In Reply to: Re: Members' report 2003 - it's a done deal! posted by Peter Seaman on 20 July 2004 at 08:12:18:
Peter,
This is one of those regretable situations where I know the exact position and cannot tell you it exactly because others don't want you to know it.
However, I can make a couple of general points:
The quote is from the Chairman's report and a chairman's report for any trust will normally have his/her choice of opinion and wording. Some trusts have the board of directors review the chairman's report before publication, some don't.
It is normal for trustee-directors to absent themselves from board discussions when it might appear that they have a conflict of interest. I would personally expect to be excused from discussion of any complaint I instigated, even though it could be argued that there is no conflict of interest because correct treatment of the complaint is in everybody's best interests.
Brian - not with trustee hat on.
Here are some points from a complainants' view:
We remain confident that the Trustee has not (on occasion in the past) acted in accordance with its legal obligations. (Proving that to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman and the Courts is an ongoing challenge.)
Even if the Trustee is deemed to have met its legal obligations (in the sense of what members could have successfully complained about using just the courts rather than the ombudsman) that does prohibit the Ombudsman from finding maladministration.
Even if the Ombudsman sees nothing on which to uphold the complaints, the courts can (if the ombudsman has legal interpretation wrong).
Even if the Ombudsman sees nothing on which to uphold the complaints, he will not be addressing the ethical position.
There is something in the chairman's report about there not being an adverse impact on the funding of the Plan. The complainants agree with that. If the complaints are upheld then more money can be expected to flow into the fund. If the complaints are not upheld then no change can be expected.
Brian - with complainant hat on.