Sunday February 9 2003 saw the confusingly named 2002 AGM held once again
at the equally badly named Whitbread's Brewery. The name suggests something
other than the rather swish surroundings of one of London's top meeting
places...
What follows is a brief résumé of the day for those who
didn't attend as seen through the eyes of the Editor, they are not meant as
a verbatim version of the minutes. Incidentally, those who never attended
were not forgotten and many of them - as the old saying goes - may well have
felt a burning sensation in their ears from the 165 members present!
Apologies to anyone who has been left out or whose question may be entered
under the wrong category. The meeting was very well behaved and fairly
informal, so some questions asked under the wrong section were allowed...
The meeting began promptly at 11am with the traditional one
minutes silence for those subscribers who are no longer with us. The
meeting, which was probably expected to close around two hours later,
continued until after 4pm. Answers to the questions below were given at the
meeting...
The Sid Nathan show takes to the road once again
Items 1 and 2 were to approve the 2001 AGM minutes and any matters
arising...
Sid Nathan (K88) got the meeting off to a good start with several
Nathanites - wisecracks as only he can tell them. His question was even
funnier - why wasn't Howard Pears not down as Company Secretary as well as
Finance Manager? I'm sure an answer was given, but it couldn't be heard over
the laughter!
Bill Gillett (K31) was slightly more serious when he
re-asked a question from last year about why members were called
shareholders. Bill insisted that our one share each did not make us
shareholders in the way the phrase is usually used. He was followed by Bob
Ambrose (V13) who asked Brian Rice for a break down of the Board's
wages. Some cat and mouse play between Bob and the Chairman followed on how
the Data Protection act could be by-passed!
Martin Hizer (M47) ended the 'Minutes' approval section
with a comment about the possible dangers - should we become a plc - of our
shares being purchased by outsiders "...such as Addison Lee."
The Minutes were carried as true and correct...
Item 3: Chairman's Report on the Financial Statement for year ending
31 August 2002...
Bob Ambrose was first to the rostrum. He asked Brian Rice whether
he was in favour of
speeding up the Knowledge as had been claimed by various trade papers.
Although Brian emphasised that he was against speeding it up - contrary to
those claims - he was in favour of making private hire licensing tougher. A
mini-debate on the topic followed...
Gerry Harris (D58) made the first of several appearances
when he asked why BoM costs were up from the previous year. The reason was
explained as being caused by Allen Evans only being on the Board for the
second half of that year.
Next up was Tony Gillam (N14) who asked whether the
London Taxi Network (formerly JRTA), lobby the PCO / TfL regarding minicab
"problems". Tony asked how a minicab company could afford to
advertise a trip to Heathrow
Well, that made me smile
from Paddington for £20? He wondered what condition the cars were in and
whether the proprietors cared provided they
|
Mike Rovey, Howard Pears and Brian Rice checking an
answer
Voting on the Auditor's report
|
|
got their rental? Brian Rice
cited that problem as being one of the reasons why he wanted private hire
standards raised, it would then push their prices up.
The Chairman's Report was accepted...
Company Auditor Mike Tovey's report was item 4. This involved just
questions to Mike...
First up to quiz Mike was Sid Nathan who asked if we were in overdraft
to which Mike said that we were not. "Well," asked Sid, "why
do we borrow money if we have it already?"
Mike went on to explain the basics of cash flow ie the money
owed to us was not always in the bank at the right time and investing in new
equipment required substantial amounts, so although we had the money, small
borrowings were felt to be more sensible...
Russell Poluck (T55) was next up and commented that the
2002 Annual Report and Accounts brochure must have been expensive and why
couldn't we have had a report done on ordinary paper as the previous year's
Minutes were printed on? The Chairman explained that corporate clients also
saw our report and that DaC felt that image was very important. He went on
to give Allen Togwell a pat on the back, as it was he who produced the
brochure in-house at a fifth of the price our competitors pay for similar
brochures. This raised a huge cheer, which caused Allen to raise his fist
in triumph (see cover). The cheers turned to laughter when Brian Rice
added: "...but he doesn't half nag when he's doing it!"
Daryl Cox (T33) was next up. He asked Mike about
differences between this year and last re BoM payments. Mike admitted that
he didn't know the answer but said that he'd look it up. The answer came
later and involved National Insurance being added in the previous year
whereas this year it wasn't.
Bill Gillett then made his second appearance of the day
and asked the interesting question regarding the two other companies owned
by DaC and shown in the 'Investments in Subsidiaries' category. "How
many more companies do we own," he asked? Brian told the 165 members
present that the two companies - Dial-a-Cab Ltd and Dial-a-Cab (London) Ltd
- had been purchased many years ago by Cecil Selwyn when he saw that they
were available. This was to stop anyone else purchasing the names and then
legally trading under them. Both had just a nominal share capital of £2 and
are not used.
Roger Kensit (W31) then tried to get the Chairman to
reveal the BoM's individual earnings rather than a complete total
"...even if the individual's names are not revealed." Brian
explained about the Data Protection Act and why that prohibited the release
of such information. Roger also asked why costs were given in one lump sum.
Howard Pears came in and responded that individually they would take up some
three pages.
On Gerry Harris's second visit to the rostrum, he
pointed out that money owed to the Society seemed to be taking an extra week
to be paid compared to the previous year. The hall was told by the Chairman
that it really depended on which client it was and added that some of our
corporate clients spent large amounts. "Bad debtors are not a
problem," he added to much relief
|
from the members present.
Next up was DaC's former Weltererweight boxing champ Pete Mulcahy (K2),
who spoke of the problems covering the HoC at times because of the too low fixed prices. To much laughter, he explained which days were the most
difficult re coverage and asked whether the BoM would consider driving cabs
on those days "...to help out!?"
Peter Bond (L67) - who won a car at the AGM of two years
ago - started by saying that he believed the BoM should be paid more and
then returned to the earlier question asked by Roger Kensit concerning the
reluctance to give individual Board member's wages. Brian Rice replied that
he felt individual person's wages should be a private matter.
The Auditor's Report was accepted as was approval for the
Annual Report (5) and the re-appointment of auditor's Chantrey Vellacott
(6).
The next item was the single Proposition (7) to revert the 'going
home' procedure to as it had been (with some minor changes) before being
changed to its current status...
A rather angry membership heard that neither the proposer nor
seconder had turned up...
Syd Nathan was first of several members to come to the rostrum, but
mention of 'going home' procedures were few and far between, with many
subscribers angry at the postal voting system. Syd asked if the result of
the postal vote was known and Brian said that he hadn't been given it by the
ERS yet, so he didn't know how the vote was going. The Chairman added that a
rule change might be needed so that a proposer needed more than just one
seconder, otherwise a major change of procedure could be voted in without
the proposer or seconder even putting their case.
Martin Hizer made an impassioned plea for DaC to stop
postal voting. Brian said that he had always enjoyed AGM's when there were
1000 plus members present, but there was no getting away from the fact that
86% of the membership had voted in favour of postal balloting.
Brian Abrahams (G91) said to the largest applause of the
day, that AGM attendance should be made compulsory. Still on the same topic,
Russell Poluck asked how many signatures were needed to call an EGM on the
postal voting subject. Brian told Russell that 200 would be needed, but that
attendance at such a meeting still could not be made compulsory and a postal
vote would still be in the equation.
David Marks (R22) paid his first visit by insisting that
paid-up shareholders must be made
to attend AGMs and Pat Heath (G01) backed him up by saying that 1600 or so
members
obviously couldn't care less! David Ammar (L75) also spoke on the
subject and the Chairman responded again by saying that there was little
that could be done as 86% of the membership voted to say that they did not
want to attend. Martin Hizer returned and asked that a rule be put
forward to make attendance compulsory. Brian again repeated that he did not
have the power to do that. "It would be ultra vires," he added.
Another subscriber whose name was missed said that although it
wasn't meant as a personal attack, he had to blame the BoM for proposing the
original rule change to allow postal balloting, while Bob Ambrose
asked if the BoM realised that this rule change was >>
|
