Ballot Paper Arrives

[Stick]

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 }

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.

[Swoop]

Even the no option makes it clear that it is against the committee's recommendations.

Exactly! It makes it clear what you are voting for! You don't seem to know why you are voting no.

[Jerry]

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.....

[end]

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...

[Stick]

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...

[Mud]

Well what a load of old wank about "the committee know better than me, so I'll vote the way they advise me".

Baa.

[Wheeze]

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!!

[RichT]

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

[RichT]

Well what a load of old wank about "the committee know better than me, so I'll vote the way they advise me".

Baa.

Bugger, why couldn't I be so succinct!!!!

[Wheeze]

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.