this just gets more stupid every time i log on the forum
thought it was nearly over but just getting dragged on
Printable View
this just gets more stupid every time i log on the forum
thought it was nearly over but just getting dragged on
The election was due to finish on 20.3.09., it is not being dragged on, it is being cut short.
I also want to see it all over with asap but not at the expense of the roboteers democratic rights
So what if its an odd number or not...
The purpose of the governing body is to have a good representation of roboteers for the association.
I would suggest that if anyone has reason to believe that any member should not hold a position on the committee they should contact us.
Mike - the committee is being de-fragged as I seem to remember, on a previous post, you were all for.
Regional reps have been abolished, which, when originally set up, was a fine idea. But, at the last count, a third of all members were in my area, and 2 areas had only 2 members, and could not find reps for those areas. Member roboteers have replaced these so now more than 2 people from any region can now sit on the committee. As so many have volunteered their services, where in the past we could find none, is it not better that we have more voices so that the membership is better represented.
For so long the committee has had its numbers limited by the regional rep rule, and now that restriction has been lifted, many more long standing and respected roboteers have come forward - where previously they could not - and I believe they should all be allowed to serve the community.
What is your objection Mike? Which of these respected reps do you believe will not represent the communities best interests? Why do you wish to limit the number of committee members? Perhaps you could enlighten us? How can the democratic rights of the roboteers be any diminished by having a larger committee? The system we have just discarded limited the number of voting reps, we are now free to have a more open and democratic committee.
Trev
sooner its all done the better lol
(Message edited by ady on March 08, 2009)
I have to say that I am not bothered about having an election.
Jonno said a while ago that what we need are doers. I would suggest that those who have put themselves forward are the people who are prepared to offer their time and commitment on a regular basis to do stuff.
Great! I would commend each and every one of them for this and also offer my heartfealt thanks.
Whilst there is an option to jump ahead and have an election, I would have thought that the old saying many hands make light work would apply. The reality is that this is for the next two years. Over that time peoples ability to complete the task they have offered to do may change for whatever reason. If there are sufficient people then unforseen circumstances can easily be accomodated.
I see a list of responsible people who are willing to help. I am happy with that list of people. I think it will be good for the community.
As for my democratic rights, I have a rep who i am happy with. If I have a problem with the fra I will speak to that rep who should put my views forward. I assume that when there is a significant issue I will be consulted. I cannot see how my democratic rights can be more protected without me taking a more active role and standing as a roboteer rep. I certainly do not want to be consulted over everything!
Any way on a lighter note, does anyone else find the description of the presidents position ammusing?
A senior member of our community that has experiance of life and robot combat,be a diplomat, possibly to give out trophies and kiss babies heads .............
I just have this image of a load of babies breathing a collective sigh of relief that this will only happen after Andy has left office:lol:
Andy
all them should stand but when we have a problem the 1st person we go to is jonno
jonno for president
I have no objection to the final number (does the constitution not state there can be a maximum of 10?), the more the better.
Its just that the committee has taken the decsision out of the roboteers hands, we cannot choose who we want anymore.
You said in an earlier post that The new committee has some important constitution changes to make, so the first meeting will be a busy one.
Am I right in thinking that constitutional changes have to be put to and voted on by the membership? Or is that another right we have lost?
If I appear to be out of touch with committee discusions it is because I am no longer recieving copies of all the e-mails, why is this?
I have no desire to stir things up, I would just like clarity and the things we have been promised to be delivered.
Your fellow roboteer, Mike.
i think its a good thing that more stand. after all there is less chance of bias then dont you think. the desision to do it doesnt worry me either i am sure it was a pretty insignificant desision not to be put to the vote of every roboteer. if there was a vote on everything then things wouldnt be moving forward very fast at all.
i do think tho.......
nope....i just wrote an essay rant but deleted it.
calm down mr swan
oh and i have objection with just about all of them.....
Leo van Miert ...... got a right hair do goin on
Tim bence....... Eds friend
Trevor Wright...... got no hair
Tony Somerfield....never met the bloke (nice i am sure tho)
Clive Brown ..... owes me a dance
Mike Hamilton...... too bloody clever
Ed Wallace.....snores
Gilbert Grimm.....Iron awe
Geoff Smith......need more crisps from holland
Pete Lale.....needs to buy more cigs
John Bell...... toooo nicer bloke
Tom Kane......too good at driving
really that is a good selection of roboteers with plenty of ideas that i am sure will be put to the table. there is of course 1 roboteer that seems to be missing tho but i am sure at the first meeting that will change. :)
:lol:
So do you mate!
Swanny & Ed - the fact that you know that each other snores.....
Dare I ask how? :)
Mike Hamilton-Macy, you are wrong on all counts. Dont bleat on about democracy when you are clearly jumping the gun as to its process. There IS a process and you should read AND understand the constitution before jumping to conclusions.
As for the emails (or supposed lack of them) - there havnt been any, simple as that!
BTW just an observation.....
As soon as someone posts about the FRA (either its aims or organisation) someone takes a crack. Wasnt anyone listening to Mike Lambert? Next time he wont be so polite because I know that he doesnt like repeating himself.
Personally I dont have a problem with having a large number of reps as has been posted. I believe that they are all dedicated to the cause and willing to work hard for the benefit of this sport.
But Andy first said
Should any of our members wish to object to the above proposal, please post your comments here
to which Mike posted an objection - not a vicious objection but an objection nonetheless:
I believe the roboteers have the right to choose who represents them, there should be an election to select 8 or 9 from the list (depending on which gives an odd total)
This alone should be enough to generate a bit of discussion, give it a little time to see if any other roboteers still wish the rep positions to go to a vote. Therefore I can understand Mikes reaction when merely 12 hours later it was declared:
Welcome to all the new reps, I am looking forward to working with you.
The new committee has some important constitution changes to make, so the first meeting will be a busy one
This gives the impression that his objection has been discarded and that members€™ views are not worth much. This can quite easily not be the case, I€™m not accusing anyone of doing this deliberately but even though you may think it petty, you should at least understand why Mike commented on his feelings about a lack of democratic behaviour in the election process.
I have to ask though, why does his opinion on this suddenly mean he potentially has a vendetta with certain member roboteers who have put themselves up for rep positions? While I said I don€™t have a problem with a large committee I was slightly surprised to read that the number of positions had jumped from five up to whoever-has-put-themselves-forward-due-to-their-self-nomination-being-an-indicat ion-of-their-dedication. I have no problem with any one of the people who have gone forward as reps; some of them I know, some of them I don€™t but I€™m confident each and every one of them will do a fine job serving on the committee. However I am of the opinion it would perhaps be better if election guidelines (5 rep positions - going to vote) as set out in the first post of this thread were adhered to.
For those of you accusing him of trying to upset the balance or unharmonise the FRA with such comments, I€™m sorry, but you are no better by implying that he has issues with current potential reps.
How can the democratic rights of the roboteers be any diminished by having a larger committee?
I believe Mike€™s issue is not so much with the fact that the committee would be large (he states this himself by saying €˜the more the better€™) but more with the fact that when he said he€™d prefer the option of voting for reps not to be removed, such a request seemed to fall on deaf ears and that there wasn€™t much time given for other members to express their opinions before indications arose that all twelve candidates would make the committee regardless.
Jamie,
Thats a very good post...
Ok so we have a larger number of roboteers putting themselves forward, I think its great.
Most if not all, have a forum acount, or at least access to the forum via a team account.
So lets hear from them, lets find out what they think about the process.. do they aggree or disagree... as i stated before, it doesnt matter who it is, but we need doers, and people which are going to work together.
I dont think its too much to ask for each one of them to write something and state their opinion.... lets face it, if they cant get involved in a discussion about themselves, what hope have we got of them doing anything for our community apart from turn up to a meeting and vote on issues.
Im looking at the list, and i can see a number of names which will be great as they attend a majority of events and i dont think will have a problem with standing up for what they believe in.
Nothing against Tony... however Id like to know if hes planning on coming to events, if he still definately wants to be involved, I havent seen him for whats got to be over 2 years, i was suprised to see the name. I hope he brings bulldog back one day.
Maybe the reps should vote to see if there should be a vote.
:)
John
Well i for one have no problem in posting a short line or two on here with regards to the issues raised.
I have been to many meetings in the past as i was entitled to do so and will continue to do so (as a rep or not ) whichever the case may be .
I sat as always in the background listening to all the busness up for discussion and to be voted on.
I also felt as an in the background watcher very subdued as in i had no right to have a say in the discussions that were going on, However i did voice an opinion as and when the need arose and therefor will continue to do so ..
I for one have put myself forward as a rep as the situation is changing from area reps to roboteer reps. My area rep has always been very contactable and has always done a very good job and i would not wish to stand against him therefore i have not stood before .
The change of title now means that i would be able to work with him as aposed to standing against him ....
As to a vote i am of an easy disposition if there is a need for a vote then let the cards fall where they may.
Anyway just thought i would make a short post just to show that i for one read the forum :):):)
Pete... Teamtilly.co.uk
As to the objections I am reading here there are more positives than negatives so far.
To me there are no negatives, the more reps the better.
A real representation of roboteer opinion will be gained.
( there used to be 13 of us originally so what is the real beef)
I have just read the FRA constitution and have copy/pasted the relevant sections.
4. GOVERNING BODY
4.1 The association shall be governed by a governing body of voting members :-
a. Up to 5 National Officers :- President, Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer & Safety Officer
b. Up to 10 Regional Officers representing Roboteers across the UK
c. 1 representative from Event Organisers in the association
There is clearly a maximum of ten non executive, voting reps allowed.
7. ALTERATIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION
7.1 Alterations to the constitution can be made by resolution and ballot. This may be triggered by the
membership (see 5.12 above) or by the governing body. The returning officer will control the
issuing and counting of the votes. The membership will have 1 week to record their votes.
Once again it is clear that it is up to the membership to vote on constitution changes not the committee.
For the record I am not having a crack at the FRA, I am merely trying to establish the facts.
Mike, I really think you need to attend your first meeting before you spout to much, on the constitution or other matters.
You should be made aware that the governing body is fully briefed on its obligations to its own constitution.
Of course the membership would have its say and vote on any constitutional changes.
However any constitutional changes need to be discussed by the governing body to determine the motions to be put to the membership and if it is 12 or 14 or even 15 good roboteer souls,so much the better!
I do not think this is the best place to be scaremongering our members,or incinuating that the FRA governing body is potentially flouting its own rules, you being a new governing body member, need to give your self a chance.
When you ran for the chairmens office you were offered any briefing that you needed, but you have never asked for any briefings or information and it shows.
I completely agree with Jonnos post above, its great to have so many people willing show an interest in moving things forward which is something that has been lacking generally. Note not a dig at the current committee, but the general lack of voting and general interest in the governing of the hobby.
But I am very aware that too many cooks can spoil things. I would suggest that we give the above list a try for a year, maybe less depending on how things work. And reassess the situation then, if it works well then make a permanant change to the consitution.
It is not up to the committee to decide if it is working or not, but it should be selfevident from peoples general attuide towards the FRA, which recently has been distrusting. Hopefully with better communication to all members this can change.
For us all, define general lack of voting?
Ok, last time I stood for election there were at least 8 memberships in my region, only 3 voted including the two candiates.
Mike - perhaps you misunderstood my last post, we have altered the make-up of the committee and have to change the constitution accordingly. This will have to be approved or disapproved by a vote of the membership. The full extent of the constitution changes have yet to be finalised and it is up to the new committee to decide on the changes and how the vote for approval is organised. Quite simple, and fully compatible with the current constitution. But nothing will happen until the first meeting in april, so you will have to be patient, and you will have your chance to raise any issues there.
Ed - nobody was more surprised than us at the lack of votes from your area.
To echo Pete Lales comment, he can now work with me, where previously he would have to stand against me. Surely this has got to be for the better?
Trev
My limited experience in these matters brings me to the conclusion that out of the total number of reps there will be 60% still active and working in that job in 12 months time. Due to all kinds of factors not least the credit crunch!
I am very happy there are so many people of such quality and experience, going to be running things at the FRA.
Remember the Committee golden ratio one mouth two ears! :wink:
Hi everyone. I thought it about time I joined the discussion. Re number of reps. I agree with the sentiment that the more the better. It will be easier to get a balanced view.and should prevent most of the current moans about bias. As for voting the usual practice is that in the event of a tie the chairman gets the casting vote. I assume the same would apply to the F.R.A.
In the case of the FRA the chairman votes with the rest of the committee, if there is a tie the president may vote to break the tie. I believe this is the only occasion that the president is allowed to vote.
Thanks Mike, trust the F.R.A. to do it different. Still doesnt cause a problem with odd or even number of reps though. as long as we get to play with our robots, all is fine with the world!!???
Jonno, apologies for the somewhat delayed response for input, I have been away on holiday
My view is that all the people who have put themselves forward would do a good job and that we do need to increase the numbers involved from those we currently have.
I am fully supportive of our move away from regional representation as it enables us to have more good active roboteers from areas such as the Midlands (with Pete being a good example in point of someone who has long been keen to get involved but has not been able to).
However I do have some concerns that we may end up with too big a committee, as Karoline said earlier in this thread the meetings can and do go on for some time whilst everyone has their valuable input and therefore more people could mean we do not manage to deal with all the necessary issues as we could end up with longer discussion on each one. I believe it was for this reason that the constitution originally limited the total to ten.
I also believe that the community should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want each of us who have put ourselves forward to represent them. After all if as an individual we do not have the support of the community then should we be representing the community. It was for this reason that when drafting the election rules I proposed that a vote for and against each candidate should be held regardless of the number who put themselves forward.
Tim
Tim
While I can understand your concerns over having too many reps to get anything agreed, If it is felt that there are too many standing, and ten would be enough, surely it would be better to allow roboteers to vote for (up to) the ten they want. That way anyone who didn't have enough support would fail to get elected
I think that voting 'against' would not be helpful in bringing the roboteering comunity closer together.
What time scales are we now looking at to get all this election stuff resolved and activated?
Gilbert,
I agree with you, the for and against was a way of differentiating on small numbers, but equally voting for ten from twelve could be made to work but may be slightly more work for the returning officer.