Ho hum. I think you mean that the board with also double as the
executive on a volunteer basis? The reason I ask is that presumably
all the board members don't get to do whatever they like on behalf of
the company, you have to have some sort of authority structure?
Does the full board mandate its members to take actions in minutae or
in fact appoint them into exec roles of some sort? I think what roles
it gives to its own members is more likely to determine who gets to
enjoy porridge than the mug with "company secretary" on their coffee
Am delighted to say none of this is my problem. I did my bit when I
voted for you...
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/10/29 Andrew Cates
You are right it is implausible. :)
In general AFAIK a company taking actions requires it to have an
executive in which case as long as it is put together correctly the
executive goes to jail and the directors including company secretary
are protected by a corporate veil (unless they have themselves been
negligent, acted as execs etc).
Not that you should sleep well on the back on of non-legal hearsay but
I've been a CEO for 15 years, 3 countries and at least 6 companies and
never managed to get a board member jailed in my place yet. :)
That's not really relevant to a small charity with no staff - the
board will be doing the day to day running of the company.
Wikimedia UK mailing list