I can speak for the whole of the Trust Board when I say that we are fortunate that we have a person of Jon's integrity representing us in the Boardroom of GTFC.

EDIT:- Thank you Kingston and Headingley for making the point quicker and better than I have.

Cannot you not see the irony of this post,the issue is if there was transparency people would not be able to 'make startling assumptions'

Also, why just not tell us how Jon Wood voted?

I take it that The Trust still has shares in the club?

Where is FFS when you need him!

News flash from Fenty towers, in the interest of democracy Mr Fenty has accepted 2 extra positions onto the clubs board, a Mr Putin (Moscow fans representative) and Mr Kim Jong Un (North Korea representative)

Quoted from davmariner

So did Jon Wood vote to support Russell Slade?

No one is saying that Jon Wood be mandated for every single meeting, but given that this particular vote was one of a significant magnitude I think most people would deem it appropriate to have either consulted on such a decision or at the very least, explain his actions.

After all, if members didn’t pay their subs for MT membership and if fans didn’t purchase drinks from the bars, there would be no MT representative on the GTFC board.

Your comparison to politics and representative democracies is slightly odd given (and I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that the trust board and representative on the GTFC board  are not elected by the membership. In any case, there are occasions whereby politicians/democratically elected individuals have their performance reviewed to see if their actions are still deemed in the interests of its electorate/members.

The Trust Board are elected and one third under the constitution stand for re-election annually. Notification of the upcoming AGM is made giving due notice to anybody wishing to stand for election time to prepare their bid. No organisation can be held responsible for the fact that its members are in general pretty apathetic The GTFC Board post is elected by the Trust Board so by virtue by the members.
This is going to go down like a lead balloon but enshrined in any organisation is a premise called "Collective Responsibility" which means (and apologies if this comes across as in any way patronising it truly isn't meant to) that any debate goes on at the time of the meeting and when the decision is made all members have to support that decision publicly. It is something that was enshrined in me when I became a trade union convenor 30 odd years ago and a member of the Labour Party even longer ago.
Others have already said that it was impossible to get a truly representative view of what ALL members were thinking between Saturday and the Monday.

Seems to be open season on everybody associated with GTFC at the moment. I don't remember anyone questioning the Trust until recently when things have gone wrong on the pitch. When they had an open meeting in the Trust bar a few weeks back, no-one turned up. Now suddenly, people are taking umbrage at the Trust representatives part in a decision made by a board of five people. We have no idea how he voted, or even if there was a vote at all. I'm a member of the Trust and i'm happy for the Trust rep on the board to make decisions on behalf of the Trust.

Some people won't be happy until the board have gone, the Trust has gone, the manager has gone, the assistant manager has gone and half the first team squad. The blame game is getting beyond ridiculous.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Cannot you not see the irony of this post,the issue is if there was transparency people would not be able to 'make startling assumptions'

No I cannot and I refer you to my previous reply. As someone steeped in the public sector you will be well aware of the term "Collective Responsibility".

Did not red cross you Ian but for the sake of debate,and not wishing to cast any aspirations on the hard work and integrity on any members of the Trust,but in what Universe can you call self-appointed members of the Trust Board who assume that their views are aligned to those of membership  a Representative Democracy.

Sadly you are quite right about apathy and people willing to step forward,but a representative democracy you are not.