[rpd] Removal of a director

[Andrew Alston]

Will have to get all my notes when in front of a machine but basically:

The bylaws state that by demand of 5% of the membership base an SGMM can be called.  The companies act state that any vote to remove a director has to be explicitly for that purpose and with no other items on the agenda - hence it stands to reason you need 5% of the member base to force the SGMM first.

Then - the bylaws make reference to the removal of a director - and I believe demand a 2/3rds majority - but I will verify all of this for you with pleasure when back in front of a computer.

The fact if I have looked into this pretty closely because i am getting together a petition document to attempt to force the SGMM in the event that the directors continue to be delinquent in answering questions the legality of certain operations and hence continue to violate their fiduciary duties to the membership base that elected them.

And pass or fail - such an SGMM may send a wake up call that the board cannot continue to ignore, delay, postpone and pontificate to avoid accountability to the members who pay their expenses and elect them

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 12:27:29 PM
To: rpd; Andrew Alston
Subject: Re: [rpd] Removal of a director

Hi Andrew,

Could you point to the bylaws section or the corporate document where   5% of members (registered and ressources ) can recall a director and vote by super majority?

Warm regards


Marcus

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:30:41 PM
To: rpd
Subject: [rpd] Removal of a director

Hi,

There are those that have said on this list that there is no procedure to recall a sitting board member.

This is fundamentally inaccurate - there is. It requires the signatures of 5% of the membership base to call for it - and following that a vote by super majority.

If I recall there was a resolution proposed to make this easier - first by myself - it was voted down - and second proposed by the board in Mauritius - again it was voted down - so the procedure exists and is as difficult as it is because that is what this community wanted.

This community has a habit of voting against things based on who proposed them then coming and asking for them again later. I really wonder what will happen when a director finishes his term and refuses to hand back his legal membership - and as a result cannot be removed as a member of the company - and as a result no new directors can be appointed.  Since that is the status quo that this community voted for and legitimized in Mauritius when they voted against the need for a director to relinquish his status at the end of his term.

Fascinating how this community acts against their own interests and then wants a revisit once the idea becomes “invented here”

Just like it will be curious if that audit policy ever passes and audits are demanded of the authors - some of whom to this day only utilize 25% of their allocated space that they have sat on for close to a decade.

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171212/5e5f9a47/attachment-0001.html>