07-07-2015, 01:53 PM
I've been watching this from the sidelines. When I first read the document I too was surprised to see that juniors would not have a franchise. But when I thought about it ...
Did juniors have a vote in the SJCA? Organisers, schools, junior clubs had a say but I don't actually think that individual juniors had.
Organisations often have different classes of membership with different voting rights. Perhaps the wording should be tweeked that juniors paying the full fee have a vote. You could also have a similar senior membership at a slightly reduced rate with no voting rights, perhaps for over 70s.
I can understand the annoyance at non-members having a say. However, it should be remembered that they are potential members and with the right constitution and procedures in operation may (re)join.
Did juniors have a vote in the SJCA? Organisers, schools, junior clubs had a say but I don't actually think that individual juniors had.
Organisations often have different classes of membership with different voting rights. Perhaps the wording should be tweeked that juniors paying the full fee have a vote. You could also have a similar senior membership at a slightly reduced rate with no voting rights, perhaps for over 70s.
I can understand the annoyance at non-members having a say. However, it should be remembered that they are potential members and with the right constitution and procedures in operation may (re)join.