Minutes of EMAG committee meeting, 23^nd January 2002

Held at: the RAC Clubhouse, Pall Mall, London

Present: Paul Braithwaite, Alex Henney, Tom Lake, Colin Slater, Adrian Howard-Jones, Rodney Allen, Betty McCann (Committee) Andrew Pike, Jeremy Lever (Members)

Apologies: Margaret Felgate(votes noted), Nicholas Oglethorpe

1. Minutes
   
   The Minutes of the meeting held on 6^th December were approved.

2. Treasurer's Report £4,094,   £ 771 in the two accounts.
   
   
3. Membership: About 1800.
   
   
4. Handling of Expenses: TL presented 2 resolutions, one on approval of budget, another on 2002 budget items. (See below.) Resolution 1 on procedure approved nem con., Resolution 2 on budgets approved with Item 2 deleted. Voted to reimburse Leslie and Margaret for 1 committee meeting in retrospect.
   
   
5. CS raised an approach for large-scale recruiting using mailing with advertising. Issues of Data Protection and preserving EMAG's independence were raised and discussed. Committee authorised CS to explore. AH/CS/PB to work on a draft membership solicitation letter and circulate.
   
   TL ran through the mechanics of recruitment without external assistance.
   
   Agreed that we should recruit by the best available method.
   
   There will be a need for a members to keep the board up to scratch on pursuing those responsible including the regulators, and improving governance, That will require a large membership and substantial funds.
   
   
6. Approach to the AGM - we should be proactive.
   
   One of the problems was that too many action group reps stood. Chances of success on getting the articles of association changed and getting a director on the Board are small.
   
   Suggestion is to have one candidate backed by the Action Groups.
   
   We should press FSA for a Nationwide-style voting pack. AH will write to FSA about AGM procedure.
   
   
7. Letter to JT about CT and Halifax.
   
   AH will press on strongly with attack on CT's performance e.g. over Jan-Jun 2001 exodus.
   
   
8. Letter to HBOS Chairman (Crosby) about the 1st March deadline.
   
   As proposed by Michael Joseph. AH to take this forward.
   
   
9. We should make representations to the Hon Mr Justice Lloyd to obtain the figures that have been withheld. Agreed.
   
   Discussion on the scheme hearings:
   
   AHJ pointed out that GIRs still threaten stability of the with-profits fund. The GIR will have the same effect as the GAR as interest rates fall. So the scheme is unsound. GIR and non-GIR funds should be split.
   
   AP - the Court cannot change the Scheme - it is a sanctions hearing. The funds could be split by Special Resolution, as for GARs.
   
   CS - The GIRS have little value since 75% have them.
   
   AHJ - GAR voters did not have fair information on the value of their guarantees - out of date and not sustainable.
   
   AP - Could be legitimate if proven, but if vote is obtained the Judge will approve unless it is outside his powers or oppressive of minorities.
   
   
10. Reponse to outcome of Scheme hearings. Press releases have been prepared for either outcome and circulated.
11. Letter re CT bonus to Otton
    
    PB had circulated a draft letter to remuneration committee opposing CT's proposed bonus. JL made extensive suggestions. PB to redraft and circulate.
    
    A lively discussion followed on the 11th Jan GAR meeting and PB's remarks there with alternative viewpoints from AHJ and PB, also remarks relayed from MF, who felt non-execs had failed to represent the members.
    
    AHJ had circulated both inside and outside of the committee a paper critical of PB's remarks at the meeting. There was an extensive discussion on the obligation for committee members not to criticise their peers outside of committee or to circulate confidential committee papers beyond the committee. Differing views e.g. on the Compromise Scheme had been accomodated e.g. by placing personal position papers on the website but this semi-formal approach provided for a pause for reflection and adoption of a considered public position, even if personal.
12. Meeting closed at 10.30pm.

    ---

    EMAG expenses approach

    EMAG relies on its good name amongst the ELAS members and on a good will and understanding amongst the active and committee members. The active and committee members understand that each contributes what and in the way that he or she feels able. EMAG runs because of this common feeling within the active group. It has long been recognised that the cost price of the services that active and committee members have rendered to EMAG would amount to a sum far beyond its budget, and that the opportunity costs of the active group are of similar magnitude. These sums are so far out of our possible budget that it is essential that we recognise that each active or committee member must make their own decision on these sacrifices. Since it would be impossible to pay the active group for their contributions it is important that EMAG avoid bureaucracy and delay for that group. This has sometimes caused friction, because communal decision making is bureaucratic by nature, but trust and understanding can guide the active group. Our funds are particularly low after we held back recruitment some months before the last AGM and have not actively recruited since.

    Resolution 1

    Proposed that we adopt the following policy on expenses:-
    1. Travel to committee meetings is not reimbursable (but some assistance may be offered for particular difficulties).
    2. Budget decisions should be made by committee where time allows and importance warrants but should otherwise be made by the Chair, and brought to the next Committee meeting for ratification of the as yet uncommitted expenditure involved.
    3. On-going low-level out-of-pocket expenditure - e.g. Officer's postal and copying costs for individual correspondence, or travel to broadcast studios for interviews - may be approved as a category without prior budget.
    4. Activities which are on-going, such as engagement with journalists with incidental entertainment could be given a budget on a 6-monthly or annual basis, by committee agreement.
    5. Other activities for which expenses are to be claimed must be given a provisional budget beforehand, to be approved either by the committee meeting or by Treasurer and Chair if time does not allow or importance does not warrant Committee discussion.
    6. Where the provisional or estimated budget proves inadequate the Committee should decide on remibursement.
    
    
    Historical Note
    The minutes of 8th January 2001 suggested travel claims to committee meetings as well as other meetings. A very few have claimed this. But if all back claims were now to be entertained we might exhaust our funds. Some have pointedly not claimed this expense.
    
    

    Resolution 2

    1. that EMAG reimburse postal and copying costs incurred by the Officers in individual correspondence,
    2. that Treasurer and Chair should bring forward any further 2002 expense budgets.