Sunday, May 22, 2011

Minutes of the Meeting of the School Council - 27th September 1990.

Click on an image to enlarge it in your browser window.

During the meeting of the 27th September 1990, concern was raised once more, as it had been in December 1988 over the Board of Trustees. It was pointed out that some of the school Trustees were dead, whilst others were still alive but no longer living in Sudan (making their positions as Trustees void). It was suggested that contact should be made with living Trustees with a view to new Trustees being appointed. It is worth noting that no mention is made in the Minutes of this meeting that the Archbishop of Sudan is automatically a Trustee as defined by the schools original Trust Deed  ( "...the Trustees...shall also include the successors in office of the Right Reverand Bishop of Egypt and the Sudan." - Page 1 of the Trust Deed) and that there is good reason to suppose on the same basis that the Archbishop in Egypt is also automatically a Trustee - both being successors to Bishop Gwynne in his role as Bishop for both countries.

It is noted in the Minutes that it was discovered that the School Council was a Trustee. This is an untenable suggestion and may in fact be a reference to the 'Legna' which is mentioned in the Revision of Constitution Progress Log of 1989

It  is worth noting that in the Minutes Christine Perkins states that no new Principal could be appointed until the fees issue was resolved. However, the appointment of a new Principal has always been the prerogative of the Trustees and not the School Council and it is clear from earlier in the Minutes that there was great concern over the state of the Trustees and what seems to be a need to re-form them. At no point has the Trust Deed been rewritten to transfer the authority over appointing a new Principal to the School Council. It would seem then that there was a willingness  at this time to contravene the basic regulations on which the school was founded by appointing a Principal with no recourse to the authority of the Trustees.


  1. None of the land registry documents name any council as Trustees. Trustees have to be named people. I think they made this up. I have the land registry documents from 1956 and the Council is not on the list. No new Trustees were put on until the late 90's

  2. It is highly likely, given the frenetic searching around for Trustees; real and supposed and the efforts to establish that the Church somehow owned the school, in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary, that yes, they made up the idea that the Council were Trustees. This is such a bizarre and ridiculous suggestion, that it can only have been invented for the purposes of putting Council influence and authority in place of that of the Trustees. It is very obvious that under no circumstances would the Council be made a Trustee. What then is the purpose of the Trustees if the School Council is a Trustee - giving them access to the financial controls of the school and the writing of the Constitution? Was this the first attempt to do away altogether with the notion of Trustees?


Please leave your comments on this post here and include your name. Select a Profile from the drop down box (Use 'Name/URL' and type your name in if you do not have a Google account) and click on 'Preview' (edit if necessary) and then click on 'Post Comment'.
PLEASE NOTE: Comments are moderated and do not appear automatically.