GAS Board meeting notes - 21st April

Just some quick notes following today's GAS Board meeting - I'm sure that more detail will follow..... (sorry for posting duplicate threads).

At the highest level, this meeting went well & every delegate that I spoke with afterwards expressed positivity at how things were developing.

The meeting was again facilitated by Prof David Wheeler with Chris W helping to chair.

The meeting was structured around a PowerPoint presentation delivered by DW.  This presentation detailed DW's précis of the work undertaken & the feedback received to date.  It also included an outlined timetable moving forward.

From my notes, this provisional timetable is:

050512 - details to be further circulated via newsletter & matchday programme.

June / July - nominations to be received.

October - interim Board established via elections.

October - MO for first meeting agreed (including the election of the Chair & two Vice-Chairs.

October - mandate for first meeting endorsed & implemented.

It is proposed at this time that the interim Board will be 12 strong & will compose 6 people representing the various fans / supporter's groups (incl the Trust) & 6 'standalone' fans.

There was significant debate around the makeup of the Board & how elections will be undertaken.  The manner & proportionality of how supporter's groups will be appropriately represented was also discussed in significant detail (a bit too much for me if I'm honest - but I am an activist!) - I think this was resulted (at this time) by the groups being asked to resolve between themselves how this will be achieved.

We did also agree that all presentations, notes etc, will be freely published by the GAS Board, in line with its aims of honesty & accountability.

That's about is for the moment - as I said I'm sure that others will add more detail dreckly.

Returning to what I said at the top of this post though, despite some testing, detailed debate, the end mood was one of positivity & movement from most, if not all present.  Which is good.

Jon

Cheers Jon, very encouraging.

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise. That said I have the greatest respect for your integrity and concern for the club so I am very pleased your are so involved in the setup.

Charlie Wood wrote:

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise. That said I have the greatest respect for your integrity and concern for the club so I am very pleased your are so involved in the setup.

Quite so. I was going to say the reason for the lack of progress was because all of their efforts have been going on undermining the trust, but that wouldn't be right, I'm sure.

But, I echo Charlie's thoughts about Jon.

PlymptonPilgrim wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise. That said I have the greatest respect for your integrity and concern for the club so I am very pleased your are so involved in the setup.

Quite so. I was going to say the reason for the lack of progress was because all of their efforts have been going on undermining the trust, but that wouldn't be right, I'm sure.

But, I echo Charlie's thoughts about Jon.

For me it's a bit of both, but I also feel the same about Jon and Andy being on board at the moment.

Charlie Wood wrote:

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise. That said I have the greatest respect for your integrity and concern for the club so I am very pleased your are so involved in the setup.

Group set up at the behest of the club to monitor the club? Rather like the current Government setting up a group to monitor political donations from rich businessmen.

Perhaps the club thinks the GAS board will be more "malleable" and the old saying about "better in the tent pissing out....." applies. Like giving a very vocal fan a spurious title.

Grovehill wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise. That said I have the greatest respect for your integrity and concern for the club so I am very pleased your are so involved in the setup.

Group set up at the behest of the club to monitor the club? Rather like the current Government setting up a group to monitor political donations from rich businessmen.

Perhaps the club thinks the GAS board will be more "malleable" and the old saying about "better in the tent pissing out....." applies. Like giving a very vocal fan a spurious title.

There is certainly a danger of this, although speaking & listening to others yesterday I have some confidence - at this stage - thst this won't be the case; certainly not to begin with.

The thoughts & views of people on both this site (& on Pasoti) have helped change my views somewhat since I first thought to be involved. Particularly, I remain concerned about the overlap between this Board & the Trust & the personal views that I have submitted centre on the GAS Board (awful name) having a much narrower remit focussing on ensuring ethical (& methodoligical) accountability against a set of published standards (wordy, I know), rather than all-encompassing fan representation.

Since yesterday, I have put more thought to the way in which the Board could work & am thinking that perhaps it should be quite discreet in its work, with its members & actions being relatively low profile (unless required otherwise). The Board & its members need not be very public.

Should a problem be identified, the GAS Board should then seek appropriate resolution via a published, escalating & tiered approach - full & widespread publication of the unresolved issue only being required once the other tiered interventions have failed.

The lack of day to day visibility MAY help deter the involvement of those that are joining for more egotistic purposes. Not that I'm saying any currently are - for clarity...

Of course, the lack of visibility from outside then prevents at least some transparency of process & I'm sure will undoubtedly lead to questions of 'What the hell does it do?' & 'It's a closed shop with no teeth', etc.... Bit like the John Deehan narrative.

I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts re this.

As for the comments made above - thank you. Unfortunately I do though have my price at which I can be bought &, as those of you that know me know all too well, it's a case of 24 cans of Scrumpy Jack (currently around £19 from Makro). Thatchers, Aspalls & Addlestones are acceptable with negotiation.

Cheers,

Jon

JonB wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise. That said I have the greatest respect for your integrity and concern for the club so I am very pleased your are so involved in the setup.

Group set up at the behest of the club to monitor the club? Rather like the current Government setting up a group to monitor political donations from rich businessmen.

Perhaps the club thinks the GAS board will be more "malleable" and the old saying about "better in the tent pissing out....." applies. Like giving a very vocal fan a spurious title.

There is certainly a danger of this, although speaking & listening to others yesterday I have some confidence - at this stage - thst this won't be the case; certainly not to begin with.

The thoughts & views of people on both this site (& on Pasoti) have helped change my views somewhat since I first thought to be involved. Particularly, I remain concerned about the overlap between this Board & the Trust & the personal views that I have submitted centre on the GAS Board (awful name) having a much narrower remit focussing on ensuring ethical (& methodoligical) accountability against a set of published standards (wordy, I know), rather than all-encompassing fan representation.

Since yesterday, I have put more thought to the way in which the Board could work & am thinking that perhaps it should be quite discreet in its work, with its members & actions being relatively low profile (unless required otherwise). The Board & its members need not be very public.

Should a problem be identified, the GAS Board should then seek appropriate resolution via a published, escalating & tiered approach - full & widespread publication of the unresolved issue only being required once the other tiered interventions have failed.

The lack of day to day visibility MAY help deter the involvement of those that are joining for more egotistic purposes. Not that I'm saying any currently are - for clarity...

Of course, the lack of visibility from outside then prevents at least some transparency of process & I'm sure will undoubtedly lead to questions of 'What the hell does it do?' & 'It's a closed shop with no teeth', etc.... Bit like the John Deehan narrative.

I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts re this.

As for the comments made above - thank you. Unfortunately I do though have my price at which I can be bought &, as those of you that know me know all too well, it's a case of 24 cans of Scrumpy Jack (currently around £19 from Makro). Thatchers, Aspalls & Addlestones are acceptable with negotiation.

Cheers,

Jon

Educated w@nker !............................ not really ! Thanks for the update and I echo all of the above sentiments.

That's a very rational set of thoughts Jon, but would certain require fairly strict protocols being drawn up at the start and stuck to. I fear you may plough a lonely furrow though as the perception amongst the masses is a representative body where individuals will go to "their" rep to moan about the pasties, buses etc. If that's the route that's followed then I would expect the Trust to keep their finger on the pulse of the wider issues but, of course, they would be doing that without information that the supervisory board could/should/would have access to.

The trouble with all this is that they are big words and sentences. That's not to get at you, Jon - at this stage it may be essential to start from first principles and that inevitably involves talking rather than doing. As soon as base-line agreements are in place it can then move on. In my experience of meetings and committee decisions, it's in the doing that all the real dynamics & issues become apparent. I still have big reservations about the speed at which this is now happening. The GASB has gone from an organisation that was going to evolve over a series of meetings over lots of weeks. We now have reached decision-making after, I believe, only three very spaced out meetings. If it's worth doing, it's worth getting right.

I may also be misunderstanding, but implied in what you have written is an ongoing GASB involvement in an overseeing role. My understanding was that it would meet only a handful of times a year (can't remember, was it four?). How do these issues sit together?

I would assume that there will be running costs involved with the GASB - not the least being, for example, postage, elections, provision of meeting venue. Will the club pick up the bill for this?

At GASB meetings has there been a club commitment to attend? At what level?

I am actually not sure what you mean by "GAS Board (awful name) having a much narrower remit focussing on ensuring ethical (& methodoligical) accountability against a set of published standards (wordy, I know), rather than all-encompassing fan representation". When it is working, what would it look like? (If you know what I mean?) What sort of problems might be identified? Your proposals would mean the GASB stepping away from a discussion of the provision of buses and quality pasties which is what many fans would want dealt with.

More to the point, I share your confusion still about the difference between what the GASB may do that The Trust couldn't do or even ought to do. Has there been any light shed on this in your meetings? The Trust already has a presence at Home Park. It is very early days and still developing. What routes would the GASB take to gain publicity? I am Joe or Josephine Public - I have a gripe or question about an aspect of the club. Who should I approach - a Trust Board member or the GASB? How? Has there been discussed any protocols for how these two bodies would work together? I could go on.

There are so many operational issues that still need development and dissemination - not to mention the underlying principles - that it is very difficult to see where this is going and therefore it remains difficult to get fully behind it. If it isn't established properly, it will be at best a waste of time.

Charlie Wood wrote:

Thanks Jon, appreciate your update but I think the lack of response on this thread is an indicator of the mood of a lot of the posters on here that mirrors my attitude in not understanding the point of the whole exercise.

Exactly ~ there's nothing like having an ownership who realise that the whole purpose of the exercise should be to set up an administration with the specific focus of setting up and maintaining an infrastructure with the ability to achieve the appointment of a competent management structure to put together a fit for purpose squad of players who will win football matches.

Believe it or not the rest of the jigsaw should fall into place.

Do you really believe that is what your current administration are capable of doing?

If you are ~ fine, if not carry on moaning about free buses and crap pasties!

There's a mention on pasoti that the GASBoard meetings could be held in Plymouth, Exeter or London, and that people who stand should be able to attend meetings in any of these three places.

Is this really necessary? It could exclude people with childcare responsibilities, shiftworkers and people on low incomes, to name just a few. If the GASBoard's about Plymouth Argyle, I'd suggest the meetings should all be held in Plymouth, before Argyle matches.

At best, decisions like this smack of a failure to think things through. At worst, it's elitist.

However, I note this information's only appeared today, and perhaps doesn't actually reflect what was said at the meeting. In which case I'll save the rest of my rant until Jon's had a chance to comment.

Peggy wrote:

There's a mention on pasoti that the GASBoard meetings could be held in Plymouth, Exeter or London, and that people who stand should be able to attend meetings in any of these three places.

Is this really necessary? It could exclude people with childcare responsibilities, shiftworkers and people on low incomes, to name just a few. If the GASBoard's about Plymouth Argyle, I'd suggest the meetings should all be held in Plymouth, before Argyle matches.

At best, decisions like this smack of a failure to think things through. At worst, it's elitist.

However, I note this information's only appeared today, and perhaps doesn't actually reflect what was said at the meeting. In which case I'll save the rest of my rant until Jon's had a chance to comment.

Meetings might need to be held in London to make it easier for Lee Jameson to stick his beak in and undermine the whole thing if it isn't run exactly as him and his mates like.

Peggy wrote:

There's a mention on pasoti that the GASBoard meetings could be held in Plymouth, Exeter or London, and that people who stand should be able to attend meetings in any of these three places.

Is this really necessary? It could exclude people with childcare responsibilities, shiftworkers and people on low incomes, to name just a few. If the GASBoard's about Plymouth Argyle, I'd suggest the meetings should all be held in Plymouth, before Argyle matches.

At best, decisions like this smack of a failure to think things through. At worst, it's elitist.

However, I note this information's only appeared today, and perhaps doesn't actually reflect what was said at the meeting. In which case I'll save the rest of my rant until Jon's had a chance to comment.

Hi Peggy,

This was mentioned by Prof Wheeler, but as something of a throwaway.

The context was that we were discussing possible GAS Board attendance at full Club Board meetings & the Prof said words to the effect of 'Dont forget that the Board meetings are not always held in Plymouth - sometimes they are held in Exeter (to a round of jeers) & sometimes in London...... If the GAS Board wanted to be present then somebody would have to be able to make these locations....'

Which, I suspect is do-able given the range of people currently involved.

Jon

JonB wrote:

Peggy wrote:

There's a mention on pasoti that the GASBoard meetings could be held in Plymouth, Exeter or London, and that people who stand should be able to attend meetings in any of these three places.

Is this really necessary? It could exclude people with childcare responsibilities, shiftworkers and people on low incomes, to name just a few. If the GASBoard's about Plymouth Argyle, I'd suggest the meetings should all be held in Plymouth, before Argyle matches.

At best, decisions like this smack of a failure to think things through. At worst, it's elitist.

However, I note this information's only appeared today, and perhaps doesn't actually reflect what was said at the meeting. In which case I'll save the rest of my rant until Jon's had a chance to comment.

Hi Peggy,

This was mentioned by Prof Wheeler, but as something of a throwaway.

The context was that we were discussing possible GAS Board attendance at full Club Board meetings & the Prof said words to the effect of 'Dont forget that the Board meetings are not always held in Plymouth - sometimes they are held in Exeter (to a round of jeers) & sometimes in London...... If the GAS Board wanted to be present then somebody would have to be able to make these locations....'

Which, I suspect is do-able given the range of people currently involved.

Jon

Thanks Jon - that clarifies it

Looks like the GASBoard's going to need a budget, though - there's no way its representative should have to meet those travel expenses themselves.

Peggy wrote:

JonB wrote:

Peggy wrote:

There's a mention on pasoti that the GASBoard meetings could be held in Plymouth, Exeter or London, and that people who stand should be able to attend meetings in any of these three places.

Is this really necessary? It could exclude people with childcare responsibilities, shiftworkers and people on low incomes, to name just a few. If the GASBoard's about Plymouth Argyle, I'd suggest the meetings should all be held in Plymouth, before Argyle matches.

At best, decisions like this smack of a failure to think things through. At worst, it's elitist.

However, I note this information's only appeared today, and perhaps doesn't actually reflect what was said at the meeting. In which case I'll save the rest of my rant until Jon's had a chance to comment.

Hi Peggy,

This was mentioned by Prof Wheeler, but as something of a throwaway.

The context was that we were discussing possible GAS Board attendance at full Club Board meetings & the Prof said words to the effect of 'Dont forget that the Board meetings are not always held in Plymouth - sometimes they are held in Exeter (to a round of jeers) & sometimes in London...... If the GAS Board wanted to be present then somebody would have to be able to make these locations....'

Which, I suspect is do-able given the range of people currently involved.

Jon

Thanks Jon - that clarifies it

Looks like the GASBoard's going to need a budget, though - there's no way its representative should have to meet those travel expenses themselves.

Not only would it need a budget but, by implication, it would probably require people who are retired, with flexible work arrangements or self-employed. How else would they get to such meetings? Even if they were in the evenings being able to get up to the Big City from the depths of darkest Cornwall would be problematic.

Naturally, when I said 'budget', I was thinking of something to cover not only travel expenses but also childcare, overnight accommodation, loss of earnings and so on. Naturally

Which does beg the question - already asked elsewhere - how exactly is the GASBoard going to be funded?

Chris W briefly stated that the club would fund the GAS Board & that a budget had been secured (I'm paraphrasing).

Chris wasn't asked to expand on this; I think that this was largely due to the fact that we don't know exactly what the Board will need money for until it's up & working....

The funding issue is a real concern. If the club owners, either current or future, feel the the gas board are poking their noses into things a little too far, or being overly critical, they can simply with hold the funding and that will be that, back to square one with potentially an ineffective trust that has been usurped by another entity.

JonB wrote:

Chris W briefly stated that the club would fund the GAS Board & that a budget had been secured (I'm paraphrasing).

Chris wasn't asked to expand on this; I think that this was largely due to the fact that we don't know exactly what the Board will need money for until it's up & working....

Thanks again, Jon.

Hopefully the question of the budget will be pursued, as it's clear it needs to be adequate. Holding meetings, and telling people what's happened at those meetings, can cost a lot more than we might think.

Not that I'd be so arrogant as to tell anybody how to go about their business, mind