In a News Release today (21 May)ITFS publishes the full text of a letter to the NTS Chair who claimed that ITFS has refused to meet them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEWS RELEASE At a recent meeting with Chairs of Member Centres and Friends Groups, NTS Chairman Shonaig Macpherson sadly made three inaccurate statements. We have written to her pointing these out:
• ‘NTS has offered to meet this group but the offer has been refused’ We say –“Unable to agree with the Trust’s suggested 5 May meeting, ITFS asked for the date to be changed. In a letter dated 4 May to the Trust’s former Director of Communications (Dee McIntosh), ITFS stated ‘It has not been possible (to agree the date) but ‘to ensure a constructive dialogue and to be business like, perhaps you can provide an agenda for a meeting so that we are aware of the purpose of your invitations’. As of today’s date we still await a reply to our letter”
• ‘ITFS has submitted a ‘vote of no confidence for the AGM which the Trust will strongly defend’ We say – “This is incorrect. Although we are aware of another no confidence motion it was not submitted on behalf of ITFS” “ITFS did submit a motion for the AGM (see attached) calling for reports in person from conveners of the four standing committees. However, as of today’s date the Trust has not acknowledged receipt”
• ‘ITFS ‘seeks to go ahead with an EGM; however this does not have to take place until after the AGM in September.’ We say - “Technically NTS can delay an EGM for 180 days following receipt of 2,000 signatures for an EGM Call from the membership. Our EGM Motion (see attached) calls for seven separate reports on decisions leading up to the current round of closures and redundancies” “It seems to us that, rather than holding two separate meetings at great expense, it would be sensible to combine the EGM with the AGM at the Edinburgh venue on 26th September”
ENDS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our letter to Shonaig Macpherson reads:
It is disappointing that at the Members’ Centre Meeting on 13 May 2009, the NTS responses to an inquiry about In Trust for Scotland are inaccurate.
1. ITFS wrote (to Dee McIntosh on 4 May) that it would be business like to have an agenda for a meeting with yourself and the Chief Executive when we were unable to jointly accept the NTS provisional date of 5 May at 11am - however we have received no response to this suggestion
2. It has become normal practice for PLCs and others to hold both an EGM and an AGM on the same date and in the same location to save time and expense – the NTS speaker said two different dates would be required
3. The ITFS Motion for the AGM is clearly not “a vote of no confidence”, as the NTS must have been aware. On 8 May 2009 the NTS received a duly proposed and seconded motion, followed on 9 May (official closing date) by further seconders’ signatures. The NTS has so far failed to formally acknowledge receipt of the Motion – which can be publicly accessed on our website www.intrustforscotland.org.uk.
There should be no need for the NTS to mislead the membership on matters of fact; we hope the above refutations will be made available to the membership
Shonaig Macpherson is one thing, but, at every rank below her, there seems to be a problem in that employees seem unsure how much authority they have and to what extent they can make binding comments or take binding actions on behalf of the Trust. It is, of course, almost impossible to define everybody's authority at every level, but we seem to have a situation whereby employees duck below the parapet, unsure of their authority, and refer things back to a committee, rather than standing up boldly and speaking out, confident that their personal mind-set is wholly in tune with the ethos of the Trust in general. Is this the core issue: ensuring that employees' mind-sets are in tune with the general ethos? Of course, it also requires employees to be bold by nature, rather than being "duck-below-the-desk bureaucrats". That ideal situation is, admittedly, difficult to create at the best of times, but doubly so if years of "drift" have gone before.