Expulsion from Tennis Club. Nonsense? Unlawful?
Blarney
A bare outline: a friend of mine has been (supposedly) expelled from
our tennis club by a Committee decision.. I've checked the Club
Constitution and there is no reference whatsoever to expulsion (or any
other disciplinary measures).
I've repeatedly complained to both the Committee itself and the local
County LTA that the committee has tried to act outside its powers, and
so my friend actually remains a member. On that specific issue they
all refuse to comment.
It seems to me that, being a fully paid-up member, he is entitled to
return to the club and play tennis. After all, what could the
Committee do to stop him?
[The club is an unincorporated association.]
Trent SC
Everything hinges on the articles of association and the rules of
membership. Without full sight of both, no-one can offer an opinion.
Norman Wells
> I need advice from a Members' Club Law guru!
>
> A bare outline: a friend of mine has been (supposedly) expelled from
> our tennis club by a Committee decision.. I've checked the Club
> Constitution and there is no reference whatsoever to expulsion (or any
> other disciplinary measures).
>
> I've repeatedly complained to both the Committee itself and the local
> County LTA that the committee has tried to act outside its powers, and
> so my friend actually remains a member. On that specific issue they
> all refuse to comment.
A private members club selects and determines its own membership according
to whatever criteria it wants. Its members vote in a committee to run its
affairs. Decisions of the committee are therefore decisions of the club.
If the committee decides it does not want someone as a member, it can decide
to exclude him. The committee _is_ the club unless and until overruled by
the membership at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting.
> It seems to me that, being a fully paid-up member, he is entitled to
> return to the club and play tennis. After all, what could the
> Committee do to stop him?
They can bar him and exclude him just as they can any other non-member.
Ian Jackson
Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
> Decisions of the committee are therefore decisions of the club.
I don't know what clubs you've been a member of but this is by no
means universal. In most serious university societies I've been
involved in, the committee is a subsidiary body to the members in
general meeting.
The powers of the committee are usually spelled out in the
constitution. If the powers of the committee are explicitly listed
and don't include control over who is a member, then they don't have
that power.
But as another poster said, we would have to see the complete
constitution or articles of association or other founding documents.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Norman Wells
> In article <q6K0n.573$Sl1...@newsfe09.ams2>,
> Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Decisions of the committee are therefore decisions of the club.
>
> I don't know what clubs you've been a member of but this is by no
> means universal. In most serious university societies I've been
> involved in, the committee is a subsidiary body to the members in
> general meeting.
That's why I said:
"The committee is the club unless and until overruled by the membership at
an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting."
However, all matters to do with the day-to-day running of a club are
delegated to the committee. It's what the AGM appoints them for. And one
of those day-to-day matters is membership. So, the committee decides. If
anyone objects, he can call a general meeting of the club under its
constitution and call for a vote on the matter, which will be binding.
> The powers of the committee are usually spelled out in the
> constitution. If the powers of the committee are explicitly listed
> and don't include control over who is a member, then they don't have
> that power.
Membership is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the club, which
the committee is appointed to administer, whether or not explicitly stated
in the constitution. That must particularly be so if that responsibility is
not explicitly laid elsewhere in the constitution.
> But as another poster said, we would have to see the complete
> constitution or articles of association or other founding documents.
I don't think so. It's merely a question of who runs the club day-to-day,
and that's automatically the committee, whose decisions can only be
overturned at a General Meeting.
d...@telent.net
>> The powers of the committee are usually spelled out in the
>> constitution. If the powers of the committee are explicitly listed
>> and don't include control over who is a member, then they don't have
>> that power.
>
> Membership is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the club,
> which the committee is appointed to administer, whether or not
> explicitly stated in the constitution.
That's a very interesting point of which I was not aware. What's the
law behind it (statute? precedent?) and which other responsibilities are
implicitly delegated to a club's committee irrespective of what the
constitution says?
-dan
Norman Wells
> "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> writes:
>
>>> The powers of the committee are usually spelled out in the
>>> constitution. If the powers of the committee are explicitly listed
>>> and don't include control over who is a member, then they don't have
>>> that power.
>>
>> Membership is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the club,
>> which the committee is appointed to administer, whether or not
>> explicitly stated in the constitution.
>
> That's a very interesting point of which I was not aware. What's the
> law behind it (statute? precedent?)
It's self-evident and obvious.
> and which other responsibilities
> are implicitly delegated to a club's committee irrespective of what
> the constitution says?
Anything not specifically denied to them in the constitution. If anything.
They are the management of the club. The members appoint them to run it on
their behalf.
Ben Harris
Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>d...@telent.net wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> writes:
>>
>>>> The powers of the committee are usually spelled out in the
>>>> constitution. If the powers of the committee are explicitly listed
>>>> and don't include control over who is a member, then they don't have
>>>> that power.
>>>
>>> Membership is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the club,
>>> which the committee is appointed to administer, whether or not
>>> explicitly stated in the constitution.
>>
>> That's a very interesting point of which I was not aware. What's the
>> law behind it (statute? precedent?)
>
>It's self-evident and obvious.
There would appear to be quite a few people here to whom it is neither
self-evident nor obvious, myself included.
As I understand it, an unincorporated association like this exists by
means of a huge multi-way contract between all of the members whose
written part is the constitution of the association. Allowing the
committee (or indeed the rest of the club) to terminate someone's
membership unilaterally is equivalent to allowing one party to terminate
(part of) that contract unilaterally, and is something I'd expect to
find written into the contract if it were possible. Of course, in the
event that the member repudiates the contract (e.g. by seriously
violating its terms), the rest of the club is entitled to accept that
repudiation.
--
Ben Harris
Smurf
> Blarney wrote:
>
> A private members club selects and determines its own membership
> according to whatever criteria it wants. Its members vote in a
> committee to run its affairs. Decisions of the committee are
> therefore decisions of the club. If the committee decides it does not
> want someone as a member, it can decide to exclude him. The
> committee _is_ the club unless and until overruled by the membership
> at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting.
The right to free association has been severely curtailed, a club cannot use
'whatever criteria it wants' to decide membership or disciplinary action.
Ian Jackson
Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>However, all matters to do with the day-to-day running of a club are
>delegated to the committee. It's what the AGM appoints them for.
No. Generally the constitution will spell out the powers of the
committee (or individual officers), and thus their powers are only
those thus spelled out. If that doesn't include expelling members,
then the expulsion is void.
I wish the OP would post the full constitution and/or articles of
association. They're probably online and if not the club's Secretary
should be able to provide an electronic copy.
GB
> Allowing the
> committee (or indeed the rest of the club) to terminate someone's
> membership unilaterally is equivalent to allowing one party to
> terminate (part of) that contract unilaterally, and is something I'd
> expect to find written into the contract if it were possible.
Surely, it's an implied term of the contract that if someone acts
antisocially (or whatever) he can have his membership terminated. There are
issues about whether there ought to be a fair hearing and whether the member
should have part of his dues returned. (I think the answer is yes to both of
those, btw.)
If membership runs from one calendar year to the next, it seems perfectly
reasonable for the club to refuse to renew it. I don't think there's an
implied term that it wil always be renewed, so I doubt there's a requirement
to hold a hearing to decide on this.
My professional association has a complex set of rules about chucking people
out, but I don't think that you need to apply the same standards to
depriving someone of tennis club membership as you would to depriving him of
his living.
--
Electric cars are very healthy - when the battery runs out you have to
walk home.
Norman Wells
> In article <TRP0n.1544$J64....@newsfe20.ams2>,
> Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> d...@telent.net wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> writes:
>>>
>>>>> The powers of the committee are usually spelled out in the
>>>>> constitution. If the powers of the committee are explicitly
>>>>> listed and don't include control over who is a member, then they
>>>>> don't have that power.
>>>>
>>>> Membership is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the club,
>>>> which the committee is appointed to administer, whether or not
>>>> explicitly stated in the constitution.
>>>
>>> That's a very interesting point of which I was not aware. What's
>>> the law behind it (statute? precedent?)
>>
>> It's self-evident and obvious.
>
> There would appear to be quite a few people here to whom it is neither
> self-evident nor obvious, myself included.
>
> As I understand it, an unincorporated association like this exists by
> means of a huge multi-way contract between all of the members whose
> written part is the constitution of the association. Allowing the
> committee (or indeed the rest of the club) to terminate someone's
> membership unilaterally is equivalent to allowing one party to
> terminate (part of) that contract unilaterally, and is something I'd
> expect to find written into the contract if it were possible.
Why?
> Of course, in the event that the member repudiates the contract (e.g. by
> seriously violating its terms), the rest of the club is entitled to
> accept that repudiation.
A private members' club runs its own affairs as it collectively wishes. If
it appoints a committee, that committee is delegated responsibility for
running it by the members. It's what AGMs are for and what committees do.
As a consequence of the delegation of responsibility, the committee makes
decisions. If those decisions are questioned, a general Meeting can be
called, and the decision can be overturned. If no general meeting is
called, then there is no dispute and the general membership is deemed to
support what has been decided.
How else can it work?
Norman Wells
Perhaps you'd like to explain what free association has to do with clubs.
Ian Jackson
Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>Ben Harris wrote:
>> Of course, in the event that the member repudiates the contract (e.g. by
>> seriously violating its terms), the rest of the club is entitled to
>> accept that repudiation.
>
>A private members' club runs its own affairs as it collectively wishes. If
>it appoints a committee, that committee is delegated responsibility for
>running it by the members.
No. The committee isn't delegated arbitrary authority. In nearly any
serious organisation there will be a constitution or articles of
association which will state the authority of the committee.
It would seem very unusual to me for the committee to be granted an
unfettered power to expel members. I would think such a power a
weakness and a defect in the club's constitution, because the
committee could use it to expel a dissident group even if the
dissidents commanded majority support.
Blarney
> I wish the OP would post the full constitution and/or articles of
> association.
Thanks to all for your interest.
Ian Jackson, and others who regard this as necessary info., here is
the Club Constitution.
******* Tennis Club
Club Constitution.
1. The name of the club shall be ******* Tennis Club.
2. The aim of the club is to encourage the playing of tennis at both
senior and junior levels.
3. The A.G.M. shall be held in February or March each year.
4. CLUB HOURS, as laid down in the bye-laws, will be for the use of
club members.
A minimum of one court should be available to non club members from 9
a.m. to dusk Monday to Friday as laid down in the lease agreement with
****** Council under Conditions paragraph 6.
5. A COMMITTEE to organise the club shall be elected at the AGM and
shall consist of a Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Catering
Officer, I/C Juniors and five senior members. A quorum shall consist
of six committee members. The committee has the power to co-opt if a
vacancy occurs.
6. A meeting of junior members will be called and a JUNIOR COMMITTEE
elected. They will then send two representatives to sit in on the
senior committee meetings.
7. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all the ACCOUNTS OF THE CLUB
and these accounts shall be audited annually. All monies shall be
deposited at a bank decided by the committee.
8. SIGNING OF CHEQUES shall be by officers designated by the
committee, always ensuring that each cheque has two signatures.
9. The MINUTES of all committee meetings, all correspondence and
accounts, shall be available at the AGM.
10. NOTIFICATION OF THE AGM OR GENERAL MEETING shall be given at least
28 days before the due date.
11. PROPOSED CHANGES to the constitution must be notified to the
Secretary, in writing, at least 21 days before the AGM.
12. A GENERAL MEETING of the club may be called by any fifteen members
so notifying the Secretary.
13. The GENERAL RUNNING of the club shall be as laid down in the bye-
laws.
14. MEMBERSHIP shall be open to all with the total numbers each year
to be decided by the committee.
I regard this as an inadequate Constitution, but that's it!
Thanks for your further thoughts.
Blarney
Norman Wells
> In article <xe%0n.10626$0B7....@newsfe13.ams2>,
> Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Ben Harris wrote:
>>> Of course, in the event that the member repudiates the contract
>>> (e.g. by seriously violating its terms), the rest of the club is
>>> entitled to accept that repudiation.
>>
>> A private members' club runs its own affairs as it collectively
>> wishes. If it appoints a committee, that committee is delegated
>> responsibility for running it by the members.
>
> No. The committee isn't delegated arbitrary authority. In nearly any
> serious organisation there will be a constitution or articles of
> association which will state the authority of the committee.
>
> It would seem very unusual to me for the committee to be granted an
> unfettered power to expel members. I would think such a power a
> weakness and a defect in the club's constitution, because the
> committee could use it to expel a dissident group even if the
> dissidents commanded majority support.
No they couldn't. The dissidents would then call an Extraordinary General
Meeting at which the matter would be put to a vote of the whole membership.
If they won, not only would that decision be upheld, but the committee would
probably resign or be expelled as well.
Of course, everything conceivable should be spelt out explicitly in the
constitution and rules, and I dare say most well-run clubs strive to do
that. But not all are well run, nor is the constitution of even well-run
clubs likely to be complete and legally watertight. They're not usually
drafted and settled by counsel after all.
Where authority for a particular matter is not explicitly stated in the
constitution or rules, it must reside with the committee having been elected
to run the club by majority vote of its members at an AGM. It cannot work
otherwise.
If you disagree, perhaps you'd explain just what you think a committee of a
club is elected to do, what you think gives it that authority, and why you
think it can't decide things on which the constitution and rules are silent.
If it is silent on the matter of membership, who decides who can be or
remain a member, and how that can practically be achieved?
Norman Wells
> 5. A COMMITTEE to organise the club shall be elected at the AGM
It seems to me that it might therefore have authority to organise the club.
Ben Harris
<FX: reads some more>
The "Clubs" volume of Halsbury's Laws seems to be quite helpful here,
and explicitly states that a club has no inherent power to expel a
member in the absence of rules permitting this. It refers to Dawkins v
Antrobus (1881) L.R. 17 Ch. D. 615. There, Jessel, MR said:
# Now that does not depend on the inherent power of a club to pass a
# rule to expel one or more of its members; I for one am unaware of the
# existence of such a power, and I was surprised to hear such a
# proposition put forward. There is no more inherent power in the
# members of a club to alter their rules so as to expel one of its
# members against the wishes of the minority, than there is in the
# members of any society or partnership which is founded on a contract,
# that written contract of course expressing the terms on which the
# members associate together; and it is intolerable to imagine that the
# majority should in such a case claim an inherent power of expelling
# the minority. I say that because that has been a matter pressed upon
# me as if capable of argument. I think it is not.
That, I think, disposes of your claim that it's self-evident and obvious
that such a power exists.
>> Of course, in the event that the member repudiates the contract (e.g. by
>> seriously violating its terms), the rest of the club is entitled to
>> accept that repudiation.
>
>A private members' club runs its own affairs as it collectively wishes. If
>it appoints a committee, that committee is delegated responsibility for
>running it by the members. It's what AGMs are for and what committees do.
I can believe that, but it doesn't help here because the club doesn't
have the power to expel a member against his wishes, so it can't
delegate that power to the committee.
--
Ben Harris
Ben Harris
Blarney <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>13. The GENERAL RUNNING of the club shall be as laid down in the bye-
>laws.
It seems to me that anything (which is quite a lot of things) not
specified in the constitution might instead fall under this article and
be specified in the bye-laws. Have you got a copy of them?
--
Ben Harris
Ian Jackson
Blarney <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Excellent, thank you.
There is nothing in there that grants a power to expel members. Ben
Harris's caselaw quote suggests that in the absence of such a clause,
the club as a whole lacks the power to do so.
However the power to change the constitution _is_ granted. So I think
in the specific case of this club an Annual General Meeting could add
a provision for expulsion of members (and barring them from future
membership), and then exercise that power.
I think an EGM isn't capable of doing this because s11 only
contemplates changing the constitution at the AGM. This seems to be a
mistake.
In practice I would suggest that the purportedly expelled member
should get some friendly members to call an EGM, and propose two motions:
1. a motion of no confidence in the committee 2. reaffirming the
disputed person's membership. If there are not enough well-disposed
club members to do that, or the EGM votes to uphold the expulsion, it
would in practice be best to go quietly (although a refund pro rata of
membership fees would be in order); after all hanging around a tennis
club whose members want rid of you is not likely to be much fun even
if you could get a court to agree with you.
>14. MEMBERSHIP shall be open to all with the total numbers each year
> to be decided by the committee.
This is also a bug because it seems that an expelled member has the
right to become a member again, presumably immediately. Or they must
be replaced with someone from the waiting list or someone who drew the
short straw.
>I regard this as an inadequate Constitution, but that's it!
It is unfortunately rather vague.
Ian Jackson
Perhaps. Who is empowered to change the bye-laws ? I guess the
committee although the intent of the constitution is somewhat
unclear.
In which case the bye-laws couldn't override the constitution. Clause
14 says that membership is open to all, so the bye-laws can't provide
for expulsion or barring.
Ian Jackson
Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> It would seem very unusual to me for the committee to be granted an
>> unfettered power to expel members. I would think such a power a
>> weakness and a defect in the club's constitution, because the
>> committee could use it to expel a dissident group even if the
>> dissidents commanded majority support.
>
>No they couldn't. The dissidents would then call an Extraordinary General
>Meeting at which the matter would be put to a vote of the whole membership.
If the dissidents have been expelled then they are not members and
their attempt to call an EGM is void; if a General Meeting is held
anyway they can be excluded from it, and if they're not excluded don't
have a right to be heard, to propose motions, or to vote.
The alternatives are (a) they're not members and are stuffed,
(b) they are still members because the committee don't have the power
to expel, or (c) the constitution spells out an appeal process.
The question, as regards law rather than morality, is what would a
court decide if the purportedly expelled members brought a legal
action against the club or the committee ?
If (a) such an action would fail in court. If (b) it would succeed.
If (c) the court would honour and enforce the specified process.
You seem to be proposing that a court would invent an appeal process
off its own bat. That's not tenable.
>If you disagree, perhaps you'd explain just what you think a committee of a
>club is elected to do, what you think gives it that authority, and why you
>think it can't decide things on which the constitution and rules are silent.
The committee is elected to do the tasks set out in the constitution.
It can't decide on other things because it is not empowered to do so,
unless the constitution says something very vague and delegates
everything to the committee. Even so the committee's actions might be
subject to judicial review.
>If it is silent on the matter of membership, who decides who can be or
>remain a member, and how that can practically be achieved?
The constitutions I have seen say who is entitled to be a member and
who, if anyone, needs to approve memberships, and also generally deal
with disciplinary matters like expulsion.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> A private members club selects and determines its own membership according
> to whatever criteria it wants. Its members vote in a committee to run its
> affairs. Decisions of the committee are therefore decisions of the club.
> If the committee decides it does not want someone as a member, it can decide
> to exclude him. The committee _is_ the club unless and until overruled by
> the membership at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting.
There must, surely, be limits to that.
Would you condone a club expelling a member for "wilfully having curly
hair and a pair of thick lips", or for being someone other than an
indigenous English person?
-- -
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
robert
the rules.
Pressure may be possible if the club is receiving grants from the local
council or any sports funding body.
Norman Wells
Whether I condone it or not is irrelevant. In law, I think they can.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
What does the law say about discrimination in such clubs?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Norman Wells
> In article <xe%0n.10626$0B7....@newsfe13.ams2>,
> The "Clubs" volume of Halsbury's Laws seems to be quite helpful here,
> and explicitly states that a club has no inherent power to expel a
> member in the absence of rules permitting this. It refers to Dawkins
> v Antrobus (1881) L.R. 17 Ch. D. 615. There, Jessel, MR said:
>
> # Now that does not depend on the inherent power of a club to pass a
> # rule to expel one or more of its members; I for one am unaware of
> the # existence of such a power, and I was surprised to hear such a
> # proposition put forward. There is no more inherent power in the
> # members of a club to alter their rules so as to expel one of its
> # members against the wishes of the minority, than there is in the
> # members of any society or partnership which is founded on a
> contract, # that written contract of course expressing the terms on
> which the # members associate together; and it is intolerable to
> imagine that the # majority should in such a case claim an inherent
> power of expelling # the minority. I say that because that has been a
> matter pressed upon # me as if capable of argument. I think it is not.
>
> That, I think, disposes of your claim that it's self-evident and
> obvious that such a power exists.
That's not as I read it. The headnote says:
"The court has no right to sit as a court of appeal from the decision of the
members of a club duly assembled and acting according to the rules, provided
that in arriving at that decision the principles of natural justice were
observed, e.g. where a member had been expelled from the club under a rule
providing for the expulsion of a member guilty of conduct injurious to the
character and interests of the club, that the member in question had been
given proper notice of the meeting and an opportunity to attend it and be
heard, and that the charges had been made against him, and the proceedings
conducted, bona fide, fairly, and in the honest exercise of the powers given
to the meeting by the club. These conditions having been fulfilled, the
court has no right to consider whether or not what was done by the meeting
was right or whether or not what was decided was reasonable."
That quite clearly and explicitly accepts the right of a club to expel
someone from that club. The courts will only intervene or interfere if the
decision has been made contrary to natural justice. Accordingly, as long as
the committee had the right to act in the name of the club (and the rules
say "5. A COMMITTEE to organise the club shall be elected at the AGM", which
I say gives them the right to determine membership), and they acted fairly,
then there is no-one, except a General Meeting of the club that can alter
that decision.
>>> Of course, in the event that the member repudiates the contract
>>> (e.g. by seriously violating its terms), the rest of the club is
>>> entitled to accept that repudiation.
>>
>> A private members' club runs its own affairs as it collectively
>> wishes. If it appoints a committee, that committee is delegated
>> responsibility for running it by the members. It's what AGMs are
>> for and what committees do.
>
> I can believe that, but it doesn't help here because the club doesn't
> have the power to expel a member against his wishes, so it can't
> delegate that power to the committee.
On the basis of the passage I've quoted from Dawkins v Antrobus, it clearly
does.
Norman Wells
> In article <_W11n.5007$Mq5....@newsfe29.ams2>,
> Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> It would seem very unusual to me for the committee to be granted an
>>> unfettered power to expel members. I would think such a power a
>>> weakness and a defect in the club's constitution, because the
>>> committee could use it to expel a dissident group even if the
>>> dissidents commanded majority support.
>>
>> No they couldn't. The dissidents would then call an Extraordinary
>> General Meeting at which the matter would be put to a vote of the
>> whole membership.
>
> If the dissidents have been expelled then they are not members and
> their attempt to call an EGM is void; if a General Meeting is held
> anyway they can be excluded from it, and if they're not excluded don't
> have a right to be heard, to propose motions, or to vote.
If all the dissidents and their supporters were expelled, that may be true.
> The alternatives are (a) they're not members and are stuffed,
True.
> (b) they are still members because the committee don't have the power
> to expel,
No, I don't think so. On the basis of the headnote in Dawkins v Antrobus
that I've quoted in another reply, the courts will not interfere in an
expulsion decision by a club provided only that the decision has been made
in accordance with natural justice. So, if there is no General Meeting that
overturns the decision, it will stand.
or (c) the constitution spells out an appeal process.
Whether it does or not, Dawkins v Antrobus says that the whole process must
be conducted in good faith and in accordance with natural justice.
> The question, as regards law rather than morality, is what would a
> court decide if the purportedly expelled members brought a legal
> action against the club or the committee ?
>
> If (a) such an action would fail in court.
Yes.
> If (b) it would succeed.
Only if the procedures followed by the club were deeply flawed.
> If (c) the court would honour and enforce the specified process.
If the constitution splled out an appeal process, I'm sure it would be
followed. In the unlikely event that it wasn't, then the court would
intervene and order the club to follow its own rules.
> You seem to be proposing that a court would invent an appeal process
> off its own bat. That's not tenable.
No, in general a court will not intervene.
>> If you disagree, perhaps you'd explain just what you think a
>> committee of a club is elected to do, what you think gives it that
>> authority, and why you think it can't decide things on which the
>> constitution and rules are silent.
>
> The committee is elected to do the tasks set out in the constitution.
Which in this case is to 'organise the club', which is a very broad
empowerment.
> It can't decide on other things because it is not empowered to do so,
> unless the constitution says something very vague and delegates
> everything to the committee.
As indeed the phrase 'organise the club' does.
> Even so the committee's actions might be
> subject to judicial review.
Only if they act contrary to natural justice.
>> If it is silent on the matter of membership, who decides who can be
>> or remain a member, and how that can practically be achieved?
>
> The constitutions I have seen say who is entitled to be a member and
> who, if anyone, needs to approve memberships, and also generally deal
> with disciplinary matters like expulsion.
This one doesn't explicitly or directly. Since the constitution empowers
the committee to 'organise the club', I think they have the necessary
authority to deal with all the matters you mention.
Norman Wells
> In article
> <94f571b9-014c-4a5f...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Blarney <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> [constitution]
>
> Excellent, thank you.
>
> There is nothing in there that grants a power to expel members. Ben
> Harris's caselaw quote suggests that in the absence of such a clause,
> the club as a whole lacks the power to do so.
The committee, according to clause 5 of the constitution is appointed 'to
organise the club'. That's easily sufficiently broad to give it power to
expel members. And that would be entirely consistent with other more
explicit constitutions of private clubs.
>> 14. MEMBERSHIP shall be open to all with the total numbers each year
>> to be decided by the committee.
>
> This is also a bug because it seems that an expelled member has the
> right to become a member again, presumably immediately. Or they must
> be replaced with someone from the waiting list or someone who drew the
> short straw.
I disagree. The membership of any private club determines who shall be
members and who shan't. I don't think any non-member could seek to enforce
a constitutional term of a club of which he is not a member to insist on his
membership. I therefore interpret clause 14 as meaning anyone can apply,
not that everyone will be accepted. There is, after all, a provision there
already that means that some can be rejected.
Smurf
My apologies, i meant 'freedom of association'. I wasnt aware that 'free
association' was a term used in a completely different context.
Steve Walker
> In practice I would suggest that the purportedly expelled member
> should get some friendly members to call an EGM, and propose two motions:
> 1. a motion of no confidence in the committee 2. reaffirming the
> disputed person's membership. If there are not enough well-disposed
> club members to do that, or the EGM votes to uphold the expulsion, it
> would in practice be best to go quietly (although a refund pro rata of
> membership fees would be in order); after all hanging around a tennis
> club whose members want rid of you is not likely to be much fun even
> if you could get a court to agree with you.
I think this is the right advice
Ben Harris
Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>Ben Harris wrote:
>> In article <xe%0n.10626$0B7....@newsfe13.ams2>,
>
>> The "Clubs" volume of Halsbury's Laws seems to be quite helpful here,
>> and explicitly states that a club has no inherent power to expel a
>> member in the absence of rules permitting this. It refers to Dawkins
>> v Antrobus (1881) L.R. 17 Ch. D. 615. There, Jessel, MR said:
>>> it is intolerable to imagine that the majority should in such a case
>>> claim an inherent power of expelling the minority.
>>
>> That, I think, disposes of your claim that it's self-evident and
>> obvious that such a power exists.
>
>That's not as I read it.
You may be right. Having thought about it a bit more, I think we
actually agree apart from one critical point.
The general rule is that a club can do anything by unanimous consent of
its members, but otherwise can only act in accordance with its rules. As
a special case of this, a club can expel a member by unanimous consent,
but this would obviously require the consent of the member to be
expelled. Otherwise, the club can only expel a member in accordance
with its rules.
The point of disagreement here is whether the rules here allow the
committee unfettered discretion to expel a member.
>"5. A COMMITTEE to organise the club shall be elected at the AGM", which
>I say gives them the right to determine membership)
This, I disagree with. I think that organising the club does not
include arbitrarily expelling members any more than it involves spending
all the club's money on wine, women, and song for the benefit of the
committee. On the other hand, I doubt there's any way either of us can
convince the other on this point.
>> I can believe that, but it doesn't help here because the club doesn't
>> have the power to expel a member against his wishes, so it can't
>> delegate that power to the committee.
>
>On the basis of the passage I've quoted from Dawkins v Antrobus, it clearly
>does.
I disagree. That passage only says it has the power to expel members in
accordance with its rules. In the absence of such rules it has no such
inherent power and can only expel a member if that member agrees.
--
Ben Harris
Steve Walker
I think that must be a faulty analysis Ben, it defies common sense. Any
private club or association can surely organise itself and it's membership
as it wishes (within the bounds of discrimination law etc).
Otherwise I might insist upon joining the MCC, and then attend test matches
wearing the club blazer with a big "fuck the pope" rosette in the lapel, and
they would have no right to expel me....?
Tony Finch
>
> Membership is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the club,
> which the committee is appointed to administer, whether or not
> if that responsibility is not explicitly laid elsewhere in the
> constitution.
One society of which I am a member only elects new members at its
business meetings which are open to all members and occur roughly
quarterly. Membership is not delegated to a smaller committee.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
ROCKALL MALIN HEBRIDES BAILEY: MAINLY NORTHERLY, BECOMING CYCLONIC FOR A TIME,
4 OR 5 INCREASING 5 TO 7, PERHAPS GALE 8 LATER IN ROCKALL AND BAILEY. ROUGH OR
VERY ROUGH DECREASING MODERATE OR ROUGH LATER. OCCASIONAL RAIN OR WINTRY
SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
Blarney
the six are relevant here: no mention is made of expulsion.
Tennis Club Bye-Laws
1. All members shall act in the best interests of the club.
2. Committee members are responsible for the smooth running of the
Club, and any complaint made to a Committee Member will be dealt with
by the Committee
3. Hours of play for different sections of the Club……..
4. The system of play……
5. Before each game……
6. No dogs are permitted….
Thanks to all for thoughts and advice.
Blarney
Norman Wells
> In article <GS51n.3326$6c5....@newsfe30.ams2>,
> Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> Ben Harris wrote:
>>> In article <xe%0n.10626$0B7....@newsfe13.ams2>,
>>
>>> The "Clubs" volume of Halsbury's Laws seems to be quite helpful
>>> here, and explicitly states that a club has no inherent power to
>>> expel a member in the absence of rules permitting this. It refers
>>> to Dawkins v Antrobus (1881) L.R. 17 Ch. D. 615. There, Jessel, MR
>>> said:
> ...
>>>> it is intolerable to imagine that the majority should in such a
>>>> case claim an inherent power of expelling the minority.
>>>
>>> That, I think, disposes of your claim that it's self-evident and
>>> obvious that such a power exists.
>>
>> That's not as I read it.
>
> You may be right. Having thought about it a bit more, I think we
> actually agree apart from one critical point.
>
> The general rule is that a club can do anything by unanimous consent
> of its members, but otherwise can only act in accordance with its
> rules. As a special case of this, a club can expel a member by
> unanimous consent, but this would obviously require the consent of
> the member to be expelled. Otherwise, the club can only expel a
> member in accordance with its rules.
No, I disagree with that. No club I have ever belonged to has ever required
the unanimous consent of all its members, even to change its own
constitution. That would be totally impractical. Most decisions at General
Meetings are in fact taken by majority vote.
> The point of disagreement here is whether the rules here allow the
> committee unfettered discretion to expel a member.
>
>> "5. A COMMITTEE to organise the club shall be elected at the AGM",
>> which
>> I say gives them the right to determine membership)
>
> This, I disagree with. I think that organising the club does not
> include arbitrarily expelling members any more than it involves
> spending all the club's money on wine, women, and song for the
> benefit of the committee.
No, of course not. But we're not talking about arbitrary expulsion, but
presumably a decision taken under clause 1 of the recently posted Bye-laws:
"1. All members shall act in the best interests of the club", which I think
is implicit in any club whether or not specifically written down. Spending
the money on drink for the committee is a breach of fiduciary duty that
would be illegal in the absence of specific authorisation by the rules.
> On the other hand, I doubt there's any way
> either of us can convince the other on this point.
>
>>> I can believe that, but it doesn't help here because the club
>>> doesn't have the power to expel a member against his wishes, so it
>>> can't delegate that power to the committee.
>>
>> On the basis of the passage I've quoted from Dawkins v Antrobus, it
>> clearly does.
>
> I disagree. That passage only says it has the power to expel members
> in accordance with its rules. In the absence of such rules it has no
> such inherent power and can only expel a member if that member agrees.
It's implicit in any private club that its members can determine who should
become or remain a member, again whether written down or not. The only
question is who is empowered to exercise that authority, and whether it's
the committee. I say it is because of clause 5 quoted above, though iany
decision of theirs is also subject to being countermanded by majority vote
at a General Meeting, that also being implicit whether or not written down.
Ben Harris
Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>Ben Harris wrote:
>> In article <xe%0n.10626$0B7....@newsfe13.ams2>,
>> Norman Wells <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>
>>> A private members' club runs its own affairs as it collectively wishes.
>>> If it appoints a committee, that committee is delegated responsibility
>>> for running it by the members. It's what AGMs are for and what
>>> committees do.
>>
>> I can believe that, but it doesn't help here because the club doesn't
>> have the power to expel a member against his wishes, so it can't
>> delegate that power to the committee.
>
>I think that must be a faulty analysis Ben, it defies common sense. Any
>private club or association can surely organise itself and it's membership
>as it wishes (within the bounds of discrimination law etc).
Yes, sorry. That analysis was indeed wrong and a club can expel its
members. In the absence of rules this requires the unanimous agreement
of the club (including the member to be expelled), but rules delegating
that ability could exist making it practically possible. My feeling is
that such a rule would have to be pretty explicit.
>Otherwise I might insist upon joining the MCC, and then attend test matches
>wearing the club blazer with a big "fuck the pope" rosette in the lapel, and
>they would have no right to expel me....?
That would, of course, depend on the constitution of the MCC, which
awkwardly doesn't seem to be on line.
--
Ben Harris
Ben Harris
And I suspect you'd find that if a member objected to such a decision
(one not provided for in the rules and taken by a majority vote) and
sued over it, they'd win. Harrington v Sendall [1903] 1 Ch. 921 is a
fairly relevant case, where it was found that, in the absence of any
rules allowing changes to the rules, a general meeting was not competent
to make such changes, notwithstanding that it had purported to do so
many times and the members had generally acquiesced to those changes.
>> The point of disagreement here is whether the rules here allow the
>> committee unfettered discretion to expel a member.
>>
>>> "5. A COMMITTEE to organise the club shall be elected at the AGM",
>>> which
>>> I say gives them the right to determine membership)
>>
>> This, I disagree with. I think that organising the club does not
>> include arbitrarily expelling members any more than it involves
>> spending all the club's money on wine, women, and song for the
>> benefit of the committee.
>
>No, of course not. But we're not talking about arbitrary expulsion, but
>presumably a decision taken under clause 1 of the recently posted Bye-laws:
In this case, yes, but you previously claimed that there was such an
unfettered discretion:
>If the committee decides it does not want someone as a member, it can
>decide to exclude him.
I think it's substantially more plausible that there exists some kind of
right to expel a member who has in fact violated a bye-law.
>Spending
>the money on drink for the committee is a breach of fiduciary duty that
>would be illegal in the absence of specific authorisation by the rules.
That would suggest that another of your claims is wrong:
>The committee _is_ the club unless and until overruled by
>the membership at an Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting.
I presume you wouldn't deny that the club could unanimously decide that
all of the club's money can be spent on drink for the committee, so this
is a case where by your admission the committee's powers are _not_ the
same as the club's powers.
>It's implicit in any private club that its members can determine who should
>become or remain a member, again whether written down or not. The only
>question is who is empowered to exercise that authority, and whether it's
>the committee.
I agree, with the qualification that in the absence of rules I think
the power can only be exercised by the members unanimously.
>any decision of [the committee's] is also subject to being
>countermanded by majority vote at a General Meeting, that also being
>implicit whether or not written down.
Can you provide any authority for that claim? I've found nothing in
Halsbury on the subject, but I don't doubt that you have access to
better sources.
--
Ben Harris
Blarney
this definitive statement:
“Unless the club has a rule allowing expulsion, a member cannot be
expelled.”
[On Page 4, under the heading “Expulsion”, of
http://www.lta.org.uk/Resources/Clubs/Constitution%20guidance%20(non%20CASC%20club).pdf]
This is written by Farrer and Co. Solicitors, legal advisers to the
LTA. In this context I should be able to rely on it, since the LTA is
the governing body of British tennis. So presumably the motion to
expel a member should never have been allowed by the Chairman and
should never have been voted on by the Committee!
Ergo(I think!) that person remains a member.
I return to my original question. If he now returns to the Club and
plays tennis, what can the Committee do about it? (Nothing, in my
opinion.)
Ian Jackson
Blarney <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>I return to my original question. If he now returns to the Club and
>plays tennis, what can the Committee do about it? (Nothing, in my
>opinion.)
In practice they can probably call the police to have him ejected from
the premises. The police won't be interested in the legal niceities
of the expulsion; they will just obey the instructions of what they
perceive to be the people in charge. If the committee do this they
will have committed an actionable tort but this is unlikely to be
helpful to your friend. (They might also attempt to eject him
themselves, in which case matters become more complicated.)
Whether pushing the situation in this direction is going to be helpful
is a matter of tactics rather than law. You have to consider what the
other members of the club will think - after all, ultimately, if your
friend wants to stay on at the club it's their opinion that will be
important, regardless of the legal situation. Hearing that your
friend had been ejected from the premises by police probably isn't
going to do his reputation any good.
My inclination (as I said earlier) would be to call an EGM, and
promise a motion of no confidence in the committee and a motion
reconfirming the disputed member's status. I assume that your friend
can get enough support from other members of the club for this.
Another alternative would be to threaten proceedings. For example you
could ask the County Court for a declaration that the expulsion was
void, that your member was entitled to the use of the premises, and an
appropriate injunction. But I wouldn't do that because the other
members aren't likely to think well of your friend for threatening to
"sue the club" (which is how the committee will put it even though
actually the action is aimed just at the committee).
You might also be able to make a complaint to the LTA. If the club is
affiliated with the LTA then it may be subject to the LTA's
discipline. Again you'd have to consider what the other club members
will think.
How much support amongst the other members does your friend have ?
Obviously he has enough to find an opponent for a game of tennis!
If the club's membership is already polarised and your friend doesn't
think he'd win the day at a General Meeting, and your friend and his
supporters are ready for a fight, then going to court might "work" in
the sense that he and his friends would remain able to play at the
club, but it's likely to severely deepen the animosity. Very likely
the two sides would end up not on speaking terms and the situation
might persist for years and eventually destroy the club.
Blarney
> In article <dace1cf0-c67c-487b-baa3-935486b2a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks, Ian Jackson, for such a detailed and measured analysis.
As regards the police being called, I thought that police would
intervene only if an offence was being committed and that any attempt
at interfering with my friend playing tennis by another member could
be viewed as Harassment -- a way to turn the tables, perhaps. I
realise it's rather risky, so will consider mustering support for an
EGM as you suggest: a substantial majority of Club members are very
dubious about what the Committee has done. The court route remains as
a last resort.
Again, many thanks for your trouble.
Blarney
Ian Jackson
Blarney <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks, Ian Jackson, for such a detailed and measured analysis.
You're welcome.
>As regards the police being called, I thought that police would
>intervene only if an offence was being committed and that any attempt
>at interfering with my friend playing tennis by another member could
>be viewed as Harassment
If the police are called by the committee it will be because the
committee have told your friend to leave, and he has refused. The
committee will tell the police that they need help to remove a
"disruptive" and "potentially violent" expelled member who is now
trespassing.
When the police turn up your friend will no doubt try to explain to
the police that the expulsion is void according to his interpretation
of the club's rules but when he admits that the people claiming to be
the committee indeed the committee as they claim to be, and he admits
that the club owns the building, the police will ask him to leave
quietly or threaten to arrest him.
The important thing to remember is that the police won't want to get
into the rights and wrongs of your friend's dispute with the
committee. They will tell him to do as the committee says, or to
depose the committee or to sue - "it's a civil matter".
> -- a way to turn the tables, perhaps. I realise it's rather risky,
>so will consider mustering support for an EGM as you suggest: a
>substantial majority of Club members are very dubious about what the
>Committee has done. The court route remains as a last resort.
I really strongly advise against "turning the tables" like that. The
result will be that the members will hear that your friend has been
"ejected by the police after being disruptive". It won't matter that
the "being disruptive" will be a lie because it will have coloured
everyone's views of the situation and is a matter of opinion to some
extent anyway.
The EGM is the right route, tiresome as it is. I would hope that few
of the members will begrude the supposedly-expelled member an EGM. At
an EGM your friend and his supporters can make their case properly,
including mentioning the law - the reference from the LTA will be very
helpful for that.
Please do keep us posted.
Blarney
> In article <ae9e6df9-a54b-4a69-b411-f3a6d2be5...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Will let you know what transpires...........probably will take some
time! Cheers.
Blarney
wrote:
> In practice I would suggest that the purportedly expelled member
> should get some friendly members to call an EGM, and propose two motions:
> 1. a motion of no confidence in the committee 2. reaffirming the
> disputed person's membership.
> Ian Jackson
The AGM is to be held shortly and I intend to try following your
advice, Ian. But I'm unsure about the detail.
Just wondering....are 2 motions necessary? Does there have to be a "No
Confidence" motion?
In pondering the numbers game here, I was thinking about tabling a
single motion along the lines of "that the expulsion and banning
decisions of the Committee be overturned and the continuing membership
of Mr X should be reaffirmed..." It occurs to me that then the
Committee members should not have a vote on this motion (??), as it is
their decisions which would be overturned. This would be a distinct
boost to the chances of the motion being carried!
Any detailed thoughts on the matter?
Thanks.
Blarney
Ian Jackson
Blarney <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 4:50=A0pm, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:
>> In practice I would suggest that the purportedly expelled member
>> should get some friendly members to call an EGM, and propose two motions:
>> 1. a motion of no confidence in the committee 2. reaffirming the
...
>The AGM is to be held shortly and I intend to try following your
>advice, Ian. But I'm unsure about the detail.
Right.
>Just wondering....are 2 motions necessary? Does there have to be a "No
>Confidence" motion?
If one is calling an EGM over malfeasance by the Committee, I think
proposing a "no confidence" motion is a sensible step. The membership
should have the chance to throw out the Committee. Typically the
rules for EGMs don't allow such motions (and the consequential
immediate elections) to be posed _at_ the meeting. Tactically, it can
be advantageous as it provides a justifiable position beyond what you
really want, thus biasing "compromises" in the dissenters' favour.
But no, the "no confidence" motion isn't strictly necessary for your
purpose. Furthermore, I assume that at the AGM there will also be
elections for the new committee; depending on the club rules, a no
confidence motion might be pointless (for example if everyone has to
stand for reelection anyway).
>In pondering the numbers game here, I was thinking about tabling a
>single motion along the lines of "that the expulsion and banning
>decisions of the Committee be overturned and the continuing membership
>of Mr X should be reaffirmed..."
That's sensible but I wouldn't phrase it like that, because that
phrasing appears to admit that Mr X was expelled. I would say
something like:
The recent purported expulsion of a member by the Committee is
invalid; the continuing membership of Mr X is affirmed.
Mr X is to be allowed full use of the facilities on the same
basis as any other member.
You probably want to read the rules for the meeting, and the club
constitution, carefully. There will be deadlines and formalities.
> It occurs to me that then the Committee members should not have a
>vote on this motion (??), as it is their decisions which would be
>overturned. This would be a distinct boost to the chances of the
>motion being carried!
No, the Committee should and will be allowed to vote (assuming that
they themselves are members of the club). You should probably try to
insist that Mr X gets a vote too but they will probably reject that.
Winning the "numbers game" is critical. If you are in doubt, you need
to run a "get the vote out" campaign. Find dormant members, and twist
their arms to turn up. You don't have get them to promise to vote
your way - just say "come and see for yourself and make up your own
mind". The more people in the meeting, the less easy it will be for a
clique to win the day.
In the meeting itself, be sure to be calm and reasonable, and not to
overstate your case or overplay your hand. You want to leave the
people at the meeting with the impression that it's the the committee
that have lost the plot, not your friend X.
The Wanderer
The byelaws *may* be so worded as to form part of the constitution. I agree
with others that the constitution leaves much to be desired, but you really
need to gat a look at those byelaws, otherwise your carefully laid plans
could all go awry.
--
The Wanderer
Faith is a gift from your God
Religion is a gift from the Devil
Norman Wells
Committee members are just as much members of the club as your little cabal,
and are just as entitled to a vote.
You should also read the rules of the club to ensure that any motion you
draft will be put to a vote at the AGM rather than just dismissed as
unworthy of consideration by the committee or chairman and not even put on
the agenda of the AGM. It may be that you have to call an EGM as suggested
originally.
S
Why does he want to be a member of a club where he is obviously not
wanted?
Mr X
"Blarney" <blar...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:db5ba63a-9bfa-49ee...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
["that the expulsion and banning
decisions of the Committee be overturned and the continuing membership
Where did I get banned from?
Blarney
> "Blarney" <blarn...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
If you were the same Mr X you wouldn't need to ask!
Blarney
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:40:09 +0000, S <s_pickle2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why does he want to be a member of a club where he is obviously not
> > wanted?
>
> the members at large he must not agree with your claim that this membership
> is generally not wanted.
>
> Tony
Thanks, Tony. You made the point better than I would have done.
Blarney
Blarney
pies.co.am> wrote:
> Committee members are just as much members of the club as your little cabal,
> and are just as entitled to a vote.
Norman, in that case I'll just have to hope that my "little cabal"
grows sufficiently to outnumber the Committee and their supporters in
a vote.
(By the way, we are not at all secretive, so hardly cabal-like!)
> You should also read the rules of the club to ensure that any motion you
> draft will be put to a vote at the AGM rather than just dismissed as
> unworthy of consideration by the committee or chairman and not even put on
> the agenda of the AGM. It may be that you have to call an EGM as suggested
> originally.
This is worrying, because the Committee is exceedly silent and
secretive -- one might even say "cabal-like"! But the Constitution and
Bye-Laws, which I already displayed previously in this thread, are
remarkably silent on such matters, so I'm hoping they can't fob me off
in the way you describe We'll see.
Thanks.
Blarney
Blarney
wrote:
> In article <db5ba63a-9bfa-49ee-b65e-65bd47d2b...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Many thanks, Ian Jackson. Much valuable advice here. It will be acted
upon. Remaining calm and reasonable will doubtless be my biggest
challenge!
Norman Wells
> On Feb 19, 2:45 pm, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...@dibblers-
> pies.co.am> wrote:
>
>> Committee members are just as much members of the club as your
>> little cabal, and are just as entitled to a vote.
>
> Norman, in that case I'll just have to hope that my "little cabal"
> grows sufficiently to outnumber the Committee and their supporters in
> a vote.
As always in anything democratic.
> (By the way, we are not at all secretive, so hardly cabal-like!)
No, that would be a 'secretive cabal'.
>> You should also read the rules of the club to ensure that any motion
>> you draft will be put to a vote at the AGM rather than just
>> dismissed as unworthy of consideration by the committee or chairman
>> and not even put on the agenda of the AGM. It may be that you have
>> to call an EGM as suggested originally.
>
> This is worrying, because the Committee is exceedly silent and
> secretive -- one might even say "cabal-like"! But the Constitution and
> Bye-Laws, which I already displayed previously in this thread, are
> remarkably silent on such matters, so I'm hoping they can't fob me off
> in the way you describe We'll see.
They do, however, if I recall, allow you to call an EGM if you have
sufficient support, and the committee could not then fob you off. At an
AGM, the agenda is under the control of the chairman and secretary, though
any well run club should entertain a motion with significant popular support
under 'Any Other Business', if not formally on the agenda.
What I'd be inclined to do is request the Chairman to include the item on
the formal agenda, and give him notice, if he doesn't, that you will be
raising the matter, with the support of others present, under AOB. Just be
aware, however, that the chairman might bluster on about it being
'inappropriate' to discuss personal matters at an AGM etc etc, and try not
to talk about it.