Jump to content

philholliday

Affiliated Member
  • Content Count

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About philholliday

  • Rank
    MYA Vice Chairman
  • Birthday 31/03/1950

Personal Information

  • First Name
    Phil
  • Last Name
    Holliday

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is adequately covered in the reworded Regulation 1. With regard to changes to the regulations it should be noted that this would be an item at a Council meeting and Clubs are given notice of each and every such meeting and are at liberty to send a representative should they so wish (proposed constitution 11.6(a)) so there is provision for membership scrutiny already written into the proposed constitution. Should any Club miss the notice of a Council meeting then minutes of each meeting are put on the website soon after the meeting so nothing could be done without the full knowledge of the membership. Regulation 4 (finances) is an additional measure over and above the basic provisions in the proposed constitution which is itself actually more prescriptive than the current constitution so even without Regulation 4 the MYA funds and financial dealings are under closer scrutiny than ever before.
  2. Really? As far as I can see what it actually says is "A Member shall have one vote" not two votes, not no votes, but one vote. In this context "vote" is a noun and each Member has one of them and can do what he or she chooses to do with it
  3. Thank you Henry for spotting and raising this issue. As everyone is aware the EGM is purely about the constitution and not about the regulations but without the regulations certain parts of the constitution cannot be fully understood. I must hold my hand up at this point as I have been totally focused on the constitution itself and have neglected to check that the regulations properly reflect the intention of the constitution . Membership fees are notified by the treasurer in his report as you have noted which is too late for any motions to be submitted by clubs. The Regulation 1 should make it clear that any change to the following year's subscriptions shall be notified by the treasurer 120 days before the AGM along with a brief reasoning. The full reasoning and detail would form part of the treasurers report to the AGM. By adopting this procedure we solve the problem raised by many clubs who say they cannot get the membership fees in from their members between the AGM and the 1st January. It is possible, of course, that clubs may submit their own motion to the AGM and we would still not know what the subsequent years fee will be until the AGM has voted however if Council are acting correctly and any changes (with reasoning) are notified in plenty of time then it is considered that this is a remote possibility. My apologies to all for this error. Regulation 1 will be changed accordingly and published on the website. Please note that Regulation 4 (Finance) already includes this requirement.
  4. The current constitution does not require any approval from the membership for changes, a point that many seem to have overlooked. Indeed it could be argued that the EGM does not need to take place at all as the proposed constitution could simply be implemented without reference to the membership. The proposed new constitution seeks to correct this by laying out the specific procedure for change. I am well aware that most would argue that constitution change can only take place with the approval of the membership and I totally agree however if this is to be the case then it MUST be stated in the constitution. If anyone is in any doubt then I would refer them to the generally accepted reference book for this topic "Roberts Rules of Order" which in reference to constitution wording states (that it) "includes all rules that the society considers so important that they a) cannot be changed without previous notice to the members and the vote of a specified large majority (such as a two thirds vote), and b) cannot be suspended" Clearly at some point in the past it was decided (and presumably ratified by the membership) that a vote on constitutional change by the membership was not considered important enough to be included in the constitution wording.
  5. Hi David, 9.10 states " A Member shall have one vote" Nothing ambiguous or unclear here 9.11 states "A Member's vote shall be cast by their Club representative" This seems clear to me however for the avoidance of doubt, if a Member wishes to vote then he lets his Club Rep know and the Club rep SHALL place that vote. If no members of a particular Club express a desire to vote then the Club rep will have no votes to place and therefore need do nothing and therefore 9.12 would not be applicable. No where does the Constitution say this. A Club can only place votes if its members wish to do so, either as individual votes or by giving their vote by proxy to the Club committee, this is a matter for Clubs to decide within their own membership. If individual Members wish to be engaged in the democratic process they can now do so rather than having their "wishes" decided for them in a block vote. This was an important point that was raised at the last AGM and this Constitution seeks to give the individuals who make up our Clubs the democratic right to have their voices heard.
  6. Whilst I have copied/pasted the quotes from the first post in this thread it must be noted that the quotes are actually not taken directly from the proposed Constitution but have been re written. I assume that this is a typo by the writer but it is important to note that in the Constitution document the "member" is spelt with a capital "M" and is defined in the same document. If I take it that the intention of the post was to quote the constitution correctly then the answer is as follows: This makes it quite clear that if a Member makes his voting preference known to his Club representative then the said representative SHALL place the vote accordingly. However if the members of a Club decide that they elect their committee to make these decisions on their behalf and they give their committee their proxy vote then that is how that Club shall vote. The whole point here is that the system must be democratic and transparent and that individuals can have their say. What is mandatory here is that Clubs who have been instructed to place votes on behalf of their Members must do so, to not place these votes would be totally undemocratic and an abuse of their members rights. As regards punishment/sanctions for non-compliance I would expect nothing from the MYA but any Club officer deliberately not placing legitimate votes on behalf of his Members may find his tenure of office somewhat short lived.
  7. I am sure that there will be as many solutions as there are clubs! At my own club we already have a system in place for the use of the clubhouse facilities by both ourselves and the dinghy sailors. For us radio sailors we will have fixed control positions marked out central to the course to maintain 2 metres minimum separation with a maximum of 10 participants/race/heat. Control positions will be allocated before the first heat/race and then everyone will move one place before each start. To avoid problems on the start line we will utilise a "gate" system with the gate boat being whoever has been allocated a control position on the start line. This way everyone will have the opportunity to be the gate boat and to race from each of the control positions. It may not be ideal but it will get us going again as soon as we are allowed to gather in groups greater than 2. There may not be many replies on this thread but I am sure there is not a club in the country that isn't considering their way forward once we are allowed more freedom than at present.
  8. I hardly think that something approaching six months for the membership to consider the wording of the document can be considered a rush. Phase 1 is now over and comments have been made ,phase 2 the review and polishing is now about to start with over a month before reporting recommendations back to Council. There will then be nearly 2 months before an EGM. More than enough time and certainly not “a few days “ as you infer. 1) how long does it take to read, digest, and comment on 8 pages? - many people read a whole book in a matter of days. 2)who says the EGM is a “take it or leave it” situation? No agenda has been set as yet. Wait till you have some facts before making such statements
  9. Following on from Darins post I would add that there is no "Grace" period as is commonly assumed. Membership returns are due on Jan 1st. After 31st January membership privileges may be removed. If you wish to call this a "Grace" period then so be it but waiting till the end of January, or beyond, simply delays the issuing of the year book which only goes out to paid up members. None of this is ideal and I am not aware of a system that would suit everyone but it is what it is and many things are focused on January 1st making it a very busy time for the administrators. One idea that has been put forward by several member clubs is to move the AGM to give more time for the clubs to collect the fees once they know what those fees are. This is an idea that council consider worth exploring and is why in the proposed constitution the AGM date would not be fixed as rigidly as it is now although other factors such as accounting dates, summer holiday period, etc come into play so that the scope for moving the AGM is still somewhat limited. It is also fair to say that whatever date the AGM is held on needs to be in the calendar at the beginning of the year (at the latest) in order that all arrangements can be made. More discussion............ I would not normally pre-empt our DCO but he is out of the office until later today so I am putting up the attached file which will be on the main news section of the website later today. EGM 10.1.docx
  10. Just a quick correction here, This is not correct. The last major event held in the UK was the IOM Worlds nearly a decade ago. The constitution then was not the same as the one currently in force and the RRS and appendix E were also different. Needless to say the Officers of the MYA Council are working on positive solutions to move this forward as soon as possible and I hope that everyone else will approach this with a "can do" attitude as well.
  11. so if the council were to decide to postpone the EGM when should the date be set for another one to get a new constitution in place? 6 weeks? 6 months? 12months? Without setting an end date this will go on for ever because we all know that 100% approval will never happen and we will have another "Brexit" scenario. In the meantime what do we do about the present constitution which is unworkable? Changes are very necessary and are needed before the World Championships at West Kirby in June. Lets have your ideas
  12. I do not believe that I have missed the point at all. The views of the 3 vice presidents currently on this forum are very much being considered but it is only the view of 3 out of 15 vice presidents of the Association. Whilst I accept that not everyone wishes to put their head over the parapet to get involved in a public discussion and there may be other VP's with similar views but it is also true that both I and other council officers have been contacted by several VP's offering support for this move and also constructive ideas on further improvements. No one expects this ,or any other, document to be perfect and it will continue to evolve over time but it enables everything to move forward. It is interesting that whilst some individuals seem to enjoy picking over the minutiae of our constitution in order to keep the council officers in order they are quite happy to ignore the constitution when it suits themselves. For the last few years every single radio sailing event sailed in this country has been sailed incorrectly and used the wrong RRS (If you stick to the strict wording of our constitution). This is just one example of the necessity for change now and not in a few months or years.
  13. I would have hoped for far more posts to have been made here so that a representative view of our membership could be heard. With only 6 people involved (7 with me) it can hardly be described as representative. It is also disappointing that the comments are virtually all negative with no positive ideas for improvement on what council believe is a very positive step forward from a virtually unworkable constitution to something that we can all work with for the future, or maybe the fact that there are only 6 voices being heard here indicates that the vast majority of the membership are in agreement with this move? Henry has produced a very good comparison chart between the old and the proposed but even this only picks on some of the changes, not all. Why is this? Are you afraid to actually admit that many of the changes are actually a good idea and long overdue? I have recently seen a letter that is being circulated around the clubs which amongst other things states "There are also several crucial areas where because of the constitutional significance of such areas it has always been up to the full membership to agree a change of course, whereas this Council has decided to take that choice away from the membership into solely its own hands." This is a complete reversal of the truth. The right of our membership to vote on constitutional change was removed from the constitution many years ago, quite how this was achieved and by whom is not clear - maybe one of the long serving, knowledgable, VP's can enlighten us - this council has put that right to vote back into the constitution. Make your arguments by all means but make them in a positive light with suggestions one how to move forward . The present constitution is outdated and unworkable and we must move forward.
  14. philholliday

    IOM's wanted

    Datchet Water RSC are looking for some IOM's that could be refurbished and used as loan and demonstration boats to encourage more "big boat" sailors from the club to join in with our radio sailing activities. Anything will be considered but funds are limited. If you have something suitable then contact me on 07776 231402 or email phil@k7yachts.com
  15. Yet again you cherry pick individual words or phrases to suit your argument. I resisted the temptation to respond to your earlier post yesterday but your continued misrepresentations today are becoming boring and offensive. You pick on the word "sport" as used by Darin and insinuate that this is a problem. What sort of twisted mentality can not look at what we do and not see the boats sailing? Sailing is a global sport, represented in the Olympic Games for over a hundred years, and, incidentally, one at which GBR excel. I am proud to have been part of the sport for over 60 years and the efforts of this council and its volunteers has resulted in our branch of the sport being formally recognised by Sport England what more of an endorsement do you need? You even imply that golf is a hobby and not a sport, I am sure that Rory McKilroy and a few million others would disagree. You want council to do more to retain members as opposed to promoting the sport to new members and yet the simple fact is that all organisations have a natural turnover of members for a variety of reasons and the upfront promotion of the sport is vital to keep new blood coming in and this is why it is the no 1 aim of the MYA as stated at the very beginning of our constitution, a constitution to which I believe the likes of yourself, Chris Durrant, Roger Stollery etc had a hand in writing. Nowhere does that same constitution mention retention of members and for a very good reason. Retention of members is a very individual thing and once someone joins one of our clubs their early experiences are entirely done to that club and its members, if they stay or if they go has nothing to do with an annual affiliation of £14 or £10 it is all about their experiences with fellow club members. Maybe they just get fed up with the constant arguing and bickering at the pond side that we hear about. In my own clubs we have only lost members in the last three years for reasons of illness but then at the pond side we have great camaraderie and excellent support for each other. Member retention is important but the prime responsibility for this is at the grass roots of our sport - our clubs and its members , you and me. You suggest following your example of informal teaching days (seminars ?). A great idea and one which the MYA trialled in 2018 for race team training with a good degree of success but in 2019 when this was continued the response was so low that the events had to be cancelled. It is being taken up by some districts and is probably better held at this, more local, level and many clubs run their own training and coaching. There is no need for the MYA to be acting as "Big Brother" in this area, the framework exists and if funding is needed to assist with training then the district budgets are there to help. You quote a lag time of 6 months between a DC giving notice and the position being advertised. Why is this an issue for the council? a DC is appointed by the District Committee and sits on council on their behalf. The council do not select, appoint, or dismiss the DC's this is entirely an issue for the district and its clubs. If the usual DC is, for whatever reason, unable to attend a meeting then the district council are encouraged to send an alternative representative.
×
×
  • Create New...