BMSC 'ACT Rally Series' Representatives election...

[Bede]

For those BMSC Members that are not aware, an election was held at last nights meeting to determine whom from our club are to be our representatives on ACT Rally Series Committee. The reason I am mentioning it is that the actual election process was a joke.

After no actual rules were set out and no proper explanation of what, why and how, 4 nominations were taken (for 3 places) and they were asked to leave the room while voting took place. In the mean time a non-BMSC Member (present at the meeting) was chosen to count the votes. When voting began the numbers counted and called out by the non-BMSC Member, didn’t match those that were written down by a different member (what appeared to be estimates of number of votes were actually written down)*. After this had finished, a few comments were made by a couple members about one of the representatives elected - along the lines of disapproval and the suggestion that they would stuff things up. As a result of all this, a member suggested the process needed to be done again as Members weren’t sure about how they were supposed to vote. So it was done again to the same inaccurate method and this time with a different result (the person viewed as not appropriate was not elected), which I can only assume was viewed as ‘acceptable’, since no comments or calls for another election were made.

Completely independent of the results themselves, the process was a joke and if the club truly wants to get a reflection of its member’s views, then it should have been conducted properly. If nothing else, it makes the Club come across as the personal property of a few members and that if things don’t go to their wishes then it has to be changed. Is this what we want to show new members?


* The Non-BMSC Member should be able to back me up on this one.


Note: This is just my view on the events that took place. The other members present at the meeting, as a whole, may not have seen it this way.

Note: In no way is this a nomination by myself to be an ACT Series Representative or a BMSC Committee Member.

[tortfeaser]

This is a serious allegation, and one you wouldn't want to make lightly. First up, it should be said that there is no requirement for any particular process for the election of BMSC reps to the ACT series committee. The BMSC constitution doesn't have such a process, and doesn't have club positions for ACT series reps.

So there is no requirement for some particular method. Nevertheless, procedural fairness might be thought useful in this circumstance.

I was at the meeting. True, the first voting effort was a shemozzle, as the process to be followed wasn't explained fully. The second effort seemed to satisfy more people as they understood what was required of them. Neither effort could be expected to please someone looking for absolute certainty in the integrity of the process.

As to claims about a few people having undue influence - these people expoused a view, with no rebuttal from anyone else. The floor was open, but noone came forward as you'd expect if offended by the process or the views expressed.

I believe the will of the meeting was reflected in the outcome of the process. This is what is important. Going forward, maybe the club would like to formalise the positions for ACT series delegate, and for the electio of the same.

[Miss]

Originally Posted by tortfeaser

This is a serious allegation, and one you wouldn't want to make lightly. .

Don't you think he's considered it seriously? Bede's expressing his view because he thinks other members should know.

Originally Posted by tortfeaser

I was at the meeting. True, the first voting effort was a shemozzle, as the process to be followed wasn't explained fully. The second effort seemed to satisfy more people as they understood what was required of them. Neither effort could be expected to please someone looking for absolute certainty in the integrity of the process.

The second effort was no better than the first. Why did people get three votes? This introduces the option of voting someone out rather than someone in, which is IMO democratically inept. Personally, I think no one stepped up to speak after the pathetic attempt at the second round because they thought, probably correctly, that a third would achieve nothing more substantial than the first or second. You yourself talk of integrity and admit that both efforts didn't come close.

Originally Posted by tortfeaser

As to claims about a few people having undue influence - these people expoused a view, with no rebuttal from anyone else. The floor was open, but noone came forward as you'd expect if offended by the process or the views expressed.

I believe the will of the meeting was reflected in the outcome of the process. This is what is important. Going forward, maybe the club would like to formalise the positions for ACT series delegate, and for the electio of the same.

Those people who may or may not have due influence should have been removed from the process, and others who are impartial (like me, when I volunteered to run the show seeing as I'm not a member) should have been recognised as people who (brain fade) should do stuff that is good and stuff. What's more, the floor wasn't open, there were no standing orders or anything remotely reflective of standing orders. No one asked for speakers. If anyone did express a viewpoint it was highly likely they would have been told to sit down and shut up by the person* who wrote the (incorrect) votes down.

Need sugar now.

*No reflection on this person, if it wasn't them it would have been someone else.

[fro]

Damn. I thought the rest of the meeting last night ran pretty darn well, but had a sneaking suspicion that there was discord over this.

As the chair of the general meeting (which the Prez usually is), I thought there was a conflict of interest with me being involved, and also wanting to be a representative for BMSC on the ACT Series. This is why I handed over this process to the erst of the membership in the room to do.

I'm dissapointed that the relatively simple process of electing ACT Series representatives has caused issues.

I'm also dissapointed that if people were unhappy with the process taking place, they didn't voice their concerns then.

This is yet another example where not much can be done after-the-fact.

[Spac]

I see some irony in that one of the things I wanted to do on the committee was formalise things like how and how many reps would be elected.

And Marc, be fair - as if anyone is going to rebut Adrian at a BMSC meeting, particularly less than a week before NatCap.

Seeing my list of "f$%k-ups" includes the creation of Silver-Cup, co-eff based Clubman cut-off, and no N4/P5 in Clubman*, then I'm actually happy to been known for "****ing everying up".


Oh, and I actually bothered to turn up to all of the committee meetings, unlike most others.

I don't mind not being on the committee - it's a c#$t of a job for a number of reasons.
And I'd hate to be on it against the will of the majority.

But let's drop the cloak and dagger, please?! Adrian, I'm asking you particularly. If you want to talk to me about this (presumably post NatCap...), please do so.

*A move that was copied directly by the NSW rally panel under Adrian's Chairmanship for the NSW Clubman series.

[Bogan]

I also thought it was a bit of a farce, and tried at one point to steer things in an ethically positive way, but then the effort/reward ratio got too big and I gave up.

It's interesting that it was done at a club meeting with no notice (not pointing any fingers, especially not at Fro, one man does not a committee make) so only those at the club meeting got a vote (or three).

What about those that don't attend club meetings? What about those that do but aren't active competitors? Are either of these groups any less deserving of a vote?

I would suggest that the committee formalising how such reps. are elected would be a good start, perhaps if the vote were made optional (or encouraged) and included in SPOKES (does every club member/family get a copy?) then that would be fairer?

Democracy is only fair if it's being done properly.

T.

[fro]

Originally Posted by Bogantastic

What about those that don't attend club meetings? What about those that do but aren't active competitors? Are either of these groups any less deserving of a vote?

Okay, this is seperate from the issue of the ACT Series things...

This why we have club meetings, and when clubs are run, its important that they have meetings.

Not every important decision can be made at an AGM, and the club needs to make decisions throughout the year, which the committee may call on the general club members for their input.

This is the whole reason that we get together once a month, in the eyes of those regulating clubs. So that matters important to the club, and its members, can be discussed, and if appropriate, action decided on.

Basically, if you aren't interested enough to show up to club meetings, then you don't get a vote.

Now, that having been said, I would like to see the processes formalised for electing ACT Series members, but quite frankly, it dropped off the radar until someone (Matty T?) reminded me that we hadn't done it, and we needed to, because the ACT Series wants to hand over to its new committee...

I'm rambling.

Does any of this make sense.

Fro takes two more Sudafed, and thinks about getting coffee.

I'll be back with more, when I'm comprehensible.

[tortfeaser]

FWIW, I was happy for Spac to be elected. His heart's in the right place, he does the work, has the ideas, shows up. I voted for him.

I think Miss occassionally means undue, not due, influence. And other stuff.

Bottom line - I think the candidates that the meeting as a whole wanted elected, were elected.

[bob moore]

Originally Posted by fro

This is yet another example where not much can be done after-the-fact.

Are you sure?

If there are no standing orders, no recognized process, etc., etc., why can't someone (in authority??) declare the previous process unsatisfactory, invalidate the results, and carry out a fresh election properly?

Why live with an unsatisfactory process/outcome for 12 months if there's nothing to stop you correcting it next month?

Grumpy Olde Bob
(who wasn't there, doesn't know who was nominated, doesn't know who was selected, etc and has no vested interest, i.e. is not a competitor in the ACT Series.)

[Bogan]

Originally Posted by fro

This is yet another example where not much can be done after-the-fact.

I tried several times, as did Anna, to declare Shenanigans, but unfortunately we didn't have our brooms with us.



T.

[Annatastic]

Originally Posted by Bogantastic

I tried several times, as did Anna, to declare Shenanigans, but unfortunately we didn't have our brooms with us.



T.

Leave me out of this.
The last thing anyone needs is another opinion, let alone mine

[fro]

Originally Posted by bob moore

Why live with an unsatisfactory process/outcome for 12 months if there's nothing to stop you correcting it next month?

Bob, you are of course right. SOmetimes, us kids need to be reminded that you old medicine-imbibers have all been there, and done that before.

The recourse would be to bring it up at the AGM (or the next general meeting, which is on the same night), and move a motion to have the ACT Series rep elected again in a more rigourous, controlled manner.

For the record, I won't be there, am happy to be nominated, and am equally happy to not be elected.

[Mark]

Ah, just like Florida.

What you really need is a 'Guv-enator' i.e. Tamsey? We'll rent him out to you BMSC folk. Then you'll see some real discord among the ranks.


Mark

[Lyndall]

For those BMSC members who weren't present last night, the four nominees (in order the vote took place) were:

• Melanie "Mel" McMinn
• Stephen "Fro" Horobin
• John "JS" Stilling
• Nathan "Spac" Senior

The outcome of the first vote was to vote in Fro, JS and Spac.

I was one of the members who asked for a fresh vote. This was purely on the basis that I didn't believe Mel got as many votes as she might have otherwise, because at the time of Mel's vote many members believed they were only entitled to one vote not three.

The outcome of the second vote was to vote in Mel, Fro and JS.

For info: I voted for Spac on both occasions so my request for a fresh vote was purely based on initial confusion of the voting "rules", not on the basis of the outcome of the first vote.

Is there a particular timeframe that the new ACT Series Committee needs to be in place by? My understanding was that the vote couldn't wait until the BMSC General Meeting (+AGM) in December when most other positions are voted for, as the new ACT Series Committee needed to be in place early to make decisions and release Series Regs well before the start of the 2005 competition year.

[Daveee]

I know the ACT Series regs might only stipulate 3 represntatives from each club, but is it possible to allow 4?

I know a lot of clubs/series have enough trouble even filling committee/representative positions let alone it coming down to a vote. I really think this should be kept in mind.

If all 4 are enthusiastic for the cause is it that much of a problem to allow all 4 to be on the committee? It will certainly help to share the workload and may result in a "better" committee than one of only 3 representatives?