On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:37, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Classically the board tried to get a consensus on all matters.
That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at all because there isn't a consensus.
The board aims for consensus, but majority decisions do take place when they are needed (as the meeting minutes record).
On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:34, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that any of the trustees meet socially when there is no meeting
I would note that I've just got back to my computer after an afternoon meeting with Chris and then an evening meal with John, both of which were outside of a formal meeting. But I'd also note that the discussions were firmly focused on WMUK. I'm not too sure whether that counts as 'social' or 'informal business meeting' - but either way I don't think that this is something that would cause any problems, COI or otherwise - it's actually highly beneficial to the charity for this sort of discussion to take place.
Finally, I'd like to echo Tango's excellent rule of thumb, since I completely agree with it (and the rest of his paragraph, which I've cropped for brevity):
On 7 Oct 2012, at 19:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is an excellent rule of thumb: "if you feel conflicted, then you are". I just trust my conscience to tell me when the line has been crossed - if I start to feel uncomfortable, I take a step back.
Thanks, Mike