mayhilljack3
Youth Team Apprentice
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2023
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
Londonlisa2001 said:The premise on which your question was based was false so it’s a pointless question.
I’d remind you that at several members of the current trust board were also part of the board that had already reviewed in huge depth the details of funding in place and assessed them to be sufficient.
The current trust board were advised in the strongest possible terms that the membership should be consulted about any change away from the agreed path. They were also given actual lists of areas that needed to be dealt with as part of any settlement and refused to even present them to the owners.
And actually, even leaving that aside, the way the Trust board behaved after making the decision to accept the ‘deal’ was reprehensible. A refusal to answer questions, or to pretend questions were answered when they clearly hadn’t be understood, a misrepresentation of the deal as it did stand, confusion about what had and hadn’t been agreed, hiding behind NDAs when people pointed out the severe flaws etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Interesting time to leave for work btw.
As said already it is not a false premise. Your response is simply deflection. No funder signed an agreement to fund Trust legal action.
Also I had confirmed last night too that the Trust solicitors were definite in advising against consultation with members before settling the dispute (different so what you say above) to avoid the settlement breaking down when it became known the Trust didnt have funding.