Chairman vs Constitution (?)

Philip has asked for his most recent correspondence with Mr Tennant be shared, which you will see below. At this juncture, I offer Mr Tennant the opportunity to make his own case on this forum.... just Email me to the address previously mentioned on posts and that can also be found in the Notts handbook 2019. Alternatively DM me on Twitter. I do think that some clarification is required if nothing else Mr Tennant.

Via inderect means Mr Tennant has let be known that he is unhappy for his own words, written privately to a Member, have been shared on this forum. Nottsview has taken the option to redact his word but the offer remains open to him (RT) to clarify his/their rulings on current constitutional matters, a constitution which is now up for review by members when only small portions of the current constitution is known by, I would hazard a guess, most members. How the whole constitution is written and how rules "dovetail" with eachother, remains a mystery to most.

Philip wrote:

Perhaps you may wish to publish the following exchanges between myself and the Chairman.

I do find it extremely concerning that the Chairman clearly does not understand the Constitution and seems to interpret it (perhaps with the Committee's support) in a manner which best suits himself (and perhaps the Committee).

There is currently NO 70 year age limit - he 'uses' an unconstitutional and 'secret' set of Committee Rules - which I contend are ultra vires (unlawful) and smack of Age Discrimination. I regard this as an extremely serious wrong that the Club has permitted to exist for many years now despite my own unsuccessful challenges to it.

The fact that he also does not know the requirement for submitting Amendments / changes to the Constitution is equally worrying - Members have for too many years now been kept in relative ignorance of their Constitutional (and legal) rights by not having it made clear to them publicly until the last week that they are each entitled to their own copy of the Constitution of the Club of which they are full Members.

This means that INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS are currently in order to submit CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES & AMENDMENTS TO THE 2020 AGM without any requirement for even a Seconder - a matter that the Chairman and the Committee COULD have sought to rectify years ago - but lack of attention to detail perhaps reflects even more so on poor legal scrutiny by the Club's solicitors.

As somewhat of an 'amateur' Constitutional 'anorak' perhaps the Chairman ought to have done what he promised some 2 or more Seasons ago and kept me in the 'loop' over proposed Constitutional changes and responded to my previously expressed concerns.

So here are my recent exchanges with him:

FAO: Mr Richard Tennant, In the just circulated Governance Document it refers to the current situation of Amendments to the Constitution requiring a Proposer and Seconder. Where, please, in the Constitution is there any reference to the need for a Seconder? Also, where is there any reference to the 70 age limit? Kind regards, Philip Dear Mr Measures Thank you for your email regarding the Constitution. You are quite correct in pointing out that in our current Constitution, there is no requirement for a seconder in proposing an amendment to our rules. We will correct this error now  and ensure it is correct when we send out our final documents detailing the proposed changes for the AGM. In regard to the 70-year rule, the Club’s current policy regarding membership of the General Committee is contained in Para 10.3 of the Committee Guidelines which state that:  ‘Members should not seek re-election after their 70th birthday.  A current Committee Member should retire at the end of the three-year period that contains his or her 70th birthday, the important date being the day before the AGM.  This means that a member could retire aged 70, 71 or 72.  Someone standing for the Committee for the first time who is 69 years of age on the day before the AGM could apply for election and serve three years maximum.’    The reason there is an age limit applied to the election of Committee members is that under our current constitution there is no other method to limit the term of office Committee Members may serve. You will be aware that, the 70-year rule has been applied for some years and indeed, Stuart Foster retires this year from the General Committee because of it. It is important that the Club has a mechanism to ensure the term Committee members serve can be restricted. If our governance proposals are passed at the AGM in February 2020 there would no longer be a need for the 70-year rule. Thank you for your feedback. Kind regards Richard