Do d4l and their active members think it is acceptable to carry on with this, as it is obviously not the choice of the majority?
There is no way we can force people to vote. The active membership consists of 1,173 members (1,111 over 16) so still almost half of those who have recently updated their details, subscribed, donated, etc. chose not to vote. Even in a parliamentary election, there is no requirement for a vote to receive a majority of the electorate – only a majority of the votes cast.
Is it right to use the money of non members for society purposes?
Yes. Object number 1 of the Society, as established in March 2004, is “to be a wholly representative group, democratically run on behalf of all supporters of the Club and the area it serves.”
Should d4l find out what their membership actually is?
We know what our membership is (see above), and we wish more would come forward and update their details. There have been a lot of calls for the vote to have been MORE inclusive. It would not be legal to allow non-members to participate in a ballot of members, but we’ve kept the membership at just a £1 initial fee to allow everyone who wants to join to be able to. Terminating the membership of thousands would simply make us less inclusive and less democratic.
d1877-DFCSS and Articles of Association
this really is a shocker for me, though, over and above counting late votes to reverse a decision they weren't happy with.
The Society Board did not count late votes, let alone do so to reverse a decision, and would have happily accepted a vote either way. Again, the implication of corruption in the question is completely unfounded. All decisions regarding the ballot were made by the EMG.
Did we give DFCSS the mandate to directly alter the club, and its constitution like this?
The Society has not altered anything. But company law of course permits a company’s shareholders to determine how it is run, whether to issue new shares, and to amend its constitution. Surely it is preferable that the club’s supporters and their representatives influence this, rather than allowing one or more private individuals to alter the club and its constitution as has happened so often in the past (fatally, at some other clubs)?
The dfcss will answer questions, aprox 20 from here
How were the EMG people selected?
See question 2 above
Why is Robin still keyholder?
Why not? He is a volunteer and former Society director, and has done this job diligently for years.
Why were votes counted from 2nd September in 1st result?
That is a question for the EMG.
Why were votes counted from 9th September in 2nd result?
That is a question for the EMG.
Why were multiple votes in envelopes accepted?
That is a question for the EMG. However, there is no reference in the rules to envelopes.
Why was the resolution statement given a yes/no answer?
With hindsight this could have been better worded as “Yes, I agree” or “In favour” but it was still a clear positive or negative wording to the statement, and not one of the Society board saw anything wrong with this ahead of the ballot.
Why is the membership such a shambles?
Is it? In what way? If you are referring to outdated addresses and lack of emails, it’s because most members have ignored our repeated requests to update their details since joining.
What happens if you find another 100 votes on 16th September?
That is a question for the EMG, but the election timetable did state that the results had to be returned by 13th September.