VOTE now! Proposed take over of Virgin Money - Nationwide members should be given a vote

masonic

500 votes will only be sufficient if all of those voting are members, all of those members follow through on their commitment to sign the document calling for the SGM and either contribute £50 or have a benefactor cover it for them. It would therefore be sensible to have some margin to allow for those who aren't members and those members who aren't willing to follow through.

Section62

masonic said:

500 votes will only be sufficient if all of those voting are members, all of those members follow through on their commitment to sign the document calling for the SGM and either contribute £50 or have a benefactor cover it for them. It would therefore be sensible to have some margin to allow for those who aren't members and those members who aren't willing to follow through.

Not just 'members', they need to be "qualified two year members".   The criteria for which is even more byzantine than those used to determine eliginility for the (un)'fairer share' payment.

masonic

Section62 said:

masonic said:

500 votes will only be sufficient if all of those voting are members, all of those members follow through on their commitment to sign the document calling for the SGM and either contribute £50 or have a benefactor cover it for them. It would therefore be sensible to have some margin to allow for those who aren't members and those members who aren't willing to follow through.

Not just 'members', they need to be "qualified two year members".   The criteria for which is even more byzantine than those used to determine eliginility for the (un)'fairer share' payment.

Oh yes, that's probably going to catch some people out. I've found the memorandum and rules, makes for interesting reading. I noticed the following also:

I don't suppose there will be any trouble reaching a quorum, especially if the meeting is to be held using an electronic platform. Being a General Meeting, presumably all members would be able to attend if they wished. I don't know under what circumstances a resolution would be made on the second condition of forfeiture.

Section62

masonic said:

Section62 said:

masonic said:

500 votes will only be sufficient if all of those voting are members, all of those members follow through on their commitment to sign the document calling for the SGM and either contribute £50 or have a benefactor cover it for them. It would therefore be sensible to have some margin to allow for those who aren't members and those members who aren't willing to follow through.

Not just 'members', they need to be "qualified two year members".   The criteria for which is even more byzantine than those used to determine eliginility for the (un)'fairer share' payment.

Oh yes, that's probably going to catch some people out. I've found the memorandum and rules, makes for interesting reading. I noticed the following also:

I don't suppose there will be any trouble reaching a quorum, especially if the meeting is to be held using an electronic platform. Being a General Meeting, presumably all members would be able to attend if they wished. I don't know under what circumstances a resolution would be made on the second condition of forfeiture.

Yes, I didn't respond at the time but someone mentioned on this thread or the one on the banking board that all the £50's would be refunded after the meeting - whereas the refund is actually conditional (otherwise what is the point of it).

As far as I know, Nationwide themselves could add a resolution to the agenda of an SGM with the effect of the second part of clause (e) - and in my view probably would on the basis they wanted to 'protect' other members from incurring the costs of holding the meeting.

26left

Section62 said:

masonic said:

Section62 said:

masonic said:

500 votes will only be sufficient if all of those voting are members, all of those members follow through on their commitment to sign the document calling for the SGM and either contribute £50 or have a benefactor cover it for them. It would therefore be sensible to have some margin to allow for those who aren't members and those members who aren't willing to follow through.

Not just 'members', they need to be "qualified two year members".   The criteria for which is even more byzantine than those used to determine eliginility for the (un)'fairer share' payment.

Oh yes, that's probably going to catch some people out. I've found the memorandum and rules, makes for interesting reading. I noticed the following also:

I don't suppose there will be any trouble reaching a quorum, especially if the meeting is to be held using an electronic platform. Being a General Meeting, presumably all members would be able to attend if they wished. I don't know under what circumstances a resolution would be made on the second condition of forfeiture.

Yes, I didn't respond at the time but someone mentioned on this thread or the one on the banking board that all the £50's would be refunded after the meeting - whereas the refund is actually conditional (otherwise what is the point of it).

As far as I know, Nationwide themselves could add a resolution to the agenda of an SGM with the effect of the second part of clause (e) - and in my view probably would on the basis they wanted to 'protect' other members from incurring the costs of holding the meeting.

Agree with all the above re requiring 500 two year qualified members and £50 deposit for each, refundable (all section 14 for those that are interested). But the onus appears to be on Nationwide to manage the process / verifications.

It would seem somewhat petty of Nationwide to split hairs if the sentiment is clear, but I guess time will tell - and the rules are there for a reason.

My understanding of the rules is that the SGM, votes and ballots can be held electronically, so could happen quite quickly. The rules mention maximum times for calling and holding a meeting, but no minimums. 

Section62

26left said:

Section62 said:

masonic said:

Agree with all the above re requiring 500 two year qualified members and £50 deposit for each, refundable (all section 14 for those that are interested). But the onus appears to be on Nationwide to manage the process / verifications.

It would seem somewhat petty of Nationwide to split hairs if the sentiment is clear, but I guess time will tell - and the rules are there for a reason.

I agree, once the list of 500 (minimum) has been established the rest is up to Nationwide to sort out.  There is a risk on the organiser and those who have staked their £50 that some of the names could (perhaps even deliberately) not be qualified two year members and thereby (possibly) causing the request for the SGM to fall.  Clearly there are good reasons why Nationwide cannot provide the organiser with details of whether each name is qualified, but that means the organiser has to do their best, take the names as acting in good faith, and hope that none fail the qualification test.  There is also a time limit (3 months) on gathering names, but it isn't clear whether the validation is in any way published or fed back to those interested which may allow substitutes to be collected within the time limit.

I've got to say that I think Nationwide will apply the rules to the letter - not being 'petty', but rather to protect the process itself.  This is the problem with the rules being set up to prevent a hostile (external*) attempt to demutualise.  They have been created to set an almost impossible to reach bar.  The unwanted (in my view) consequence is the same near-impossible to reach bar also applies to other attempts to call an SGM (or a motion for the AGM) which may be something which is beneficial to the society and principles of mutuality.

If Nationwide allowed this case to go through with some of the requirements not fully met then it potentially makes the process vulnerable if someone later comes along with a hostile demutualisation proposal.

What would help enormously is if the legislative framework were amended to create a statutory process which sets a high bar to demutualisation*, thus allowing each society's AGM/SGM process to be far more 'relaxed'.  It shouldn't be that difficult for members of a mutual building society to ask for a benign motion to be put to members as part of the AGM.

(* I also think a benefit of a legislative protection is that it would deal with the issue of demutualisations being put forward from within.  Although some people suggest Nationwide's memorandum and rules permanently block demutualisation, my understanding of them is that it only (effectively) blocks what I'd call a hostile attempt from outside.  There is nothing in the rules that prevents the Board putting forward a demutualisation proposal, without the hoop jumping everyone else would need to do)

masonic

26left said:

Agree with all the above re requiring 500 two year qualified members and £50 deposit for each, refundable (all section 14 for those that are interested).

As discussed, it is refundable minus the costs of arranging the meeting if that is the expressed will of the wider membership in attendance. It is disingenuous to state it is refundable without qualification.

WillPS

The plot thickens. @26left is your £25k benefactor cool with the possibility of not getting all their money back?

masonic

It's been suggested above that Nationwide will manage the process beyond receipt of the signed document(s). It seems reasonable that they would collect the monies from two year qualified members as part of that process. In which case it would probably have to come from those individuals. Though it does say "for" each member rather than "from".

boingy

26left said:

It would seem somewhat petty of Nationwide to split hairs if the sentiment is clear, but I guess time will tell - and the rules are there for a reason.

My understanding of the rules is that the SGM, votes and ballots can be held electronically, so could happen quite quickly. The rules mention maximum times for calling and holding a meeting, but no minimums. 

I love it that you think that they won't be petty or seek to delay the meeting. They will do absolutely anything they can get away with to see off a challenge to their authority. I would predict that their first action will be to declare your motion invalid due to some tiny technicality.