No I’m not; §10.1 of the statutes clarifies who qualifies to be a trustee. Indeed, the MC decides on the induction - but what it decides by is those criteria.
[quote=“PaoloVecchi, post:58, topic:12618”]
Authority to take a decision does not mean liberty to take or fail to take it. In contravention to the binding rules. So, a parking monitor has the “full” authority to fine you, but they can only fine you if you failed to park legally or put a coin in the parking meter (or whatever); they can’t fine you because you’re rude, or because you’ve shot somebody, or “for whatever reason they feel to be valid”.
Moreover, with the statutes listing procedures for expulsion - it is quite incredulous that the MC should be able to circumvent those procedures - of proper public discussion and evaluation of the merit of accusation of behavior meriting expulsion - simply by waiting a few months on average for a person’s term to need renewal. And - the trustees have absolutely do not vote for an MC thinking they are imbuing it with that kind of power.
Finally - even by your criteria, which I reject - the MC has not even convened, nor discussed, and thus not decided, on these expulsions. We have the MC session minutes of 2024-12-27; and the matter did not even come up. The email from Gustavo, sent ex-post-facto, does not even - as I read it - presume to justify why Gabriel, Thorsten, or Cor, should be expelled (or “not-renewed”).
But then - you would be hard-pressed to oppose this sort of behavior by the MC, considering you - as a part of the BoD - are guilty of a similar, albeit lesser, abuse of power, in the form of elections tampering and the removal of an elected MC member without BoT authorization. If the MC is to be faulted for their actions, so, mos likely is the BoD; and if you are allowed to ‘off’ someone in disregard the statutes, then why should they not be, as well?