Letter to the FRA Chairman

Here is the text of an e-mail that I have sent to Tony V.

Dear Tony Varley,

Firstly, thank you and the rest of my elected committee for the work you have done in relation to the ballot on FRA affiliation to UKA, as well as the rest of committee business that you are involved in.
This missive is to ask if the results of how everyone voted in the aforementioned ballot are going to be made public? By this I mean the actual members who voted and how they voted, rather than the overall outcome. The ballot paper contained both the name and the membership number of each person, it seems reasonable to assume that computing will be used to make sure that votes are not counted twice. I expect that you folk will have two columns on a spreadsheet containing the names and membership numbers, the columns corresponding to the Yes/No options on the ballot form. Thus, enabling the spreadsheet to sum the columns as you enter the votes beside the name & number of those members who voted.

There have been postings on the FRA website forum suggesting that members’ names and membership numbers were on the ballot papers to ensure that FRA members did not vote more than once. I choose to dismiss this idea, for it would mean that my elected committee did not trust me, or trust other members of the FRA. Personally, I would find the idea that my elected committee did not trust me as being an indefensible sleight. Furthermore, if it was the case that the committee did not trust the integrity of the membership, this would lead to the hilarious syllogism:

The FRA committee does not trust the ordinary membership of the FRA.
The FRA committee is drawn from the ordinary membership of the FRA.
Therefore, the FRA committee does not trust the FRA committee.

Now, obviously I cannot conscience that such a state of affairs pertains within my FRA committee. This leads me to the conclusion that all the personal detail on the ballot papers was there to help with the computing of the result. And as there is no reason for anyone to be anonymous there is no reason not to publish the way that those who voted, actually voted. After all, at an AGM or EGM, everyone votes openly with a show of hands. Also, people can then check that there own personal vote was entered correctly: a win-win situation for all concerned.

Looking forward to see how everyone voted.

Yours sincerely,

Ronnie Gallagher

Ronnie, what, exactly, was the point of that?:confused:

wtf????

interesting:p . I suppose it will open up another debate.

Don't you think Tony has a hard enough job or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgal

Here is the text of an e-mail that I have sent to Tony V.

---

Hopefully it will be placed in the spam folder and deleted!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Ronnie, what, exactly, was the point of that?:confused:

---

Self-evidently, it asks for the results, including who voted and which way they voted, to be made available. Also, it points out that the use of computers to work out the results seems the best rationale for having all the membership details on the form.

Ronnie do we really have to start bickering about trust and the commitee
they do a bloody good job
whats the problem, jeez this is gonna get nasty if we cant have trust

carry on commitee your doing a great job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FellShoeShuffler

Don't you think Tony has a hard enough job or what?

---

Well, perhaps you have failed to understand what I wrote, obviously use of computing will make Tony's job much easier. Also, refer to the reply to Wheeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

Ronnie do we really have to start bickering about trust and the commitee
they do a bloody good job
whats the problem, jeez this is gonna get nasty if we cant have trust

carry on commitee your doing a great job

---

Nowhere did I write that I do not trust the committee. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgal

Well, perhaps you have failed to understand what I wrote, obviously use of computing will make Tony's job much easier. Also, refer to the reply to Wheeze.

---

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgal

Nowhere did I write that I do not trust the committee. Quite the opposite, in fact.

---

didnt say you dont trust them
just that the text slighty implies that there isnt trust in the fra commitee

why didnt you just ask tony straight if it could be published on an individual basis instead of mentioning the word trust, i thought that slightly devalued it a bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgal

And as there is no reason for anyone to be anonymous there is no reason not to publish the way that those who voted, actually voted. After all, at an AGM or EGM, everyone votes openly with a show of hands. Also, people can then check that there own personal vote was entered correctly: a win-win situation for all concerned.

---

I would be very worried if the way that I chose to vote was made public.
This information could be misused by either lobby wishing to exploit the situation.

The ballot paper made no mention that the vote from each member would be made public and therefore it would be very wrong if the FRA Committee now choose to make this information available.

I feel sure the Chairman will publish the results when they are collated.
I am not bothered either way whether my vote is made public or not.

I just feel Ronnie spent a lot of time typing a piece that only you appear to understand.

Cheer up Ronnie, just plan your next run or race and enjoy the good weather.

Vote early, vote often. That's what I always say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mud

Vote early, vote often. That's what I always say...

---

It's not like forum names you know ...

I understood what he said and why. Maybe better ways of getting the point across, but I think the point is valid and is completely separate from whether or not the Committee are doing a good job and are appreciated.

There have been a number of posts that have suggested that because the Committee is voluntary that the membership has little right to question their decisions and the way they conduct themselves, which should never be the case.

It smacks of sarcasm etc simply the way you've written it. Thats why people are questioning you. It suggests that you have an agenda. If you haven't and it is a reasonable request, why take half a page.

I dont see whats wrong with him questionning what the data will be used for. Its a fair enough question. I voted to stay with UKA for a number of reasons and not too bothered if the FRA made my vote public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deek

It smacks of sarcasm etc simply the way you've written it. Thats why people are questioning you. It suggests that you have an agenda. If you haven't and it is a reasonable request, why take half a page.

---

exactly

Other than to satisfy someone's curiosity what would be the purpose of making the data public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millipede

The whole point of this letter is questioning why names and numbers are on the ballot papers. This is an issue that most people have moaned about and so all such moaners should be agreeing with his point. Maybe people should read a bit more carefully.:rolleyes:

---

So the email could have said, "Why are names and numbers are on the ballot papers?":rolleyes:

Has the ballot closed now? I keep forgetting to send it off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme

Has the ballot closed now? I keep forgetting to send it off.

---

Closes this Friday I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millipede

The whole point of this letter is questioning why names and numbers are on the ballot papers.

This is an issue that most people have moaned about and so all such moaners should be agreeing with his point.

Maybe people should read a bit more carefully.:rolleyes:

---

millipede the point of the letter was to ask the commitee to publicy publish the votes on an individual basis showing which way everyone has voted, im sure lots like me wouldnt give 2 hoops who new which way i cast my vote but there will be lots that do not want there vote to be shown, the question to tony was fair enough, it just needed a simple question, the word trust just didnt need to come into it.
but ronnie was fair enough to ask it

Sorry
but the whole idea of a postal ballot is its private and you need have no fear of people knowing who voted
it was kindly introduced by our old trout the IRON LADY hereself

The questions were reasonable but pugnaciously framed. This is invariably counterproductive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

The questions were reasonable but pugnaciously framed. This is invariably counterproductive.

---

:confused: :confused: :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by millipede

Maybe people should read a bit more carefully.:rolleyes:

---

I did read carefully but couldn't quite see what purpose publishing the data would serve. :rolleyes:
Other, that is, than verifying that one's vote was counted the way it was cast - personally I have every faith in the committee's counting ability.

Ronnie,

I cant help but agree with the others who argue that you shrouded your question in so many other words that you weakened your argument and risked confusing a lot of people who might otherwise have agreed with you.

Personally I'm not at all bothered that our names were on the ballot papers and dont see any point in publishing a list of how individuals voted. I think the committee's time has better uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malky

..I think the committee's time has better uses.

---

Hmmm, like forming a sub-committee and sending them on a disaffiliation fact-finding mission that didn't even consult WFRA or SHRA... :rolleyes:

Yes, funny that. Why didn't they?:confused:

Hi Trundler,

I certainly agree with you there, they should have consulted with both of us, and NIMRA as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malky

Hi Trundler,

I certainly agree with you there, they should have consulted with both of us, and NIMRA as well.

---

Are you sure? - because, according to my reckoning, at least two of the committee members are also members of the SHR, and at least two are members of WFRA - and pretty big cheeses in the WFRA at that!! Considering that, it's hard to believe that they didn't discuss this topic?

I suppose they might have been worried about making the same mistakes …

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Thug

Are you sure? - because, according to my reckoning, at least two of the committee members are also members of the SHR, and at least two are members of WFRA - and pretty big cheeses in the WFRA at that!! Considering that, it's hard to believe that they didn't discuss this topic?

I suppose they might have been worried about making the same mistakes …

---

YT,

Re WFRA consultation you seem to have overlooked the following posts from Ross Powell (WFRA Chairman & FRA Committee member):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ross

I can confirm that the WFRA were not consulted.
Ross Powell
Chairman WFRA

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ross

I am a member rep on the FRA Committee. However, whilst I can explain the WFRA position at FRA Committee meetings, if asked, the WFRA was not contacted by any member of the subcommittee for further information.

---

What mistakes? Welsh Harrier seems quite happy with the situation and 80% of race organisers in Wales choose to register/insure their races with WFRA rather than Welsh Athletics/UKA! Given the choice Welsh organisers have shown what they think of the way UKA treated them a couple of years ago!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier

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.'

---

YT, there is no doubt the full committee would have been well aware of how the celtic nations had resolved their issues. The sub committee either:
1. Forgot to ask
2. Decided that the celtic solution was not relevant
3. Were directed not to ask

Are there any other possibilities?

The vast majority of fell runners in Wales seem to be very happily pursuing their sport now, with increased numbers seen in races in South Wales. Could I recommend that EFRA makes the same mistake?!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

YT, there is no doubt the full committee would have been well aware of how the celtic nations had resolved their issues. The sub committee either:
1. Forgot to ask
2. Decided that the celtic solution was not relevant
3. Were directed not to ask

Are there any other possibilities?

The vast majority of fell runners in Wales seem to be very happily pursuing their sport now, with increased numbers seen in races in South Wales. Could I recommend that EFRA makes the same mistake?!:D

---

are there any other possibilities :confused:
i thought we had dispensed with the sniping
what do you mean any other possibilities
explain ??????

Sorry Daz, that was not meant to be read as a sniping comment. I was genuinely offering the opportunity to any posters from the subcommittee to correct me if I had overlooked the actual reason why the celtic solutions were not considered. I thought it over and couldn't come up with any myself but I freely admit that no-one has all the answers in any given situation.

The beauty of a forum is that by encouraging others to respond, one's own potentially blinkered view of something can be enlightened. I learn lots by listening to honestly offered views such as yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Sorry Daz, that was not meant to be read as a sniping comment. I was genuinely offering the opportunity to any posters from the subcommittee to correct me if I had overlooked the actual reason why the celtic solutions were not considered. I thought it over and couldn't come up with any myself but I freely admit that no-one has all the answers in any given situation.

The beauty of a forum is that by encouraging others to respond, one's own potentially blinkered view of something can be enlightened. I learn lots by listening to honestly offered views such as yours.

---

yes , okay wheeze i appreciate your answer there mate, im a very diplomatic person , no need to say sorry , phew all this commitee, ballot, sub commitee, buisness has i think become very complicated to the point where i think the commitee could possibly start tiring of people asking why didnt they do this and why didnt they do that etc etc.
i just think they must be getting fed up of some of the comments that have flown about on here
timewise i think they have done very well, there was loads of pressure from every corner of the fellrunning globe to dissafiliate instantly, i personally feel they have handled it very well. but then again im one of lifes to short people.

sorry wheeze i meant to ask you this question about size

can you tell me how many members the welsh and scottish have
just something im thinking of

also with regards to there own insurance , how much ????????