Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 17/10/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Things have moved on since I initially tried to post this thread, I then posted a message on Facebook when the last thread didn't appear, I have now received a message to my enquiry as to why my original thread didn't appear on forum in which I am assured by Austin that no such Thread request was received although I am sure I tried to post it correctly. As it would appear to be a technical glitch I can only apologise for suggesting that the MYA didn't want any healthy debate over their failure to bring forward a motion for the membership fees for 2019 and once again in 2020. My original post ran something like this although I didn't keep a copy (a mistake I won't make again) and as things have moved on I have added some more detail to the argument for a Fees motion. The MYA Executive is required by the constitution clause 11.1 to submit a motion to an AGM for Membership Fees for ALL classes of subscription for the following year. By having not done so they remove the ability of Membership to have a say on the level of fees year on year, a fundamental principle of running an association such as ours which is intended to be a gathering of like minded individuals for the betterment of their shared interest. "11.1 Membership subscriptions for all classes of membership for the following year shall be proposed by Council in a Motion to the Annual General Meeting." Whilst the membership fee has largely remain static at £14.00 pa the reserve fund has risen year on year and is now at twice the value it was when the Acquaint magazine was withdrawn (currently in excess of £29K) something which brings into question the ability of this administration the ability to budget the fees it does receive correctly. I was asking someone from the MYA Executive to explain their reasoning behind not properly submitting a motion as per the requirement of the Constitution, perhaps someone will come back with a more reasoned argument that the second sentence absolves them of their responsibility in the first. "Should Council fail to make such a proposal the membership subscriptions shall remain at the then current level." Effectively the argument put by Terry Rensch was that this sentence allows them to deliberately fail to put forward a motion regarding fees. This position conveniently gives the membership no say in whether they wish to continue to add to the already swollen reserve fund of the MYA.
  2. 1 point
    The results for this year's 2002 Trophy competition have been collated and can be seen on the Six Metre Sailing website here: http://sixmetresailing.weebly.com/2002-trophy-series.html
  3. 1 point
    Just a line to flag that the Six Metre Sailing website has not one but two Rococos up for sale. Both look very attractive propositions too. http://sixmetresailing.weebly.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
  4. 1 point
    Good morning all I have just seen the recent posting by Mike Kemp relating to the Motion 1 Amendment. 'On the 'amendment'. It strikes me as being an attempt to stir up a debate on something that, for one reason or another, the Executive seems to feel doesn't need discussing. A composite proposal like the 'amendment' is doomed because it would be impossible to take a vote on one part until the other part has been debated and decided. If one wants to get things accepted, then the chairman must be able to ask the meeting for a yes, no, or abstention on one item.’’ At first sight this seems, reading it exactly as it is written, like yet another attempt within this Forum by someone on Council to rubbish a view on a matter genuinely held by members not within Council and to pre-empt and dissuade full discussion and voting throughout the membership, which is very sad, and I do hope not the case, as it would infer the dreadful situation that Council sadly believes itself omnipotent, something that has never happened before either in my experience as both an ex Council member and now an ordinary member. --------------------------------------------- Let me relate for members the very simple procedural situation in the matter of motions and motion amendments which should happen this AGM . An amendment motion (or indeed motions) must always be considered first, and voting for or against such amendment is always taken first in the exact terms of the motion. If the amendment motion succeeds, with more votes for it than against it, then it is passed, and then the original motion automatically fails and is set aside. If the amendment motion fails, with more votes against it than for it, then at that time, and ONLY at that time, can the original motion then be considered and voted upon, and once again it is necessary for more votes to be cast in favour of it than against it in order for it to succeed. The original motion can never be simply ‘passed’ by a simple assumption of the proposer that the motion is acceptable. This is the way in which the amendment motion and motion itself must be presented by Council to the membership at the appropriate date and well in time for paper and email voting replies to be received by StC 7 days before the AGM. --------------------------------- Let me give an example if proper process is not followed and give members a case study: Council has indicated that it intends to present to the membership for its consideration a ‘new constitution’ that it has been working on, and with the implication is that it is significantly different to the existing one. It will clearly need a draft copy to be first presented to the membership for their perusal and comment – rather like a parliamentary White Paper. The membership will then consider this document at its leisure and indicate in due course to Council through its club’s officers’ variations and changes that it considers necessary, and [probably numerous] discussions then take place with the Council delegated officers and other members experienced in such matters to agree a version satisfactory to all. This process will undoubtedly/usually take some months for that group to consider (major constitution changes always do!) although luck may prevail and little may eventually need to be changed. At the end of that period, however long it may be, a document agreed to be satisfactory to all clubs will be submitted to a General Meeting with the assurance and reasonable belief that no changes are necessary – and will get properly voted through with no dissent. The worrying alternative if this process is not followed? Council submits a motion to a General Meeting proposing a document, which whilst such document is satisfactory to Council, may be totally unsatisfactory in many ways to the membership, and potentially numerous motion amendments are quite validly submitted by some or all of the 100 MYA clubs. The meeting considering all these then goes mad trying to consider these numerous amendments, all of which may be on different points, or similar points but with different alternatives, and nothing can be concluded because the simple expedient of full consultation with the rank and file membership has been ignored. As members will hopefully appreciate, my simple point is that consultation is always vital on major matters affecting the membership and its relationship with MYA to enable member confidence and support, rather than an assumption that it will simply accept the Council’s proposal. Regards to all Chris Durant
  5. 1 point
    Darin I am sorry I don't see any criticism of any one individual here, all I see is a lively debate about the rights of the membership to have an MYA council which is determined to act within the Constitution whilst overseeing the sport in which we all partake, if the council were to do this then they might find more support amongst the wavering membership. The MYA Executive should act on the memberships behalf and be governed by their wishes, personally I think the problems are arising because actions are being taken by the council without reference to that constitution and when some members point this out they are accused of "spin doctoring " or now attacking individual volunteers. If the council truly feel that clauses within the constitution are stifling the progress of change within the MYA they can bring amendments before the membership either at AGM or by EGM and explain their position in order affect a change. the processes of Governance of unincorporated bodies of which the MYA is one are laid out in it's constitution if as a council you find these unacceptable then amend them by motions to the membership or work within the rules.
  6. 1 point
    Dear Tiggy Cat Perhaps I can answer your question factually? We need to go back a bit – so - prior to the 2018 AGM Council submitted two motions to the membership for AGM voting, one concerning subscriptions for junior members - raised under Constitution para 11.1, and one raised under Constitution para 12a(b) wishing to reduce the Council voting quorum (Constitution para 10d) to (in reality) very few council officers rather than the existing Constitution number (of 50% of 15) – or if you want the (frightening) motion precisely –‘’A majority of the Executive Officers plus any Officers with entitlement to vote and in attendance at a scheduled (physical or electronic) meeting shall constitute a quorum". Three clubs including my own (Gosport) submitted within the requisite time frame a valid and carefully constructed motion amendment to these motions. Whereupon Council immediately (a) refused to accept and (as it is required to do) publish to the membership this motion amendment properly submitted under Constitution 12c, and (b) withdrew its own original motion in breach of Constitution para 12.5(b). The three clubs were in reality powerless other than to protest orally at the AGM and when the AGM finally arrived members at the meeting then spent fruitless time discussing the matter (with Council Officers defending the indefensible) to the extent that all present lost the will to live and nothing was concluded. ------------------------------ Now to 2019: Council again proposed for AGM consideration a motion under 11.1 wishing to reduce the junior membership rate to nil. A valid amendment motion under 11.1 and 12.a(c) was submitted by 5 clubs to Secretary to MYA Council within the required time frame and which motion reads as follows:- ‘’Amendment to AGM motion 1 Submitted on behalf of 5 clubs in accordance with Constitution 12.a(c). "The junior membership subscription shall be half the affiliated membership subscription, which for 2020 shall be reduced from £14 to £10." Reason: Junior membership will be paid for by parents, who are unlikely to mind paying subscriptions on this fair principle, often used by many clubs. The reduction is proposed to prevent further build up* of MYA funds at a time when Council’s future spending proposals have not yet been made clear to the membership. *End of year MYA bank balances from MYA treasurer annual reports 2015 £9731 2016 £11,527 2017 £18,321 2018 £19,304 2019 £24,795 - this figure is as the treasurer’s 1st September report, with little change expected by the end of year to 30th September. Roger Stollery, on behalf of Guildford, Gosport, Lee Valley, Frensham Pond Sailing Club - MYG and Abington Park model yacht clubs.’’ ---------------------------------------- Again, information was promptly received back from Council via StC that the wording in this motion amendment was unacceptable to it in that format, although its text and meaning seems very clear to the full Committees of the 5 clubs involved but apparently not to Council members. It is hoped that common sense may prevail and that Council will not once again be in breach of the Constitution so that the membership may discuss this subject in full detail and a proper conclusion reached. I would perhaps make the point that it is not a matter whether the affiliated membership fee be £10 (or indeed £5 or £25 or £14). What matters is that the membership as a whole has confidence that whatever subscriptions, levies or other fees that the membership contributes to MYA are being used properly, wisely and for the benefit of the membership as a whole. Whilst Council needs to have sufficient funds for its programme of which members need to approve, the income must be appropriate to the plan and not over budgeted to simply build up or bolster the MYA’s bank balance unnecessarily. Next, and as a retired Chartered Accountant, I am horrified by what he reports and must draw members’ attention to Phil’s words in his recent posting: ‘’With regards to next years budget plan…..the budget is being prepared by our treasurer David Rose and when completed will be discussed by council as a whole and then made available to the wider membership.’’ How the rates of membership for 2020 can be demanded / set and published to the membership – effectively as a fait accompli - in September without the near final result for 2019 and a comprehensive budget for the relevant year being fully discussed in detail and agreed by Council well prior to that time is a mystery to me. This is surely a case of the cart being put many miles before the horse? I note too that Phil in his post indicates the membership now stands in excess of 1,800. Members may be interested to know that the membership of MYA stood at 1,800 back in 2015 and indeed 1,798 way back in 2012! Regards Chris Durant MYA Vice President
  • Create New...