observations by Betsy Anderson

I am coming into the debate about the signed-up members list late, because of weekend plans that had me without access to email.

I understand how members could feel upset at being told someone is after their personal details, without context. But it is also important to consider the flip-side of the issue – what if signed-up members face a blanket ban on getting a list of members? On consideration of the governing laws and the reasons for them, I am more concerned at EO's insistence that it will not respond to any such request, but rather, if anyone makes such a request, will take it to court.

The request was made under standard provisions of the Companies Act 2006. There is good reason for the provisions, they are important to enable members of an organization to protect and exercise their rights. In some circumstances, signed-up members need to be able to find and communicate with each other. This would be especially important if members felt that actions the company was taking were improper or not in the members' best interests, and they have no other way to find or communicate with each other.

The issues are related to some of the concerns that members raised about EO's draft M&As. Sixty signed-up members (half of those who voted) voted against the M&As at the January 6 meeting, so obviously there is significant member concern.

At present, if concerned EO members wish to present a special resolution for consideration at a General Meeting, or it they wish to call an Extraordinary General Meeting, ten percent of the signed-up members need to get together to make a request. One of the changes that EO tried to put through in the proposed revised M&As, would have required 10 percent of all members to get together. That would have required 400-some members to hook up and submit a request, for instance, to present a resolution for vote at a meeting. Thus far, EO has refused to say how many signed- up members it now has, so nobody even knows how many members would be needed to take any action at present.

If EO will not share even the number of signed-up members it has, it seems to be a reasonable action for a concerned signed-up member to exercise a legal right to find this out.

Further, if signed-up members wished to put forward a resolution or call a meeting, obtaining a list of signed-up members would be important to be able to locate and communicate with others signed-up members. And this also would be the most efficient and fair means of communication.

This is especially important if other means of communication are restricted. If, for instance, communications on the EO forum or yahoo group are moderated. If, as indicated in the February newsletter, EO will contact the police if anybody sends “unsolicited emails.” Without the ability to locate and communicate with other signed-up members, concerned members would have to try to find each other on the national lists.

So far as I can see, Kevin and his wife Lizelle have acted with integrity. They may not agree with some of the actions of the current trustees. I am also concerned, as were half of the SUMs who voted at the January AGM. They have spoken out, but generally give support for their comments, and they do not make personal attacks, though some have been stated against them recently. It is generally a good thing if members are aware of and act in accordance with their rights.

I agree it would be a concern if, for instance, non-members, local authorities, or the DCSF made a request for a register of members. In that event, EO would be perfectly justified in going to court, and the court would determine if the register was being sought for a “proper purpose.”

But this was not a local authority or non-member asking for the register. EO was aware before it made its “Important Announcement” that the request was made by a signed-up member. It was not necessary to make an announcement in an inflammatory way that implied that this request meant that members' information would be available to many others.

The fact that a signed-up member may obtain the register of members for a proper purpose, does not mean that it then passes into other hands. It just means the member who requested it for proper purposes, can obtain it. If Kevin gets the information, that doesn't mean that it is then available to others. Other requests, even by the same member or for the same purpose, are subject to the “proper purpose” requirement and potential court intervention as well.

But if EO has a policy that any request, even by a signed-up member, will be met by court action, that would have a chilling and intimidating effect upon members' exercise of their rights and would in itself be cause for concern. I am also concerned that the inflammatory approach to raising this issue could have the effect of discouraging members from becoming signed-up members which is the only way to have a vote on EO affairs.

Betsy