Millbrook2 wrote:Presumably though you would still have officers with responsibilities - finance and auditing for example.
I believe that secretary and treasurer are the minimum. There are good reasons to have more than that.
How would that then not function as a committee with the same potential objections that were in the first post.
Therein lies the problem.
I visited another allotment site today, one that I had understood to be well run, but I heard very serious allegations of misconduct and abuse of power by the committee. It seems there are a core of untouchable militants running things.
I hear of similar things from a great many allotment sites, and this is what we want to be avoiding.