Jump to content

warehamdave

New Forum Member
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

warehamdave last won the day on January 14

warehamdave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

Personal Information

  • First Name
    David
  • Last Name
    Munro

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi Phil/Darin To say that I am disappointed would be a gross understatement, there has been no meaningful response to my last post. The last input to the thread is somewhat nonsensical and, if I were Robert Hobbs I would feel offended. Yet again I ask WHY THE RUSH? It has been accepted that a fairly major rewrite is needed. The appendices have to be considered at the same time as important areas of the constitution have been removed from the main body and transferred to these appendices. In view of the 2 years it has taken Council to “finish” phase 1 it is ridiculous to expect to complete phase 2 for a vote from the membership by early May David Munro
  2. It is good that Council have accepted that there are problems with the proposed Constitution and that they have postponed presenting it to the membership but, in my view, by setting a date for completing a rewrite by the end of February they have not allowed anything like enough time for this to happen and I can predict that we will arrive at the same situation as now when the date for an EGM is set for early May. Again I ask why the rush? From the response from this forum and also from other sources it is clear that the difficulties with the proposed Constitution are not going to be solved by tinkering around the edges but require a "back to the drawing board" approach. It has taken Council 2 years to get to where we are now so it is unreasonable to expect that a fairly major rewrite could be achieved in the few weeks that have been allowed. We know that the Marblehead/10Rater World Championships have no bearing on this matter so a programme that would allow sufficient time for this to happen would be sensible and I would suggest that aiming to put it before the membership for their consideration at the AGM at the end of the year would be more realistic. David Munro
  3. Hi Darin - nice to hear from you Having served on Council for a period I am fully aware of the time that Council members devote to the running of an organisation such as ours and they are to be applauded. However the Council must be aware of concerns regarding the proposed new constitution as some of these concerns have been aired both on this forum and from various other sources. With this in mind it is difficult to understand the rush to get the document put before the membership for approval (or possible rejection). In particular why is there a need for the new constitution to be in place prior to the RM and 10Rater Worlds - we have run various World and other International events under the existing version without any problem. Surely now is the time to take a breather and have another look at the proposed constitution. There are a number of experienced and long serving ex Council members who, I'm sure would be willing to help. I look forward to a satisfactory resolution David
  4. We would want to know what the Council perceive to be the problems with the existing constitution and why it is necessary for the new or amended constitution to be in place in time for the Marble head and Ten Rater Worlds - we have run several International and World Championships in the past very successfully - what's different with this one? As far as the time scale is concerned, it is more important to get it right rather than working to an arbitrary date David Munro
  5. Phil In your own words you have 3 VPs who’s input you are considering plus a number of other VPs who are offering constructive advice on further improvements. All of which indicates that the MYA accepts that further work should be done. In this case it does not seem very sensible to offer this document to the membership for approval at this stage. The "constitution" of an organisation is a core document. If accepted at the EGM, which could happen due to apathy and the voting system used by the MYA, this new constitution with all its faults would be available for all to see and is likely to lay itself open to a degree of ridicule from other organisations, particularly those associated with our activities. Would the MYA be happy with this?
  6. It is good to hear a response from the MYA, I find it somewhat surprising that it has taken so long. Your comments regarding the number of people involved in this thread is rather pointless you should perhaps consider the experience of the contributors. We have 3 Vice Presidents who all have served on the MYA Council for many years and I would have thought that their comments and criticism deserve to be taken seriously. I feel that you have rather missed the main point of the discussion which is that there are a number of errors, omissions and anomalies contained within the proposed constitution which the MYA is asking the membership to approve as a whole – there is no opportunity for the membership to table any amendments. Only 2 options are available – approve or reject. If the vote approves it as it stands we are left with a constitution which has significant problems and will probably need to be changed again. If the membership votes to reject it it will be returned to Council to carry out changes to overcome the problems. Why the hurry, surely common sense would dictate that any modifications are discussed and put back to the membership, perhaps at the next AGM David Munro
  7. Further to my previous post I have looked into the proposed new constitution in more detail and, in conjunction with the table of comments attached to Henry Farley's input to this thread, find that my concerns have been reinforced so I have picked out a few other points which I think are relevant. A club (member) now has to be 6 people (affiliates!). It was deliberately reduced several years ago to 2 to encourage very new/small clubs that could only raise 2 people. There is now only one week between the date of publication of motions to clubs/(members!) (6 weeks prior to AGM) and need for the receipt of amendments to motions by StC (5 weeks prior to AGM) - it is presently one month and just one week is clearly a ridiculously short period. Council then reviews these amendments. Bluntly this means that if Council doesn't like them it simply refuses to allow them to go forward whereas at present it has (and should continue to have) no choice in the matter however wrong they may think them to be The fact that there is no formal Publicity or Acquaint officer at present is immaterial - there is clearly a need for one of each and the posts should remain. The number of votes for change of the constitution at AGM or EGM in the new constitution now needs to be 'a two thirds majority of votes cast' not as now a simple majority. This will/may make it very hard to change anything, and indeed this definition itself might inspire several alternative interpretations. Incidentally, under the new constitution I'm not totally sure if a 'member' (a club) get one vote per 'affiliate' (member) or one vote per 'member' (club)? - somewhat ambiguous and potentially confusing. There appear also to be other areas which are ambiguous and which will undoubtedly lead to future problems of interpretation. Although much was made of it in the Chairman's section of the Newsletter, I find it difficult to understand the role of the COGs and how they differ from class associations - I also wonder who will coordinate these activities, it has always been a problem to find volunteers In view of the large number of errors, omissions and controversial items that are present in the proposed amended constitution I feel that it is totally unrealistic to expect the membership to be in a position to vote in a meaningful way at an EGM. The only sensible option available would therefore be to vote against adoption of the proposed constitution. David Munro "
  8. Hello Henry I was interested to read your input on the subject of the constitution. In particular I found your table showing comparison between the current constitution and the proposed new version very enlightening in that it adds some considerable detail to the concerns that I had. In view of these concerns it would seem unrealistic to expect that the membership could vote on it as a single item in such a short timescale. In my view the MYA should provide reasons to back up the proposed changes. It should also address some of the errors and omissions that you point out in your analysis. All of this would take time but is there really such urgency to amend the constitution - far better to get it right than to go through a further amendment exercise in a year or so. Cheers David Munro
  9. Following receipt of the Newsletter, which is welcome, I have taken the opportunity to look at the proposed constitution and compared it with the version that exists at present. I find it hard to understand and extremely complicated particularly when read in conjunction with all of the appendices. It is billed as removing anomalies that exist within the current constitution but I feel that it probably does the opposite and adds additional levels of complexity which is largely unnecessary.
×
×
  • Create New...