Originally Posted by Trundler
&c...
...to print the members name on the form is scandalous and, to me, seriously undermines the credibility of this as a proper democratic vote.
Why are you so uptight about this?
If you stuck your hand up at an AGM people would know what you think and even votes in General Elections are not anonymous. (Ballot papers can be attributed to voters).
And I have voted "Yes"
As another orienteer I think it only fair to point out that the sport is not some laissez-fair eutopia. BOF has a head office with full-time staff; several committes coming up with rulings and technical changes many dealing with technical issues in great detail; non-members cannot enter many events; event officials have to graduate through smaller events in order to officiate at larger ones.
Yes orieteering does stand alone but as an olympic recognised sport it receives hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in funding.
This received from Tony Varley
At the recent 3 Peaks race I made an announcement about the ballot paper and
stressed the fact that the most important view was not the committee's, but
the vote from our members.
It is very important that we have a relative high vote, so that the result
is meaningful and is representative of our members. Please do not just sit back
and do nothing and rely on others to make the decision for you.
I do not know who Stick is, but I can assure him/her that I will in no way
report back anything other than the true result of the ballot in spite of the
fact that I supported the view of the sub committee. Not that Stick was
implying anything else, even those on the committee who voted to disaffiliate
agreed for the papers to be returned to me.
Lets have a good turn out in the vote and then we can put this issue behind
us and just go out fell running.
Cheers
Tony
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that orienteering makes it up as it goes along - there are rules and regulations etc - just that the report maybe mis-represented a couple of things.
BTW, pretty much all orienteering events are open to non-members nowadays - they're also a lot of fun
.....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}.....
.....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.Cheers Brett.
Tony; Stick and I (Neil Taylor) are the same! As I posted, I personally have no concerns with you acting as returning officer. But one of the roles of a chairman is to act as the casting vote in the event of a tied decision (not that I think that's going to be likely!). I just think that you being returning officer could potentially put you in an invidious position...'specially if there's only one vote in it
Total agree with you about need for good turnout though. My vote's going in the post tomorrow.
I think that this issue has generated a lot of bad feeling in our community. There is not one fell-runner I have ever met who I don't get on with well. And yet it's clear that there are strong emotions on both sides of this argument and, as witnessed by this thread and the old-forum equivalent, its polarising people. My best pal and I have differing views on this matter, but we agree to differ. So whatever way the vote goes, we should have the wisdom to accept the result.
I admit, I personally have a bit of a hang up...I keep thinking along the lines of "Why are we [FRA] in this position..?" and keep coming up with the same answer..."because of the actions of the UKA" each time; so I just cannot believe that we'd be better off staying with them. So, sorry Tony (and anyone else who takes a different view), but I will be voting against continuation of affiliation.
Sorry Stick, but some of the difficulties over recent years between UKA and the FRA has been down to the FRA. It's not all one sided, and sometimes people with the best intentions get it wrong. Or put another way, the committee do work hard but they are human.
If you really feel strongly, get on the committee this year. You might even be able to help with the extra work load!
Hi Lamana,
I reckon we don't know each other yet...do we(?). So you probably don't know either my existing commitments or my previous service on the FRA committee.
But then I'm sure you're not really saying that anyone who votes No should put themselves up for election as part-and-parcel of their right to vote this way...are you? I really hope not.
My ex-boss used to have a sign of his wall..."Either Lead, Follow, or get the Hell out of here". And that's crap. It's exactly the sort of polarisation we have to avoid.
Neil,
Don't be so cryptic. My recollection is that you were a FRA Member Rep for 2 years: 1999/2001.
Graham
Hi Graham,
Yep - entirely correct! But whether anyone has served or not served, for 1 year or 10 years, is completely irrelevant. And that's the point I was trying to make.
Cheers
Neil
Graham B beat me to it - I had you down as 2 years on the committee.
I certainly don't think everyone who votes no should go on the committee. But anyone who goes on and on like you are - trying to change other people's opinion. Then yes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote