Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 120

Thread: Proposed GAGB Constitution

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    I have now finished creating a proposed GAGB Constitution (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

    The proposed constitution will be found HERE, and the "author's notes" are HERE.

    The constitution is heavily based on the WHR Constitution.

    The plan is to ask for your comments over the next 7 days, and then next Friday we will run a poll for 7days, to vote on whether you want to accept the constitution: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the constitution.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

    If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible: I'm sure many of you have some very valid ideas, and I am quite willing to make sensible changes to the proposed constitution, if it helps to make it more sensible, and more acceptable.


    Paul Blitz
    on behalf of the GAGB Committee

  2. #2
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    (wearing my own hat now...)

    Before you ask.... the only reason the pages are placed where they are (rather than on the GAGB site) is simply that I have direct access to it, so can quickly post updates if required.

    I hope the notes I've written help you make sense of the constitution, which *is* a bit formal in places.


    Paul

  3. #3
    TaureanTrackers Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 9 2004, 10:48 PM
    I have now finished creating a proposed GAGB Constitution (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

    The proposed constitution will be found HERE, and the "author's notes" are HERE.

    The constitution is heavily based on the WHR Constitution.

    The plan is to ask for your comments over the next 7 days, and then next Friday we will run a poll for 7days, to vote on whether you want to accept the constitution: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the constitution.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

    If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible: I'm sure many of you have some very valid ideas, and I am quite willing to make sensible changes to the proposed constitution, if it helps to make it more sensible, and more acceptable.


    Paul Blitz
    on behalf of the GAGB Committee
    I've just read your constitution and notes and think they sound "sound," but I've been caching only a few weeks, so have little experience on which to base an informed opinion. The caches I've done so far seem to fall into your guidelines, although one is within a drystone wall. It's very small and actually neatly tucked in, in a way that causes no damage to retrieve, but I can see your point; also, we mustn't been seen to go against the country code, it's been created for good reason.

    I notice, not today as I haven't yet hit a wrong button, that I'm a non-voter so won't be able to take part in your poll next week. What do I have to do to become eligible?

    Thanks for a good site and useful information. Keep on caching! :lol:

  4. #4
    TaureanTrackers Guest

    Default

    Whoops&#33; Just noticed that I didn&#39;t need to hit a wrong button to see I&#39;m a non-voter&#33; Knew it was somewhere but hadn&#39;t been really looking whilst deciding to write the previous reply <_< Sorry.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"

    and also as there does not appear to be a mechanism for membership to be renwed, requiring a 66.66% vote to change the constitution could allow a situation to develop where if there are a sizable number of lapsed members who will obviously not vote, then no constitutional reform will be able to be carried out. I suggest that item 11 is changed to read "Changes to the constitution must be carried by a majoriyy of at least 66.66% of votes cast".

    Other that that it seems pretty good. Well done guys.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  6. #6
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"
    Yes, I agree, we need to address that point... I wasn&#39;t going to comment until I found out the "current status" of things.

    I *believe* that the list of voters has NOT changed since we elected the committee. How would people feel if we simply stayed with the same list? The advantage is that it is "fairly well defined".

    The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

    At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

    ============
    Aside:
    Tim: any chance of some very rough stats.... how many "voters", how many "non-voters", and how many of those "non-voters" are likely to be "legit"?
    ============

    (After the voting for constitution / guidelines, the next thing we (the committee) need to address is the membership list. There needs to be reference to membership in the "Standing Orders" too... One thought, to keep the membership list fresh [and thus avoid the problem you describe] is to require an annual renewal - eg: we email everyone annually asking for them to confirm their membership, follow up again with those who don&#39;t ,to remind them ... I have other thoughts too, but this thread isn&#39;t the place to discuss them. Let me work out the draft Standing Orders & we&#39;ll thrash it all out there)



    and also as there does not appear to be a mechanism for membership to be renwed, requiring a 66.66% vote to change the constitution could allow a situation to develop where if there are a sizable number of lapsed members who will obviously not vote, then no constitutional reform will be able to be carried out
    An exellent example of where an extra pair of eyes spots something important&#33; What I MEANT was "2/3 of those who vote".... what was written CAN be interpreted either way... thanks for highlighting that one&#33; I&#39;ll go & change it.


    Other that that it seems pretty good. Well done guys.
    More thanks should go to whoever put together the WHR constitution that I based this on&#33; And thanks for the feedback&#33;



    Paul

  7. #7
    TaureanTrackers Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:36 AM
    One point that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated what constitutes a "voting member"
    Yes, I agree, we need to address that point... I wasn&#39;t going to comment until I found out the "current status" of things.

    I *believe* that the list of voters has NOT changed since we elected the committee. How would people feel if we simply stayed with the same list? The advantage is that it is "fairly well defined".

    The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

    At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?

    ============
    <_< It actually matters to those of us who are non-voters, are not sure why so and, who are keen committed people to anything in which they join. It would seem that the whole thing could become very static, if the the status quo is maintained without clear guidance on what to do to become eligible to vote. I shall find it very frustrating to stay a &#39;member&#39; of a society which on &#39;does it matter anyway&#39; would appear to wish forever only to accept my participation to a certain point and no further.

    I apologise if it&#39;s something I&#39;ve missed, but I would appeciate it, if someone would let me know if there is indeed a route to becoming a voting member. B)

    Thanks again for a good site.

    PS. What&#39;s a &#39;sock-puppet,&#39; please?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:36 AM
    The DISadvantage of it is that it is unfair to recent, bona-fide, members, who ought to be able to vote. The *PROBLEM* is that if we go through the list of names, in order to "weed-out" the sock-puppets etc, and enable the valid ones, then we may still get it wrong&#33;

    At the end of the day, does it ACTUALLY matter that much, I wonder?
    I suspect that it doesn&#39;t. The sock puppet issue was blown up out of all proportion at the time. No one ever proved that the GAGB elections were affected by sock puppet votes and the only person who was accused of voting twice, actually didn&#39;t. The words "egg" and "face" sprang to mind at the time.

    I find it rather sad that there are a husband and wife team of geocachers that I know who have found in excess of 300 caches, use the same name on geocaching.com, navicache.com and GAGB but are tagged as "non-voting" and cannot understand why.

    The more members that the Association can attract means more views and a wider representation of geocachers in the UK. Maintaining a "them and us" voting system will do nothing but put off genuine cachers from participating in the business of the Association, and that can&#39;t be a good thing.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  9. #9
    seifer Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by TaureanTrackers@Jan 10 2004, 08:19 AM
    <_< It actually matters to those of us who are non-voters, are not sure why so and, who are keen committed people to anything in which they join.
    The reason that some members are voting, and some ore not is actually incredibly simple...

    When we were electing the committee, any members that registered after two weeks (or however long it was) before the first vote, became "non voting". This was done to stop people from creating multiple accounts and therefore voting twice in the elections.

    PS. What&#39;s a &#39;sock-puppet,&#39; please?
    A sock puppet is an extra account created by a member in addition to their regular one. This is usually done when posting somethign controversial when the member in question fears the consequences of their comments. A row was sparked when Moss Trooper questioned the validity of the elections due tio an 11th hour vote cast by a member called "Piggly". The questuion was raised as to whether Piggly was a sock puppet or a bona-fide geocacher.

    I apologise if it&#39;s something I&#39;ve missed, but I would appeciate it, if someone would let me know if there is indeed a route to becoming a voting member. B)
    Don&#39;t worry, we were all new to gagb at sometime&#33;

    Something the current committee are looking at (I belive) is a system where in order to vote, you must be a full member of the GAGB. In order to be a full member, you must have provided a means of contact (email address, mail address etc). This is no different to almost every other organistaion in existance. This also means is that you can remain annoymous if you wish to, but you won&#39;t be able to vote. Anyway, these changes are not for the very near future, and are an idea not a certainty, so this is not the place to discuss them please. Let&#39;s at least try to keep this thread on topic&#33; :P

    Mike

  10. #10
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle@Jan 10 2004, 12:17 PM
    I find it rather sad that there are a husband and wife team of geocachers that I know who have found in excess of 300 caches, use the same name on geocaching.com, navicache.com and GAGB but are tagged as "non-voting" and cannot understand why.
    The answer to THAT question is that, when the voting was started several months ago, it was decided that anyone who had signed up BEFORE that point could vote, and anyone who signed up AFTER couldn&#39;t... that was done simply to stop anyone signing up with (silly example follows...) twenty names, and claiming 20 votes: such a situation would clearly be rediculous and very non-democratic.

    OK, a quick update: I have just been looking at the membership list, and it seems that my earlier assumption was *incorrect*. I believe that anyone who signed up before Xmas is currently on the "allowed to vote" list. A quick manual count shows 26 people who have signed up since Xmas, of a total of some 360 names

    Maybe if we convert anyone who joined before yesterday into a voting member, how would that sound? Yes, I&#39;m sure there will still be some "invalid" names in the list then.... but the effect they are likely to have on this vote is pretty small I would guess.

    (if you&#39;d like to email me - ie off-list - with their name, I&#39;ll happily confirm their voting status)


    paul
    (speaking personally)

  11. #11
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    As many of you may know, NattyBooshka is a team of two. One of that team had a self-outed sock puppet (fairly obviously named&#33;&#33 that he now intends to use as his legitimate id for voting purposes. We assume that this will be acceptable to the committee and that that account will be given voting rights. We do intend, however, to remain as one id for all other purposes.

    Constitution looks good, just wanted to state our intention of making this sock puppet into the vote that the consititution states we are entitled to.

    Thanks for your hard work.
    Cheers
    Emily & Neil

  12. #12
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Looks like a good start&#33;

  13. #13
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    Ok here are my suggestions

    1. Section 2, point 3, to read (change in bold) - establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical, and other relevant bodies.

    2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.

    3. Section 3 - What is a &#39;bona-fide geocacher&#39;? There will need to be a definition, or change it to read &#39;geocacher&#39;.

    4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely. What would be better would be to combine both statements so section 4 would read - The GAGB is a non-commercial organisation and aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible. - and remove the other statemnet completely.

    5. Section 6, para 1 should read - The GAGB is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings.

    6. Section 6, para 2 - A definition of &#39;voting members&#39; is required.

    7. Section 7, para 1 - Replace &#39;Chairman&#39; with &#39;Chair&#39;, and any other references.

    8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.

    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.

    11. Section 7, para 5 is unconstitutional. You cannot appeal to the same committee that votes to expel a member. The idea is correct but the wording is bad. eg there is a reference to &#39;him&#39;, what about &#39;her&#39;. It needs rewording. I will email something to you Paul when I have a chance to think about it more.

    12. Section 7, para 6 is again badly worded and some stuff missing. eg How members are contacted and with what notice. As it stands 3 members can agree to have a meeting without even contacting the others.

    13. Section 8b, last sentance, I would suggest - Any expenditure must have prior approval of at least three members of the Executive Committee.

    14. Section 8e, should read - A independantly audited statement of accounts for the previous financial year shall be submitted by the Chairman to the members annually in January.

    15. Section 9, Chair - these are too restrictive. What happens if the Chair is unavailable there is no option for replacement. My suggestion is to remove this bit completely.

    16. Section 11 - It would be better to restrict changes to constitution to &#39;once a year&#39;, as you would when having an AGM.

    17. Section 11, last para - I&#39;m sorry but you can&#39;t have this. GAGB is a democratic organisation and &#39;the majority rules&#39;. If the majority want to change something it must be....that is democracy.

    18. There is no section that allows members to make proposals. Perhaps it should need a required number of members before a proposal is accepted?

    Yours Roy
    WoodSmoke

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Section 7 para 1 implies that the committee must always consist of Chair and five other members. Thus if a member or the Chair resigns, there is no legal committee to appoint a replacement. Perhaps this should be reworded a little?
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  15. #15
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Jan 10 2004, 09:05 PM

    Wow, thanks for all the feedback&#33; The response is over several messages coz of the message size limit&#33;

    Let me take it step-by-step.... Oh, and please bear in mind the background of the constitution is that the original is used by a charity (and as such, is approved by the Charity Commission, so must be reasonably ok).

    1. Section 2, point 3, to read (change in bold) - establishing good caching practices by accepting advice from land, environmental, archaeological, historical, and other relevant bodies.
    Yup, happy to include that, makes sense (the bullet points were simply stolen from the aims published online&#33

    2. Section 2 last bit to read - The GAGB aims to keep membership of GAGB free of charge for members if possible.
    I think that ANY aim is always "if possible" isn&#39;t it?

    3. Section 3 - What is a &#39;bona-fide geocacher&#39;? There will need to be a definition, or change it to read &#39;geocacher&#39;.
    I was thinking about someone who goes hunting for caches (and is thus, by definition, a geocacher&#33 who has the sole aims of (a) putting blatently commercial items into caches; (B) trashing caches; &copy; bringing geocaching into disrepute. It is clear that they are NOT a bona-fide geocacher.

    If such a person is known about, then we have a very easy way to prevent that person from joing GAGB at the outset. With out that, then we have to let them in, and then have to expel them.

    (just went & got a dictionary... "bona fides n. (Law). honest intention, sincerity")

    4. Section 4 - If this is there, then the bit I mention above (in 2) should be removed completely.
    Yes, it is to some extent superfluous. The reason I left it in both was:

    a) it is specifically an AIM of GAGB to remain free
    B) The "subscriptions" paragraph came from the WHR constitution, and keeping it there lets us state the current position.

    If, for example, we decided at some future point to introduce some form of optional subscription (eg like GC.com did with premium membership), then that&#39;s where it would be defined.

    5. Section 6, para 1 should read - The GAGB is an “online organisation”, and does not plan to hold formal meetings.
    Yup, that is better wording, thanks.

    6. Section 6, para 2 - A definition of &#39;voting members&#39; is required.
    Yes, and will be included in the Standing Orders. (This very comment was made in the committee discussion, and everyone was happy with that)

    7. Section 7, para 1 - Replace &#39;Chairman&#39; with &#39;Chair&#39;, and any other references.
    The position is the chair, the person doing it is chairman (and under sex equality rules, means either male of female)

    8. Section 7, para 2 - This is not standard voting procedure as detailed in the &#39;Rules of Chairmanship&#39;. The Chair should be entitled to a vote on all items and a casting vote in the event of a tie.
    I&#39;ve been on committees where chairman has (a) vote plus casting vote; (B) just casting vote. Advantages of a chairman without a vote: - can stay more impartial during discussions; - with 5 committee, a 6th vote plus casting vote would lead to the chairman being in a position to "swing a vote". (Had there been 6 committee, I would have gone for the vote plus casting vote)

    I would be very interested to see the "Rules of Chairmanship"... do you have a URL or a copy you could forward, please?

    Any other comments on this please? Again, it was one of the topics we discussed in committee.

    9. Section 7, para 3 should read - In the event of a member of the EC resigning, the EC may appoint a caretaker to fill the post until the next annual election.
    (note: that para stolen almost verbating from WHR constit.)

    Are you wanting the rest of that para deleting too? Or were you just wanting the "new" member specifically called a "caretaker"?

    I&#39;m just thinking along the lines that if there were a requirement to call another election to fill the vacancy, then that member is indeed a caretaker. But if they stay for the rest of the term, until the next scheduled election, then they are hardly a "caretaker". In any case, the reason for bringing that person onboard is to act as a full member of the committee, so they have to have responsibility, and a vote.

    10. Section 7, para 4 should read - The EC may co-opt such additional members as it may require.
    Again, you meaning that as a complete replacement for the para, of just the first bit?

Posting Permissions

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