Is bad press good?
Josh
about the Club out yesterday (links on FB page), with the minutes of
the January CoM meeting as primary source, with comments by both
Eileen and (only in the Guardian story) Seamus. It was a shame Seamus'
comments did not appear in the Herald, as they reflected positively on
the Club. I could easily be being a bit foolish here, but I don't
understand any advantage to giving the press the CoM minutes. I posted
the following on FB (included here for non FB people):
Disclosure to the membership is one thing and to the press another.
The worse a reputation the Club has the greater the effort required to
demonstrate a contrast to the university, and the greater difficulty
in winning external support. Providing the minutes to the press and
finger pointing by exclusion could prove destructive, while making the
story more about the efforts and plans to save the place would have
been positive, hence my requests to change the description of this
page (with a link to the Google group).
Thomas Coles
Are minutes not public documents? Even if they aren't, I think openness with the membership (which, practically, means openness with anyone with a care to take an interest) is more important than whatever the press decide to do with that information.
In that regard Josh, I hope the FB comment isn't counterproductive. I doubt very much that someone has been 'leaking'; as all the information they have in those articles is publicly available. The Herald is full of 'allegations have been made' and "vanished", and has been mentioned, could refer to mismanagement instead of all this sinister hearsay. You could have written these articles simply by being at the EGM.
I think we should be careful. The accurate, but less incendiary, calming words Mr Bates were quoted in the Guardian, but not the Herald. Journalism in the UK huh, no requirement for substantiation.
I don't think these articles do any harm or good. I don't recognise their accounts of what has been going on.
Tom
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hetherington Research Club - General Discussion Group" group.
To post to this group, send an email to hetherington...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hetheringtonclub-g...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hetheringtonclub-general?hl=en-GB.
Josh
I am largely in agreement with you, especially regarding that it would
be good information for the membership, perhaps having those minutes
attached here as a document. Yes, doing so might as a result pass that
on to the press, which one might regard as irrelevant to the task at
hand. Fair enough view, and you've pulled me toward it.
One question remains, however. Rather than posting the minutes here
for the membership they were provided to the press, and I am confused
as to the intention. Again, I could be missing the obvious, but
someone thought that this would be a good thing to do and I just don't
see that conclusion. Irrelevancy, as you suggest, Tom, yes, I can see
that now. I have already stated how I could see a negative outcome,
but I just can't see the positive. If it was to demonstrate
transparency (a laudable goal) it failed by not crediting either the
CoM or whomever offered it to the press. I suppose I just don't like
being confused, which is ironic considering how often I was entirely
pursuing my own confusion when at the Club...
Regarding the FB description, I confess I found it's inaccuracy by not
counting the manager as among those let go chafing my more childish
side, I'll raise my hand and admit that, but still feel it needs to be
brought up to date.
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
Josh
> > hetheringtonclub-g...@googlegroups.com<hetheringtonclub-general%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Sarah
I don't know whether the unapproved minutes of a Private Members Club
are public documents. I'm not arguing here that they should be kept
secret, just admitting my ignorance of company law.
However, my concerns are similar to Josh's (or, at least as I
interpret Josh - I do not wish to assume I know his mind). While I
think that whoever "leaked" (for want of a better word) these minutes
probably did so from the best of intentions, the articles that have
been published are not showing the Club in the best light. As you
say, Tom, that's journalism. However, this should maybe have been
anticipated.
However, Tom, you say that all of the material in the articles could
have been written by anyone at the EGM. Well, I was at that EGM and I
certainly could not have written those artuicles on the basis of what
was said at the EGM. At no point during the EGM was the alleged theft
referred to, nor any of the details about it mentioned. Note, again,
that I am not saying that this should have been kept secret from the
members (that's not for me to say - I am not a lawyer), just that your
statement is incorrect.
I am all for transparency of the CoM. In fact, as those who know me
can confirm, this is something that I always tried to achieve when I
could do so. Of course minutes and accounts should be published for
the members - that goes without saying. However, I am a little
concerned to discover that journalists have had access to minutes
before the members have been given access to them. I wonder why, if
they were thought to be of sufficient interest to the press, they were
not disclosed to members at the EGM. Or, if the person concerned
wished to keep their identity secret, why they were not published via
the FB page.
My main worry is, Tom, that you think that these articles are
irrelevant. Maybe this is because, as a current member of the CoM,
you are privy to information that I do not have. However, from my
point of view as a member of the Club, I am worried that these artices
have damaged our chances of future negotiations with the Club. I hope
this worry is unfounded, and I articulate it in the hope that it may
be alleviated.
Josh - I do not think that you are being petty or childish in noting
the inaccuracy in not counting the General Manager as one of those who
had lost her job. If it is thought that is petty and childish to
mention this, then I will sit in the naughty corner with you.
Nick Evans
Club presents itself is very important. It is a mistake to think that
producing a viable business plan will be enough. The image of the Club
needs to be rebuilt, and people's enthusiasm for the campaign needs to
be maintained so that they volunteer to help the Club, will (pledge
to?) join the Club if it reopens, and will put pressure through means
like petitions. Even if some of the university administration already
knew all the facts, others who are influential are busy and presumably
do not, and will have been influenced by the articles. The newspaper
articles produce a generally negative picture of the Club which makes
it easier to argue that permanent closure is inevitable. In the
following weeks there is the danger that the committee will be working
away and will produce a great plan, but few will any longer be
interested or supporting it, making it easier to reject.
The support of those on Facebook and who signed the petition (but who
are not active on this google page) needs to be maintained, through
meetings to discuss ideas, and perhaps something else active, like
people raising money or pledges that they will join (or getting
pledges), once a draft plan has been drawn up. This would help to keep
other people involved, and could provide evidence useful for the final
submitted business plan (for instance by demonstrating a higher level
of demand).
Nick
Nick Evans
are not now on the committee or active on Facebook or this google
group. A lot of them were just ordinary members of the university who
liked the Club and were willing to help a bit, but do not have the
time or inclination to keep track of the detailed arguments. These are
the sort of people who are crucial to keep on board, and who could be
lost if they are not kept on board and are not convinced that the
campaign is worthwhile.
Nick
Seumas Bates
here and also give my opinion.
As to whether or not the minutes should have been made public
documents; they shouldn't have been. Such minutes were not agreed upon
and thus were incomplete; theoretically every word of them could have
been changed at a subsequent meeting. Secondly they are for the
membership only, not the press. If a member of the Club has chosen to
hand them over (for whatever reason) then 'leak' is the correct word.
The correct means of dealing with the Press (as with any outside body)
is to prepare a carefully thought-out press release which says exactly
as much as we wish it to say and no more.
I for one do not think there is any malicious intent here but instead
put this down to naivety and a lack of central leadership prior to the
election of the new CoM. Now that we have that central leadership
(i.e. me) it will now be possible to build proper, developed responses
to such investigation based on collated evidence and strategic goals.
This is what I was able to do when interviewed by the GU Guardian, and
although only a fraction of the interview was used I feel the main
thrust of what I wanted to say is present. My expectation is that the
President of a Club should also be its spokesperson, and I hope to
live up to this responsibility.
On that note (watch me link here) we are currently hammering out a
‘pres...@researchclub.gla.ac.uk’ e-mail address to which anyone and
everyone can direct questions and queries. Once we can be sure it is
working we’ll announce it more prominently.
As to whether we are being shown in a good or bad light I think it’s
too early to tell. Certainly the coverage was far from positive but at
the end of the day there is no point trying to hide the fact the Club
had problems. Certainly we’ve had our dirty laundry shown to the world
but this will mean it’ll be all the more spectacular once we get it
looking pearly white. I think we play the hand we have and if this has
made our job more difficult then the CoM just has to work harder.
Josh
can think of no one better to rephrase and replace the description on
the Facebook site. I suspect you knew I'd express that...
Also, I'm perfectly happy to run with naivete, both for myself and
others, and leave it at that.
Written in considerate haste,
Josh
On 17 Mar, 15:57, Seumas Bates <seumas.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all, I thought I'd respond to some of the technical points raised
> here and also give my opinion.
>
> As to whether or not the minutes should have been made public
> documents; they shouldn't have been. Such minutes were not agreed upon
> and thus were incomplete; theoretically every word of them could have
> been changed at a subsequent meeting. Secondly they are for the
> membership only, not the press. If a member of the Club has chosen to
> hand them over (for whatever reason) then 'leak' is the correct word.
> The correct means of dealing with the Press (as with any outside body)
> is to prepare a carefully thought-out press release which says exactly
> as much as we wish it to say and no more.
>
> I for one do not think there is any malicious intent here but instead
> put this down to naivety and a lack of central leadership prior to the
> election of the new CoM. Now that we have that central leadership
> (i.e. me) it will now be possible to build proper, developed responses
> to such investigation based on collated evidence and strategic goals.
> This is what I was able to do when interviewed by the GU Guardian, and
> although only a fraction of the interview was used I feel the main
> thrust of what I wanted to say is present. My expectation is that the
> President of a Club should also be its spokesperson, and I hope to
> live up to this responsibility.
> On that note (watch me link here) we are currently hammering out a
> ‘presid...@researchclub.gla.ac.uk’ e-mail address to which anyone and
Seumas Bates
feedback on what I write.
Seumas Bates
feedback.
Sarah
I think it's loads better, except for this:
Due to serious financial mismanagement and administrative failings the
Hetherington Research Club was, on the 19th of February 2010, forced
to cease trading and close it’s doors.
Two points:
1. There's a typo: "it's" should be "its" (no apostrophe).
2. Does it need to say "serious financial mismanagement and
administrative failings"? I worry that statement like this might lead
to more negative comments. I also agree totally with what you say
elsewhere about looking forward and not pointing fingers.
Just my first thoughts when looking at it.
S
Seumas Bates
Yeah, I take your point that I've laid it on strong but on balance I
feel that is what is currently appropriate. I don't think we should
hide the fact that we've got into a bit of a pickle.
Is there a suggestion for a less Spartan way of say it?
Sarah
and administrative problems"? Does that convey the same?
S
Josh
'spiraling financial and administrative problems' as it implies a
gradual if inexorable loss of control with some negative
connotations),as long as you'll be able to demonstrate that the Club
is no longer whatever cause you give for its closure. For example, it
can be harder to demonstrate that it won't be mismanaged in the future
without spelling out each component of the mismanagement and it's
resolution. If, as Sarah suggests, one says there were problems, then
controls and structures can be referred to that would make those
problems moot to discuss. I'm content either way, as it is a vast
improvement of message and I'm just delighted with the overhaul.
J
JohnEwing
> As to whether or not the minutes should have been made public
> documents; they shouldn't have been. Such minutes were not agreed upon
> and thus were incomplete; theoretically every word of them could have
> been changed at a subsequent meeting. Secondly they are for the
> membership only, not the press. If a member of the Club has chosen to
> hand them over (for whatever reason) then 'leak' is the correct word.
I agree with part of that statement, and disagree with part.
I agree that as the minutes in question had not been approved at a
subsequent Committee meeting, then they should not have been made
public. Indeed, they should not be made available to members until
approved.
However, after the minutes (and accounts, for that matter) were
approved, they would be posted on a notice board in the Club, for
anyone to see. And considering how lax the Club became as regards
ensuring that visitors were signed-in, I do mean 'for anyone to see'.
Basically, at that point, they enter the public domain. As the Club
receives, indirectly, public money, then I consider it correct that
that information is made available.
> As to whether we are being shown in a good or bad light I think it’s
> too early to tell. Certainly the coverage was far from positive but at
> the end of the day there is no point trying to hide the fact the Club
> had problems. Certainly we’ve had our dirty laundry shown to the world
> but this will mean it’ll be all the more spectacular once we get it
> looking pearly white.
How much more dirty laundry still has to come to light?
John
David Russell
Club
are public documents. I'm not arguing here that they should be kept
secret, just admitting my ignorance of company law. "
I'm not a lawyer either, but the answer to this would depend on the
structure of the club (of which I admit I am ignorant). If it's a
limited company/partnership/etc. in its own right then the minutes
aren't likely to be public documents (which doesn't mean that they
can't be published). However if the club (legally/structurally, rather
than in its actual running) is ultimately a sub-department of the
university then most or all of its documents are likely covered by
Freedom of Information and/or charities legislation.
David R
Norman Gray
On 2010 Mar 18, at 06:09, JohnEwing wrote:
> However, after the minutes (and accounts, for that matter) were
> approved, they would be posted on a notice board in the Club, for
> anyone to see. And considering how lax the Club became as regards
> ensuring that visitors were signed-in, I do mean 'for anyone to see'.
> Basically, at that point, they enter the public domain. As the Club
> receives, indirectly, public money, then I consider it correct that
> that information is made available.
Without wanting to take a particular position in the larger argument, it might be worth commenting that there's a difference between 'secret', 'private' and 'quotable'. If the minutes are (as is required and as is proper) posted for the members to see, then they're in the public domain (in the UK legal sense, not the US copyright sense), but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're 'public' in the sense that a journalist can quote them.
There are, I believe, similar complications to 'on/off the record' for journalists.
But isn't this water under the bridge, now?
All the best,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
flankspeed
purview of charities legislation.
As for this whole "Minutes" thing, I would definitely agree that
minutes should be approved and posted by the CoM before being quoted
as a source. As for whether they are 'public', I'd tend to agree with
John Ewing. They're as public as they have to be for anyone who comes
looking. As a member I certainly want access to them. Are they online?
If so, then are they going to be password-protected or something? I'd
probably say that's unnecessary once they've been approved, but I'd
like to know anyone else's opinion, especially the view of the CoM.
I would also point out that the press figures for the level of the
club's debt (£50,000 wasn't it?) were stated by Des at the AGM to be
innaccurate fantasy numbers; the audit was still ongoing. The reason I
asked him that question was to be clear of that fact. I cannot see how
this latest press release is anything other than speculation too.
I am certainly of the opinion that whatever the truth is about how the
club lost money, it will come out in due time. What we don't need,
frankly, is misleading and innaccurate information appearing in a
national newspaper that the majority of our potential membership is
likely to read; because when accurate information appears
subsequently, everyone not privy to the finer details - including many
potential members - will probably first think, "But, hang on, I read
in the Herald that..."
Seamus, I am delighted to see, has decided not to waste too much time
in recriminations though, and has reminded us that the Club now does
have an official voice that we can all go through. And seemingly a
very effective one from what I'm gathering on these pages. Well done,
that man.
Sarah
1. Private Members Clubs are not necessarily (or even usually?)
charities. It's the Companies Act that is relevant in this case. I
knew the old one (as it is the duty of any member of the Exec to know
all of the relevant bits of legislation), I am not familiar with the
latest version.
2. As I understand, these minutes were only a draft. As such, they
are not, and should not, be available to members until they are
adopted by a quorate CoM.
This may be "water under the bridge". However, the fact remains that
somebody, for whatever reasons, has provided the press with factually
incorrect information which has then been reported as fact. I agree
that this is not needed. I am sure that Court already know the real
facts. However, as you say, many others will believe the speculation
they read in the articles, especially as some of it appears to have
come from an official source.
However, looking forward, In Seumas we now have an excellent spokesman
who seems well able to represent us. I look forward to more positive
press in the near future.
So, yes - all power to Seumas!
JohnEwing
> Iain
>
> 1. Private Members Clubs are not necessarily (or even usually?)
> charities. It's the Companies Act that is relevant in this case. I
> knew the old one (as it is the duty of any member of the Exec to know
> all of the relevant bits of legislation), I am not familiar with the
> latest version.
Now I'm puzzled. Whilst private members' clubs aren't, in general,
charities, student unions are in a different situation. Whilst student
unions are private clubs, AFAIK in England and Wales they are 'exempt
charities', however this may have changed to 'excepted charities'.
Further changes are likely. I don't know the situation in Scotland, as
the Charities Act 2006 (I think) doesn't apply here. However something
similar will probably be enacted.
I don't see what the Companies Act has to do with the Club. A quick
look through both the current and the previous acts doesn't show that
the Club is covered. However, they are large documents (the latest is
761 pages), so I am not going to work my way through them. Instead I
am asking here for enlightenment.
Of course, the situation would be different if the Club were
registered as a company, and I'm pretty sure that is not the case :-)
> This may be "water under the bridge". However, the fact remains that
> somebody, for whatever reasons, has provided the press with factually
> incorrect information which has then been reported as fact.
Is that information factually incorrect? For the time being, I'm
keeping an open mind.
John
Sarah
Well, I should have been clearer:
>
> Now I'm puzzled. Whilst private members' clubs aren't, in general,
> charities, student unions are in a different situation. Whilst student
> unions are private clubs, AFAIK in England and Wales they are 'exempt
> charities', however this may have changed to 'excepted charities'.
> Further changes are likely. I don't know the situation in Scotland, as
> the Charities Act 2006 (I think) doesn't apply here. However something
> similar will probably be enacted.
>
> I don't see what the Companies Act has to do with the Club. A quick
> look through both the current and the previous acts doesn't show that
> the Club is covered. However, they are large documents (the latest is
> 761 pages), so I am not going to work my way through them. Instead I
> am asking here for enlightenment.
>
> Of course, the situation would be different if the Club were
> registered as a company, and I'm pretty sure that is not the case :-)
My understanding (as in, what I have been told) is that while the HRC
was operating as a business it fell under the Companies Act. Given
the structure of the Club, that looks to be the case. The way it was
explained to me (and please - anyone - correct me if this is wrong) is
that the CoM were, in effect, the Board of Directors. Actually (and
again, correct me if I am wrong) but most traders fall under the new
Companies Act.
I know that the HRC did not have charitable status. Neither, I think
(and, again, correct me if I am wrong) do the GUU or the QM.
I know that some of the "facts" released to the press are incorrect.
I agree about keeping an open mind about others - as the figures
released were not (and, I think, are still not) known.
Omar Kooheji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hetherington Research Club - General Discussion Group" group.
To post to this group, send an email to hetherington...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hetheringtonclub-g...@googlegroups.com.
JohnEwing
> My understanding (as in, what I have been told) is that while the HRC
> was operating as a business it fell under the Companies Act. Given
> the structure of the Club, that looks to be the case.
Now that I've read some of the Act, it appears to apply only to bodies
registered as companies under fairly strict conditions. The Club is
not registered as a company. However, if the University is registered
as a company, the Club might be affected.
> I know that the HRC did not have charitable status. Neither, I think
> (and, again, correct me if I am wrong) do the GUU or the QM.
I don't see anything to stop any of the bodies registering as a
charity under the 2005 Act. There may be reasons in other Acts not to
do so, and is there any point anyway?
What is essential - now - is to determine the Club's legal status
under legislation. The Secretary of Court may be able to give a
definitive answer. But information passed by word of mouth through the
years cannot be acceptable. Once the information is known, I suggest
that references should be made to the relevant Acts in the
Constitution. (Come to think of it, I'm fairly sure that some older
versions of the Constitution did make such references.)
Anyway, there's a job for the new secretary :-)
> I know that some of the "facts" released to the press are incorrect.
I don't ...
> I agree about keeping an open mind about others - as the figures
> released were not (and, I think, are still not) known.
... so I'm keeping an open mind about everything reported.
John
Omar Kooheji
JohnEwing
> I think the QM and the GUU are run as charities. The club is not. The
> reasoning I was given when I asked why not, was that the club could not be a
> charity and run events for other charities at the same time. Someone had
> better tell the QM this as they run events for other charities all the time.
Thanks for that. I've checked, and both QM and GUU are registered as
charities. Both are listed as 'unincorporated associations'. From a
(Westminster) government webpage:
"Unincorporated associations have no separate legal identity. This
means that their members will have to sign loans and contracts as
individuals and carry the risk of personal liability.
"This form is unlikely to offer a long-term solution if you intend to
sign contracts or expand the enterprise. You should consider
incorporation if you intend to:
take on employees
raise finance, apply for grants or open bank accounts
issue shares
enter into large contracts
take on a lease or buy freehold property
"This should help you to gain access to a wide range of financing
sources that will not put your personal assets at risk."
There is a link to a page about incorporated associations, but it
specifically refers to England and Wales. Having said that, a quick
further look turned up information about 'Charitable Incorporated
Associations', as a new legal form from Spring 2010, and there is a
statement to the effect that similar legislation is in effect in
Scotland. That is probably the way to go for the Club.
As regards being a charity but not being able to run events for other
charities, I think you have been misinformed. I hope so, anyway, as I
am involved with one charity that lets out its premises to other
charities.
John
Omar Kooheji
John
Seumas Bates
a great deal of interest. If we are to clarify and perhaps adjust the
Club's legal status this is, after all, the perfect time to do so.
Seumas Bates
thread on this very forum. If we are to change our legal status then
this would surely fall under the 'Constitution' bit of that sub-
committee's remit.
On 21 Mar, 20:10, JohnEwing <j...@johnewing.co.uk> wrote:
David Russell
legal terms) part of the University rather than a separate legal
entity in its own right.
If it isn't, then the options are:
a) It's a limited company - in which case there are serious problems
because limited companies are legally obliged to put 'Ltd' at the end
of their name in all public communications
b) It's a charity - this is _impossible_. I just searched the register
at the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (http://
www.oscr.org.uk/CharityIndexResultsNew.aspx?keywords=hetherington%20research%20club)
and the Hetherington isn't listed.
c) It's an unincorporated association - probably the most likely if
the HRC isn't part of the university. However as noted above it's
quite problematic for the board members as they would be personally
liable for any debts they sign.
The Secretary of Court should certainly be able to clear this up, and
it is a matter of some concern particularly with regards to point c).
Other than that, contracts (particularly those to do with the debt)
may shed some light as any limited company/charity/etc. status would
likely be noted on such documents.
David R
Michael Comerford
Thanks David, please see the Community Sub-Committee thread where we've moved this debate.
Paul Connor
> definitive answer.
<snip>
>(Come to think of it, I'm fairly sure that some older
> versions of the Constitution did make such references.)
> John
Club Rules (as distinct from constitution) from the 1994 version
stated
1.1 The Club is defined by the University Court as a student union.
That sounds to me like the question came up before and an answer
sought.
Obviously that doesn't imply it holds true today, but it clearly puts
it down to the Court's discretion; nor does it directly address the
queries put here earlier on its legal status, although student unions
may have a legal definition. Now you've got me thinking
The Education Act 1994 offers these gems.
Part II Students' Unions
Section 22: Requirements to be observed in relation to students'
unions
(4). The governing body of every establishment to which this Part
applies shall as regards any students' union for students at the
establishment bring to the attention of all students, at least once a
year—
(a)
the code of practice currently in force under subsection (3),
(b)
any restrictions imposed on the activities of the union by the law
relating to charities, and......<snipped>
Does that answer the question? No? Didn't think so, I would infer from
that line that charities legislation is applicable.
Plus the classic from two paragraphs earlier, bear with me if you must
but it's going off-topic:
(2) The governing body shall in particular take such steps as are
reasonably practicable to secure that the following requirements are
observed by or in relation to any students' union for students at the
establishment—
...
(c)
a student should have the right—
(i)
not to be a member of the union, or
(ii)
in the case of a representative body which is not an
association, to signify that he does not wish to be represented by it,
and students who exercise that right should not be unfairly
disadvantaged, with regard to the provision of services or otherwise,
by reason of their having done so;
We couldn't resolve (2) (c) (i) against the Licensing Act's
requirements for membership.
Some other points from the same sequence would be:-
(g)
the financial affairs of the union should be properly conducted and
appropriate arrangements should exist for the approval of the union’s
budget, and the monitoring of its expenditure, by the governing body;
(h)
financial reports of the union should be published annually or more
frequently, and should be made available to the governing body and to
all students, and each such report should contain, in particular—
<further points not applicable, relates to donations the institution
makes>
the "and to all students" was why we struck a deal to furnish the SRC
with our accounts.
That's enough lawyering from me. anyway google OPSI Education Act 1994
to get the full treatment. There's no mention of minutes in there, in
case you think I'd forgotten.
Paul Connor
was part of the Rules, indeed the very first point 1.1.
Student Unions come under the purview of the Education Act 1994 (Part
II section 22) which does mention restrictions imposed by the laws
regarding charities (paraphrasing wildly). It does not spell out that
they are to be treated as charities but the inference is there I
believe - paragraph (4) I think.
Emphasis should be on the phrase 'treated as' there, not a requirement
to actually be a charity
Search for OPSI Education Act 1994
Paul
On Mar 22, 6:23 pm, Michael Comerford
<commissarkollon...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thanks David, please see the Community Sub-Committee thread where we've
> moved this debate.
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:17 PM, David Russell <
>
>
>
> david.russell.scotl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As far as legal status, I was assuming that the HRC was ultimately (in
> > legal terms) part of the University rather than a separate legal
> > entity in its own right.
>
> > If it isn't, then the options are:
>
> > a) It's a limited company - in which case there are serious problems
> > because limited companies are legally obliged to put 'Ltd' at the end
> > of their name in all public communications
>
> > b) It's a charity - this is _impossible_. I just searched the register
> > at the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (http://
>
> >www.oscr.org.uk/CharityIndexResultsNew.aspx?keywords=hetherington%20r...
> > )
> > and the Hetherington isn't listed.
>
> > c) It's an unincorporated association - probably the most likely if
> > the HRC isn't part of the university. However as noted above it's
> > quite problematic for the board members as they would be personally
> > liable for any debts they sign.
>
> > The Secretary of Court should certainly be able to clear this up, and
> > it is a matter of some concern particularly with regards to point c).
> > Other than that, contracts (particularly those to do with the debt)
> > may shed some light as any limited company/charity/etc. status would
> > likely be noted on such documents.
>
> > David R
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Hetherington Research Club - General Discussion Group" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to
> > hetherington...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > hetheringtonclub-g...@googlegroups.com<hetheringtonclub-general%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Frank Bishop
disappointing reporting and not my recollection of the club at all..
I hope that the only comments in the press we will see now (if any at
all, in fact)
will come directly from the com. Like Josh I fail to see what good
anyone
thinks talking to the press will do, -unless it is their intention
*not* to do good
by the club and its members. I am pleased that even the FB page has
had a 'tidy'
by Seumas and I look forward to more positive posts appearing there,
(and here) in
the very near future.
My own view (and feel free to disagree) is that there has been too
much external
'interest' in our club from parties whose primary goal is not the
reformation of The HRC
but... agendas of their own.
I feel we need to give the com time, and peace to do their job and
support their
efforts in any way we can.
Seumas, you'll be a great spokesperson, no doubt.
Kind regards
Frank
On 17 Mar, 15:57, Seumas Bates <seumas.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all, I thought I'd respond to some of the technical points raised
> here and also give my opinion.
>
> As to whether or not the minutes should have been made public
> documents; they shouldn't have been. Such minutes were not agreed upon
> and thus were incomplete; theoretically every word of them could have
> been changed at a subsequent meeting. Secondly they are for the
> membership only, not the press. If a member of the Club has chosen to
> hand them over (for whatever reason) then 'leak' is the correct word.
> The correct means of dealing with the Press (as with any outside body)
> is to prepare a carefully thought-out press release which says exactly
> as much as we wish it to say and no more.
>
> I for one do not think there is any malicious intent here but instead
> put this down to naivety and a lack of central leadership prior to the
> election of the new CoM. Now that we have that central leadership
> (i.e. me) it will now be possible to build proper, developed responses
> to such investigation based on collated evidence and strategic goals.
> This is what I was able to do when interviewed by the GU Guardian, and
> although only a fraction of the interview was used I feel the main
> thrust of what I wanted to say is present. My expectation is that the
> President of a Club should also be its spokesperson, and I hope to
> live up to this responsibility.
> On that note (watch me link here) we are currently hammering out a
> ‘presid...@researchclub.gla.ac.uk’ e-mail address to which anyone and
> everyone can direct questions and queries. Once we can be sure it is
> working we’ll announce it more prominently.
>
> As to whether we are being shown in a good or bad light I think it’s
> too early to tell. Certainly the coverage was far from positive but at
> the end of the day there is no point trying to hide the fact the Club
> had problems. Certainly we’ve had our dirty laundry shown to the world
> but this will mean it’ll be all the more spectacular once we get it