| David Hall |
My preference is wherever possible to reach consensus at the Board and present a united front. I think where there are differences, as there inevitably will be from time to time, you have to choose your battles! I think if there are key points where you really cannot accept the collective responsibility line then I think you should agree at Board level how this is presented to the membership. The worst position is to break ranks without having first agreed your stance. One option is to identify who supports the different options (as was done with the issue of the Executive sitting on the DT Board for example). If the issue is so fundamental and you feel that it is an issue of conscience, for example, then obviously you have the option of standing down from the Board. The club is set up on democratic principles and we should expect to be bound by the majority view. |
| |
|
| Mark Davis |
This can mean different things to different people.
I'm in favour of DTB members having the right to go on record that they were against a particular decision. Indeed, as DTB Secretary, I developed a mechanism for this - see here (in particular paragraph 11 and below). Maybe not the best of all possible solutions, but a step forward from what it was before.
I also don't think it's necessary to present DTB recommendations to the membership as being unanimous views. Actually, it's quite helpful, as a member, to know when recommendations aren't unanimous. The fact that different DTB members gave their reasons at the AGM for differing views on the representation of the executive on the DTB was very constructive, and was handled well.
However, once a decision is taken to act in a certain way, then collective responsibility for its implementation should apply. If DTB members can't bring themselves to co-operate, then they should resign.
|
| |
|
| Nicole Hammond |
Tough question. Do you mean - if the majority of the board make a decision, but I disagree, am I still responsible for that decision? I think that's a bit scary. We need to remember that the board is made up of volunteers, and despite there being a large number of candidates of high calibre standing at this election, we don't want to scare potential candidates off in the future. I do appreciate that the board really makes an effort to come to a unanimous decision rather than merely a majority one, I would hope that the board works together to continue this tradition. |
| |
|
| Kate Terriere |
Yes. It is the Board's duty to represent the majority - members are elected by the fans to represent them and they have that collective responsibility. |
| |
|
| Kris Stewart |
Collective responsibility means, to me, that once the board has made a decision, board members are collectively responsible for implementing it. It doesn't mean hiding the discussions and disagreements we have on the board, or pretending we are all of one mind.
As long as we are open with members about what discussions have been had, and about what votes have been taken, and who voted which way, then the board should take responsibility collectively for its decisions.
There will come times when one or more board members cannot live with a decision. In those cases, those dissenting must decide how to proceed. Arguing publicly against a board decision must be a last resort - but sometimes one has to have recourse to the last resort.
|
| |
|
| Lee Willett |
The candidate has not submitted a response to this question |
| |
|
| Stephen Cooles |
Once a decision has been made by the DT Board, then yes, board members should be bound by collective responsibility. This is the only way for a board to function. If any board member finds they are unable to endorse a decision, and subsequently fails to support the board when actions need to be taken to deliver this decision, then I would feel they would have no choice but to resign. |
| |
|
| Tom Adam |
This isn’t an easy answer to this. There is a policy in place that expects such an approach. Once a Board has made a decision that is against a Member’s conscience then a Board Member who feels strongly that it is the wrong decision can ask that it be discussed again. If they still can’t get an acceptable answer then they should resign and campaign against the decision.
Any Board that doesn’t accept some form of collective responsibility is asking for chaos but I don’t think the current policy says what to do when a Board Member has a grave objection to a decision. It should be clarified to deal with that situation.
|
| |
|
| Simon Bath |
Not necessarily, individual accountability is something that should figure. If there is a major problem that keeps occurring then it should be addressed, if there is an individual that is causing or struggling with such, they should be addressed in the singular. |
| |
|
| David Growns |
Absolutely. By standing for election, Board members agree to uphold the published code of conduct. Candidates who cannot commit to this should not stand for election. Board members who cannot uphold it should resign. |
| |
|
| Damian Woodward |
Simply, yes. If you feel strongly enough that you haven’t been heard on the Board and not been able to resolve that to the point where you speak out differently in public, then you should resign both on principle and under the etiquette of collective responsibility. I also think there is a strong case for more individual responsibility to be clear what each Board member has contributed on a regular basis. It is impossible for members to know in anyway now if current DTB members are doing a good job. Whilst I accept it is a voluntary role, we need the DTB to be thorough and professional in the way it operates to ensure we are getting the same from the Club Board. |
| |
|
Christopher Gibbs |
I would expect my fellow board members to take their responsibilities as seriously as I will, making sure they fully understand what it is they are agreeing to or recommending to DT members. Inevitably there will be the occasional difference of opinion and should I be on the losing side of a vote I will accept that. Board members are responsible to their shareholders (ie you, the Dons Trust Membership) and should vote to act in the best overall interests of the club; you should expect the highest level of professionalism and behavior from your board.
The behavior of some members of the board during and after the first Special General Meeting was such that David Cox referred to it when he stood down as Dons Trust Board Chairman. His statement can be found at the bottom of these minutes:
http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/dtdocs/dtb_minutes/2009-06-01.pdf
In summary the board made recommendations to us about the club's future direction regarding its community and stadium. The meeting was running late and these items were adjourned to a new date. Some board members then decided they couldn't support their own recommendations and actively campaigned against them. They also decided it would be OK for new members to join the Trust and vote on these items.
Any right-minded person can see the problem with this. Frankly WISA's role in this was less than encouraging, choosing to write an open letter to Mr Cox urging a vote against the boards' recommendations between the two meetings. For an organization that claims to have the clubs best interests at heart it seems strange that it could not have responded in a more timely fashion.
WISA claimed in its letter:
WISA does not believe that Kingsmeadow, in its current design, is a viable high level Football League stadium. WISA believes that to obtain the standard required would result in extensive demolition and rebuilding of the current site or relocating the stadium within the current boundaries. WISA believes that by doing this, the opportunity to return to Merton would be lost forever.
The road back to Wimbledon may not be a straight one. WISA's simplistic view is unhelpful, divisive in its apparent certainty and yet impossible to prove, as I think I demonstrate with my answer to question 14.
The Dons Trust Board should aim to be an excellent model for fans-owned clubs. That requires its Board Members to behave in an exemplary fashion. Collective responsibility is a must. We then trust our members to vote as they see fit, knowing that the answer that you give is not always going to be what we expect, but that's democracy.
|
