Printable View
Sorry to hear that FITCQuote:
Originally Posted by Feet in the Cowclaps
I held you and David in high regards and your sense of perception and honesty as moderators have been creditable.
Its a shame and I hope some people on the committee take a long hard look at themselves in the current light of what's going on.
Thanks for the good work you have both done.
From the FRA site front page:
"The next meeting of the FRA Executive Committee is on Sunday 9th February 2014 starting at 11am in Skipton. If any members would like to attend as observers, they should let the Secretary know by 2nd February 2014 - [email protected] or 07956344174. He will then let you have details of the venue."
We can only attend as observers. If you want to contribute to a meeting you'll have to attend the next AGM or call your own EGM. As I understand it that takes a minimum of 5% of the membership to sign the call for an EGM. If we have 7000 members that means 350 signatures - I doubt that can ever be achieved.
And if you really want to change things you'll then have to force changes to the committee as far as I can see. To do that you'll have to find people willing to replace those forced out, & they'll have to be capable of doing the job.
I'll just make it clear I'm not advocating trying to do this, & not saying it shouldn't be done either. I'm just saying what the FRA articles set out (as I understand it) as the mechanisms for making changes if you're not on the Executive Committee.
This all seems fairly benign if there is a background of trust but once that trust is lost, which to an extent I feel it is at the moment, then the confidential clause etc start to sound a bit sinister. The FRA is as I understand it a limited company purely to protect its officers from and financial liability which is reasonable. But why should anything be confidential, we are or should be, just a group of individuals with a collective love of the fells, not a commercially competive company or a government.
Is the penny beginning to drop?
Cha - chingQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
It's at Oddfellows Hall - not sure it's a secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatcher
https://www.oddfellows.co.uk/Branche...istrict-Branch
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/com...nstitution.pdf
There's nothing in the constitution that requires any member to book in advance in order to attend an Exec Committee meeting.
It could be seen as helpful when the secretary books the tea and biscuits though.
I'll give my apologoes in advance. I'm booked up already :(
Given that the FRA is now a registered company and that we as members are shareholders in aid company, surely the minutes of any meeting are accessible to all? question rather than statement folks !Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Don't hold your breath - see Andy's post about the minutes to the meeting where he put forward his proposal.... and it got struck from the minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazy
The committee page states
" Meeting Minutes are not circulated to the membership, however, in the interests of transparency, established practice is for the Secretary to produce a report for each Fellrunner to keep all members informed of business conducted by the Executive on their behalf. "
Brett Breezy Weeden must be in meltdown tonight, being the only moderator left :D
it's not about holding my breath, it's about adherence to rules which as you well know is paramountQuote:
Originally Posted by wynn
1. RO's must do = action,
2. FRA must do = action
my question relates to compliance with companies house, under 2 above i'm sure FRA have an obligation to share minutes of meetings and every member is invited to the agm/ other meetings at discretion of the company secretary.
I had no intention to contradict previous posts, i am merely trying to get the current issue resolved. On reflection i wish i hadn't bothered, lets face it, i don't race much (apart from yours when fit!) and i enjoy my time on the fells with friends in wasdale, what the hell i'm out.
Very kind of you Mr Park
I'll remember that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Attachment 7398solution maybe
Hazy Sorry I didn't mean to upset you - just disillusioned by the way information is spun - if you can find a way good on you
I never had you down as Keswick Krumble Brett :DQuote:
Originally Posted by brett
Have you any vacancies?I'll send you my CV :p
By the way, it says administrator, not moderator. Is that new?
I am confused, again. I though the "Live Act - Rehab" were on on the 22nd Feb not the 9th Feb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
What says administrator?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Next to your name when you post
Only been that for 9 years - surprised you missed that
Attention to detail....
Actually, nine years is far too long......
Quote:
Originally Posted by brett
sorry Brett, constitution states that "the web master at point of inception must remain in post for 10 years (or death which ever is sooner)Quote:
Originally Posted by brett
in short stop ars*ing about, you're staying put.
best regards, hugs and kisses etc
Actually, I don't feel too well
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazy
there's nowt wrong with your fettle, man upQuote:
Originally Posted by brett
Robert and David, thanks for your input into this here forum. Your contribution will be missed I'm sure
Cheers. There's only so much thread locking, post deletion and cowardly anonymous posting by committee members (at least three) you can put up with. A forum should be a place to exchange views, not an outlet for the ones in power to gag those who disagree with them. As long as the forum is a mouthpiece for the committee bullies, I am having nothing to do with it.
so 20 people turning up to an FRA meeting because they're worried about safety and the new iteration of the Rules is considered more of an irritation than a cause for concern. Now the Committee are keeping the venue of the next meeting a secret unless told in advance that members wish to attend! There's also some manipulation of the Constitution in the statement "If any members would like to attend as observers ......": members are free to attend and to speak at meetings, given they observe protocol.
Sad and ironic thing is for years the forum policed itself and very little moderation in it's true sense was needed
To correct a little on that,Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatcher
Members have greater powers
They have the indisputable right not just to observe but to speak under article 47 ( "may" gives the choice that is the "power not the obligation") and indisputable right to have what they say minuted , as part of "minute ALL proceedings" under article 43A, although Preston and Kendal demonstrates that the secretary fails in his duties in that regard, minuting what is deemed by the executive as expedient instead.
Such rights to attend clearly require the publishing of Agenda and related documents in advance, so membership can determine whether there are issues they wish to hear or contribute, but I would not hold your breath waiting for that.
Good luck to any that try. In general terms anything you say will be minuted and acted seemingly only provided it lines up with executive policy: if the clear wishes of a committee member to have a motion heard and voted , supported by scores of others in advance is not enough to persuade the chair to do what should be done anyway! And who has no constitutional power to prevent such vote, regardless of support, But saw fit to prevent it regardless of powers, there is little point in going.
Anyone that does go ask why the implications of article 39A in respect of safety policy are not acted on.
Wonder if the minutes of the meeting have been written yet - might as well just write them and be done, Save all involved a journey, since no power on earth can influence what they will ultimately say!
Very well said!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Feet in the Cowclaps
Looking like I won't be renewing my membership next year, I may not be missed by the committee, but I suspect there are a few more people of the same mind. How do I join SHR again?
Let us at least be truthful here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_Mole
Ten (not twenty or "scores of") members turned up at the Kendal meeting, and all were allowed to speak, and their views were listened to.
The fact that the committee traditionally prefer to discuss business, rather than start with a motion (which would be more appropriate at a general meeting) was explained - and the business was discussed. And a very useful discussion I thought it was too.
Obviously some people don't agree with the work that the committee is doing in response to last year's inquest, but I think that you'll find that picking up a telephone and actually discussing issues is much more effective than continuing to "bash" the committee on the forum.
my mistake: misread an email: only ten people turned up to a meeting of ten, making it a meeting of 20. The email I'm referring to was from a member of the committee which described the 10 as "gatecrashers".Quote:
Ten (not twenty or "scores of") members turned up at the Kendal meeting
Personally I think the committee do a good job. Other people are in a better position than I am to discuss these issues at that level. But when I see people being called all sorts of names, threads being deleted and locked, the Constitution being deliberately manipulated and people with genuine concerns for safety and the future of the sport being ignored and sidelined, that is a cause for concern.
It's been stated several times that all members of the committee are far too busy to post a single brief summary of their position. So presumably they don't have time to answer the phone and repeatedly give that information to every member who wants to know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I think you'll find that this is untrue too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toreador
There may be a reluctance to post on here because of the attitude of some of the posters towards the committee in general.
I hope that there is a positive side to all this volunteer-bashing, and that some of you will actually turn up at an AGM ... or maybe even offer to serve on the committee - although, reading some of the posts on here, I could understand why you might not wish to.
And I hope, Alan, that you and the rest of the committee realise that most of the contributions to the forum on this subject are not about "volunteer-bashing" but about trying to improve the current situation. I would read Dave_Mole's contribution above for a good example of the position of most of us. This forum probably gives a better idea of what the membership feel about things than any other means the committee have available to them, and denigrating it is entirely inappropriate in my view. And it also should be said that many of us already contribute a lot as volunteers to running in many other ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
According to the moderators that have resigned, it seems to be the attitude of the committee that is the problem.
3 of the committee have been posting under anonymous IDs. Note it wasn't stated how many IDs - that could be half a dozen or more.
So for any committee member to come on here and complain about attitude is a bit rich.
Alan - I know we've had a little ding-dong prior to Xmas (and I don't know you) but I do hold you in high regard based on what other people have said about you.
There are others on the committee, in fact the majority that I would also hold in high regard.
But this has been coming for some time. I'm just surprised that some on the committee see it privately, but it's been allowed to blow up.
It puts me in mind of "Dollygate"
The entire public spat is the direct refusal toQuote:
Originally Posted by Toreador
(a) The refusal to proactively consult such as Wynn before the first rule changes were approved.
(b) Give the only safety qualified person on committee a seat on the safety committee
(c) The refusal to allow a presentation of what seems to be the problem and solution by those who are qualified to know such things, to those who have to vote on the outcomes
(d) The refusal to change serious and basic flaws in documemtation with any immediacy, highlighted before the cutoff date, not after: the words hazard and risk still used totally wrongly.
(e) Not even to engage a discussion of matters highlighted in a variety of documents and emails sent.
(f) That this has been made an issue of rules. It isnt. It is safety management, and the solution to the problems is not tinkering with rules.
(g) A statement made with which the only qualified committee member could not agree.
Little to do with forum posting, and hardly resolvable by a phone call.
Andy did his best to get a position heard. Refused.
For sure, in the end a phone discussion did take place , hats off to the one who made it, but by then the die was cast, Andy could not remain after (f), but phone calls are not a panacea that could cope with the above.
The whole thing on "voting" and " unanimity" needs harsh consideration on how to approve technical documents. Unanimity managed to give force to a previous rules document containing extremely basic errors, some still there, which in the light of day and at our urging many RO realised thy could not do and were not sensible, whatever the position now. So the very approval process needs review. All votes are not equal. My advice to committee is that any qualified person must have the right of veto, with a process to resolve such stalemate via external mediation, if it cannot be done internally.
It seems odd to see a remark " should offer to serve" Alan, when a lot of the problem came from the refusal to accept such offers!, ultimately leading to Andy resigning!
I was just going by what Graham Breeze said. I'm not sure why he'd lie about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
But in many cases that attitude has been caused directly by the refusal to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toreador
It is also a convenient misrepresentation. The executive try to deflect this as a criticism of committee in general whereas, The criticism has been directed at a few members of the executive, and certainly less inflammatory and rude than public statements made by them in multiple forum accounts. Would "george" for example like to identify themselves, directly criticising Andy or hide away in shame - it can only be one of three people, and I can have a shrewd guess at which!
The criticism of committee if there is one, is by now they must clearly accept that the july rules for example should not have been approved. There were a lot of basic problems. So clearly it questions the committee dynamic or the due diligence done by each member by which that document was approved, and it certainly question the lack of proactive consultation with such as Wynn, so clearly something is not right. Self reflection needed. Andy is the only one that I have seen "hold his hands up" for that ,saying he should have looked under the hood! for which I respect him enormously, others should do the same.
Secondly, Andy clearly wanted a motion voted. It is his basic right to do that if he wants it so. They should have supported his right to a hearing, not necessarily his position, against the attempts to prevent it. If they did not want it, fine, allow the vote and vote it down!.
He also won a "consensus" at a meeting in preston in as far as anyone (including the secretary) can tell which was removed from minutes. There is no justifiable reason for sitting on sidelines allowing either vote to be supressed.
When the first one in preston was discounted because it is was argued no "formal show of hands" was made (nowhere mandated in the constitution for committee) , Andy did the right thing. He then and as a consequence proposed a written motion instead then for a proper vote, to avoid the uncertainty, that was then refused a hearing or a vote! Committee should have acted to allow proper process even if voting against. For that the whole committee are guilty of standing by and letting it happen.
As far as I am aware , no actual show of hands was done on approval of the letter to coroner, nor can there have been, since some wording was not discussed till after, as far as I am aware from Andy no show of hands took place, and I doubt if a written motion was passed. Yet that is presented as UNANIMOUS! when an actual consensus at Preston meeting was ignored because the chair didnt like it! Committee - these things have to stop!
Thirdly the ad hominem attacks and misleading statements in multiple accounts on this forum by several committee are clearly not right. The rest of committee are guilty by association unless they act to prevent that, resulting in moderators resigning now.
So committee have some soul searching. Brett should not have to put up with a load of **** which is not right and not of his making, and that needs directing at those at the helm doing such things.
This is all coming across like 'Hot Fuzz'
I can imagine the committee chanting "For the greater good" :)
Indeed, no show of hands took place. The committee very rarely has formal votes on anything so unless there is active and strong dissent things just get nodded through. I feel that this is not the most democratic way to do things and results in the chair having disproportionate power.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
In the case of the Coroner's letter only I and Pete Bland actively opposed it and refused to agree. After a breath-taking browbeating session, I agreed to work with Graham Breeze and Jon Broxap to re-word the final paragraph only. This resulted in changes which Graham now seems keen to take credit for, though they were driven by me, and I reluctantly agreed for the letter to be sent.
I was not (and am not) happy with the response because I believe the whole approach is wrong but there is a tremendous pressure on the committee to "speak with one voice" and to present all decisions as unanimous, even when there is clear discomfort among some members.
Ultimately, it was this situation that led to my resignation.