This thread discusses the Content article: To all TangoTang members: EGM cancelled

OK - as the EGM has been cancelled can the directors confirm that Kam Ping will be (or has been) appointed a director.

It was also announced at the forum that Agnes Lau is now a director - I can't find any announcement of this (or of the resignation of other director, Lynda Lo).

I think the club's members should be told who is running TangoTang - how about a formal announcement saying who the directors are and outlining the responsibilities each of them will be taking on - ie treasurer, secretary, etc.

Given that two-thirds of the director have now changed, maybe it would be good an idea to have an EGM to endorse the new team as was suggested at the discussion forum. Would the directors like to comment please?

Simon

I'm also concerned and very confused. When I see the list of questions raised at the March 6th meeting and then I see that Directors have not addressed the substance of those questions, I feel my voice in how the club should be run is not being heard or acknowledged by Directors. One thing that was raised in the meeting minutes:

"A member said that he would like to see an EGM, on which all the directors resign, and be re-elected together with new directors by members. This is because directors should have the full confidence of members. Direct appointment might not give members such confidence."

Perhaps it was somewhat premature to cancel the EGM with so many unanswered questions and without giving members a chance to vote on the motions originally proposed.

Could Directors please explain when the EGM will be rescheduled? With so many questions and concerns from members it's important that anyone wishing to run the club can submit their names and platforms so that members can vote for those who's ideas mirror the direction we want the club to be run. That would be more democratic. Thanks Ray

I got the strong feeling at the forum that people were quite worried about the whole issue of who is to be a director for a number of reasons. (Such as potential conflicts of interests.) And there certainly seemed to be a sense of total disconnection from the current team and concern how directors should be appointed.

I believe that this is the important point: the feeling of legitimacy, which perhaps the current team is seen as lacking. Not that they are any less legitimate than any of the previous teams, and not to ignore all their hard work - it's just that people have become more interested, and they've suddenly got the feeling that they aren't electing the directors.

Indeed, it almost seems as if the directors elect themselves - probably because between AGMs, that's exactly what they do! And of course very few people do come to the AGM where directors are elected!

I certainly this that it would be preferable to have a clearer and more democratic process, involving candidates, platforms and voting by members. (Ideally be a large number of members!)

And perhaps we could adopt some of the ideas suggested at the forum to make this process easier. All of which were essentially about voting remotely without needing to go to a meeting, which somehow is usually at a time inconvenient for most of our busy members!

Geoff..