Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trundler
Why are you so uptight about this?
If you stuck your hand up at an AGM people would know what you think and even votes in General Elections are not anonymous. (Ballot papers can be attributed to voters).
And I have voted "Yes"
As another orienteer I think it only fair to point out that the sport is not some laissez-fair eutopia. BOF has a head office with full-time staff; several committes coming up with rulings and technical changes many dealing with technical issues in great detail; non-members cannot enter many events; event officials have to graduate through smaller events in order to officiate at larger ones.
Yes orieteering does stand alone but as an olympic recognised sport it receives hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in funding.
This received from Tony Varley
Quote:
At the recent 3 Peaks race I made an announcement about the ballot paper and
stressed the fact that the most important view was not the committee's, but
the vote from our members.
It is very important that we have a relative high vote, so that the result
is meaningful and is representative of our members. Please do not just sit back
and do nothing and rely on others to make the decision for you.
I do not know who Stick is, but I can assure him/her that I will in no way
report back anything other than the true result of the ballot in spite of the
fact that I supported the view of the sub committee. Not that Stick was
implying anything else, even those on the committee who voted to disaffiliate
agreed for the papers to be returned to me.
Lets have a good turn out in the vote and then we can put this issue behind
us and just go out fell running.
Cheers
Tony
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that orienteering makes it up as it goes along - there are rules and regulations etc - just that the report maybe mis-represented a couple of things.
BTW, pretty much all orienteering events are open to non-members nowadays - they're also a lot of fun:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick
Cheers Brett.Quote:
Originally Posted by brett
Tony; Stick and I (Neil Taylor) are the same! As I posted, I personally have no concerns with you acting as returning officer. But one of the roles of a chairman is to act as the casting vote in the event of a tied decision (not that I think that's going to be likely!). I just think that you being returning officer could potentially put you in an invidious position...'specially if there's only one vote in it :eek:
Total agree with you about need for good turnout though. My vote's going in the post tomorrow.
I think that this issue has generated a lot of bad feeling in our community. There is not one fell-runner I have ever met who I don't get on with well. And yet it's clear that there are strong emotions on both sides of this argument and, as witnessed by this thread and the old-forum equivalent, its polarising people. My best pal and I have differing views on this matter, but we agree to differ. So whatever way the vote goes, we should have the wisdom to accept the result.
I admit, I personally have a bit of a hang up...I keep thinking along the lines of "Why are we [FRA] in this position..?" and keep coming up with the same answer..."because of the actions of the UKA" each time; so I just cannot believe that we'd be better off staying with them. So, sorry Tony (and anyone else who takes a different view), but I will be voting against continuation of affiliation.
Sorry Stick, but some of the difficulties over recent years between UKA and the FRA has been down to the FRA. It's not all one sided, and sometimes people with the best intentions get it wrong. Or put another way, the committee do work hard but they are human.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick
If you really feel strongly, get on the committee this year. You might even be able to help with the extra work load!
Hi Lamana,Quote:
Originally Posted by lamana
I reckon we don't know each other yet...do we(?). So you probably don't know either my existing commitments or my previous service on the FRA committee.
But then I'm sure you're not really saying that anyone who votes No should put themselves up for election as part-and-parcel of their right to vote this way...are you? I really hope not.
My ex-boss used to have a sign of his wall..."Either Lead, Follow, or get the Hell out of here". And that's crap. It's exactly the sort of polarisation we have to avoid.
Neil,Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick
Don't be so cryptic. My recollection is that you were a FRA Member Rep for 2 years: 1999/2001.
Graham
Hi Graham,Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
Yep - entirely correct! But whether anyone has served or not served, for 1 year or 10 years, is completely irrelevant. And that's the point I was trying to make.
Cheers
Neil
Graham B beat me to it - I had you down as 2 years on the committee.
I certainly don't think everyone who votes no should go on the committee. But anyone who goes on and on like you are - trying to change other people's opinion. Then yes.
Voted.
Hey that's really good! You've just got me to re-read through all my post on here (since yesterday about this time, "on-and-on" ???) cos I was feeling concerned that just maybe somewhere down the line I'd been trying to change people's opinions. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by lamana
And there's me thinking a forum was somewhere to discuss things and put forward ideas and thoughts. :eek:
Doesnt look to me as though Stick is "going on and on....... trying to change ....opinion"Quote:
Originally Posted by lamana
This is a Forum, a place for public discussion. Stick has simply made his opinion known. That's what tends to happen in a discussion. Do you have an opinion, Lamana?
Typed my last post same time as you Stick. Think I'd better go to bed before our postings morph.
I certainly do and it's mine and I'm keeping it that way! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RichT
I for one won't be voting, if it had been a pre-paid envelope then I would have done ;)
Actually my mrs very nearly threw it out.
Ballot paper just arrived and I now understand peoples concerns. Bias, coercion, undemocratic disclosure... yes, all those things are there. I suspect the Electoral Reform Association would have thrown it out for a total re-write. Shame on anyone with legal training who is on the committee for letting this dog out of the kennel. It's a disgrace.
But don't let that put any of you off voting.
Well I voted to stay because I went with the notion that the committee had the best interests of the sport at heart and the best knowledge of the circumstances and decided to trust them to be objective. Sent the paper off quickly because I thought it was important to and didn't want to forget BUT beforehand I was pretty much convinced of the arguments to disaffiliate. Looking at the comments on this thread I wish I had left it a little bit longer.
got to agree that the wording on the form is pretty leading. if you vote 'no', it refers to 'my elected committee' and 'despite the Committee's recommendations'. Its a bit like saying'on your head be it. we've warned you and we represent you and if you choose to vote otherwise, so be it'. I must say that wording lke this just serves to antagonise me, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case.
I agree it's a bit unusual to have your name on a ballot paper but this is a sporting organisation not some clandestine fanatical political group with something to hide.
There is no such thing as a secret ballot wanyway, when you vote in an election your ballot paper has a reference number which can be (and sometimes is) traced back to you especially if you've voted for an extremist group which, I think, isn't on this particular ballot.
Non-personal identification is nothing to do with having something to hide. It's about preserving the unbiased nature of the vote. Some people have no problem loudly proclaiming which way they swing but others like to keep their own counsel. It's to allow the full, unfettered participation of all that the 'secret' ballot has evolved. 'Secret' is, as others have pointed out, a misnomer. Non-attributed would be a more accurate term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
On the other hand:
- the FRA Commitee set up a working party to do some actual fact finding (which might not suit some Forum posters)
- this group produced a 9 page report which is available to all
- the FRA Committee produced a summary of the 9 pages
- the FRA Committee has shown leadership by indicating where it thinks the best interests of fellrunning lie
- it has arranged a vote of all members
So what is your problem?
Do you really think we are all that naive?? It might be better to save that simplistic line of reasoning for a class of junior school kids. ...not a teacher by any chance, are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by end
Well, I don't really think that I ought to be voting, since I've only been a FRA member for 3 months, and have so far only done 2 races.
People seem to think there's some moral duty to vote though, so maybe I should. Two things tend to sway my opinion.
Firstly, though I know little about the FRA, I know quite a lot about BOF, having been a member for about 4 years, and the information we have been given misrepresents the facts about BOF (as someone said earlier in this thread).
Secondly, the ballot paper should have been accompanied by a copy of the report, and brief arguments both for and against. The No camp seem to have been virtually excluded from the process.
Neither of these would normally affect my decision, but I have little else to go on. My gut instinct when presented with a completely one-sided presentation such as this is to take the opposite side.
Maybe I should go with my original feeling, and not vote at all.
The committee are perhaps being too fair!
If there is a low response, say 11%, the FRA could dissociate as a result of 6% of the members voting No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trundler
Why do I get the feeling that if the FRA Committee had recommended withdrawal from UKA you would have been happy?
Perhaps you think the Labour Party manifesto should just contain all the good things the Conservatives do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trundler
For the record, although I doubt if you will believe me, this assertion is false.
My strong perception from actually attending the FRA Committee meetings and talking with members privately is that the overall mood in the FRA Committee last Autumn was to leave UKA.
However the Commitee decided it needed more facts before making any decision; hence the report, ballot etc.
Wild erroneous assertions such as yours do not help the debate.
OK, this is the third time i've started to type a response to the above debate!!
I'm starting to find the conspiracy theories about the committe and it's decision regarding UKA quite upsetting.
Spending a sunday afternoon discussing the sub-committees report, knowing that an important decision has to be made at the end of that meeting is actually quite daunting & stressful.
I do belive that after a thourough debate we were all quite happy we had enough information to reach a decision - we voted and then continued the discussion on what to do next.
We're wanting each member to make a decision based on the facts - should we not have shown that we had managed to make one and openly state what it is???
A ballot to 6300 members is reasonably costly and the logistics of it fairly time consuming.
Sending a full report with the ballot would have increased the cost and as it's openly available on the website or can be obtained with a simple phone call by those without internet access it was a simple decision just to include a summary. The report isn't being kept secret!
Britta
By this I assume that the FRA are your "Labour Party", the Summary Note accompanying the Ballot is the "manifesto" and those that wish to disaffiliate are the "conservative Party"........Quote:
Originally Posted by end
You've hit the nail on the head!
As a member of the FRA committee, I can confirm that at the Emergency Committee Meeting last October when we were trying to resolve the UKA debacle re Graded Officials the majority of the committee decided they needed more information before deciding to disaffiliate from UKA.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
However, it should be noted that the information in the sub-committee full and summary reports was still insufficient to convince approximately one third of the full committee, including myself, that we should remain affiliated to UKA.
The decision to have a ballot resulted from a strong wish to disaffiliate expressed by the vast majority of those present at the 2006 AGM and the threat of an EGM on this issue.
Does anybody know what status the ballot result will have?
The only information I can find about this is that the committee will not be bound by the result if less than 10% of the membership vote.
Does this mean that the committee is bound by the result if more than 10% vote?
Is a simple majority all that is required?
Brita, thanks for posting your concerns. This is a tough time for people close to the centre of the organisation who are devoting a lot of time to trying to do things the right way. The way I see it, as an open 'nay sayer', is that everyone is genuinely grateful to the sub-committee for taking the time and effort to make the report. And the report is very thorough and helpful for summarising the issues. And it certainly does not lean hard one way or the other...in fact it acknowledges that 'a split between domestic and international competition may be a successful compromise if the FRA were to instigate the change and yet still inspire potential international runners'...an open invitation to disaffiliate if ever there was one. Unfortunately, I think all the hard work of the sub-committee has been let down by the ill-advised tone of the ballot paper which is what the objectors in this thread are pointing out. The sub-committee has done a great job.
The FRA Constitution states that "The Fell Running Association" ....is recognised by UK Athletics as the managing body of Fell-Running in England. There are various other clauses relating to the links between the FRA and UKA.
The Member Ballot makes no mention of the method of determining how changes to the FRA Constitution would be handled with the exception that the FRA Committee reserves the right to discount the ballot if less than 10% of the FRA members return ballot papers.
Can we presume that a simple majority in the Member Ballot will suffice?
Using the above figures a minimum of 316 members would have to vote NO and only 630 people would need to complete the ballot paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britta
What happens if this situation is realised is not clear. How will the Executive Committee handle a possible change to the constitution? Rule 7.h) states that any amendment to the constitution will be in accordance with Rule 9.b).
Will the FRA call an Extraordinary General Meeting and, if twenty people are present, then it will take only eleven votes to take the FRA out of UKA!
some intresting points on this thread! i agree with some, but not others. so i shall just say voted and posted and yep i put a stamp on otherwise it would have a surcharge on it at the other end £1 handling charge and 24p for a second class stamp.
so return em with a stamp please.
thank you.
That's the nature of democracy. Only those that vote have a say, but since everyone has the opportunity to vote that seems fair enough to me.
6054 members exactly actually.
The committee already has a mandate from a previous AGM to leave UKA if they want, so if the ballot proved that this is what the membership want, i don't think it would cause too many constitutional problems, but maybe i'm being naive there...
LOL, if you're looking for 'hidden clues' the unanimous vote of the sub-comittee in favour of staying with UKA (for the time being!) should be mentioned too ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Britta
My assertion was neither wild nor erroneous. I will only modify it by saying the majority of material put out by the committee has had a strong anti-disaffiliation spin (and the ballot paper is just the latest example). The stating of the pro-disaffiliation argument has been left up to others (and notably an EX-member of the committee).Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamB
Based on this evidence I don't think the committee should be at all surprised that they face accusations of bias.
I think there may be a weight of opinion within the committee for disaffiliation but the "party line" (thanks for your wisdom, end - so enlightening) has always been 'let's stay in for now'. Perhaps those on the committee who lean towards disaffiliation are just reluctant to actually make the jump. Perhaps the membership won't be.
did you read the bumph that UK:athletics sent out??Quote:
Originally Posted by Trundler
which commitee have you been on of late?
and where is Yorkshire thug 'IT' normally has a thing or 20to say on these issues??
Yes, I was wondering that too! No matter what you think of their postings, it sort of feels odd not having YT around for this discussion doesn't it...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguin
XRunner, how many votes did it take us to become affiliated with NoEAA/BAF or whatever it was?