The Trust declined the zoom invite because for the issues being discussed it was considered the wrong forum, more so as the club wished it to be open to all Trust members and potentially all fans if they wanted to. This would be club led and administered. Not the correct forum or environment.
If the questions had been answered first, then this type of forum may have been appropriate to discuss the questions and answers together.
The Trust Board decided that written answers were required or at least desirable for their written questions. Get things’ on the record’ so to speak.
As for 1-2-1 meetings with other individuals who have raised concerns about Trust statments, actions or the like then this was considered to be appropriate forum.
So actually nothing to do with ‘unprofessional’…..
Playing devil's advocate a little bit...
Why would the wider membership and/or fanbase hearing the answers first-hand have been a bad thing? Why does it matter who sets up or chairs the meeting, as long as they're not being obstructive? Would it have been better (and easier to defend) if the Trust took the meeting and just requested written answers/clarifications afterwards, where gaps needed to be plugged?
A Zoom meeting could have been recorded and minuted, to get things on the record.
