Page 1 of 1
Resolution 2.1 for 2007 AGM
Posted: 03 Sep 2007, 15:06
I notice that Resolution 2.1 from the IOMICA Events Sub-Committee bundles together and presents as one item, to be voted upon as all or nothing, what are in fact two quite different issues.
I also seem to have missed any public introduction, explanation, justification, or discussion of either of these resolutions in this forum.
Personally, I would want to vote "Yes" to one issue, and "No" to the other, but cannot do this.
I would also want to know what has gone wrong in recent championship events that makes the ESC feel it is necessary to suggest these proposals. It is certainly not clear to me that there is any urgent problem which needs fixing, or that there are any IOM owners arguing loudly for these rule changes.
When the previous Exec bundled some previously-agreed rule changes together for approval, and did not explicitly remind owners about the background behind each, there was some exceptionally savage name-calling. I wonder what has changed?
And I wonder what we can learn?
Posted: 03 Sep 2007, 17:20
Lester: You are 100 percent correct. These two proposals were not intended to be have been bundled together for a vote. I hope that the Secretary will correct this problem asap.
I'm sure Bruce Andersen will be glad to speak as to the source and nature of these proposed changes on this forum.
Posted: 03 Sep 2007, 20:40
These two proposals were not intended to be have been bundled together for a vote. I hope that the Secretary will correct this problem asap
Umm, not the case at all Roy, I clarified the ESC proposal with Bruce before publishing it, as you well know!
Posted: 03 Sep 2007, 21:47
Andy: It was my understanding that these two proposals were mean to be seperate; I could be wrong. But, I'm guessing that Bruce didn't quite understood how things would be printed when you asked for a confirmation. Regardless, I'll call him and get a clarification.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 00:55
Yes if fact, these two separate proposals from ESC are not meant to be linked in any way shape or form. I do not believe that linking proposals that have nothing to do with one another is honest or proper.
Yes, you did clarify the specific wording of the proposals with me prior to posting them on the agenda, but since ESC did not specify that they be linked as a single proposal and they have nothing to do with one another, I assumed (improperly) that you understood that they are seperate proposals. Sorry for the misunderstanding: in the future, I will work on being more specific.
1. The two resolutions neither deal with related topics nor are supposed to be voted upon as one.
2. There was no public introduction. The though behind each proposal is included.
3. What we can learn is that it appears that in the absence of factual information from the source, finger pointing and an another potential flame war has begun.
I certainly hope that if you are elected to an EXEC position you will be less vituperative.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 01:14
Well, this is tricky.
You confirmed the proposal was correct before I presented the agenda for approval prior to publication. Once the agenda was presented to the Exec for approval you offered no objection.
The deadline is now passed, if you are now not happy with resolution 2.1 I suggest the only course of action is to withdraw it.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 01:44
Whoa! Let's not get all drastic here. Seems to me that all we have to do is let everyone know that there are two questions here to be voted on, not one. No harm, no foul. problem solved. This is a simple misunderstanding among well intentioned individuals, lets put it behind us.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 02:51
Andy, if you feel that there is no way to properly allow the class to vote on these two proposals individually as intended, please withdraw them.
Bundling disparate proposals on a ballot is wrong and I will not support that type of activity.
Both proposals have individual merit and the class should have the opportunity to voice their opinion on each of them, but if you feel that process and procedure prevents an error from being corrected, so be it.
Perhaps we should let the Chairman decide.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 10:03
I just cannot leave you guy alone to play nicely.
No, we do not want bundled votes and if we all had more time I am sure we would have pick up the error.
Andy just split the vote in the agenda. NCA's have plenty of time to get the amended voting position off their members.
If anyone has the time and need to question the validity of an agend modification after the original posting then they are more perfect than us
and need to take a position on the executive.
Lester with regard the rational for this proposal. It became apparent that the current allocation had 2 problems. It allowed nationals of a non NCA country, who sail and reside in a NCA country and could not get a position, to apply for a place under the current criteria. It also, did not provide for members of a NCA that have been transfered out of that NCA for a period but were unable to qualify in either their own NCA or their resident NCA and given a better timing would have qualified in either NCA allocation. (yes we all know who we are talking about
We had an emergency CCR ready to fix this issue but due to how the allocation unfolded we did not have to invoke it.
Australia is considering a change to its Ranking system to cover off this problem but other NCA's may not want to. Both these proposed rule provides a little flexiability to address these issues with out affecting the current guest allocation numbers.
The other change has come from an original USA request based on the extensive discussions after the last European allocation discussions and the wish to link continental and regional championships to world events.
Hope this helps
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 11:24
I would like to advise you that voting for AGM resolutions has now started in GBR.
I would not be very happy to have to start making changes to the resolutions at this stage.
Has anyone checked to see whether you can actually change the Agenda for the AGM now that the process is running in the NCAs.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 11:32
Bruce Andersen wrote:you will be less vituperative
Sorry to see you feel the need to resort to name-calling.
Just for the record, the definition of 'vituperative' is something like: 'containing or characterized by verbal abuse'. May I suggest you re-read my post? It contained nothing of this nature.
I asked some rather awkward questions, of course, because I was amused at how a similar action by the previous Exec was vigorously attacked with all sorts of accusations about underhand dealing, yet in this Exec it seems it is a simple misunderstanding by well-intentioned individuals.
I recommend to you the possibility that in the past Exec it was also a simple misunderstanding by well-intentioned individuals.
I was also amused by the arguments, recently re-ignited, that the Exec should do nothing about an issue that has not been fully explained beforehand in the Forum and that owners have had a full discussion and debate about. Yet we see here some proposals which, as far as I know, have never been explained or discussed in public. Don't get me wrong. In the present, as in the past, I have no particular problem with the Exec putting forward proposals for the owners to vote on.
What sticks in my throat is what is now revealed as the sanctimonious hypocrisy of some of the criticism of the past Exec when we receive the same thing from those same criticisers. This is all I wish to point out.
Chairman wrote:just split the vote in the agenda. NCA's have plenty of time to get the amended voting position off their members
Well, at least one NCA, GBR, has already sent out its voting paper to all its members. That's how come I noticed this issue. I don't know how feasible or reasonable it is to ask for a recall and re-issue at this stage.
an original USA request [...] to link continental and regional championships to world events
A chance to discuss and debate this would have been welcome. And to point out what was repeatedly pointed out to the previous Exec -- this looks a lot like insider dealing where privileged positions in the Exec lead to privileged decisions being made behind closed and inaccessible doors in favour of privileged countries.
Don't get me wrong on this one either. I don't really believe that, of course, but the hypocrisy again sticks in my craw.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 18:05
Out of all these "discusions" it is becoming increasingly clear who we should not vote for. All these "discussions" are doing is tearing apart a class for a wonderful boat. In the end this is primarily just a hobby but it is a hobby to encourage the sailing of model boats not one that is meant to be lessons (although I am learning nothing from it) in posturing and nit picky procedural wrangling. Please get back to the business of running the class for enjoyment and growth and take the pettyness back to some debating society where the emphasis in on goofball detail is expected.
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 22:12
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Posted: 04 Sep 2007, 23:58
What Barry describes as â€œnit picky procedural wranglingâ€
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 00:55
So this is all out the window until the next time there is a WC meeting? There is an organization that is set up to fail its members.
I stick by my previous description and add that there appears to be no allowance for any degree of common sense to prevail.
If I was voting individually I am even more convinced of my choices.
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 01:25
So this is all out the window until the next time there is a WC meeting?
Not at all, the Exec has the option of introducing an emergency rule change if it sees fit.
There is an organization that is set up to fail its members
Do you feel the organisation has failed because Iâ€™m advocating not breaking the rules or because the resolution is flawed?
there appears to be no allowance for any degree of common sense to prevail
What common sense approach would you suggest?
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 03:08
Greg has voiced his opinion that the two items should be split into two as have I. Seems common sense enough to me.
I suppose if enough NCA's have spent time & effort to send out ballots it would not be particularly fair: in that case I will simply withdraw both motions rather than combine them for a single vote.
With the speed and ease of electronic communication, it seems that something like this should be easier to fix than to argue about, and the longer we wait, the more class members are inconvenienced by this error.
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 03:32
Sorry to take such a hard position but following on the heels, kind of, of the last group of bundled rules changes it should have become executive procedure to never accept anything that isn't handled one item at a time.
So the common sense is to do the right thing which is to have the resolutions split so as not to require another wated vote where you have to vote no on teh combined resolutions when you may support one wholly but not the other.
But I'm not on the Exec now and likely not going to be so I guess my end answer is go ahead and do whatever needs to be done and I'll vote by my own parameters whenever our NCA asks.
Nobody's life is hanging by a thread because of an administrative oops. Fix the oops and get on with sailing.
I will be encouraging my NCA to vote in a direction I feel best about.
If everyone abstains on election votes does teh position go vacant??
I'm done here for now.
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 08:41
Members, it seems the majority of the executive think it better to wear a little pain and adjust the agenda and split the proposal under discussion. Although this may seem outside our constitutions provisions I am comfortable with this course of action. We do not need a lesson in constitutional law but need to get a job done. Without dwelling to much in the past most NCA that are casting votes have, in the past, been allowed to vote at a AGM even before they were recognised NCA's so please keep this in mind before you start throwing your arms up in the air.
GBR, Richard and any other NCR who have started their voting process, sorry for the pain but I am confident this action will better reflect the members wishes. I am also very aware of the time taken in 2006 to sort out the bundling issues. I would hate to leave the incoming executive with that task.
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 12:44
it should have become executive procedure to never accept anything that isn't handled one item at a time.
I can think of occasions when bundling several rule changes into one vote makes sense, the changes to comply with the new ERS springs immediately to mind. That said, in light of this conversation, it would have been sensible to treat the ESC proposal as two resolutions.
to do the right thing which is to have the resolutions split
I agree that would be the right thing to do, if we had the time. My point is that weâ€™ve missed the deadline to do this.
If we want to do it â€œrightâ€
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 21:38
I guess if the flexability to deal with the change through an emergency procedure while maintaining the protocol for normal circumstances is in place then that would be the right path to follow.
If the proposals are withdrawn from the already set agenda and substituted with the emergency procedure would that then have them dealt with at virtually the same time anyway or would that be put over until the next Executive meeting? Just wondering.
I guess I lied as I did join back in.
Posted: 05 Sep 2007, 23:08
If the proposals are withdrawn from the already set agenda and substituted with the emergency procedure would that then have them dealt with at virtually the same time anyway or would that be put over until the next Executive meeting?
The Exec can put an emergency rule change in place pretty much any time it feels like it. As far as Iâ€™m aware theyâ€™re effective immediately. The World Council is then asked to ratify them at the next AGM. So it will stand until then & become permanent or voted out.
I did join back in
And Iâ€™m glad you did.
Posted: 06 Sep 2007, 02:05
Posted: 08 Sep 2007, 23:36
It would seem that now that Bruce Andersen has decided to run for IOMICA Chairman and new ballots have to be sent out anyway, there should be no problem in putting the two proposals under discssion here up for seperate votes.