Previous Wecome Pages

Happy New Year
& Musing the next AGM

Paintings and being

Chairman's three cheers
and Mail Rail at Quainton

Deep regrets and
Editorial Opinion

Blessed "St" Thomas

Time flies but
Oligarchies don't

That was the AGM
that was?

Whats happening at

Observations about
News from Quainton

Resignations and
running the Society

Original welcome page

Return to
Current 1st Page



(The views expressed within this web site do not reflect the policies of the QRS "Trustees" unless specifically endorsed.)


We are now well into a New Year and are pleased to announce a new page section has been added for the information of our members. This is reached by use of the Events Info button where details of none public activities are listed which is more than useful to members frequently visiting the site to carry out work in the area or on privately owned items.

We hope to add to this list as newer arrangements are completed.


This publication would have liked to complete the good news story on the basis of New Management Practices becoming evident particularly in connection with the forthcoming Annual General Meeting arrangements. It would seem this is not to be so as in the Chairman's letter distributed with News from Quainton issue No. 50 he has declared that the procedure to be adopted at the 2017 AGM will be the same as in previous years in which the rules of the Society will not be adhered. In particular Rule 21b which clearly states at the AGM members are present, among other things:-

To elect the officers and other members of the Executive Committee all of whom must be members aged not less than 18 years as at the date on which the meeting is held.

This is further clarified by rules 30 and 31 where explicit references are made to the number of executive committee members should not exceed six including a Vice Chairman if appointed.

The clarity of these rules was accepted by the Executive Committee, (most of whom are still in place), at the beginning of 2015 when David Aplin drew attention to the matter. By the time of that meeting it was too late to advise or invite shareholding members to submit nominations for the individual positions of Chairman, Honorary Secretary or Honorary Treasurer. However, the retiring Chairman, Honorary Secretary were listed on the final ballot paper on the basis of their being willing to continue in those positions. As retirees they did not require nomination whereas David Aplin did require nomination as a new member and this was made by the Executive Committee.

Vice President, Andrew Bratton, raised a point of order regarding the reformed ballot in so far as the members had not been advised in advance of this new, (partially corrected), practice. Mr Bratton had to agree that the wording of Rule 21(b) was quite clear although he disagreed with absolute adherence in favour of the elected Executive Committee selecting a Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer from their own ranks.

It is clearly wrong for the rules of the Society to be usurped and one finds it difficult to comprehend the Chairman's position on this matter. The Chairman and the Executive Committee were advised in good time before the closure of nominations that a supplementary communication should have been distributed solely to the shareholding members together with copies of a revised nomination form in order for them to be acquainted with the procedure that was not practiced at the 2016 AGM.

It is rather strange and questionable why the correct procedure has not been applied since the 2015 AGM since the subject was of some significant correspondence between various members of the following Executive Committee and Vice President Andrew Bratton culminating in the following test forming part of an email sent to Andrew by the Honorary Treasurer who later presided over the arrangements for the 2016 AGM as Acting Chairman.


I stood as Treasurer not a committee member. I would not have stood as a committee member. It was on my recommendation that the exec agreed to follow the rules not incorrect custom and practise. This is more democratic not less. Any officer or committee member can be removed by the Exec. and no officer would stay in post if a motion of no confidence was passed against them. Real democracy would be served by competitive nominations. There is no provision in the rules for the members decisions on officers to be over-ruled by the Exec.


We are sorry to take issue with our current Chairman but a “concerned group of members”, referred to in the previous edition of this page think it is just plain wrong to continue a practice that was examined and considered as inappropriately ignoring the rules of the Society as far back as 2015. Resuming the previous wrong “Custom and Practice” just means the Society continues to mark time or worse keep going round in circles.

We would hope to have news of a revision of this decision by the time of the Quainton News distribution or enclosure with Notices of the Annual General Meeting.


1.1 Must and should - what they mean

In this guidance:

‘must’ means something is a legal or regulatory requirement or duty that trustees must comply with

‘should’ means something is good practice that the commission expects trustees to follow and apply to their charity

2. Comply with your charity’s governing document and the law

You and your co-trustees must:

make sure that the charity complies with its governing document

comply with charity law requirements and other laws that apply to your charity

You should take reasonable steps to find out about legal requirements, for example by reading relevant guidance or taking appropriate advice when you need to.

Avoid mistakes - make sure trustee appointments are valid

Be careful to follow the rules in your charity’s governing document and the law when appointing trustees. If trustee appointments breach these rules they are not valid. The validity of actions and decisions they were involved in could be called into question. But even if a trustee isn’t validly appointed, they can still be held liable for their actions and decisions.

Improper trustee appointments can often lead to disputes. In the worst cases this can harm the charity’s reputation, alienate supporters, put charity assets at risk (including by loss of funding) or ultimately leave the charity unable to function.

Ref:: Charity Commission website: Guidance sections 1.1 & 2 - Click <Here>