Well the ballot paper arived this morning.
Is it a yes with the committee
or a no with my heart?
Printable View
Well the ballot paper arived this morning.
Is it a yes with the committee
or a no with my heart?
Choices choices which way to go :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
I trust the committee. I'm going with them.
Regardless of which way you vote, please make sure that you do vote. This is an important issue.
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
The summary report reads a bit like those bits of paper that were coming through our letter boxes the week before last - read the full report carefully and read between the lines!
It talks about BOFRA, TRA, ARC, BOF, etc but there's no mention of SHR (Scottish Hill Runners) or WFRA ie the Welsh Fell Runners Association which is independent of UKA (the governing body for athletics in the UK) and independent of Welsh Athletics (the governing body for athletics in Wales?!).
WFRA now organises over 80% of fell races in Wales with independently organised insurance. WFRA has a thriving membership with its own championship programme and it's been working very well for nearly three years. Welsh Athletics continues to send junior and senior teams to Knockdu etc and to quote the sub-committe report ' International considerations should not carry any weight in the arguments aboit disaffiliation.'
I made a decission months ago that I would go with whatever the sub committee decided as they would be better informed. My initial reaction last year, when all this kicked off, was to to disaffiliate but I trust the sub committees decission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
just sifted mine out of the 25 other letters that are all crap
going for a walk , will post it then
Why don't you make your own decision rather than "go" with what the committee sugests you should do?Quote:
Originally Posted by martin
The conclusion of the committee is not necessarily the correct one for the sport.
I have had a few ballot papers over the years but never had one with my name already printed on it. I will be voting to disaffiliate
I'm with the committee.... remain affiliated to uk athletics and observe what goes on for a year, then decide. :cool:
Because that is my decission - i.e. to trust the sub committee!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJ
The sub-committee know a lot more about this than I do and I trust them. My vote will be Yes.
I go with the sub committe, their the guys that want the FRA to be successfull, as I do.
I don't have the information that the sub com have. They are doing thier job for the ggod of fell runners. I will vote to support them and then see how it goes for a year.
Aye, not being "privy" to all the events (in terms of UKA) of the recent past, a vote for the committee seems best as they've decided by over 2 to 1 (so the letter says). I think that most of the forum believe they have fell runners interests at heart so lets support them.
We'll see where we are in a year.
Don't forget the stamp!Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swoop
i realised at the post box just before i put it in:o
cheers swoop
Any idea why four years ago Scottish fellrunners decided to disaffiliate and three years ago Welsh fellrunners decided to disaffiliate? Scottish Athletics and Welsh Athletics had already decided to ride rough shod over fellrunners - in Wales most race organisers were prepared to pack it in and we would have ended up without a race programme - which is surely what Mr Average Fellrunner is most concerned about. English Athletics (ie UK Athletics) has been moving more slowly but the time will come!!
£2 extra for non-affiliated runners; race permits with risk assessment etc, etc; qualification for race officials including marshalls (perversely I do have my Grade 5 qualification but this means going on health and safety courses, CRB checks, etc),... I ran in the Master's XC in Mansfield recently where the tree roots had all been sprayed with white paint! And those are just a few technical points. Regarding junior fellrunning, there are some negative references in the document about BOFRA and the British Orienteering Federation who are independent bodies - both have thriving junior sections!
SHR and WFRA are working fine and at the recent WFRA AGM the overwhelming majority (with over 2 year's positive experience of independent fellrunning) voted to back an FRA withdrawal from UKA.
Before you vote just go back and remind yourselves of Dave Jones's points in the last edition of The Fellrunner - he's not just a loose cannon trying to irritate people, he's genuinely concerned about the future of our sport.
Have the Electoral Commission seen this ballot paper? It is a totally one-sided and biased summary. Even the no option makes it clear that it is against the committee's recommendations.
I was unsure but I will be voting NO now
Well, this is an interesting matter.
I do think it a bit strange a number of posters, some of whom I know and respect, seem to be saying "cos the committee say so". I thought the whole point of the ballot was to find out what the membership think. (It ISNT a vote of confidence!). But that's, as someone said, a criteria upon which someone has made their decision so no one should knock it. It's as valid a view as the next paid-up member's.
Personally, I found more strange the comment on the "fact" that we've not been privy to "all the information"...oh come on! Where have you been? Mars?
The ballot paper I also think is odd in that it's named...but to be honest better this way than risk non-members and/or multiple votes being cast (...it is photocopiable).
Strange also that the FRA chairman is the recipient of the ballot papers. A potential conflict of interest in that Tony is chair of the (main)committee which is recommending a particular way of voting. However, on this latter-point, I know Tony and he is a chap of the highest integrity so this, for me, is a non-issue (...but does take a perception risk). {And far better Tony than some UKA quango :eek: }
Finally, I think it would have been useful to have seen a single page statement by a strong proponent for, and a statement by a strong proponent against. Dave Jones has given the case for why to divorce, but there's no explicit statement as to why stay married (other than the ballot form summary note).
As to which way to vote, I'm sure we've all made our minds up. Let's hope we do get a large turnout.
Exactly! It makes it clear what you are voting for! You don't seem to know why you are voting no.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnybike
Hmm, without looking at the precise minute from the AGM, I thought the committee were mandated to investigate & report back? To give their recommendation on the ballot paper may appear unfair but then a seperate mailing would have got up someone else's nose.
As the majority of the membership want to turn up at a race an hour before, pay £3, run, have a cuppa and a chat, say thanks and go home, some leadership is necessary especially when you know that the majority of the committee are still active & competitive in the sport (and long may it continue) and are trying to do what they feel is right in the wider context of the sport - not just turning up at a race an hour before etc etc.....
The FRA Committee has been elected by FRA members to "manage" fell running and most people who just "turn up and run" think it does a damn good job.
The Committee, which has examined the "UKA issues" more profoundly than most of us individuals, including Dave Jones, has recommended a "Yes".
It seems to me that anyone who votes "No" believes they know better than the FRA Committee with all its collective wisdom, experience, judgement etc and is also presumably willing to stand for election for the FRA Committee and attend meetings and deal with the admin. of the sport etc, because, obviously, they know better...
An amusing take on the democratic process there End. So, pray, tell us...why do you think the Committee thought it right to ask the membership then? I'd love to hear your wisdom, You seem so really good at it...Quote:
Originally Posted by end
Well what a load of old wank about "the committee know better than me, so I'll vote the way they advise me".
Baa.
Most of the arguments for staying in are specious.
My view is that International events need 'professional' organisation. Junior participation is so bound up with anti-paedophile legislation that it too needs a 'professional' support with all the bullshit that goes with it. Both of these should be managed by an organisation that has to adhere to these rules. So the issue is more complex than a 'stay in' or 'stay out' option.
Lets agree to the founding of a professionally led UK Mountain Running Organisation to look after these interests and leave mainstream fellrunning to an amateur organisation (FRA). First step, vote to disaffiliate and then let Alan and John et al forge on with setting up the Mountain Running Org under the UKA wing.
Mindyou, ignore everything I say since it is quite clear that everything that the sub-committe report says is written purely for an english audience. It is quite clear that the FRA committee believes it speaks only for english fell runners. The Celts have had to get on with it in their own way. But I think the example is a good one. You english folk should vote with your concience for the interests of english fell running. We'll sort out the out-in-the-cold celtic problem later!!
:mad: Right. Cards on the table. I'm not into being anonymous when it comes to things that matter, so here's some background. I was introduced to the sport by Mike Rose who was a good friend to his death. I married Dave Jones's daughter. Dave is a good friend, companion in the hills and excellent childminder. I've done some of my most enjoyable KIMM's with Alan Brentnall who is also a good friend. I've spent many happy hours in the company of Margaret Chippendale and Neil Goldsmith - fellow Pennine Fellrunners.
I haven't decided whether, as a sport and community, fell running is best affiliated to UKA or not. As you can imagine, I've listened to Dave's argument and the argument from some in the opposite camp - usually over a beer. But as a dim witted Yorkshireman I was looking forwards to a factual report from the appointed Sub-committee on which to make my decision. As I understood it, the sub committee were tasked with identifying the pros and cons of UKA affiliation and informing the main committee and the membership so that, rather than acting on a gut feeling, we could decide what was best for fell running armed with the facts.
Now, what have we got??
A nine page report http://fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/committ...finaldraft.pdf
but who is it written by? Why does it not carry the authors' names?
The report does not give the pros and cons. Particularly with respect to the summary, it gives the advantages of staying with UKA and the disadvantages of leaving. There must also be significant advantages to leaving UKA otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. The sucess of WFRA and SHR is conspicious by its absence.
A Ballot Paper. Where to start?
Since when did a ballot paper have the individuals name on it? Returned to the Committee Chairman?? What is this? The dictionary definition of ballot is "secret voting; votes recorded in ballot". It should enable those that might otherwise feel awkward about upsetting friendships or other relationships or those fearful of repercussions, the opportunity to say what they really feel. It also ensures that those that have to see the ballot papers to count them, can more easily remain objective in their dealings with those that voted.
Why have a vote for or against the committee? This isn't what the membership was promised. We were supposed to be voting on the issue of staying in or leaving UKA.
The "Summay Note" is completely one-sided and subjective. It obviously reflects the opinion of the author(s?), again unknown! It attempts to brow-beat the membership into supporting the committee. We know that they are all volunteers and put in lots of their time and resources to support fell running. I am very grateful for this and will, at the right time in my life, try to put something back into the sport too. However, one sentence really gets to me: "It cannot recommend a leap in the dark to revert to being a poor relation fringe sport".
We are a fringe sport. We are a poor relation in monetary terms - so what. The richness of experience that can be had when pushing yourself over the Paps of Jura or through the bogs of Bleaklow is ours. It's nothing to do with UKA, PSTs, CMGs, rules and regulations. A major part of the appeal of fell running is its anarchic, "fringe" nature. If the FRA Committee really is "made up of fell runners who just want to run and not worry about bureaucracy" why is being a poor relation fringe sport a problem???
I still don't know whether it would really be best for fell running to stay affiliated to UKA - I don't think that the sub-committee have presented us with a balanced set of facts on which to make a decision. So, I'm back to the good old "gut reaction". My No vote goes in the post tomorrow.
Whatever you think, please make sure that you vote. An apathetic membership is the last thing we need right now.
Best wishes
Richard Topliss
Bugger, why couldn't I be so succinct!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud
Good post Richard.
Here I am, an englishman (yorkshire parents) Living in and loving Wales but more so, loving the free and 'anarchic' nature of our sport. I do it to escape bullshit, committees and red tape (which I get enough of at work thank you).
So, for what its worth, my 'No' vote is also added to the list.
Simon Blease, Clwb Rhedwyr Brycheniog. Steam Bunny. Passionate fell runner.
RichT,
Some very good stuff there, almost to well balanced! Plainly it's time you got over the injury & got back on the fells!!!
Particularly liked the fringe reference, all of which you will know I agree with...
and today saw, (yesterday now!) a good number of wonderful ("Fell") events taking place, across these tiny congested Isles (& beyond), which I suspect would take place regardless of the bureaucracy.....
but, maybe I'm just being too simplistic as usual....
and none of this is to demean the brilliant efforts of those who serve selflessly & give their precious time freely on/in committee & sub-committees, in pursuit of sustaining our "sport", and enabling us & the “young” people to find the special places we have come to love.
and I hope those who punch, so strongly here, will put back the same effort, of those who do now, when change comes....
... ballot papers??? always take a long time to reach this neck of the woods..
Following RichT's example I now feel I must now out myself as John Chippendale - of course my disguise may not have been good enough anyway!
I feel we should very much bear in mind the very tangible problems caused by UKA's disregard of fell running operational requirements in late 2004 ("Celtic" race organisers left without insurance without warning) 2005 and 2007 (disruption to FRA Calendar production) all of which have been well covered by Dave Jones' Spring 2007 Fellrunner article and sundry postings on this website all of which provided compelling reasons for disaffilliation. Despite this an anonymous FRA sub-committee has felt compelled to issue a "ballot summary note" comprising only reasons why they think the FRA should stay affilliated to UKA - in my opinion many of these reasons do not stand scrutiny and my comments are as follows:-
1.Understanding of issues - despite the claim that the sub-committee best understand the issues I feel that such an understanding is not restricted to them alone eg Dave Jones for one with 19 years service on the committee in major roles interacting with UKA and its predecessors has a very comprehensive overview of the situation which should not be dismissed lightly even by those who may not share his views on disaffilliation. In addition Ross Powell and Sheila Lloyd, both members of the FRA committee, have experience of confronting the same issues in Wales and decided to leave the UKA fold and establish an independant Welsh FRA (WFRA).
2.Costs - it is accepted that for the FRA to take out its own insurance would cost approx £7Kpa. The balance of £8K is probably not unreasonable to cover income lost due to disaffilliation. However, in my view, a £3 per member increase in FRA subscriptions would be an acceptable price to pay for freedom to manage our own affairs!
3.Communications - there is no tangible evidence as yet that UKA/FRA "communication problems" are a thing of the past. Two of the original personnel are still operating at this interface. In my opinion we can only hope that matters improve.
4.Unknowns - in my opinion the list of "unknowns" possibly arising from disaffilliation is unduly alarmist and my comments on this are as follows:-
-Governing Body status is not required to coordinate/insure English events as evidenced by the independent WFRA. Moreover an independent FRA could offer insurance for races anywhere in the UK organised by FRA members (at present UKA prevent the FRA from doing this for races outside England).
-as far as international competition is concerned the sub-committee state in the full report "international considerations should not carry any weight in the arguments about disaffilliation". http://fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/committ...finaldraft.pdf
-UKA Competition Management Group (CMG) is currently responsible for the British Champoinships. They have a Championship Coordinator (Jon Broxap) and a Statistician (Mark Hobson). For the 2007 Championship they have shown a willingness to work with the non-UKA affilliated WFRA by including two Welsh races in the Championship which are not UKA permitted/insured (they are covered by the WFRA insurance). Presumably they would be willing to interact with an independent FRA in the same way.
-it is accepted that insurance costs may not remain stable.
-presumably the majority of the extra work load to be taken over from "other athletic bodies" relates to the interface with clubs and their members re their eligibility for Championship events.
-------------------------------------------
In view of the above I consider two decisions need to be made:-
1.Do the membership wish the FRA to operate independently from UKA interference which has led to a series of problems in the recent past?
2.If the answer to 1 above is "yes" then are they willing to pay a modest increase in subscription to fund this?
If the answer to 1 and 2 are both "yes" then vote to disaffilliate
I know how I will vote.....please use your vote whichever way you think best for the future of fell running.
All well and good, but a significant number of members have paid up for life membership, so in effect, it will not be possible to get additional fees from those individuals unless either, the FRA revokes their life membership, or the individuals agree voluntarily to pay an additional fee to cover the costs of an independant FRA.
Great to see a good debate going on about this, and it's good to see all the different opinions.
I'm personally not too keen on either the SHR or the WFRA model. They seem to have split the sport in those countries - albeit in a friendly sort of way. If we did get the FRA to disaffiliate, I would hope it could be done in a way such that things like internationals, juniors etc could still be handled by the same body.
Got my ballot yesterday.
Voted and posted, both Mrs Stagger and Myself:)
John,Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy
My emboldening but why do you harp on about the past when the FRA Committee has endorsed the Summary Note which refers to "vastly improved liaison and communication" and states that "the problems of the past are now in the past"?
World War 2 is over and I now drive a German car.
GB
&c...Quote:
Originally Posted by RichT
An excellent posting pointing out something that's made me uneasy all along - the fact that the comittee have never given us a balanced view of this and have actually made no secret of the fact that they are, and have been throughout, seriously biased against disaffiliation.
To present the options the way they have AND to print the members name on the form is scandalous and, to me, seriously undermines the credibility of this as a proper democratic vote. :(
I have shown the ballot paper to a number of people this morning. All of them are not fell runners, are not members of the FRA, and have no knowledge of the FRA or UKA.
The reactions were interesting. Some laughed, but all found it a strange way to carry out a democratic process. 'Unacceptable' said by some.
I'm an orienteer as well as a fell runner; the report mentioned that British Orienteering members are "... committed to contributing such amount as may be required, in the event that the Federation goes broke". It didn't mention that this amount can not exceed 50p, something that I'd consider relevant. We're not quite Lloyd's Names;)
I'd also take issue with the presentation of event officials requirements as being massively onerous because of the non-affiliated status of BOF. The roles of Planner, Controller and Map Advisor exist due to the very technical nature of course planning and marking in orienteering and so have no direct relevance to fell running. The only requirement to be an Organiser of a National orienteering event (equivalent to a Championship fell race) is to have organised a few lower level events (plus attendance at a training course is advised but not mandatory) - not too severe or suprising really.
Dom, I'm a life member of the FRA but I now willingly pay my annual sub to the WFRA and I've not heard any squeaks from other celtic life members. I suspect english lifers may also be amenable to understanding that sometimes, you have to pay a little extra to keep what you love pure and simple.
Graham, communication between UKA and FRA should become and stay excellent, disaffilliated or not. In fact, by taking our stand for independence, we may get better communication because they cannot 'forget' about us as some hidden bit of their own empire.