Skipton Building Society is aiming to outflank "carpetbaggers" hoping to force it into conversion into a bank.
The society has said it will support a proposal calling on the board to consider converting into a bank.
But the board has made its clear that while it will consider conversion, the chances of it happening are negligible.
The Skipton was one of three building societies which received resolutions designed to end its "mutual" status and bring a windfall profit to members who would give up their rights in return for shares.
The resolution called for the Skipton board to consider taking steps to change the independent mutual status of the society, either through conversion to a plc or by sale to another organisation.
This week the Skipton Building Society said it would put the resolution to its members and wholeheartedly support it "since it seeks to endorse the board's role as the correct and proper body to review the society's legal status both now and in the future".
The statement continues: "It simply invites the board to consider taking steps to change the independent mutual status of the society.
"The society, in fact, regularly reviews its status as part of its strategic planning and would, in any event, have continued to do so."
The statement points out that all reviews have consistently concluded that members are better served by the society remaining an independent mutual building society and it sees no reason why this situation has changed. The board promises to carry out a further review this year.
A second resolution, calling on a charity to benefit from any conversion is also being supported by the board.
"It must be understood that the resolutions are unequivocally not worded as instructions to the society for it to convert," said Mark Smitheringale, head of corporate communications at Skipton Building Society.
"The board concluded, following legal advice, that the resolutions should be taken to mean exactly what they say and it is on this basis that they will be put to the AGM. The board could not, and would not, have supported a pro-conversion resolution."
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article