Jump to content

Henry Farley

New Forum Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Personal Information

  • First Name
    Henry
  • Last Name
    Farley

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've taken the trouble to look at the archives ( not the simplest thing in the world!) where I found the 1968 constitution which required any changes to the Constitution to be passed by a simple majority at a General Meeting. By 1993 that requirement had gone. However it has been custom and practice since at least 1993 to submit changes to the constitution to an AGM I congratulate the working party for restoring the requirement and making amendments permissible at an EGM but since that is now considered essential wonder why Council still proceeded with an EGM under the current constitution where no amendments are permitted.
  2. Phil, Your response neatly illustrates why a motion might be voted against. We are indeed only voting on the proposed Constitution and not the Regulations which may be changed at any time without reference to the membership and among other things control finances. In passing I'll note that the finance regulation only requires the treasurer to set the fees but has no requirement to publish them. However this is but an example of why a motion may fail and leaves unanswered my query about how to proceed should this happen.
  3. As expressed by others in another thread, I am disappointed that Council have continued with its plan to put a new Constitution to an EGM rather than an AGM thereby denying members the opportunity to propose amendments. There are several matters in the Constitution that might well be voted against and the chance to do so on a selective basis is given by producing 4 motions. For instance the way that subscriptions are to be decided is far from clear. Under the constitution 13.6 the membership fees are to be set in accordance with the regulations. That leaves open to question who actually sets them since under the Finance regulations the membership fees are ‘set’ by the treasurer while under Regulations 1 the membership subscription fees are ‘decided’ by Council in accordance with the constitution. That sets up a circular reference between the Constitution and Regulations 1. In any case it is not clear how the membership may act if they don’t like the new fees. It may be that since the treasurer’s report is voted upon at the AGM it could be rejected under 9.3(f) Since the fees will not be known before the deadline for submission of motions that is not a reasonable route for clubs to propose alternative fees. So if a majority vote against Motion 3, or any other motion for that matter, we are left with an incomplete Constitution. What happens then? Is the proposed Constitution then abandoned, as I think it should then be, or is there some other workable interpretation?
  4. Hi Chis, I fear that this situation may be my doing. When I became aware that a new constitution might be presented to this year's AGM I initially alerted my District Councillor and later the MYA Secretary to Council, to the potential pitfalls of presenting it as a single motion. Such a complex document will inevitably attract amendments and if the number of those is anything but very small the voting form for postal and email votes become very large and not sensibly handled at an AGM. It has to list all possible combinations of the motion and the amendments and this escalates very quickly with the number of amendments. I hoped and presumed that Council would not present the constitution as a single motion but deal with the changed topic one by one. However Council have found an alternative solution to the problem of amendments by presenting it to an EGM under the rules of which there is no provision for amendments. We now have take it or leave it options. I found it hard to understand what has changed and there has been no explanation of that, the need for changes or the benefits to be gained from them To assist me I have produced a table listing what I perceive as the differences. It is based on the order of the current constitution with deviations where I found them useful and relevant. I doubt that I have found everything and there are no doubt errors of one sort or another but I though it better to publish quickly. Perhaps the most important change is the introduction of appendices which Council can change without reference to the membership. Some of those, such as rules and regulations covering racing events, have always been dealt with that way but others are more fundamental. Of particular interest to you and I is the intention to introduce Terms of Reference for VPs! Hopefully some will find it useful so it is attached Cheers Henry 2020 constitution review.pdf
  5. Darin, As one of those volunteers that produce some of the things you have listed in your second paragraph, I give my effort freely and willingly as I’m sure do all the other volunteers. I see no connection between what we do and the bank balance. The value placed upon those things listed will vary between members depending on how much they are of direct benefit to them. Once again there is no obvious link with the bank balance. That balance has more than doubled over the last 7 years with nothing to show for it and no plans evident to spend it in ways that will benefit the majority of members. The amendment sought to give the benefit directly to all members by reducing the subscription level to lower that balance to a more realistic level. It is not ‘something for nothing’ as the members provided it in the first place. To answer Ian’s point – there is no cost in returning it to the members as it would be achieved by not asking for quite as much in next year’s subscription. Henry Farley One of the authors of the amendments
  6. I don't get here often so have only just noticed Shaun's plea. It looks like a Panther to me. The nut on the fin bolt is just like one on a Panther that one of my club mates bought via Ebay a while ago and is currently getting down to the design weight. It was a kilo too heavy. By attacking the hull inside with a dremel and sanding drum, cutting holes in the deck and removing vastly over engineered servo mounts plus a jib twitcher he was almost there. A bit of work on the ballast completed the job. Now waiting for the weather to warm up a bit then we can measure it. The hull is chopped strand mat and a bit vulnerable in places after the sanding, so he had to patch the inside where it got too thin. Luckily I had measured one years ago so was able to compare to be sure that it is a Panther. Designed and built by Roy Morgan and distributed by Jim Fewster in Hexham, Northumberland. The one my club mate has was solid to the bow so he has cut that off and fitted a silicone bow bumper. Details from the original advert. LOA 59.75 inches LWL 40.9 inches Weight 26.42 lbs Fitted with 5/8 ID mast tube. Our local one had a stainless steel fin bolt through an aluminium alloy tube in the foam filled fin. Thoroughly corroded together so came out in one piece! Tube now brass and 6mm stainless studding used in place of bolt with threaded ends Henry
×
×
  • Create New...