Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
I assume that there will be a new set of proposals for the proposed SGM which I understand will be held before the AGM.
If this is the case, I would be very worried that there will be a serious lack of debate on the new proposals before said meeting.
If the new changes are accepted, when will they take effect?
When will the new proposals be published. They would have to be published at least 3 weeks before the date of the meeting, which begs the question, if The proposals discussed yesterday were rejected after many months of hard work undertaken by the CWP, how can new proposals be ready in 3 weeks?
Posts: 383
Threads: 19
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
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
Posts: 278
Threads: 19
Joined: Aug 2011
Jim Webster Wrote: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.
The blanket No votes put paid to that ever happening even although in some cases (I think) the reason for their no vote was on taken on board and incorporated into the proposed constitution.
But they wouldn't know whether the reasons for their no vote had or had not been accepted so they were left with no alternative to vote no as they didn't know what they would be voting for.
That's certainly the reason why I voted no.
The wording of section 16, particularly the way that the impact on juniors had been ignored, was a show-stopper for me, and there's no way I could have agreed to it in its proposed wording.
I'm sure others felt similarly in other areas.
Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
I made my views clear on this noticeboard but have now been told I never submitted any formal proposals.
I wish to formally submit them to AGM but don't have a seconder.
Posts: 946
Threads: 127
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
4
time to put my oar in ... here goes (personal view)
No matter what perspective you see this, Tuesday was a success for democracy. Most of the sections were passed I believe with only three issues raised
1. Junior votes , again common sense prevailed. I believe there is a distinction between junior votes and how they can be abused in the form of proxy voting. This has been muddied in the debate. I believe the use of proxy voting is the main issue and not junior voting. The solution I believe is the need for either online or postal voting on agenda items. Such voting should be secret and kept by the authorative director or administrator. The motions for this section were defeated so it may be time to move on...
2. Structure ,
Just a bit of work needed there with plenty of consultation. Suffice to say I believe there is a need to improve the existing structure as shown by the comments made on this forum and elsewhere. We are in the process of rewriting the constitution which unfortunately take time and effort so we all have to be patient
3. Eligibility
OK possibly a lot of ball dropping here. The problem with is (as I see it) is a bunch of good intentions by good people to resolve potential issues which caused confusion and yes mistakes. A lot of work is probably needed here with a lot of consultation with those people it may affect and also with those with experience .
I also noticed that most people approved the changes overall but saw problems within their own areas. Perhaps we should all work constructively on the sections requiring a review and agree that the sections without argument are passed, Also if we pass the sections one at a time we'll get there. I think however an SGM to satisfy this will require a full day's debate without distraction
Anyway these are my own personal comments and not part of the CWP. I invite constructive debate on this
Tommy Lennox
Unregistered
Derek Howie Wrote:Assuming it was the President and Executive Director, they allowed the CWP to decide on the date of the SGM, according to the Executive Director, rather than making the decision themselves in their executive positions, so it seems that they are unable to separate their roles.
Would it not make more sense for the meeting to be ran by someone independent of the CWP?
If what I am hearing from a friend who attended is correct, you are both right and wrong. It seems that the section covering the new structure nearly went through without a vote which lead to a very heated discussion between the President and Executive Director after the meeting. If my information is correct, it was an intercession from the Executive Director that prevented this.
To quote Alice "Curiouser and Curiouser!"
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Walter (who attended the meeting) said...
Quote:Section 7 on the structural changes, while perhaps not as contentious as 5 and 16, might have been the most crucial one to the thinking of the erstwhile progress makers. It also failed, with a percentage in the sixties if memory serves, due the requirement to get 2/3 of the vote. Reading between the lines this Section did not fail due to proxy votes rather the high threshold and failure to present a convincing enough case for it to meet that threshold.
