FRA elections 2009

[pressure]

[geeza]

So do you mate!

[anukhet]

Swanny & Ed - the fact that you know that each other snores.....
Dare I ask how?

[anukhet]

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.

[RogueTwoRobots]

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.

[robotwars]

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

[botmad]

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

[andy_kane]

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)

[pressure]

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.

[andy_kane]

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.