Report on the STAG Emergency General Meeting on the 19th July 2025

Thank you to everyone who came to the Emergency Meeting last weekend and to those who attended online. We really appreciate members giving their time to attend and for contributing a range of helpful inputs. 29 members took part, 20% being online, and 9 members gave their apologies.


The report-back to members.
Ruth Hubbard, on behalf of the Committee, welcomed members and introduced the meeting’s nature, purpose, and structure: report back, clarifications and questions, and then member discussion and feedback as the main part of the meeting.

It was explained that the event was originally intended as a Development Day where STAG members and supporters could think about the future together. This had proved impossible to arrange – the reasons for which would become clear. Instead an emergency meeting was called – constitutionally, this was the only option because of the short notice required after the Development Day had to be postponed (though we hoped people already had the date in their diaries). But it was also unthinkable that the Committee wouldn’t want (and need) to properly report back to members at this point, given events of the past few weeks. It was not a decision-making meeting (and if it had been the Committee would have been required to put out clear proposals in advance) but instead the meeting was about seeking broad member comments, views and advice on where to go from here.

Ruth said she was going to focus on or emphasise STAG as an organisation, at a moment of serious organisational concern, and as a collective problem for all of us as members. There is a collective problem but obviously this presents difficulties because individuals are also involved – many people know each other and who has occupied roles and so on. It is important to ‘depersonalise’ issues as much as possible and to understand this is not about ‘people as people’ or personalities, but often simply about actions taken within their roles in STAG. The presentation wouldn’t be talking about individuals and, if at any point individuals might unavoidably be identifiable then this was not the point nor a comment about a person but only about specific actions taken within a role. So issues would be depersonalised and it was requested that people in the meeting do the same.

Ruth went through the PowerPoint slides. Firstly, in terms of organisational context it was explained that STAG’s legal structure is an unincorporated association. This is a common (easy, cheap) legal structure for a group of people pursuing a common interest or purpose. But STAG does not have its own legal identity separate from the membership. Although STAG is much more than simply its membership, when people do become members they essentially enter into a legal contract with all other members (governed at top level by the constitution). By constituting, STAG created a collective legal relationship and agreement between us all – it’s not a private or informal group of friends just supporting personal relationships between a few people. We are collectively responsible for what happens and collectively liable when things go wrong – though in practice it’s just about always the Committee who are held responsible and liable (and this can create a slight tension at times between a Committee aware of potential disproportionate exposure to legal liabilities compared to the membership).
 
The Committee’s role is to act as stewards, always acting in the best interests of STAG as a whole and as stewards of the organisation on behalf of STAG, including its membership. They hold the property of the organisation safely and securely in trust (for STAG) and steward that through until handing over to an incoming future Committee. Members should expect to see all the things that you’d want to see in terms of basic good practice – managing risk, properly documenting decisions and meetings, good financial controls, identifying conflicts of interest and loyalty, transparency, and the development of settled and sustainable procedures that support all this etc. It’s quite proper for members to want to see basic organisational progression from the point of constituting onwards, and to be concerned and ask questions about this. STAG Committees are meant to be ‘looking after’ things properly and securely on behalf of STAG, including for members and in this legal contract we have between us all. Of course it has to be proportionate – we’re not OXFAM or a council – but members should absolutely want careful attention given to ensure basic good management practices that are relevant or important to STAG, and for there to be some step by step organisational development. One example of a gap might be the fact STAG has never agreed the procedure by which we appoint STAG reps to the SSTP and of course the absence of this process became relevant in the last year and rightly led to questions.

People who join as members agree to the aims of STAG so members too, also have an eye on, and investment in, what is best for STAG as a whole. Constitutionally, members have rights:
– to elect the committee and trustee
– to vote on annual plans, and
– to vote on constitutional changes.
These are regarded as a very strong set of rights across this particular part of a civil society or voluntary sector – the membership is in charge of the constitution!
STAG’s constitution also talks about members taking other significant decisions, although members have actually taken almost none over the last couple of years (except for one on some spending at the AGM).

The framework of a legal structure, and set of relationships, acts (or is meant to act) as a safeguard for us all, and in managing a range of views. It underpins or provides a platform for activity – this framework absolutely should not dominate and won’t, as long as you’ve paid it some basic attention, remain conscious of it, and develop it appropriately and properly. Then it can rightly be useful, but in the background as the foundation for all the ‘real’ activities that STAG might want to carry out, like tree planting etc. Arguably STAG has not developed this basic supporting framework, and it’s no small job to move from the street tree dispute to a constituted, properly functioning ‘organisation’.

In this context, the following slides covered key aspects of the progression of the handover from the previous Committee to the new one, including the approach and actions the new Committee had taken (and acknowledging the one area it had been straightforward – the bank account).

The handover of log ins and passwords should only take a few minutes, but it became clear very quickly that this was not going to happen. It is now over eight weeks since the election of the new Committee, and stalling and blockages included: no coordinated preparation by the previous Committee on handover (so the new committee had to spend time communicating with each ex-Committee member separately), one member of the committee who was said to be holding key (and confidential) information not handing anything over at all (and blocking the new Committee in the messaging app); refusals over weeks to hand over logins and passwords; misleading reasons given for delays; further data breaches – resulting in further reporting to the ICO (and misunderstandings about the Committee’s responsibilities of members’ data under GDPR); an apparent massive over-reliance on one individual holding almost all information/systems so that they clearly had to do huge amounts of work; the apparent (re)creation of records/files to be handed over from disparate individual sources (no preparation); the involvement of certain non-Committee members in having access/control over records or their phones being required for the verification of logins; the emergence of unreported and unexplained Committee meetings during the election period; an apparent reluctance to speak in person to the new Committee or to meet up in-person (which might have helped with communications); missing information including confidential records; no access to previous Committee internal communications.

In the absence of coordinated/proactive actions from the previous Committee (on all items except the bank account) the steps taken by the new Committee to try to manage and progress handover were outlined, including creating a handover document listing everything it thought should/might be available to be handed on. This doc was sent to all previous Committee members to get their input, and then updated as items were handed over (or not) to show the current status. The new Committee was careful to remain polite and professional in its communications but in the end it did have to lay down some clear deadlines in an attempt to get things moving; a timeline has also been created. This process has been hundreds of hours work particularly for one member of the new Committee who seemed to be the most acceptable person to (some) former Committee members to communicate with, but also involving great stress through difficult and confusing communications.

The PowerPoint outlines the overall position on handover still being incomplete; most importantly there are lost opportunities for STAG in all this e.g. in relation to the Planning Group (not now functional but not reported at the AGM or in the lead up to it), missing collaboration arrangements and contacts with the Woodland Trust, and the fact that STAG appears to have largely lost the opportunity to contribute to a five year review of the Street Tree Strategy.

Ruth went on to cover the failure to handover the STAG public Facebook group and the serious situation where an informal group now say that they control it, and asserting their ‘ownership’ of this major STAG asset. The STAG public Facebook group obviously includes all the history of STAG and the street tree dispute, but it is also the main organising platform for STAG – crucial to its development going forwards. Posts from the Committee to the STAG Public group have been refused, including an event post for the proposed Development Day (hence its postponement) and there is also even apparent questioning of the right of the Elected Committee to use the STAG name when posting. Three PowerPoint slides cover this issue and its seriousness and as an organisational impasse.

It is inconceivable that STAG would give away one of its main asset (the STAG public Facebook group) at the moment of constitution, as it contains STAG’s organising base and the whole archive of the dispute. There has certainly been no member vote that hands over this major STAG asset to be owned by a small group of unelected individuals. Fundamentally, the STAG public Facebook group is clearly and demonstrably part of STAG and there is much written evidence and acknowledgement of this (see the PowerPoint). The STAG public Facebook group simply just needs to be secured by the Committee in its legal and stewardship role, to hold on behalf of STAG and to pass on to the next Committee. The Committee must also, obviously, be able to post to the Facebook group directly. No other changes, including to the current moderation processes, are being requested by the Committee at all – it is simply a case of the Elected Committee needing to fulfil its basic responsibilities. The seriousness of this situation for STAG as an organisation was outlined.

In terms of overall outcomes and where we are now, it could appear that it’s ‘just’ that the new Committee will need to create the basic administrative structures required for STAG to function. However, there are two deeper points. The current situation calls into serious question whether STAG has been functioning very much at all as ‘an organisation’ in the way members might want it to, or as was intended by creating a legal structure. And it flags serious lost opportunities for STAG, and the fact that all this is not what the Committee and members should have to be addressing at this stage, especially where main STAG assets have not been secured but must be.


Questions and clarifications
Following the presentation, members were encouraged to ask questions/clarifications.

There was significant concern from members that a smooth handover had not been effected (and some asked for more detail on the status), and input that resistance to handover, and any continuing fighting, should stop. There was frustration that the handover seems to have stalled, and that as an organisation there were therefore questions about how to move forward. In response to questions for more detail on the handover the Committee drew attention to the handover document and timeline it had created (and the messaging) that were available for members to look at during the break.

STAG Secretary Mark James recognised the frustration but suggested that it was difficult to move on when STAG faces potential litigation due to several data breaches and that the Information Commissioner’s Office had advised us to take legal advice.

Members commented on how they felt excluded from the private STAG members’ Facebook group because it is dominated by conflict from a few loud voices.

There was also a widespread frustration and anger that the Committee has not been given administrative access to the STAG public Facebook group.


Member discussion and feedback
Following a short break, participants formed four in-person groups and one online group, to discuss three questions:

What are STAG’s next steps?
What advice can members give the Committee?
What is the potential of STAG, and what can members do now?

After discussing the questions, each group reported back:
Group 1
This group was concerned about the administration of the STAG public Facebook group. Could members persuade the current admins of the group to give the Committee admin rights? Could any legal steps be taken? They also felt that trust needed to be rebuilt and that the membership had a vital role. What rules needed to be in place to allow STAG to function?

Group 2
The group discussed the scope of volunteering to support the Committee. They shared concerns about the STAG public Facebook group and its administrators’ loyalty to STAG. The group was concerned about STAG becoming stagnant, so they were keen to continue to be involved in the debate about its future direction.

Group 3
New processes should be established to address the data breaches. Mediation would be encouraged to resolve the outstanding sticking points, particularly over the STAG public Facebook group. The group explored what action members could take to recover missing data. The group also felt that engagement in environmental campaigns and activities like tree planting should go ahead. The debate about the rights of nature should be explored.

Group 4
This group discussed similar themes to the previous 3. The need for mediation was a strong theme. Nonetheless, the question of whether STAG had run its course was raised.

Group 5 (Online)
This group discussed the origins of STAG and examined the question of what to do with data that hasn’t been handed over. One group member asked if previous Committee members should destroy any potentially sensitive documents they hadn’t yet handed over. One group member argued that administrators on the public Facebook group wish to cooperate with the Committee, but any posts must fit the audience’s needs. Also, a new Administrator (from the current Committee) would have to learn the ins and outs of the public group and might alienate the audience.
Unfortunately the online group seems to have had a less inclusive discussion than the in-person groups, so that not all the participants felt able to voice their views in the face of a minority of dominating voices.


Conclusions
The Committee is pleased that the meeting went smoothly and that, in general, attendees were measured in the way they gave their input, though the information discussed was disturbing.

The Committee thanks all the members who attended the meeting. In our debrief we were all really pleased that the meeting was conducted in a civil manner (and with some goodwill) and that a wide range of members felt comfortable enough to contribute. This is a positive thing, and shows a bit of progress. The committee welcomes further input from those unable to attend or post-meeting thoughts from those that did, and will be taking on board the input from members in working out the appropriate next steps and how to proceed with getting STAG back on track and working with members to take steps forward.

Note: Although the Committee originally planned to also explain in the meeting its thoughts about suspending the procedural part of the Code of Conduct (section D of the constitution), there was general agreement in the meeting that it was best to concentrate on the main subject of the meeting and have a separate update on the CoC. We hope to send this update on the CoC out soon.