Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 120 of 120

Thread: Proposed GAGB Constitution

  1. #101
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    I agree 100% with the words originally posted, for what it's worth.

  2. #102
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    My problem with something funded behind the scenes by anyone is that they command unfair leverage. Let's say, for example, that someone donates to keep the website/forum up. They do this for a few years. Then they want more say over what happens. No matter that they are an elected committee member or not, that is unfair, undemocratic coercion.

    Let's face it, there's not such thing as a free lunch (or lunch box).

    I have to agree with NattyBooshka, it's now time for the owners of this site to hand it over to the elected committee. If that is not forthcoming then it is time to either dispense with that property and move on (URLs and logos aren't as important as democracy) or disband the association and start again with a clean slate and clear, open motives and principals. Control from the shadows cannot be allowed, especially at this early stage as it will only get worse.

    Really, I think that the time as come where if the founding memebers feel this strongly that this association has slipped from their fingers and no longer back it that it is time to resign or accept democracy ...

    Personally, I'm glad we have an elected committee now ...

  3. #103
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    To the committee members:

    A serious plea ...

    Over the past 24 hours we have read some disturbing posts on this forum about leverage being placed on the committee by non-elected members. I for one thing that this, one way or another, has to end. It has to end because for a geocaching association to work, any association for that matter, there has to be trust. Other cachers have to trust the association, landowners have to trust the association and cachers and members, both old and new, need to feel that their voice is equal, not dictated by how long they've been caching or whether they decided to set up the association or not.

    Democracy is also important, not just over membership fees but for deciding the direction of the association both now and in the future. By allowing for democracy what you are doing is leveling out the peaks and troughs of opinion and ultimately steering a middle ground that by default, given the membership of the organization, will respect the rights of landowners and the game itself. Take this away and there is no such control in place. Today it is over membership fees, tomorrow it could be over something else. I believe that during the consultation stages of a constitution that all members should be heard but I don't believe that any one voice should hold more sway than another based on time served, being a founder member or having set up the website.

    I ask you, the committee, to think about whether democracy is now possible in the GAGB. Can the GAGB move forward from this point or has the rot set in too deep and the tendrils of control and coercion gone too deep for the membership to ever trust the association? If you cannot assure the membership that there is a future where the association can and will be membership driven, I call on you to ask yourselves whether carrying on with this association is both practical and desirable or is it time to lay it to rest and perhaps go back to how things were pre-GAGB for 6 - 18 months and perhaps come back to this idea in the GC.com forum on a later date and set things up properly next time. This now, in my opinion, has to be the time when this is decided. Both geocachers and landowners deserve a strong, united, democratic association. If you cannot provide this in face of how the association was set up, it's time to call it a day as no good can ultimately come of this feud.

    Please, come to an honest decision.

  4. #104
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jan 17 2004, 12:14 AM
    Look at GC:UK.. they have members.. they are free.. but the members don't own the site.. Mark has always said he won't charge.. fine that is acceptable. yet seems to be unacceptable here..!!!!!!!!&#33 ;!!!!!!
    And exactly the same can be said for GC.com, although there IS an option to pay for premium "membership". And as a "member", like at GC:UK, you have no say in things.


    Paul

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ringwood, Hampshire
    Posts
    32

    Default

    I have read (and tried to understand with considerable difficulty as I am an enthusiastic newcomer to geocaching without knowledge of the history of the GAGB) the many posts on this topic. I thought that, as a newcomer, I ought to keep quiet and let the people with far more experience and knowledge than I have administer the Association's business and be grateful that there are those among us who are prepared to put themselves out on our behalf and for the good of the hobby. I just wanted to ask if I am not alone in being a little surprised and perturbed at the (sometimes quite vitriolic) nature of the arguments that have been aired in this open forum. Only a few members have posted comments.

    I should add that I am a firm believer in democracy and have been a member of associations through my employment where all officers are elected and policy is determined by a majority vote. I realise that the GAGB is slightly different in that it is a "virtual" body where many members have not met other members but this should not affect policy decisions and the only difficulty with the nature of the organisation is when it comes to re-election of officers. I should say that I make that comment without knowledge of how or when the present committee members were elected and I don't know if this is intended to be done on a regular basis. Maybe it's in the proposed constitution - sorry if it is and I've forgotten I've read that part!

    Anyway, that's my five eggs and I hope that the post is taken in the spirit in which it is intended - to say I appreciate the work done by the few and to indicate that I do care about what is happening.

    Nigel
    It only takes one drink to get me drunk, but I can never remember if it was the thirteenth or fourteenth.

  6. #106
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by LoisInTheForest@Jan 17 2004, 07:39 PM
    I should say that I make that comment without knowledge of how or when the present committee members were elected and I don't know if this is intended to be done on a regular basis. Maybe it's in the proposed constitution - sorry if it is and I've forgotten I've read that part!
    Nigel:

    The current committee were elected back in November 2003, for a year (so next elections due Nov 2004).

    We did have a chariman (Tim P) but he stood down. We are hoping to have a new election for chairman by the end of Feb.

    Obviously Xmas has got in the way, but we are all still "finding our feet" to some extent.

    Paul

  7. #107
    TheCat Guest

    Default

    Well as a few things have been said in this thread about GC:UK I supose I should say a few words.
    1, Teasel is one of the Admins on GeocacheUK.com he does not run the site for me. He does remarcable work on our stats system as that is what he does well. We also have another Admin Brian "Deego" He is to be found in the Communications Centre looking after that part of the site. I on the other hand mainley work in the background adding new features etc to the site and also ship merchandise all over the world now. This is where the site gets some of its running costs from. So as can be seen we are a team. I realise that GC:UK is bigger than me and have put in place provision that if I get run over by a number 20 bus tomorow and killed the site will continue into the future.

    GC:UK is a free service and as I have said many times before will be as long as I have breath in my body.

    I cant for the life of me see why GC:UK has been dragged into ths argument sure Teasel helps out on GC:UK but he also works with the Mountain Rescue that is not dragged up here. Could it be that some still doubt that GC:UK is just what it says on the box a free service for UK Geocachers.

    After the success of the last CIN Event I asked what charity we should raise cash for next time and a few people said it might be a good idea to raise funds for GAGB after some chat we thought a 50/50 split between GAGB and another organisation to be decided nearer to the time.

    One last point I have always said that no one is indespensable they might like to think so but in truth if anyone of us die the world just goes on. Sometimes with a hicup but it still goes on.




    TheCat

  8. #108
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    I don't understand why GC:UK has been dragged into this either ... there is no comparison. GC:UK is your site and you can take it in whatever direction you want. You offer some great services for UK geocachers and I think if the GAGB manage 10% of what you offer they'll be doing well. What you have done is said "here's some stuff that you might find useful". Personally I think that this would have been a good place for the GAGB to begin before moving into geocaching politics.
    My initial problem with the GAGB was that it was born as a result of the coming together of several cachers (that's not a great image there but it does ) and when this happens ideas are thrown about and plans made. One you throw democracy into the deal things change because those initial views have to not only withstand external criticisms but they also have to change. I know how hard this can be and given the make up of the founders I could see problems with this. A long time ago I raised this but I don't think many believed it. Well ...
    Cat, keep up the good work mate ... my advice is to mind your mind or it will surely spoil!

  9. #109
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Ah what a fascinating discussion I have come back to.

    The way I see it there are two issues here that are becoming blurred together.

    1. The issue of whether the GAGB should charge its members any sort of fee (ie the "Money" issue)
    2. The issue as to whether anything in the constitution *now* may be changed by any present or future membership (the "Democracy" issue)

    It is an unfortunate fact of 2. that if it is allowed to run as intended then there is the chance that any decision made *now* about 1. may end up being altered in years to come.

    I say "an unfortunate fact" mainly for the benefit of those who find certain aspects of unfettered democracy as disturbing as those who find certain aspects of unfettered dictatorship. They *both* have drawbacks, with Saddam Hussein being an example of the drawbacks of unfettered dictatorship while on the other hand the possibility that our children might vote in compulsory use of WMD in all caches being an an example of the unfettered democracy.

    The question is, do we want, or can we afford, or even is there such a happy medium as "fettered democracy"?

    I don't believe there is such a thing as fettered democracy. I believe such a thing actually amounts to a dictatorship-in-the-making. Robert Mugabe is a classic example of this. He was quite properly elected under a democratic system, but once in power the only way he could stay in power was if he changed the system to ensure that he couldn't easily be removed. He "fettered" (limited) the democracy he had inherited. Now that limited democracy is useless. It is no democracy at all.

    Coming back to GAGB. I belive quite passionately that the constitution *must* be allowed to be altered by our descendants if they wish because frankly, we cannot forsee what problems and issues they may have to face years down the road. We have no right to fetter them to a policy which is fine and right for us now (and I will argue as strongly as Moss Trooper for the retention of a free GAGB) but may be entirely inappropriate in 50 years time. We must be aware that the constitution we write now will hopefully be standing and working many years from now, and the only way it can do that is if the members of the day have full control over it. *We* have full control over it in *our* time, so *they* should have full control over it in *their* time.

    If we take that away from them by saying that there are some things we will not allow them to change (*whatever* those things might be...fees, armed cachers, nude caching..you name it&#33 then *we* are being selfish and untrusting to our decendants.

    This means, Moss, that while I totally agree the GAGB should be free and devoid of funds/monies/etc I cannot agree that it is right to shackle future generations with a constitution set in stone. The principle of democracy in my book overrides all other considerations, however worthy they are. Our government is unable to make law that a future parliament could not repeal. It is a system that has served this country for almost a thousand years. The same principle should serve the GAGB for just as long.

  10. #110
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    I think this arguement highlights the need for a constitution in the best possible way!

    A constitution is a set of rules that the committee itself cannot change and must work within. The whole point of a constitution is to protect democracy. The adding of any permanent clauses is, therefore, a contradiction of the word "constitution."

    To take an extreme example... the US constitution and Bill of Rights contains a clause that allows the bearing of arms by citizens of the US. At the time of writing it was a useful clause. Now, and I'm not argueing for or against it, it allows a country to have as many guns as citizens, and a gun-culture where as many people are killed by guns each year in the state of Florida alone as the rest of the world outside the US put together (wars excepted.) Whilst it is true that most of these deaths are caused by illegally owned guns, the fact is that if they were all illegal, there would be a lot less guns available to become owned illegally. This is something that many citizens in the Us would like to change, but thier "constitution" does not allow this ammendment to be changed.

    We are not, I believe, arguing for payment of fees here... this arguement could apply to any clause of the proposed constitution. I believe, and every November I will believe the same, that the current committee will act in our interests, and take the will/mood of the membership into account when making decisions. The constitution will kick in to protect that if my belief is ever shattered. I am pleased, and grateful, thet the SS decided to take the GAGB down the democratic route, and now only wish them to continue down that road. Nobody should "own" the GAGB, as it appears they do until the copyright is handed over. However, all that is owned is the name, url, graphics and content of this site. The membership can, en-mass or individually, join any other organization. If the current committee cannot wrestle control off those wishing to become dictators (benevolent or otherwise) then I for one, and I'm sure I speak for many of us, would be happy to follow them to any other website they choose, and start a new association with them as the elected committee until re-election in November (ie as we stand right now.)

    G:UK is a wonderful service, thanks Mark, and we are VERY fortunate to have it available free of charge. It gives more value add, IMHO, than premium membership to GC.com (which I pay for) has ever done. I wish that members of this association who have attacked it desist from doing so in future. I respect the people who run it, and appreciate their statement that it will ALWAYS be free. I also appreciate the statements from the committee that they will always AIM to make this a free-to-join association. I think that this is a small issue, and I doubt that 67% of us will ever vote to pay for anything we get for free already. If we remain free forever, I'll be happy. If we are forced to add that as a permanet clause to the constitution (as said I don't think this is actually something that belongs in a constitution) then I will leave this place in the hands of the SS to do with as they wish.

    Once a committee was elected, democracy had been accepted... now please allow democracy to reign.

  11. #111
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    As MCL & Nattybooshka have covered all the points I would raise I will just say

    "I agree with them"

    Let democracy reign, or we will be off somewhere else, and that would be a shame.

    WoodSmoke

  12. #112
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by NattyBooshka@Jan 19 2004, 07:28 AM
    Once a committee was elected, democracy had been accepted... now please allow democracy to reign.
    That's a good point ... however, recent events have made me believe that we were never "meant" to have true democracy here. Take a look at the history on this forum in the early days where there was very much a "take it or leave it" attitude and many members felt that their voice wasn't welcome. If it wasn't for resignations and pressure from members, we'd now have a committee that could, quite possibly, be made up of founder members (after all, it's quite uncommon to have an association where the founding members leave so early on).
    I've said it before and I've said it again - from too early on the GAGB wanted "control" (a few months ago when I said this I got some very unsavory responses on the GC.com forums from certain founder members) instead of pausing and thinking and debating about how things should be. An association cannot be created behind closed doors. The GAGB "seemed" like it was and we are suffering. Even when democracy appears to be winning, we now get to find out about just how far some are willing to go to retain control or leave their mark.
    Let democracy win - let the constitution that contained Woodsmoke's revision ideas be voted on and let's move on or pack up!

  13. #113
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 19 2004, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 19 2004, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--NattyBooshka@Jan 19 2004, 07:28 AM
    Once a committee was elected, democracy had been accepted... now please allow democracy to reign.
    That&#39;s a good point ... however, recent events have made me believe that we were never "meant" to have true democracy here. Take a look at the history on this forum in the early days where there was very much a "take it or leave it" attitude and many members felt that their voice wasn&#39;t welcome. If it wasn&#39;t for resignations and pressure from members, we&#39;d now have a committee that could, quite possibly, be made up of founder members (after all, it&#39;s quite uncommon to have an association where the founding members leave so early on).
    I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ve said it again - from too early on the GAGB wanted "control" (a few months ago when I said this I got some very unsavory responses on the GC.com forums from certain founder members) instead of pausing and thinking and debating about how things should be. An association cannot be created behind closed doors. The GAGB "seemed" like it was and we are suffering. Even when democracy appears to be winning, we now get to find out about just how far some are willing to go to retain control or leave their mark.
    Let democracy win - let the constitution that contained Woodsmoke&#39;s revision ideas be voted on and let&#39;s move on or pack up&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Have to agree on the issues of the past... but let&#39;s see where we go from now on. Let&#39;s get the constitution ratified and let our representatives get on with it. I feel that the committee will take the necessary steps to create a committee only board once they have control of the site. Then, hopefully, we can stop wondering how much pressure was put on them by those not elected. Maybe a lack of founder member forum would further improve that feeling?

    To Paul Blitz and the committee... My words in this (heated) discussion have been in no way intended to belittle what you are doing for us. Thanks very much for the hard work thus far, and in the future. The elected committee have my full support. The constitution in the last form that I saw it in would certainly get my vote&#33;

  14. #114
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    The committee get our full support too&#33; The hard work that they have put in combined with the pressure they appear to have been under I think shows that we have a darn good committee on board.

    Respect&#33;

    Let&#39;s vote&#33;

  15. #115
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Given that there is a (hopefully) popular social event coming up this weekend, I&#39;d like to try & have a pleasant an event as possible.

    Therefore, I hope you all won&#39;t mind if I sit & do nothing until AFTER then.

    And a plea to you ALL: when you arrive at the pub on Sunday, please leave all the GAGB politics at the door: lets agree to disagree for the day, and let&#39;s try & have a fun day&#33;

    I have a cache lined up for you (should be a bit of fun for the youngsters too, I hope, and you&#39;ll even find a nice playground on the way to the cache)... I just hope this year YOU won&#39;t be lining up for IT&#33;

    See you Sunday&#33;


    Paul

  16. #116
    Nzbuu Guest

    Default

    I was discussing the GAGB with MCL and others after everyone else left at the Late Xmas Cache Bash today, and it has occured to me and others that we will need new elections or similar once the constitution has been ratified. This is because there have, as yet, never been any elections under any constitution of the GAGB, therefore we can not have been voting for the committee members in accordance with an official aim of the association as laid out in an official constitution.

    The GAGB proper only really comes into existence once the constitution has been ratified by its would-be-members. Therefore, the committee elected last time is the committee for the pre-GAGB, or an adhoc committee charged with forming the GAGB, constitution and all. This is not to diminish in any way the fantastic work that has already been done by the existing committee, but it would be unconstitutional to just assume that they can just carry on in their roles under the title of GAGB committee members without a fresh endorsement from the membership in the context of the constitution.

    I must confess to not having read anything of this thread since the draft proposal when it was first published so I&#39;ve not been following what&#39;s been going on. If this has been discussed already then I apologise.

    (Where&#39;s the current version of the constitution?)

  17. #117
    Nzbuu Guest

    Default

    Hang on a sec. Why am I not a voting member?

  18. #118
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Nzbuu@Jan 26 2004, 12:44 AM
    I was discussing the GAGB with MCL and others after everyone else left at the Late Xmas Cache Bash today, and it has occured to me and others that we will need new elections or similar once the constitution has been ratified. This is because there have, as yet, never been any elections under any constitution of the GAGB, therefore we can not have been voting for the committee members in accordance with an official aim of the association as laid out in an official constitution.

    The GAGB proper only really comes into existence once the constitution has been ratified by its would-be-members. Therefore, the committee elected last time is the committee for the pre-GAGB, or an adhoc committee charged with forming the GAGB, constitution and all. This is not to diminish in any way the fantastic work that has already been done by the existing committee, but it would be unconstitutional to just assume that they can just carry on in their roles under the title of GAGB committee members without a fresh endorsement from the membership in the context of the constitution.

    I must confess to not having read anything of this thread since the draft proposal when it was first published so I&#39;ve not been following what&#39;s been going on. If this has been discussed already then I apologise.

    (Where&#39;s the current version of the constitution?)
    Personally I don&#39;t feel a whole new election process is needed. We&#39;ve only just elected these people. I don&#39;t see why they cannot continue the good work until November. If the feeling is that they need electing again though, can we just have one vote to re-elect all of them again please? I don&#39;t fancy another 6 weeks of polls&#33;&#33;&#33;

  19. #119

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    Default

    I&#39;m with Natty on this one. If after we formally adopt a constitution, it&#39;s felt that another vote for committee members is needed, it should just be one to confirm or reject the current committee&#33; They were all fairly voted in, so why change the status quo, when they are doing sterling work.
    Nzbuu to answer your question about voting rights, a cut off date is placed before any vote, anyone joining after that date is unable to take part in that vote. Looking at your joining date, it looks like you joined after the cut off date for the last vote. I&#39;m sure the committee will change your status before the next vote. This is done to keep votes fair, and to stop anyone creating a sockpuppet account just before a vote to skew the results. If you look back thru the forums you&#39;ll find claims of sockpuppet accounts voting in other poles, fortunately there&#39;s never been any evidence of this, hence the current measure. Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  20. #120
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Dear all

    I&#39;m "cutting lose" this thread and locking it: I&#39;m going to be re-working the constitution shortly, and I&#39;ll start a new thread then.

    At the same time, or very shortly afterwards, I&#39;ll be releasing a set of "standing orders" which will basically define how elections will be done (needed for the chairman election) and that sort of stuff.

    Paul

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •