Back from Kalymnos but off on my travels again later today and weather permitting will have no signal from tomorrow till Sunday 12th
I was told that the Peak MC reps were gagged at Weds evening’s meeting. It was pointed out to me this was a missed opportunity by MC as the article: 11.8.2 MC includes "may refer the resolution to members through area meetings for discussion & feedback" prior to accepting or rejecting.
Certainly a primary role of MC reps is to feedback from Council meetings and this was pointed out pointedly by at least one attendee from what I heard.
I gather one of the reps said that the published rebuttal document wasn’t endorsed/approved by Members Council despite the article saying it had been.
I chased Andy Syme again for feedback on MC’s position last night by email and he replied this time saying he would provide a formal response today. I’ll share when I get it.
Regarding verification I requested when I submitted the updated spreadsheets that the criteria was relaxed in light of the better understanding of how Change worked such that if there was a unique name on the BMC database that matched the Change list and the person was in the vicinity of the postcode or part postcode then that person should be approved. I also requested if the threshold wasn’t hit then a email was sent out to any no match names to ask whether they had signed the petition.
I’m told that the deadline for supporting papers is the 27th May. I’ve done a lot of work already on a paper detailing about the background to previous recommendations at the BMC for a subsidiary and how it might work. If I can find time I’ll do a rebuttal to the published rebuttal document*. I’ve already indicated some of the flaws it contains online.
I will also be away weather permitting with no signal 18-26 May so won’t be able to attend the
Open Forum on the 21st May. I encourage everybody to go particularly if you have questions on the resolutions process, the finances and the published rebuttal document.
At the suggestion of the CEO a few/couple of weeks ago I had agreed to having an Open Forum just for the Resolutions but have heard nothing back on this since.
Finally it has been confirmed that the BMC has sought and received legal advice on whether the subsidiary was a special (75% majority required) or ordinary resolution (50%). As I have always said and contrary to that stated by Andy Syme, Offwidth et al it is in fact Ordinary albeit with a couple of caveats which I’ll explore if it gets on the agenda. Good to see sense has prevailed here too. It has been in short supply.
*
Rebuttal paper