Labrat wrote:Again, of course, but neither does it mean that the process has not been democratic or failed to take into account alternative viewpoints. Nor does it mean that the committee are wrong to accept the findings/advice, even in the face of disapproval from vociferous opponents (or even, given their sworn undertaking to uphold the constitutional objectives of the charity, the majority of the membership)
Nor does it mean the opposite. People may have the power to do things, but that doesn't make the actions appropriate. Something can be 'democratic' in that it is decided by nominally elected representatives without it being representative. Alternative viewpoints can be discussed without being adequately considered. Consultations can be flawed (without the documents we can't tell exactly who was consulted, what they were asked or what the results were). Results can be translated into policy in different ways. There may be many different possible perspectives on how to best meet the objectives of the charity. In summary, people can make the wrong decisions even with the best of intentions.
On a not unrelated note, I (as a regular pleb member) received a consultation document and voting form from CAMRA this morning. It appears that this charitable organisation does not consider that being a charity means having to keep members in the dark about changes to their organisation.