1. Has the normal process of NEC ratification and reporting of committee work been abandoned? And if so, why?
2. What has made the limited choices concerning the AGM so urgent that it appears to have taken priority over other important work, such as redundancy concerns for our members, especially in Sodexo?
3. Who authorised and agreed this survey, or which National Officer is taking the lead on this?
4. Exactly what is the justification for attempting to vary the AGM arrangements outside of asking the AGM itself? The AGM is the only place where such constitutional changes can be agreed. I understand it has long been known that the NEC has fought off previous reforms through motions at AGM.
5. In the AGM memo there is mention of costing efficiencies 4 times in 6 lines and one could be forgiven for thinking there may be a funding crisis. With reducing membership, 'check-off' to end and NPS cocking-up payments for at least 100 staff, isn't it time the leadership came clean about things?
6. Is the Napo Finance Sub Committee doing its job properly and can Napo afford its AGM in 2016, or not? Is there a concern that in 2016 there will be insufficient members or income to support its constitutional commitments to members?
7. How much did the Judicial Review actually end up costing Napo, what were the legal costs and why has there not been full publication of these details is before being required at AGM 2015?
8. In the Napo news in April Ian Lawrence reports that Napo HQ staff will all have new role opportunities and that all jobs are apparently safe. How can he say that if membership income is in reduction? There is still a full team at Chivalry Road, but leadership seems poor and not much seems to be happening, apart from taking over the National Reps roles in order to save costs and arguably reduce representation effectiveness.
9. Napo's ability to represent members properly at local level seems significantly reduced. How is Napo to overcome the issue of ensuring representation of members is met in the CRC's or NPS or is it looking to potentially drop the representation and membership involved with multi employers?
10. Napo recognition is in jeopardy in CRC's if membership falls below 51% of those employed. Have the figures been collated in order to understand the extent of the issue and efforts made to ensure branches are aware in order to protect the recognition rights in those areas? If not, why not?