NewHorizon
Registered User
Exactly, genome. I share your concern.
It is too risky to have a brand new board, even if they may consist of most intelligent persons.
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GSIS and Ma On Shan
- Thread starter genome
- Start date
Exactly, genome. I share your concern.
It is too risky to have a brand new board, even if they may consist of most intelligent persons.
NewHorizon,
1. If the board's recent e-mail contained the exact wording of the requisition, then possibility B may not even be an option open to us. If the requisitionists want possibility B, they may need to withdraw their requisition and lodge a new one.
2. Even if they lodge a new requisition, we will still face the problems cited by you. That's why I thought we should consider the middle ground of appointing 2 new candidates to the board to fill up the vacancies.
1. If the board's recent e-mail contained the exact wording of the requisition, then possibility B may not even be an option open to us. If the requisitionists want possibility B, they may need to withdraw their requisition and lodge a new one.
2. Even if they lodge a new requisition, we will still face the problems cited by you. That's why I thought we should consider the middle ground of appointing 2 new candidates to the board to fill up the vacancies.
From what I gather, there are two possibilities:
A. We must either vote out the whole board or allow them all to stay. Voting them all out sounds too drastic. There will not be continuity etc. Just as someone posted above, this will not be desirale.
B. It is not sure if we can pick and choose who to vote in and who to vote out. Even if we can, how do we know which are the good ones? A glossy brochure or a glib passage does not mean that that person is good or has worked well. Conversely, the good ones may be too modest to advertise themselves. How do we know?
Also - are we able to add more candidates on the day of EGM?
How do I find out who is a good leader and who isn't?
How do I find out who has vision?
How do I find out who were the ones on the board resistant to finding alternatives to MOS? They should leave.
How do I find out who it was that was instrumental in getting Wanchai? That person should lead the board.
happy hour and horizon I have never met two people that are so opposed to change or that are happy to keep the status quo and do nothing even though they know that what is being delivered is average.
You both seem to be forgetting that this is the same board that said MOS was the only option and there was nothing else out there! The same board that seems to want to take credit for the swift action to secure the site. This is the same board that you want to be in charge of running a 300 million dollar plus school renovation project.
You are also afraid to give people that have had the courage to stand up and be made available to be board members the chance to prove themselves.
I seriously don't get it
You both seem to be forgetting that this is the same board that said MOS was the only option and there was nothing else out there! The same board that seems to want to take credit for the swift action to secure the site. This is the same board that you want to be in charge of running a 300 million dollar plus school renovation project.
You are also afraid to give people that have had the courage to stand up and be made available to be board members the chance to prove themselves.
I seriously don't get it
genome,
The best thing is to kick all the lazy and incompetent ones out and appoint the very capable and hard working ones to take their places. But before we do that, we must make sure that we follow the right procedure and that we have a good chance of success. Otherwise, all our good intention will be nothing more than wishful thinking. By the way, I note that one half of the Directors are required to retire from office every year and get re-elected at the AGM. The appointment of 2 new candidates to the board does not necessarily mean the end. If it works, we can always appoint others to fight for the places at the AGM each year.
The best thing is to kick all the lazy and incompetent ones out and appoint the very capable and hard working ones to take their places. But before we do that, we must make sure that we follow the right procedure and that we have a good chance of success. Otherwise, all our good intention will be nothing more than wishful thinking. By the way, I note that one half of the Directors are required to retire from office every year and get re-elected at the AGM. The appointment of 2 new candidates to the board does not necessarily mean the end. If it works, we can always appoint others to fight for the places at the AGM each year.
But how would you feel about having several new members added to the board and some of the old members taken off? would that not be a good thing and the best of both worlds?
genome,
I am afraid you've got it wrong completely. If I had opposed to changes, I would not have pointed out that there are still 2 director vacancies available. I am not against changes, it's the extent of the proposed change that worries me. I only wish to point out that the requisition that has been lodged will only allow us to vote the entire board out if successful. Otherwise, every single one of the current board members will stay. It's my personal view that you may not be able to garner enough support to pass such a drastic resolution. I am just suggesting a way that I think will bring changes gradually and that has a much better chance of success. If you think it's better to have a go at "all or nothing', it's fine. But to me, it would be a great shame if the requisitinists' proposal get voted down in which case it means we will have to stick with exactly the same board that we have got.
I am afraid you've got it wrong completely. If I had opposed to changes, I would not have pointed out that there are still 2 director vacancies available. I am not against changes, it's the extent of the proposed change that worries me. I only wish to point out that the requisition that has been lodged will only allow us to vote the entire board out if successful. Otherwise, every single one of the current board members will stay. It's my personal view that you may not be able to garner enough support to pass such a drastic resolution. I am just suggesting a way that I think will bring changes gradually and that has a much better chance of success. If you think it's better to have a go at "all or nothing', it's fine. But to me, it would be a great shame if the requisitinists' proposal get voted down in which case it means we will have to stick with exactly the same board that we have got.
happy hour and horizon I have never met two people that are so opposed to change or that are happy to keep the status quo and do nothing even though they know that what is being delivered is average.
You both seem to be forgetting that this is the same board that said MOS was the only option and there was nothing else out there! The same board that seems to want to take credit for the swift action to secure the site. This is the same board that you want to be in charge of running a 300 million dollar plus school renovation project.
You are also afraid to give people that have had the courage to stand up and be made available to be board members the chance to prove themselves.
I seriously don't get it
NewHorizon
Registered User
NewHorizon,
1. If the board's recent e-mail contained the exact wording of the requisition, then possibility B may not even be an option open to us. If the requisitionists want possibility B, they may need to withdraw their requisition and lodge a new one.
2. Even if they lodge a new requisition, we will still face the problems cited by you. That's why I thought we should consider the middle ground of appointing 2 new candidates to the board to fill up the vacancies.
Is there any requisitionist that can answer this?
NewHorizon
Registered User
I have just read the content of the EGM requisition again and it clearly asks that a vote be done on each member of the board and on each new candidate. So once again we can affect change now even though it may only be a small change.
genome, pls post exact wording of requisition or tell us where to find it. Thanks.
About this archive
This is an archive of over 20 years of GeoBaby and GeoSchools knowledge and discussions, kept online as a read-only reference.