Jump to content
warehamdave

Proposed Constitution

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said David!

At the November 2019 AGM the Chairman advised those present that as the new constitution was such a significant change from the old one that it had taken Council two years of activity to get to a stage where it had concluded it was ready to be presented in ‘final’ form and that it would publish it to the membership in December 2019, also then setting a date in January 2020 for an Extraordinary General Meeting for its approval.

I suggested to him that since it had taken Council two years to reach the conclusion that the document is what it wants, that it would be far more courteous to the membership and a truly democratic exercise if Council were to permit the membership at least two, or far better three or four months, to consider the proposal at its leisure, properly consider the detail of any amendments that it considered appropriate and recommend them to Council for inclusion, and then Council could propose to an EGM to be held in say April 2020 a version that would be acceptable to all, rather than having to vote on a mass of potentially conflicting amendments at a meeting.

Council has clearly considered this reasonable suggestion as undesirable and has forged ahead with notice of an EGM in January 2020.

So we now have the idiotic situation of a notice dated 11th December 2019 being published on the website on 12th, together with the new constitution and appendices and a requirement that all ‘suggestions for necessary adjustments’ be made by members through their club’s management and then such detail changes be submitted by club secretaries to StC by 8th January 2020 – a mere 27 days including the holiday period!

With Christmas and New Year occurring in the intervening period which will naturally be at the forefront of most people’s thoughts at this time this really is an unreasonable decision by Council and will inevitably not enable proper examination of and any appropriate challenge to the 23 pages of documents presented to the membership.

I can only personally conclude that if Council are unwilling to delay the EGM by several months the only sensible course of action by clubs now is to vote a firm AGAINST to the motion at the forthcoming EGM so that all the documents can be considered and discussed in proper order over the coming months and a thoroughly considered proposal brought to the next AGM.

Chris Durant  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under AOB at the AGM  on the 30 November  the discussions concerning the  proposed changes to the Constitution we were assured plenty of time would be given for discussions by the Clubs.  I am concerned that these Council revisions are being pushed forward in such a haste without  time for the Clubs to gain feed back from their members  and then reply to the MYA Council.. At the AGM there was conflicting information  ,from the council as to what and when and how much work had been completed by the Council , now it is finalized and Clubs have over Christmas and the New year to respond. I do not think this is acceptable.  Robert Hobbs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MYA Council’s New Constitution proposal

I write to comment on this proposal, as secretary to Guildford Model Yacht Club (GMYC) with the experience of having served on MYA Council for 29 years.

GMYC’s initial email to Council on 19th December requested more time to consider the New Constitution and whilst it was acknowledged, a response is awaited.

In the intervening period the New Constitution documents have been briefly studied by Guildford members and we find that the documents are unfinished and not ready for use for many different reasons, which are briefly listed below. More detail is in the attached letter from GMYC, which has already been sent to the Secretary to Council.


 

1) NO EXPLANATION - the New Constitution was received without any introductory explanation of Council's ideas.

2) OMISSIONS - there are several omissions including a very

important omission from the objectives, omissions from officer posts etc.

3) ERRORS - the document contains a lot of mistakes.

4) INCONSISTENCY - there is a lack of consistency throughout the documents in not using the defined terms, using incorrect document titles, etc.

5) FAILURE TO NUMBER SUB-CLAUSES - throughout the documents bullet points have been used and so it is impossible to refer to a specific sub-clause.

6) CONFUSING DEFINITIONS - the new definitions for an affiliated club, now ‘member’ and affiliated member now ‘affiliate’ are confusing.

7) SUBSCRIPTIONS - Council will no longer submit a motion to AGM for membership ratification, except to raise subscriptions. There has always been membership input and the opportunity to lower as well as to raise.

😎REFERENCE TO NOWHERE – Clause 2.2 in Appendix 3 implies reference to Appendix 8 where the link leads to “Error 404 – Page not found.”

9) 5 YEAR TERM FOR PRESIDENT - no explanation is given. There is no one more well-respected to represent our sport both inside and outside the MYA than Derek Priestley, so why the restriction?

10) WRONGLY DESCRIBED TITLES - The list of important documents to be maintained by the MYA on the last page 7, Article 18, contains 7 incorrect document titles.

 

In the MYA 11th December email to all clubs this statement was made “There will be an EGM for members to vote for the new constitution on 25th January 2020….”  We would point out that this also allows members to vote against.

 

It also asked for observations by 8 January “so that any necessary adjustments can be made prior to the EGM.” It should be pointed out that in the current Constitution there is no mechanism for making any changes to the motion, so the vote must be either for or against the document as it stands.

We have suggested to Council that to avoid a vote against this document, that the EGM is cancelled, so that the saved time could be spent reviewing the document for presentation to the membership in good time for the 2020 AGM.

2020-01-06 GMYC comment on New Constitution 3.pdf

Roger Stollery, with the support of Guildford Model Yacht Club members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the number of well respected former council members and leaders within our hobby/sport expressing their concerns over the direction the MYA council has taken in introducing a new constitution in a manner which gives very little opportunity for the membership to have a say in the revisions, do the council feel it would be appropriate to withdraw the motion for the EGM until the proposed constitution can be put into proper order?

I am concerned that if I approach my members to join the MYA at present they won't know under what set of constitution rules they are paying their membership fee, has any provision be made to allow clubs to delay their affiliation until the vote is finalised?

So far their has been no response from the MYA council to this thread in the category the title of which says 

"MYA Chat

Ask your questions here or visit to see what the MYA are saying."

although I can see that largely it is populated by statements it would be most helpful to have a background as to why the MYA Council felt it was necessary to introduce a vote on what, on the face of it, appears to be more a "working document" than a completed document can someone please respond?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  This new Constitution is simply a flawed document. The Council have to accept that if presented with something like this in another sphere, such as house buying or legal business, it would be flung back in the face of those presenting it.     

 The MYA comments above have bemoaned the fact that almost all the comments are negative.  Rightly so in my personal view.  While I am sure that very many of us would support the INTENT of the document, the CONTENT  has so many  confusions in it as to make it unacceptable without serious revisions.    As pointed out . both in this thread and in answer to a recent one on membership rates, the current Constitution only allows a General Meeting to vote on the motion, not sensible amendments. With this document, the Council is surely asking for a  vote against this at the EGM, which should be cancelled until some of the issues raised in the comments above and in Roger's letter to Council are addressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent Phil

So now that we have  3 vice presidents suggesting that more time is required to make the changes required to produce a proper working constitution and a  further unspecified number of vice presidents "offering support for this move and also constructive ideas on further improvements", does the council not think if it truly wants to produce a working document for the future that it would be best for all concerned to suspend the EGM make the proposed constitution a consultation document and bring an improved more complete version of the proposed constitution before the AGM in 2020?

Interesting that you appear to think those posting vice presidents here are not supportive of the MYA, castigate them for picking over minutiae within a constitution, which even to the everyday skipper appears to be a very poorly written proposal and then go on to do the very same thing with the current constitution which you as part of the MYA Council are currently the custodian of!

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The email below has today been sent to MYA Club Secretaries with the approval of 7 MYA VIce Presidents.

''Dear MYA Club Secretary

 You will be aware that MYA Council has requested that at an Extraordinary General Meeting to be held on 25th January 2020 the membership approves a New Constitution.

 We the undersigned MYA Vice Presidents would be very grateful if your club committee and members would take the time to compare both old and new Constitutions including the numerous appendices to the new version.

 They should also look on the MYA Forum under ‘MYA Chat – Proposed New Constitution’ where there are several experienced ex-Council members’ observations on both the manner of the introduction of this New Constitution and the defects that exist in its component sections.

 Despite the long time that Council has said that it has spent on preparing the document, it is in an unfinished state.

 Henry Farley, well known to MYA members for his skill over many years in MYA detail matters, has compared the new constitution with the current one and noted a significant number of issues and raised relevant queries in regard to both content and requirements, tabulating them for ease of comparison. This table is attached and on the forum. It notes only those matters discovered initially and they are probably not exhaustive.

Roger Stollery and Guildford Model Yacht Club have also analysed the New Constitution and a précis of the club’s letter is also on the forum, with the letter itself as an attachment.

 You will see that there are a number of significant drafting errors where the meaning of certain terms and references is ambiguous, which will inevitably cause difficulties in the future.

There are also several crucial areas of constitutional significance where it has always been up to the full membership to agree a change of course, whereas this Council has decided to remove those choices.

 There are areas of uncertainty, poor drafting, and purely Council’s opinions, which will place members at a disadvantage. Therefore the ‘New Constitution’ and its numerous appendices as it now stands can only ever be considered as a draft for members’ discussion.

 We believe that in support of Council the solution might be to form an experienced drafting committee both from within Council and from the membership itself, to achieve an acceptable Constitution with valid reasons for all changes and ready in good time for the 2020 AGM.

 We therefore urge your Club to consider carefully how to cast your vote when you submit your voting form (by 18th January 2020) and/or when attending the 25th January meeting.

 There are no arrangements for amendments to a motion at an EGM. Thus the sensible option is to vote against the proposed motion in order that a refined Constitution can be put before the members at the 2020 AGM.

 Yours sincerely

 Mike Clifton, Chris Durant, Henry Farley, Robert Hobbs, Steve Poole, Russell Potts, Roger Stollery

 MYA Vice Presidents''

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil

It seems the MYA Vice presidents count is now up to almost half, not including of course those that have contacted you with "constructive ideas"! Still not enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Edited by philholliday
wording correction
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil

Given that the according to you the "unworkable" constitution has been in place for a number of years, and seemed to serve the members reasonably well until this current administration, I would suggest that the only urgency for change is on the part of the MYA Council, although it is my belief that there is a wind for change amongst the membership as well. I am surprised you need to ask for suggestions as to a way forward as a number of suggestions for getting the MYA a modern robust constitution to see it  into the coming years have already been presented here,  it would appear the majority posting here are suggesting to use what you have as a consultation document with a properly thought out constitution being presented at the 2020 AGM having been worked upon by a constitution steering sub committee taking into consideration the views of all parties.

If the 2020 World Championship event at West Kirby is causing you difficulty, in that you need to work outside the current constitution then  put the amendments to allow you to host this event in the manner you wish before an EGM and assuming it is seen to be reasonable I can see no reason why members wouldn't vote for those changes presented as a specific requirement for this event, I find it hard to believe that we need to adopt the proposed poorly constructed document in it's entirety for the sake of one World event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to calm the conversation down. It is important to remember that those involved in this discussion are the ones who are passionate about the MYA as they are ,and have, volunteered to help the sport, so are in fact on the same side .

Like many subjects those who have been working on a project probably assume that others are as clear on the reasoning as they are, forgetting that a period of getting up to speed and explanation is required.

Main Reason for amending the Constitution.

The council wished to remove all policy elements to allow the officers and volunteers the opportunity to carry out their roles without having to change the constitution regularly.

It is felt that the constitution should be a core “statement” of what the MYA is about, written in a manner that does not require changing for potentially decades but allows the sport to flourish.

In removing policy elements these need to be referenced and this is why the appendices are noted and included. Although as working documents they probably require further refinement by council as part of the council workings.

Once this approach was agreed it was felt that some protection was needed, hence time periods introduced for officers.

As an aside it was also felt that by putting a definitive timescale to all the roles it may encourage people to step forward as they had an escape route from the start 😉

The list of areas that have “operational” difficulties is quite long and the reason why the decision was made to enter in to this project.

Whatever people may think about the outcome it should be understood that the core values and aims of the MYA have not been altered in this review of the MYA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darin

Thanks for your input to the discussion minimal as it is, I think most contributors understand the reasoning behind a constitutional review and in most cases support the process, however what has been produced is neither robust nor resolves the problems with the current constitutions interpretational ambiguities.

Surely in a constitution of quality no further explanation is needed, isn't that rather the point of it! To set out a framework of clear rules by which an organisation is governed!

Presumably the council feel that they have achieved this in the current proposal otherwise why else would you have put it to the membership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick correction here, 

3 hours ago, warehamdave said:

we have run various World and other International events under the existing version without any problem. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, warehamdave said:

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 

David, likewise, and hope all is good in the Munro family.

I agree with both you and Phil regarding the Worlds! 
The actual constitution does not affect the running of the Worlds, but without putting a sharp deadline to this review it will just meander on and turn into unclear discussion and debate as unfortunately to the vast majority of the MYA it is something to read when insomnia strikes, so setting a short time period will allow us all to concentrate and enjoy what will be a great focal point for the year.


Now that we have introduced the discussion on the constitution and the desire to  condense and simplify the base constitution I am sure we can all work to make this happen in a timely fashion.

I know that all of the council appreciate the great comments we have received, some of which are simple typing errors and others which highlight things that a fresh set of eyes pick up and I am sure that the council will now wish to review these.

Finally, although not an orthodox way, it does communicate to the membership that the council is not only struggling to deliver some of what it wants with the current constitution, but also that it is committed to  continuing to keep the UK sailing at the forefront.

Darin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter Shepherd said:

Darin

Thanks for your input to the discussion minimal as it is, I think most contributors understand the reasoning behind a constitutional review and in most cases support the process, however what has been produced is neither robust nor resolves the problems with the current constitutions interpretational ambiguities.

Surely in a constitution of quality no further explanation is needed, isn't that rather the point of it! To set out a framework of clear rules by which an organisation is governed!

Presumably the council feel that they have achieved this in the current proposal otherwise why else would you have put it to the membership?

Hi Peter,

Maybe we confused matters by including the Appendices, but as they are referenced in the constitution we thought it better to include them.

In hindsight a longer reasoning letter and non publication of the appendices would have been less confusing as these are just a formal collation of policy documents that the current constitution states we should keep along with the addition of the AGM timeline which the council wished to have some flexibility over.

Document 1 is still in my eyes not something to be scrapped and with consideration of the great comments received still appropriate.

Do you have any fundamental issues with Document 1, if so, the council can add these to those already received.

Darin

 

 

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...