Mike Hamilton-Macy, candidate for FRA chairman.

[pressure]

Since the current commitee have expressed the wish that cadidates for the elections have their own thread I have posted mine.
Only a couple of things to say at this point, the main one is that I will aim to keep the FRA looking forward with better relations and a stronger community.
I expressed the opinion a little while ago that no commitee members should work for an event organiser, I have thought more on this and it would exclude too many roboteers from the election.
With five EOs (all being well) running events this year potentially dozens of experienced roboteers are going to work for at least one of them, it would be wrong to exclude such a high percentage of the community.
So I would propose that anyone could stand, any possible conflict of interest issues that arise in the future could be addressed at the time.
Post any questions or suggestions here, if you want to communicate personally my e-mail address is mikehmacy@purpletom.com
Regards to all, MIke.

[anukhet]

Constitutionally, anyone could stand is not quite right:
Neither national nor regional officers shall be an organiser of any commercial event for profit.
(FRA Constitution Para 4.4)
This would rule out EOs but not their respective crews as long as they are FRA members.

[pressure]

Thanks for your correction Karoline, I believe that, at the moment, EOs are allowed to have a spokesperson to represent them at commitee meetings, this gives them a voice but not a vote.
This is a workable situation for the EOs, having crew on the commitee will only become a problem if there is a vote about, the EOs
As I mentioned this would have to be debated if, and when, the situation arises, MIke.

[anukhet]

quote:

So I would propose that anyone could stand, any possible conflict of interest issues that arise in the future could be addressed at the time.
One question:
If a majority of committee members worked for a single event organiser, how could a conflict of interest problem even be perceived as such?

[pressure]

hello again, not quite sure what you mean.
In the unlikely event that the majority of the next commitee work for one EO are you suggesting that if, for example, they were voting on who gets the next UK champs and that the majority of the commitee work for one of them that they would not notice the conflict of interest or worse still ignore it? Unlikely.
I would suggest that an ammendment be made to the constitution to the effect that: if a vote is called that directly concerns one or more EOs, members of the commitee that work for any EO should not be allowed to vote on that occasion, thus removing any obvious bias.
I think most roboteers would recognise any such problems but the most important thing is that all FRA proceedings are seen to be fair and unbiased to the community as a whole, MIke.

[andy_kane]

I believe that the existing governing body are aware of this sort of thing and how to avoid such potential pitfalls.

What I need to know is where you as a chairman of the roboteers organisation are going to take our sport in the future?

[geeza]

Mike is right to a certain extent this is how real world councils work, at least at a local level. Anyone who has a vested interest in a subject has to declare their interest and leave the meeting while that subject is being discussed. I am torn between this system and the current one, the EOs have their own meetings and can report back to the FRA and vice versa. Which on the whole works quite well.

[anukhet]

As you say, dozens of experienced roboteers are going to work for at least one EO. Currently it is not a problem as (for want of a better word) allegiances are left at the door.

At this moment in time we do not know who the committee members will be - that is up to the members themselves. My point is, should there end up being an imbalance of allegiance AND they cannot leave it at the door, how could that group possibly even perceive that there is an obvious bias?

In addition to that, by changing the constitution, it WILL come to a situation, by removing the obvious(??) bias, where only one or two or even no one is eligible to vote.

[pressure]

Hi Andy, I have no doubt that the current governing body are aware and have done their best to not get pitted!
As to where I wish to take the sport, it will (if Im elected) not be my decision alone as to where we go, it will involve the collective ideas of the commitee with input from the roboteers.
Reaching a wider audience will be one goal, getting more grass roots interest in roboteering is another.
For example a number of roboteers, myself included, have been invited, in the last couple of years, to schools to put on shows and/or teach them how to build basic antweights and then compete against each other with them.
The response I have seen is very good, that interest needs to be nurtured somehow.
Keeping us in the pubic eye is the main thing.
I hope this goes some way to answering your question, Mike.

[joey_picus]

...the pubic eye?

I do have an actual question, as an observer (albeit a well versed one) - according to people Ive spoken to, the FRA itself isnt promoted very much at live events or by the event organisers, possibly leading to scenarios where potential newcomers cant find this forum because they are simply not aware of it.

Would you say that this is the case, and if so what would you intend on doing about it?