Jump to content
Peter Shepherd

MYA Fees 2020, Can I have a say?

Recommended Posts

Darin,

 

 Then is Chris mistaken that the 5 clubs motion was submitted in appropriate format and time frame?    If the assertation , to quote him " that the wording in this motion amendment was unacceptable to it in that format,"    clause 12  doesn't seem to give the Council discretion over wording or even content.

 

Edited by tiggy_cat
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darin

Are you seriously suggesting the membership won't understand the whole sentence?

  •  

"The junior membership subscription shall be half the affiliated membership subscription, which for 2020 shall be reduced from £14 to £10."

Are you clutching at straws or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Peter Shepherd said:

Darin

Are you seriously suggesting the membership won't understand the whole sentence?

  •  

"The junior membership subscription shall be half the affiliated membership subscription, which for 2020 shall be reduced from £14 to £10."

Are you clutching at straws or what?

?? Not sure your point here Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiggy_cat said:

Darin,

 

 Then is Chris mistaken that the 5 clubs motion was submitted in appropriate format and time frame?    If the assertation , to quote him " that the wording in this motion amendment was unacceptable to it in that format,"    clause 12  doesn't seem to give the Council discretion over wording or even content.

 

Clause 12 makes no mention of what should happen to amendments to a motion, other than 12 f which states what the timescales are for amendments. 12 c specifically mentions motions, with no mention of amendments. Obviously your view on the ambiguity will probably be coloured by which side of the discussion you are on.

If as the council took the view at the time, they had not submitted a motion regarding  senior membership fees then you would consider that the amendment introduced a motion, not purely an amendment to the original motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be too late but can I throw a few pebbles in this current pool of comments and debate please?

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.  That's enough of that; anyway why shouldn't 'juniors' get a free affiliation, they are part of our future and should be given as much encouragement as possible.

On the subject of the acquaint and publicised information.  In my former Radio Sailing 'life' I spent a number of years as the author of a 'Small Yacht' column in a publication which, as experiences showed, was read around the world.  When I was being persuaded by my family to get out of my chair and go sailing again I met an old friend Council Member fresh from the latest Council Meeting who uttered words to the effect "what do you think of taking on the editorship of the MYA Acquaint?".  My wife immediately exclaimed "we want you to go sailing again - BUT YOU'RE NOT WRITING ABOUT IT!"  She remembers how much time I spent punching the keyboard after spending a lot of my time at radio sailing meetings scribbling notes, taking pictures, and analysing results sheets to meet the publication deadlines.  In those years I managed to build up a selection of contacts overseas who would occasionally feed me reports on international events in their country.  Even so, it was hard work gathering up enough information to make each month's column interesting, informative, amusing, and readable - sometimes it worked!  Preparing such a 'newsletter' takes time and a lot of input; in the case of the acquaint that input would have to come from 'people who were there' in the case of race reports, and 'those who know how' in the case of useful information for newcomers to our sport.  It would be all very well for someone to volunteer to be 'editor' but it would be thankless task to wring out enough material to present a rounded information package.  The late Chris Jackson did a marvellous job with his 'Model Yachting Newsletter', but even he could not keep it going for much over a couple of years.  Perhaps the modern equivalent would be some sort of 'Blog', but they tend to be the somewhat personalised ramblings of a single person.  There are clubs around the districts that, habitually, circulate their membership with short reports after each club racing gathering.  Perhaps they could include the 'editor' in each of those circulations which could form the basis of a sort of acquaint with added news on the latest 'official' updates on rules and 'MYA matters'.  I suppose that sort of thing might snowball and everyone could become more involved - stranger things have happened!

The AGM.  2018 was the first I have attended in my 'modern era' and, although there was some warm discussion, I felt that it was a pretty tame affair compared to some I remember from the past when the likes of Norman Hatfield, Peter Maskell, and even Chris Dicks presided.  There were often quite fiery and loud debates then, along with serious discussions on things like the target of 2000 members for the year 2000.  There used to be reports read out and even activities of Auditors mentioned; voting was carried out with club delegates having a card indicating the number of votes they could submit - all 'real AGM' stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is worth remembering that this forum is here for healthy debate by those members that wish to do so.

Rubbishing other contributors and trying to imply a co-ordinated effort by a group to undermine the due process of our AGM is, quite frankly, a childish act by those who should know better. As I have previously stated my comments on this forum are my  own and made without discussion with others. The discussion is here in the open for all to see. I am sure the same applies to Mike who is a long time member of our sport and contributes greatly at both local and national level.

Chris's procedural lecture on how amendments are treated is absolutely correct and no one has sought to do anything differently other than requesting the author to consider the wording. Chris will be well aware that the author(s) were notified of receipt of the amendment and a statement to the effect that it will be included in the AGM agenda. Quite frankly - End of Story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here, the council acts as a co-ordinated group. or at least should do, so when decisions are made where the procedure of committee or the issuing of motions, voting forms etc do not follow the constitution then of course it is the entire Executive that comes under scrutiny. The continual claiming by the members of the council here that individuals are being targeted and abused is in my opinion merely a tactic to try to diminish the level of the debate to a "he said she said one". 

As you agree the amendment to the council motion needs to be voted upon first and that you accept voting submissions by post and email, I assume it will be sent out as part of the voting forms to Club Secretaries so they can have a say on the amendment or the motion?

As an aside I noticed that the Acquaint Editor role hasn't been included in the list for nominations, despite it clearly still being an Executive Council post in the constitution, is this error likely to  be rectified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having followed this thread as a sailing member of the MYA it has convinced me never to volunteer to the council - it is too much like the shambles in Westminster being criticised from outside..

Edited by Alf Reynolds
missed last phrase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is quite simple.

Your posts are predominantly laying criticism at the feet of others, especially council either collectively or individually. Your comments are frequently only stating part of the truth in order to bolster your false arguments or are pure speculation about actions that are yet to be taken.

Council, at all times, have, and will, act within the written constitution of our organisation.

The Acquaint Editor position has not been filled for several years which is fairly logical as we don't have an Acquaint to edit, so under Constitution para 9.4 there is no one for re-nomination or re-election, Para 12(e) only asks that a "request for nominations of Officers" is sent out, it does not state that each officer position should be  specified. So unless I have missed something in the Constitution I do not see what you are going on about.

I'm not surprised that you have been turned off Alf but its a good job that some of us are happy to get on with it rather than trying to find something to be negative about and have a whinge. At least we have a written constitution to argue over unlike the poor ********s in the Palace of Westminster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil

 

So the fact that I offered myself for the position of Acquaint Editor prior to the deadline for nominations counts for nothing then?

I think that Alf's point was that the MYA Council is a "shambles like Westminster" being criticised from outside, I suggest the best way you could stop the criticism is to work to the Constitution, follow the protocols, consult with the membership on changes the executive would like to make and amend the Constitution as you go. 

The original premise of this post still stands which is "Can I have a say on the level of fee's levelled by the MYA" in 2020?" it has been consistently stated that previous administrations have not brought a motion to the members when not seeking to change the membership fee, but then previous administrations haven't taken the reserve fund into a world where we need "aspirational budgets" to justify it!

It's not all bad news, I note from the August 2019 meeting minutes that the MYA teams intend to be transparent:-

Quote "Transparency of teams working for/on behalf of the MYA.  Please be transparent with any decision your team may make, but not  necessarily day to day general workings."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Peter Shepherd said:

Phil

 

So the fact that I offered myself for the position of Acquaint Editor prior to the deadline for nominations counts for nothing then?

I think that Alf's point was that the MYA Council is a "shambles like Westminster" being criticised from outside, I suggest the best way you could stop the criticism is to work to the Constitution, follow the protocols, consult with the membership on changes the executive would like to make and amend the Constitution as you go. 

The original premise of this post still stands which is "Can I have a say on the level of fee's levelled by the MYA" in 2020?" it has been consistently stated that previous administrations have not brought a motion to the members when not seeking to change the membership fee, but then previous administrations haven't taken the reserve fund into a world where we need "aspirational budgets" to justify it!

It's not all bad news, I note from the August 2019 meeting minutes that the MYA teams intend to be transparent:-

Quote "Transparency of teams working for/on behalf of the MYA.  Please be transparent with any decision your team may make, but not  necessarily day to day general workings."

 

 

Hi Peter,

I suspect that as you didn’t get nominated that we can’t put you on the voting form for Acquaint editor, however the constitution does allow us to accept your offer and co opt you. I am sure that the membership will thank you for your kind offer.

I understand that the council may have another offer as well so it looks like we may  have a communication team 👍

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Darin Ballington said:

I understand that the council may have another offer as well so it looks like we may  have a communication team 👍

We will need a budget for that then 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...