15-07-2015, 10:54 AM
Jim Webster: "It is also fair to say that I did not see why the constitution proposed should not be acceptable with constitutionally agreed changes from the SGM."
I can see your viewpoint here Jim, but also that of people who are unhappy - not just the content, but the manner of the process, offered on a take it or leave it basis with little explanation. There was also an unseemly rush. Just to take one example, it transpired yesterday that the U-16s had never been asked their views on having their vote taken away. If the problem that motivated this proposal had been aired a better solution could probably have been found. The whole process was rushed - really you want one meeting to finalise the amendments, then another for the vote on the constitution - that would go a long way to solving the alleged and much complained-about 'proxy problem' which might actually be a symptom of excessive speed!?
Hamish, Andy, Alex and co. clearly have a vision of taking the game forward in a certain direction, but are asking for carte blanche regarding what direction this is. If they were to share this vision with the members, they might find enough agree with it. Of course not everyone will, it might even be most...but that's democracy. I think it's fair to say that despite your own best efforts Jim, they've not been willing to pay the democratic price or risk the particulars coming under the members' scrutiny.
But needing two-thirds of the vote, they probably NEED to be much more open and accountable about what they want to do than they have been.
Cheers
I can see your viewpoint here Jim, but also that of people who are unhappy - not just the content, but the manner of the process, offered on a take it or leave it basis with little explanation. There was also an unseemly rush. Just to take one example, it transpired yesterday that the U-16s had never been asked their views on having their vote taken away. If the problem that motivated this proposal had been aired a better solution could probably have been found. The whole process was rushed - really you want one meeting to finalise the amendments, then another for the vote on the constitution - that would go a long way to solving the alleged and much complained-about 'proxy problem' which might actually be a symptom of excessive speed!?
Hamish, Andy, Alex and co. clearly have a vision of taking the game forward in a certain direction, but are asking for carte blanche regarding what direction this is. If they were to share this vision with the members, they might find enough agree with it. Of course not everyone will, it might even be most...but that's democracy. I think it's fair to say that despite your own best efforts Jim, they've not been willing to pay the democratic price or risk the particulars coming under the members' scrutiny.
But needing two-thirds of the vote, they probably NEED to be much more open and accountable about what they want to do than they have been.
Cheers