Printable View
Tonight an email was sent to all eligible members to vote for or against acceptance of revisions to the FRA constitution.
If you have not received this email and think you should have, please contact me via the forum's personal message service at the bottom of this posting.
Many thanks
I stupidly omitted to say that the close of voting will be 0:00 Tuesday 28th July giving you just over 1 week to get your vote in.
Okay, I'll start the ball rolling if anyone else wants to join in.
I voted no because I have a general issue with the constitution that gives the Governing Body too much power without recource to the larger membership. Now having said that, I see one of the changes allows the executive to make decisions between meetings of the Governing Body without the requirement to consult the remaining officers (even by Email or phone). What can be so urgent that the executive can bypass the non-executive and if so urgent, surely it is also a matter of discussion for the membership? This means that 2 officers out of the 3 of Karoline, Kane and Geoff in their National Officer capacities can make decisions and only need report the decision to the remaining officers.
Paul, your suggestion is on the agenda for the meeting this Saturday - it has not been ignored. The email that went out is to ratify the changes discussed at the last meeting with the membership - changes which have been too long overdue.
Like paying Companies House for the annual return or paying the internet host - maybe next time I can get Kane to call a AGM................Quote:
What can be so urgent that the executive can bypass the non-executive and if so urgent, surely it is also a matter of discussion for the membership?
Karoline, in your own words, the Email went out to ratify the changes from the last meeting. That it was I am saying a no to and I quote one of the changes allows the executive to make decisions between meetings of the Governing Body without the requirement to consult the remaining officers. The larger picture of involving the general membership is another topic although related.
As for your subsequent post, the original constitution allowed for the executive to make financial decisions between meetings so why change it by removing the word financial? Also the two examples you quoted would not in themselves be unexpected and could simply be raised at the prior meeting during any fincial report highlighting creditors that would be due during the coming period plus were covered by the original constitution without change
It is regretful that you felt the need to be sarcastic by suggesting that Kane call an AGM. I am trying to be constructive and become involved in my limited capacity as a voting member to try and help move the FRA forward in an open and accountable manner.
Moving forward is something the FRA governing body has been trying to do for years but each time gets bogged down by petty side issues that have disrupted any progress.
The constitution as it was had to be changed to reflect the needs of the association and to clarify issues such as voting rights which were not clear in the original - that is the main change however things are not set in stone. The executive would need to make a decision on many things - most recently to exclude someone from the forum. A decision like that needs a quick turnaround especially if a situation is getting out of hand.
Dammit! The whole point I am trying to make here is that there has to be a certain degree of trust in the GB and the Exec. I can understand your scepticism but I hope that your return to the FRA was in part down to seeing that a new regime (dare I use that word? :lol:) may have restored some of your faith. The GB is trying hard to put away the demons that have existed (take that as you may) and have been holding all of us back. Sometimes caution has to be thrown to the wind if it means that something is finally achieved. Sarcasm on my part? Yes! But I have been on the GB now for over 3 years now and finally things are starting to happen - good things too.
Personally I've voted yes.
The main reasons being that the constitution is realatively unchanged apart from a few point of clarification.
I feel that the powers given to the executive are necessary to ensure quick and effective resolutions to what are minor issues for the vast majority of the time.
I don't really think that the majority of the FRA's business needs more than one person to deal with it and also if there is something fundementally wrong that the executive do there is always a failsafe built in which means by getting 10% (as I recall and I'm not about to look it up again) of the memership to request a vote on the issue it has to be put to the members.
I don't find the constitution unusual for this type of organisation in any way and have to say that the more people involved in a decision the longer it takes.
Personally I've taken the decision not to be involved in the running of the FRA as I do not have the time to do anything effectively. Unless someone wants to tell be that axe/flipper combos or four wheel drive robots aren't allowed anymore then I don't really have any issues with what the FRA decides. As far as rules goes it's about having everyone on a level playing field and at the end of the day each of my/our robots will turn up to events complying with them. If I really object to a rule change I'll do what the constitution says and muster up enough people who agree with me and put it to the vote.
Andy
Twice in fact :lol: but only one counts :wink:Quote:
Personally I've voted yes.
Well.....that's what alcohol does for you eh!! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by anukhet