On Feb 4, 2013 5:14 PM, "HJ Mitchell" <hjmitchell(a)ymail.com> wrote:
Thinking constitutionally for a moment, this leaves us with a relatively
small
board, no treasurer, and quite a high proportion of co-opted trustees
(a ratio which will increase if a replacement for John is co-opted).
Obviously the AGM is only four months away, which will soon be upon us, and
it might not be a situation that can be helped, but it doesn't seem to me
(as a lay member) to be desirable.
If the two vacant seats are filled by co-option, that still leaves a
majority of the board elected, so I don't think the democratic legitimacy
of the board is too badly hurt. If we weren't so close to the agm, there
might be an argument for an egm rather than use co-option, but I think we
can wait a little to have our say.