May I suggest that for the purposes of this discussion we concentrate on what members want
and what might be possible to agree now, rather than going over what was apparently a
rather difficult debate/situation several years ago?
The chapter has a different strategic outlook now, and I hope we can show that our
procedures, practices and decision making are at this point more than up to ensuring that
we make the best possible use of this excellent suggestion to increase the impact that we
can have as a charity.
Michael
On 15 May 2014, at 22:00, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
"
On 15 May 2014 21:23, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
It's also worth reading through the emails in
the board and office list archives about this issue for additional context.
How?
In particular, there was an issue with volunteers
unexpectedly being given cards that gave them named positions rather than clearly saying
they were volunteers,
This was not "unexpected"; we were solicited (on a public mailing list
subscribed to, one would hope, by most if not all of the staff and
trustees of the time) for the titles we wished to have used, supplied
them, and then received cards bearing them.
which gave rise to the question of whether WMUK
was legally responsible for the actions of those handing out the cards.
Is this the "technical issue" referred to in 2012?
My understanding is that this issue can be
surmounted by careful wording on the cards, but this topic should be carefully considered
(probably by the board given the history here) before more such cards are produced.
It should indeed; if the wording (disclaimer) is too "scary", the
cards will be useless.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk