Non-personal identification is nothing to do with having something to hide. It's about preserving the unbiased nature of the vote. Some people have no problem loudly proclaiming which way they swing but others like to keep their own counsel. It's to allow the full, unfettered participation of all that the 'secret' ballot has evolved. 'Secret' is, as others have pointed out, a misnomer. Non-attributed would be a more accurate term.
Originally Posted by Wheeze
On the other hand:
- the FRA Commitee set up a working party to do some actual fact finding (which might not suit some Forum posters)
- this group produced a 9 page report which is available to all
- the FRA Committee produced a summary of the 9 pages
- the FRA Committee has shown leadership by indicating where it thinks the best interests of fellrunning lie
- it has arranged a vote of all members
So what is your problem?
Do you really think we are all that naive?? It might be better to save that simplistic line of reasoning for a class of junior school kids. ...not a teacher by any chance, are you?
Well, I don't really think that I ought to be voting, since I've only been a FRA member for 3 months, and have so far only done 2 races.
People seem to think there's some moral duty to vote though, so maybe I should. Two things tend to sway my opinion.
Firstly, though I know little about the FRA, I know quite a lot about BOF, having been a member for about 4 years, and the information we have been given misrepresents the facts about BOF (as someone said earlier in this thread).
Secondly, the ballot paper should have been accompanied by a copy of the report, and brief arguments both for and against. The No camp seem to have been virtually excluded from the process.
Neither of these would normally affect my decision, but I have little else to go on. My gut instinct when presented with a completely one-sided presentation such as this is to take the opposite side.
Maybe I should go with my original feeling, and not vote at all.
The committee are perhaps being too fair!
If there is a low response, say 11%, the FRA could dissociate as a result of 6% of the members voting No.
Why do I get the feeling that if the FRA Committee had recommended withdrawal from UKA you would have been happy?
Perhaps you think the Labour Party manifesto should just contain all the good things the Conservatives do?
&c...
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.
For the record, although I doubt if you will believe me, this assertion is false.
My strong perception from actually attending the FRA Committee meetings and talking with members privately is that the overall mood in the FRA Committee last Autumn was to leave UKA.
However the Commitee decided it needed more facts before making any decision; hence the report, ballot etc.
Wild erroneous assertions such as yours do not help the debate.
OK, this is the third time i've started to type a response to the above debate!!
I'm starting to find the conspiracy theories about the committe and it's decision regarding UKA quite upsetting.
Spending a sunday afternoon discussing the sub-committees report, knowing that an important decision has to be made at the end of that meeting is actually quite daunting & stressful.
I do belive that after a thourough debate we were all quite happy we had enough information to reach a decision - we voted and then continued the discussion on what to do next.
We're wanting each member to make a decision based on the facts - should we not have shown that we had managed to make one and openly state what it is???
A ballot to 6300 members is reasonably costly and the logistics of it fairly time consuming.
Sending a full report with the ballot would have increased the cost and as it's openly available on the website or can be obtained with a simple phone call by those without internet access it was a simple decision just to include a summary. The report isn't being kept secret!
Britta
By this I assume that the FRA are your "Labour Party", the Summary Note accompanying the Ballot is the "manifesto" and those that wish to disaffiliate are the "conservative Party"........
You've hit the nail on the head!
As a member of the FRA committee, I can confirm that at the Emergency Committee Meeting last October when we were trying to resolve the UKA debacle re Graded Officials the majority of the committee decided they needed more information before deciding to disaffiliate from UKA.
However, it should be noted that the information in the sub-committee full and summary reports was still insufficient to convince approximately one third of the full committee, including myself, that we should remain affiliated to UKA.
The decision to have a ballot resulted from a strong wish to disaffiliate expressed by the vast majority of those present at the 2006 AGM and the threat of an EGM on this issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote