Resignation fromCommittee

[Dave_Mole]

Ten (not twenty or "scores of") members turned up at the Kendal meeting

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".

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.

[Toreador]

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.

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?

[Alan]

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?

I think you'll find that this is untrue too.


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.

[Splatcher]

I think you'll find that this is untrue too.


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.

[Witton Park]

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"

[alwaysinjured]

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?

The entire public spat is the direct refusal to
(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!

[Toreador]

I think you'll find that this is untrue too.

I was just going by what Graham Breeze said. I'm not sure why he'd lie about it.

There may be a reluctance to post on here because of the attitude of some of the posters towards the committee in general.

But in many cases that attitude has been caused directly by the refusal to respond.

[alwaysinjured]

I was just going by what Graham Breeze said. I'm not sure why he'd lie about it.



But in many cases that attitude has been caused directly by the refusal to respond.

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.

[Stolly]

This is all coming across like 'Hot Fuzz'

I can imagine the committee chanting "For the greater good"

[Fellhound]

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!

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.

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.