Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
Steve,
What you said was clearly offensive (as well as apparently being inaccurate?!) You have accused those working on the new constitution of deliberately making things less democratic - how can that not be offensive to those involved?
Andy Burnett
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Andy Burnett,
I have to disagree with you on this
I have never accused anyone on the CWP of trying to make things less democratic. I have considered the whole document and I have stated my view on it. How is that being offensive to those who served on the CWP because I have stated my view of the document because I do not agree with the document as it is stands currently.
I have never intended to offend anyone and I am truly sorry if anyone is offended by my comments, but I do stand by them.
Posts: 946
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
Craig Pritchett Wrote:Isn't this rather old-fashioned and (I think) certainly untypical of similar sports organisations, even if unincorporated like CS? Has anyone looked at appropriate (sports or other organisational) comparators?
I have ,I looked at Scotland swimming where neither juniors nor parents have any voice or vote at national level. I am led to understand that's juniors must be members and registered in order to compete. The structure is such that every parent is a member of the local club. The club may or may not be represented to one of the four regional authorities who in turn are the only ones who make representation to the national authority. It would be totally unfair for me either to quote my source or to comment on this structure but I must say I prefer I prefer either our existing constitution or the proposed constitution. In other words other organisations within Sports Scotland have it much tougher than us. ( There we go, everyone will fall outwith me now) As someone who was closely linked with Sports Scotland , it would not surprise me if most of Sports Scotland's organisation had to have certain setup's in place in order to secure funding, so there was collaboration between them in order to achieve this.
StevieHilton Wrote:I have never accused anyone on the CWP of trying to make things less democratic. I have considered the whole document and I have stated my view on it. How is that being offensive to those who served on the CWP because I have stated my view of the document because I do not agree with the document as it is stands currently.I have never intended to offend anyone and I am truly sorry if anyone is offended by my comments, but I do stand by them.
I certainly haven't been offended in any way but I do see the inference. Unfortunately its part of the democratic process and Stevie's comments may appear to some as insensitive but I don't see it that way. I see all the comments from everyone as part of the process which in fact be encouraged. What worries me is that the new constitution will fail due to the fact its a straight yes or no, no chance for amendment or discussion at say an AGM
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
Quote: I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership.
Things don't change with an intention of their own accord, Steve. So whose intention was it to discourage dissent through these 'changes'?
If this isn't what you meant, then you really have to re-word your statement to avoid causing offence, because as it stands it's not an 'inference' (as Ian says) but an outright statement.
I realise there are important matters to discuss within the document, matters which don't really need to be side-tracked by this argument, but I can easily see why Jim W. (and perhaps others) feel offended.
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
andyburnett Wrote:Quote: I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership.
Things don't change with an intention of their own accord, Steve. So whose intention was it to discourage dissent through these 'changes'?
If this isn't what you meant, then you really have to re-word your statement to avoid causing offence, because as it stands it's not an 'inference' (as Ian says) but an outright statement.
I realise there are important matters to discuss within the document, matters which don't really need to be side-tracked by this argument, but I can easily see why Jim W. (and perhaps others) feel offended.
Andy,
" I am sure these changes are intended to discourage dissent from the membership." My intention by making this point is that I fear that may well be the consequences of the proposed changes, however well intention ed these changes may be. I am saddened that people can take offence from this statement of my view. I would suggest that they read this in the context of the whole document. I reiterate again that it was not my intention to offend anyone by the statement, if anyone is offended by this statement, I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter, and I will be first to defend anyone's right to criticize me, but I must be free to state my view
I for one would welcome an open debate on this document. it is too important a document as a whole not to be debated
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
Sorry Steve, I am not being pedantic here or trying to have a pop at you, but that is simply not what your words said.
Of course you have the right to voice your opinion and state your views - I would hope nobody thinks otherwise - but what you actually said is offensive.
'I am sure these changes are not intended to discourage dissent from the membership, but I fear they may have that effect'. If this is what you really mean, then fine, that's something worthy of discussion 
Posts: 462
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
robin moore Wrote:On the topic of length of term of directors, I welcome the proposed change to two years and personally would be happy with three years.
In a role such as IJD, you have constant selection processes and international events. The amount of time involved organising and contacting everyone is quite frightening. A longer directorship term gives the security of a welcome opportunity to gain experience and integrate your own ideas and plans into the post.
One question on the proposed new structure.... Is it possible for any one person to have more than one role?
Getting topic back onto track.
When individuals volunteer for office they volunteer to work for 12 months, unpaid, for CS.
If these changes come into effect then they would instead have to volunteer for 24 months unpaid work. Prediction - there will be less volunteers stepping forward.
The proposed constitution actually states that approximately 50% of directors will be replaced in alternate years
Prediction in 2016 approximately zero percent will be be due for re-election. In 2017 approximately 100%
It is the function of the constitution to state the length of time appointments last for. Speculating on the percentage changeover per year should not be included.
For the IJD role I confirm Robin's view that there is a massive amount of work required. However, there is no steep learning curve involved. All that is required is the ability to work with numbers, words, communications, and children efficiently - and sufficient hours to get the job done. Hitting the ground running in year one I found was no harder than doing the same job in year two.
Posts: 460
Threads: 54
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
3
Alan Tate Wrote:WTF is the CWP? Hi Alan
Constitution Working Party.
Would you like to explain WTF? )
Jim
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
I think we might be talking rap here
W.T.F. (Wisdom, Tenacity And Focus), also known as W.T.F. or just WTF, is the sixth studio album by American rapper Vanilla Ice (Robert Van Winkle). Originally scheduled for a 2009 release, it was officially released as a digital download on August 30, 2011 through Radium Records.
In contrast to some previous releases by Van Winkle, the album included notable active collaborators Cowboy Troy and the Insane Clown Posse, both artists that Van Winkle has been an open fan of. It also includes songs with a variety of genre influences, ranging from straightforward hip hop to rap rock to country music and others.
|
