Candidate Chair Discussions - Public Copy

[sandvika]

I have accepted my nomination in the election for GAGB Chairman.

One of the key things I would like to improve, if elected, is transparency of our organisation. In this regard, I asked the other candidate if we could move the hustings into this section of the forum, since anyone joining GAGB now won't be eligible to vote this year. The other candidate does not share my view and did not agree to the move. I respect the other candidate's right to privacy and request that anyone adding to this thread does not mention them by name or moniker either, unless and until they choose to join this discussion themselves, which I would of course welcome.

Transparency is so important to me that I feel it is necessary and appropriate to put what I say into practice from the outset. To that end, I am re-posting my election statement and my answers to questions that have been asked, from the members-only forum to this thread which is in public view. However, I will only re-post my replies if the questioners consent to me re-posting their questions too, so thanks to those who agree to this. (The order of postings might thus be different.)

I hope this openness will be received well by our wider Geocaching community. I am willing to field questions from non-members of GAGB, on the understanding that my replies can also be posted here. As you cannot post your questions here, please send them by email to caching at sandvika.co.uk

Thanks and rest regards, Roderick Parks (Sandvika)

[sandvika]

Who ‘owns’ Geocaching? In my view, it is all of us, the geocachers who make up our Geocaching community. We all contribute our endeavours to our community, for the benefit of our fellow members. It’s all about give and take, with the capacity to bring out the best in us.

Who represents our Geocaching community in the UK? GAGB. I don’t believe there is any other contender! I feel disappointment that GAGB seems to fall short of being at the heart of Geocaching in the UK. It feels rather like a project that kicked off to meet a specific need, namely landowner consent, but has not yet developed to anywhere close to its full potential. This is not a criticism of anyone or anything: GAGB is just not there yet.

When I stood for election to the committee in 2008, it was through sincere desire to help take GAGB to the next level (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=85). Unfortunately, my aspirations barely started to be fulfilled when I lost my job and by mid-2009 I was dealing with the corrosive effects of unemployment on my nearest and dearest. Out of necessity I stopped caching and ceased to be an active member of the committee. With no improvement in my circumstances, I did not stand for re-election in 2009.

I’ve now been back in work for several years and my situation has normalised. I know I’m ready to give this a proper go now. Although GAGB has improved significantly, and “Seeker” magazine is an outstanding production to be proud of, my feeling is that our still-young Geocaching community has grown rapidly over the past four years whereas GAGB has not matched the pace and has lost ground. I believe GAGB stands at a juncture where either it can reinvent itself and seize the opportunity to become the focal point of our Geocaching community in UK, or else it will become marginalised and irrelevant to an increasing majority of our community.

I sincerely wish for GAGB to reinvent itself and become the pre-eminent Geocaching organisation in the UK. With this ambition for GAGB, when presented by Tony with his nomination for me to be Chairman, I realised I had to accept, because it offers me the chance to help make the crucial difference. I don’t have the capacity to do this alone, so I invite you all please to vote for me on the understanding that we will chart a new course together and that all of you will have a role to play in helping to achieve new goals.

If elected, I’ll need a committee that also seeks this pre-eminence for GAGB and is determined to achieve it. I am sure many of you have a great deal to offer, your enthusiasm, skills and commitment to GAGB will be what drives our reinvention. Don’t hesitate to be nominated for the committee! If we have a surplus of candidates and not all can be elected, I will ensure you have opportunities for active participation in other ways.

More about me: I have been caching for 5 years and recently found my 2000th cache: I definitely prefer quality over quantity. I embrace almost the full spectrum of listing sites: OpenCaching.org.uk, TerraCaching, Navicaching, Munzees and even Garmin’s OpenCaching.com, to augment the ubiquitous Groundspeak. To my chagrin, I can’t yet claim a find on GPSgames.org! I’m a father of four children aged 12 to 21 and an active non-partisan parish councillor. I’m chairman of the Planning Committee and am dealing with the prospect of 2200 new houses being built on my watch, negotiating with developers and planning officers. I’ve worked in computer software for 28 years, supporting sales for the last 15 years.

Many thanks for your attention and support.
Roderick Parks (sandvika) caching@sandvika.co.uk http://caching.sandvika.com/

[sandvika]

I Note from the CV’s that the “pro active committee of the last year moved things forward. We got a newsletter which while good is limited, a facebook page which is doing well and a twitter account which is barely used. I have to say though that looking back the amounts of useful information in the facebook page appear to have dramatically increased in the last few weeks.

At the risk of provoking Tony, who usually likes brief answers, I'm going to answer in detail, since this is what hustings are about.

Seeker is an enjoyable read but its depth and breadth is limited by the present scope of GAGB. As GAGB spreads its wings, Seeker should extend its scope and should be the means by which all members are kept informed of developments. It should be the back stop that ensures those who don't consume GAGB news from other sources still have access to it in a reasonably timely manner. However, the absence of a feedback loop is a problem. Maybe SurveyMonkey can be used to solicit feedback from each edition?

Regrettably, there's a seismic shift away from Forums and onto the poor substitute of Facebook Groups and Facebook Pages. This affects not only GAGB, but also regional caching forums and many forums beyond Geocaching. This is due to the convenience factor of Facebook - the loss of functionality, history, self-regulation and traffic from the respective web sites is regrettable. Facebook is doing to forums what the major supermarkets did to butchers, bakers, grocers, greengrocers and convenience stores. Not everyone wants Facebook, but languishing forums provide no reason for non-Facebookers to stay.

The lure of Facebook can't be avoided (at present) but can be mitigated through intelligent use of social media to draw members back into the fold for matters that concern them. The immediacy of Twitter and Facebook is compelling and needs to be harnessed in the right way: GAGB needs (semi-)automated tools to facilitate this.

So that leaves me with the four main areas in which I would like clarification. The constitution which was reviewed put out for suggestions yet is still not out for a vote. How do you propose to move that forward?

I responded to the consultation and suggested the proposed changes be dropped. In my opinion, those changes are regressive as they make GAGB less accessible and less accountable at a time where these are perceived to be its problems by some sections of our Geocaching community. Changes to the constitution have to support GAGB's future direction, not entrench the status quo.

I think membership must be an affirmative action through annual renewal. In the future, once GAGB membership is perceived as having intrinsic value by a much greater proportion of our Geocaching community, we should consider a membership fee, even if only nominal. This is because paid membership increases the credibility and standing of organisations and thereby enables much more effective lobbying. GAGB needs to be prepared and effective in this regard to counter any threats that might arise - like blanket bans on public land in certain areas.

The current constitution was the most significant achievement during my year on the committee and was a great improvement on the previous one. Some of my suggestions did not receive enough support to make it into the constitution, but as a team player I stuck with it and advocated its adoption.

Tony has touched on one of my pet peeves with the present constitution so I'll address that on the pertinent question. In general, my view is that the constitution should be slimmed down, where possible, with principles remaining in the constitution, but policy being returned to the committee.

The “guidelines,” which were reviewed put out for suggestions yet is still not out for a vote. How do you propose to move those forward?

I would like to see the the guidleines slimmed down: they are a means to an end: to support our requests for caching permission by demonstrating responsible behaviour.

If listing sites wish to wrap themselves and their subscribers in cotton wool, bubble wrap and miles of red tape then that's their perogative, though GAGB should advocate the removal of much of that too. However, GAGB should not adopt any such excesses as its own.

The GLAD (landowner database) has been out of date for a considerable period of time. This has been commented on by members, none members and reviewers. Groundspeak reviewers appear to be updating this and moving it to the groundspeak servers. What are your thoughts on this? As it is and should be a resource for cachers on all listing sites how do you propose that this is updated and kept up to date.

Given that consent for caching is the original reason for GAGB's existence, the deterioration of GLAD is lamentable. I would advocate that a team of members be constituted to bring all agreements up to date, and that processes be put in place to ensure they are reviewed and maintained in a timely manner in future. Each agreement needs a champion, particularly where the originator of the agreement is no longer active in GAGB. I think it is contrary to the interests of our Geocaching community to have caching consent agreements associated with any specific listing site, though I can understand that Groundspeak reviewers might have felt compelled to act, in the absence of action from GAGB.

The website, is it now around 15 months since we were told that this would be overhauled? What progress has been made? How do you propose to move this forward?

I can't comment on this specifically, though it has echoes of 2008/9 when the move to WordPress was glacially slow. The promise of WordPress was easy maintenance of dynamic content, so should have allowed the front page of GAGB to become more news-focused and for the sub-pages to be dynamic and updated regularly. The GAGB web site appears pretty static, so it is clear that the reality has fallen short of expectations. For GAGB to become the vibrant hub of our UK Geocaching community, the web site must be current, relevant and an invaluable source of news and information. This is an ongoing process, not a one-off task, so it requires a team of contributors and editors.

On other issues.

There have been recent interactions with external organisations such as ACPO, some of which it appears were done without the full consent of the organisation and without contact with cache listing sites other than groundspeak. Would you continue with this method of interaction? If not, why not? How would you move forward if not?

Without open transparency within the committee and with the members and non-members alike, GAGB sets itself up to be maligned, whatever the rights and wrongs of a particular situation. I think the ACPO / Olympics saga was deeply regrettable and I think what happened was wrong and a golden opportunity to get Groundspeak to change its stance was lost.

There will be rare cases where discretion and confidentiality are required, but this should not exclude committee members or proper decision making processes. The confidentially should be ended upon conclusion of any such matter and the membership be informed of what has occurred in their name.

In the normal course of events, confidentiality is not needed and GAGB, in seeking to be the pre-eminent body in our Geocaching community, should engage all stakeholders in an active dialogue at every appropriate stage.

It appears that many decisions made by the committee are mad via email, often without any formal vote. Would you continue with this method, if not why not? How would you ensure that future committees have full access to the decisions made by their predecessors?

I don't think email is acceptable, except for emergency cases, which should then be published in and transferred to the forum. Routine communication should be through the appropriate sections of the forums, where formal votes will take place and the historical record be passed on in purpetuity.

Minutes: the last set of minutes from the committee meeting, was published nearer in full that in the past. Would you continue this?

Minutes must be an accurate record of what occurred at the meeting and must cover every decision that is taken. Meetings should review decisions taken between meetings and also record these in the minutes.

Minutes should be available to all members in the forum.

Furthermore, with the exception of confidential items, there is no reason why the committee should not use an online conferencing tool like GoToMeeting, which is able to record the meeting. The unedited recording should be available to members in the forum.

I don't think that minutes and recordings should be shared beyond the GAGB membership.


(Part 2 follows)

[sandvika]

Would you do your utmost to ensure that the members are full informed of discussions? How would you do this?

As outlined above, in the discussion on communications, a combination of Twitter, Facebook, Web Site, Forum and Seeker is required to provide comprehensive coverage of all discussions, news and events. GAGB will draw new members in most effectively by maximising it s outward reach and this is central to my proposal to reinvent GAGB.

Would you do your utmost to seek the views of both the members and none members? How would you seek to do this?

In my time on the committee in 2009 I acted as outreach to the regional forums and listing sites. I think this is essential for growing GAGB, so local champions are required for each forum, listing site and Facebook group, to act as liaison and a conduit for news in both directions. In an ideal world, the Facebook groups and regional forums would see themselves as local branches of GAGB, not as autonomous entities. Thus, shift towards this way of thinking would represent remarkable progress. This is the grass-roots level engagement that GAGB needs to achieve and grow mind share across our Geocaching community.

The present way of electing the post of Chairman/person/woman (delete as per your preference) . Is prior to the election of the committee. Would you seek to continue with this, if so why? If not why not? What is your proposal for change?

The present system of electing the Chairman first is almost presidential in style and puts the Chairman in an unreasonably strong position not only to influence the membership directly, but also to influence the composition of the committee that gets elected later. I think this is wrong and that the Chairman should be elected from the new committee . The committee should have the power to remove the Chairman and replace them, it necessary. This requires a change to the constitution.

If elected as Chairman, I will strive to have an amended constitution in place for the 2013 election.

If you were to become the Chairman/person/woman (delete as per your preference) how would you encourage/manage your committee? Would you be prepared to challenge lack of action?

If elected, I know I will have to delegate pretty much all activities to committee members and working groups led by committee members. I will ensure that I have a good working knowledge of all the activities taking place in the various groups to ensure that aims and objectives are achieved. If there is lack of action, I will give the particular area extra focus to help get it moving again, or, if this is not practical, defer or ditch the activity in question.

I believe that this active approach to reinventing GAGB will energise and motivate the committee members to give their best and to admit when they struggle. We're all in this together and nobody should be suffering alone in silence.

Would you encourage none committee members to become active and offer them the ability to undertake tasks on behalf of the committee?

You bet I would! The hallmark of a successful, vibrant organisation is widespread participation by its members. I'd like everyone who fails to be elected this year to participate in working groups, and extend active involvement to our regular members.

How will you seek the opinions of UK cachers?

Soliciting feedback through the various online channels and groups outlined above is key to finding out what cachers need and want. I will commit to responding to all correspondence sent to me as Chairman of GAGB, which may entail involving other committee members, or tabling the matter for discussion at the next committee meeting.

Would you be prepared to challenge guidelines on behalf of UK cachers?

Yes! As detailed above on the 'guidelines' question, GAGB should advocate the removable of guidelines that are detrimental to the interests of UK Geocachers. I also alluded to this in my election statement. I believe that Geocaching belongs to our UK geocaching community. It's still our young hobby and we should resist anything that reduces its scope.

How do you propose to get interest from all listing sites?

For starters

I think I have a bit of a head start here, since I know the owners of TerraCaching and OpenCaching.org.uk and have met all 3 co-founders of Groundspeak. I'm aware that Navicache has recently changed hands and I know who the new owners are. I don't have contacts at Garmin or Munzee but that shouldn't be too difficult to resolve.

TerraCaching, OpenCaching.org.uk and Navicache are all owned and run by enthusiasic geocachers, so I know they will be interested in engaging with me. Munzee is also owned and run by technophiles, so Groundspeak and Garmin are really the only commercial ventures.

If we go to these sites with proposals to enhance the game, I believe we will garner their interest.

Many thanks, Roderick

[sandvika]

Would you make the GAGB listing site agnostic and if yes what steps would you put in place to achieve this.

Absolutely, yes. To many, Geocaching is geocaching.com because it has not occurred to them otherwise. To some, this perspective might even preclude GAGB from their thoughts. That's what we're up against. It's rather like the all inclusive package holiday versus create your own. The latter takes more effort but is usually more rewarding. Let's make GAGB so rewarding that everyone wants to join!

I'm probably more curious than average so knew about other listing sites soon after starting our hobby and found my first Navicache 5 weeks after my very first Groundspeak cache! I've never looked back and can say in total honesty that many of the most outstanding caches I have found have not been listed on Groundspeak.

How many know what "GPSstash" is (before googling it), let alone that this part of our heritage is still going, if not strongly, at least going!? Probably rather fewer than know where the last remaining APE cache is, I suspect. These are all part of the rich tapestry that is our global Geocaching community.

If elected, I intend to nominate other members to the committee whom I feel can add depth and breadth of experience to it. A good working knowledge of the way in which other listing sites function is a key criterion, in order that GAGB can engage with them most effectively. I also feel GAGB can learn from geocachers who are also members of the British Canoe Union or British Mountaineering Council: sports that face similar access and consent issues to Geocaching, but are better established.

I'll reach out to other cachers who frequent the other listing sites but are not yet GAGB members, to help improve representation and thereby equality.

I think removing any perception of bias from the GAGB website is important. For example, on the links page, it could read:

Geocaching Sites
Geocaching.com, run by Groundspeak inc.
GPSgames.org, run by Scout.
Navicache.com, run by Gizzle007 and TheMadCacher.
OpenCaching.com, run by Garmin inc.
OpenCaching.org.uk, run by Lord Darcy.
TerraCaching.com, run by Cash108.

Other Geolocation Games
Munzee.com, run by Munzee inc.
...

I think there is also a case for cross-listing events organised by GAGB.

Lastly, some food for thought: Why doesn't GAGB have an annual large-scale event? Let's have our first in 2013!

[sandvika]

If elected, I intend to nominate other members to the committee whom I feel can add depth and breadth of experience to it. A good working knowledge of the way in which other listing sites function is a key criterion, in order that GAGB can engage with them most effectively. I also feel GAGB can learn from geocachers who are also members of the British Canoe Union or British Mountaineering Council: sports that face similar access and consent issues to Geocaching, but are better established.

I might have misread this, but does this mean you would only support other members who cache on other sites, or who also partake in other sports (canoeing, mountaineering etc)?

Thanks for seeking clarification. I think you have misunderstood.

Clearly, the committee elections are entirely separate and just like any other member I would only nominate people I believe could make a positive impact on our organisation. Then I'll cast my votes like any other member, for the candidates I prefer. I should also refer you back to my reply to an earlier question from Tony. I don't think it is helpful to elect a chairman first, then the committee later, because it leads to a 'presidential' style appointment. It is better that the chairman be chosen from the committee by the committee members. Maybe if that were the case now, your question would not have arisen?

What I was suggesting in my original answer (to the question about other listing sites) through just 2 examples is that there is a variety of attributes that would be useful to have on the committee: rather more in fact than there are committee places places available, so ideal candidates (in my view) would each have several such attributes, to enrich the skills and experience of the committee as a whole. Thus, my nominations would be made in this context: ie. I will be thinking of skills, which I hope will mean making good nominations for the right reasons.

My second answer (to the question about cachers in Scotland) expanded on this theme by adding country representation to the mix of desirable attributes. I'd welcome further discussion of the desirable attributes because it should help identify areas where GAGB may have opportunity to improve. Your perceptions are just as valid as mine.

[Maple Leaf]

.... snip

One of the key things I would like to improve, if elected, is transparency of our organisation. In this regard, I asked the other candidate if we could move the hustings into this section of the forum, since anyone joining GAGB now won't be eligible to vote this year. The other candidate does not share my view and did not agree to the move. I respect the other candidate's right to privacy and request that anyone adding to this thread does not mention them by name or moniker either, unless and until they choose to join this discussion themselves, which I would of course welcome.
.... snip

I do not have an issue with any member of the public knowing that I am one of the two candidates in the GAGB Chairman elections this year. My full name and caching name are available in several public areas related to geocaching e.g. GAGB Seeker magazine for the last two years, the GAGB Facebook group since it was created and a few other facebook groups.

My response when Sandvika proposed that the discussions were made in the public, non-member section of the GAGB forum was:

As it will be the 'members' casting the votes, I don't see why it needs moving to the 'public' area. We don't have 'forum only' users anymore - just members or public.


Anyone that joined after the cut off date is still able to read the statements in the member’s area, just not able to cast a vote. But I really don’t see the benefit of duplicating it in the public domain and actually feel that isn’t helping our membership grow.

Do the GAGB purport to represent all Geocachers? If so why shouldn't they be able to see the discussion even if they can't vote?

[Maple Leaf]

Do the GAGB purport to represent all Geocachers? If so why shouldn't they be able to see the discussion even if they can't vote?

It does, but not all geocachers want to support the GAGB (hopefully we can change that view in the future).

If they are interested in the GAGB enough to read the candidate statements then I am sure they would have joined (even if after the eligible to vote date)

One of sandvika's orginal comments was he wanted people to be able to read it if they had joined as a member too late to participate in this years elections ... I said they could.

... snip
I asked the other candidate if we could move the hustings into this section of the forum, since anyone joining GAGB now won't be eligible to vote this year
..... snip

... snip
Anyone that joined after the cut off date is still able to read the statements in the member’s area, just not able to cast a vote.
..snip

It does, but not all geocachers want to support the GAGB (hopefully we can change that view in the future).

If they are interested in the GAGB enough to read the candidate statements then I am sure they would have joined (even if after the eligible to vote date)

One of sandvika's orginal comments was he wanted people to be able to read it if they had joined as a member too late to participate in this years elections ... I said they could.

So you don't think having the candidates opinions available for all to view would have no influence on someone potentially joining the GAGB.

Though yes it could work in reverse.

So if they can't be "bothered to join" you are not interested in them?

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Sorry I'm now confused, it was my understanding, that after a Vote by the Membership. That this forum was now only Open to those who are Members of the GAGB?

If that is correct, then everyone should have access to what used to be the Members Only Area of the Forum?

If that is correct, why has the discussion been duplicated to a second area, a duplication which needs cut and paste posts.

Duplication just confuses issues, as not all posts have been duplicated, and makes for a One Sided Discussion, in the duplicated area

If the above is correct, can we please have the Duplicated Posts Deleted, so as to make a Level Playing Field, not the current one this Duplicate Topic is creating? In the interests of being Open and Fair.

Dave
Mancunian Pyrocacher
(Personal Post)

[sandvika]

It does, but not all geocachers want to support the GAGB (hopefully we can change that view in the future).

What would you do as chair to encourange all our community to join our association?

One of sandvika's orginal comments was he wanted people to be able to read it if they had joined as a member too late to participate in this years elections ... I said they could.

That's not accurate - refer to my PM requesting the debate in public - my desire to hold the debate in our publicly accessible forum was purely for transparency. The members-only forum was added at the same time as non-members were given posting rights (recently removed) to allow members to have discussions without detractors wading in. That was a good reason to create it, but no reason for moving hustings there.

[sandvika]

(Cross-posted with Frosty68's agreement)

As a GAGB member who joined too late to vote last year, but who is following the discussion/hustings here this year, could I request that only one thread is used for these discussions.
I don't particularly care whether it's this, official thread or the new one which echoes the same content, only that I don't have to read 2 threads to see if there's anything different between the two!

Perhaps, if I had to chose one it would be this as it's the original, whilst I understand and commend the sentiment of transparency, I do feel forcing changes in the running of the GAGB before a vote has been cast is, perhaps, a little forward (I'm avoiding using the word arrogant). If sandvika gets the gig then he'll know the membership support him, until then there are already a set of procedures and protocols to follow, as a member who has not made his decision I'd ask that any changes to the running of the GAGB and its processes are left until after the election, and that one of the duplicate threads is locked.
Tony

Thanks for taking a keen interest in our hustings, Tony. I'll plead guilty to being forward, but innocent of being arrogant. I hope you have read and understand my motive, even if you disagree with it.

If I were not transparent from the start of the hustings, yet advocating transparency, surely it would be hypocritical?

For your benefit, the members-only forum was created in 2008/9 when I was last on our committee, to provide somewhere for internal discussions if members chose to hold them there. At the time, our other forum, which is still publicly readable to non-members (and therefore the location for transparent debate) allowed non-members to register and post as well. That right was revoked earlier this year. The reason for allowing non-members to post was to be accessible and engage our detractors. I felt that was a good thing. I'm not convinced the need has gone, however, the challenge of maintaining two databases of users and members was rather more difficult than synchronising the two threads in this debate, so I understand that it was expedient to exclude the non-members from posting in the forum again.

Thus, there is no particular precedent for holding our hustings in our members-only forum. In 2008 and earlier, they were held in our public forum, which is where I would like them to be held now.

[sandvika]

Do the GAGB purport to represent all Geocachers? If so why shouldn't they be able to see the discussion even if they can't vote?

I think in GAGB we should acknowledge that we do not yet represent all of our UK Geocaching community and we should aspire to do so. In aspiring to represent all of our UK community, we need to be open and accessible to all, especially our critics, so that we can demonstrate that we are listening to all and acting on the feedback and opinions provided to us.

Openness and transparency in decision making and acknowledging our failings is key to encouraging the remainder of our community to join us, because we must give them reasons to earn their respect. From my perspective, this openness and transparency had to begin with the hustings, to act consistently with these values.

Thanks, Roderick

[sandvika]

(Cross-posted from members' forum with keehotee's consent)

If the membership don't want the previous chair to be re-appointed, they don't vote for them in the committee elections.

....and if the members do not want a person to remain as chair - but are happy for them to serve as a committee member?

...

I think we should acknowledge our disagreement on this particular point. It is perhaps too esoteric to be of general interest to our members and Maple Leaf (Edit: Real name replaced with moniker) has already indicated that she is undecided on the matter, so it doesn't really contribute to the hustings debate.

I should also point out that any such change would have to be agreed by our new committee and the modified constitution be ratified by our members in a referendum: thus it would require popular support in two votes to take effect.

Whilst I've expressed an opinion, in my mind it's the difference between questionable and improved. I'd like to get GAGB to reinvent itself at what I believe is a make-or-break point in its existence - and this constitutional matter is unlikely to have a bearing on the outcome.

For members (Edit: was 'those' but is not in the open forum) who have a particular interest in this, I have answered keehotee's questions here

[mollyjak]

Thank you sandvika for your long and detailed reply which has made me question myself as to what I have done this year if this is your perception of me and what I have done for the GAGB and caching Community.

I would just like to say that there is far more to the work being done by the GAGB Committee than just others' perceptions under discussion.

Should I be nominated and decide to stand for re-election I will state exactly what I have been doing with my time.

I am not going to repost any further comments but would like to state:-

I have spoken to Matt - Nobby nobbs, at length about the way the GAGB is viewed - please feel free to contact him if you wish. I have also spoken to other long term members to see if they can shed any more information but it still seems to stem back to a number of years ago and the then Committee Members.

I totally object to being called 'disingenuous' - this is not my style.

I will not be adding any more comments on this discussion.

Lilian

[sandvika]

I do not have an issue with any member of the public knowing that I am one of the two candidates in the GAGB Chairman elections this year. My full name and caching name are available in several public areas related to geocaching e.g. GAGB Seeker magazine for the last two years, the GAGB Facebook group since it was created and a few other facebook groups.

My response when Sandvika proposed that the discussions were made in the public, non-member section of the GAGB forum was:

As it will be the 'members' casting the votes, I don't see why it needs moving to the 'public' area. We don't have 'forum only' users anymore - just members or public.


Anyone that joined after the cut off date is still able to read the statements in the member’s area, just not able to cast a vote. But I really don’t see the benefit of duplicating it in the public domain and actually feel that isn’t helping our membership grow.

Thanks Maple Leaf for making it easier to share the discussion with non-members.

My question, to which Maple Leaf replied as she quoted above, was:

"As the "hustings" are evidently starting, I propose that we have the discussions in the public, non-member section of the GAGB forum.

Whether you or I win, the change is the golden opportunity to make GAGB transparent and rid it of accusations of secrecy and cosy relationships. Do you agree?"

I think our membership is unlikely to grow, indeed is likely to decline, as long as there are perceptions and accusations of secrecy and cosy relationships.

I didn't consider the matter of transparency to be one that was likely to differentiate me from Maple Leadf, but it appears that it might be a significant difference, so let's discuss it.

With nobby.nobbs (former chairman) resigning from GAGB and Mongoose39UK resigning from the committee in recent months, it is evident that there is a significant level of frustration from people who hold, or have held, GAGB in high regard for a long time. This is probably only the visible top of the iceberg, and frankly, it was my call to action that made me consider standing for the committee this year.

I think that it is incumbent on the new committee to release these tensions and "re-invent" GAGB on a transparent, more relevant, inclusive and energised basis. Transparency is key to this because it is essential to build trust. If the committee is not working effectively because of hidden tensions, why should members have confidence in it - and to answer DrDick&Vick's question with a question - why should they donate to GAGB whilst it remains in this condition or is perceived to be so? Transparency will make it clear to our members what is working and what is not and be a force for good to focus on what is not working and fix it, celebrate what is good and enhance it.

I hope candidates for the committee will embrace transparency as I have and all members work together to build a strong, vibrant and valued association that many more Geocachers will want to be involved with. This way, we can create a thriving community - and to answer DrDick&Vick's question in the positive way - this is when donations will be flowing freely and we might have an embarrassment of riches with which to do great things that are inconceivable today!

So, in closing, back to Maple Leaf's comment

But I really don’t see the benefit of duplicating it in the public domain and actually feel that isn’t helping our membership grow

- I couldn't disagree more! A healthy debate about doing what's right, in public, is precisely what will encourage Geocachers to put their trust in us and feel they want to contribute, and join us.

[mollyjak]

Quote
Whether you or I win, the change is the golden opportunity to make GAGB transparent and rid it of accusations of secrecy and cosy relationships. Do you agree?"

With nobby.nobbs (former chairman) resigning from GAGB and Mongoose39UK resigning from the committee in recent months, it is evident that there is a significant level of frustration from people who hold, or have held, GAGB in high regard for a long time. This is probably only the visible top of the iceberg, and frankly, it was my call to action that made me consider standing for the committee this year.

I think that it is incumbent on the new committee to release these tensions and "re-invent" GAGB on a transparent, more relevant, inclusive and energised basis. Transparency is key to this because it is essential to build trust. If the committee is not working effectively because of hidden tensions, why should members have confidence in it - and to answer DrDick&Vick's question with a question - why should they donate to GAGB whilst it remains in this condition or is perceived to be so? Transparency will make it clear to our members what is working and what is not and be a force for good to focus on what is not working and fix it, celebrate what is good and enhance it.
End of Quote

Firstly I apologise for the red highlighting above but just wanted them to stand out for reference.

As you may or may not know I have been proud to be a GAGB Committee Member for the last year and I really struggle to understand the angst behind the history of the GAGB and the low esteem it is held in by some people. I have asked for explanations and been given one by nobby nobbs and yet I still don't fully understand the why or wherefores behind it.

The phrases in red - just appear to accuse the GAGB Committee of secrecy, cosy relationships and we need to release our hidden tension?????

If you are elected does this mean that you would prefer for a completely new Committee to be formed? Would this make the Committee more relevant, inclusive and energised?



Lilian

[keehotee]

Whoops....

Lillians post above this one has been made without any indication that she has pasted a quote.
It was not until I read back on the previous page that I realised this.
Please can you amend the post to make clear that the quoted sections is just that, and not your own thoughts

[sandvika]

Quote
Whether you or I win, the change is the golden opportunity to make GAGB transparent and rid it of accusations of secrecy and cosy relationships. Do you agree?"

With nobby.nobbs (former chairman) resigning from GAGB and Mongoose39UK resigning from the committee in recent months, it is evident that there is a significant level of frustration from people who hold, or have held, GAGB in high regard for a long time. This is probably only the visible top of the iceberg, and frankly, it was my call to action that made me consider standing for the committee this year.

I think that it is incumbent on the new committee to release these tensions and "re-invent" GAGB on a transparent, more relevant, inclusive and energised basis. Transparency is key to this because it is essential to build trust. If the committee is not working effectively because of hidden tensions, why should members have confidence in it - and to answer DrDick&Vick's question with a question - why should they donate to GAGB whilst it remains in this condition or is perceived to be so? Transparency will make it clear to our members what is working and what is not and be a force for good to focus on what is not working and fix it, celebrate what is good and enhance it.
End of Quote

Firstly I apologise for the red highlighting above but just wanted them to stand out for reference.

As you may or may not know I have been proud to be a GAGB Committee Member for the last year and I really struggle to understand the angst behind the history of the GAGB and the low esteem it is held in by some people. I have asked for explanations and been given one by nobby nobbs and yet I still don't fully understand the why or wherefores behind it.

The phrases in red - just appear to accuse the GAGB Committee of secrecy, cosy relationships and we need to release our hidden tension?????

If you are elected does this mean that you would prefer for a completely new Committee to be formed? Would this make the Committee more relevant, inclusive and energised?



Lilian

Lilian,

Firstly, I should point out that I have not sought to blame to any individual, nor even one committee, because the problem is not new. Secondly, I should point out that I am not making the accusations myself, if that is not clear from my careful use of language.

I think appropriate highlighting would have been:
Whether you or I win, the change is the golden opportunity to make GAGB transparent and rid it of accusations of secrecy and cosy relationships. Do you agree?"
This is a positive call to action, not an accusation.

I think that it is incumbent on the new committee to release these tensions
This is a forward looking statement, clearly including me, if I am elected. It is also a positive action, not an accusation.

If the committee is not working effectively because of hidden tensions, why should members have confidence in it
This is an elaboration, a further forward looking statement, clearly including me, if I am elected. It is posed as a question, to highlight the benefits of transparency.

Lillian, I think your highly selective highlighting in an attempt to dress up what I wrote as if I had made an accusation is disingenuous. I don’t think it is necessary to elaborate on this any further as our members are perfectly capable of seeing for themselves what you have done and question your motives.

You stated:

I really struggle to understand the angst behind the history of the GAGB and the low esteem it is held in by some people

If you struggle to understand this problem, how can you be part of the solution to it? You cannot pretend it does not exist, nor look the other way and hope it will cease, as it has been going on for years and will carry on until someone like me is determined to tackle it head-on.
What have you done over your tenure on our committee to improve your understanding of the problem? What have you done to address it?

I appreciate these issues do not make for comfortable reading, but rather than complaining about it, which is easy, I'm standing for election to our chair to put myself at the heart of it and commit to resolving it for once and for all. That's much harder, but if I were not optimistic that GAGB has the potential to develop into a thriving community, I wouldn't be standing, I’d use my valuable time to forget it and find more caches instead! Thus, I wish to achieve change for the better, not more of the same.

There are perceptions, rightly or wrongly, that GAGB is very cosy with Groundspeak and far from being independent and forthright, there are accusations that GAGB is the fall guy.

These are not new perceptions and accusations, I have already recalled the issues amongst some sections of our Geocaching community in 2008/9 in an earlier reply to a question, when I was on our committee. I share some responsibility for not tackling it head-on at the time, however, as I have made clear in my election statement, it was due to my adverse personal circumstances at the time, which also led me to decline my nomination to our committee in 2009.

I feel that the way in which the Olympic caching ban was handled this year was particularly poor and that there was clearly a breakdown in communication with our members, many of whom will not have known what was done in their name. If I'd not brought the topic to this forum, they might still not know today. The Wombles and Mongoose39UK have made their positions clear on this matter, whereas Palujia just wanted the topic buried (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showp...9&postcount=15). Maple Leaf thought the ban was sensible and did not think of (GAGB’s role) as doing Groundspeak’s “dirty work” (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showp...9&postcount=15)

I think our committee should have been sensitive to the way in which this involvement with Groundspeak and ACPO occurred and it does not take genius to realise that it feeds directly to GAGB’s detractors.

I’m concerned that Maple Leaf lacked the awareness of how it could be construed, so pose almost the same questions as of mollyjak: What have you done over your tenure on our committee to improve your understanding of the angst/antipathy towards GAGB by some sections of our Geocaching community? What have you done to address it? What is your proposal for tackling it, if you are elected as Chair?

I'm not suggesting that there was any intention to be secretive about the Olympic ban, I believe that it was down to lack of communication and possibly lack of proper process – especially as it was not even considered at a committee meeting. However, from my perspective, it seems like a pretty profound failing that cannot possibly have done GAGB any favours. It was the opportunity to get Groundspeak to reconsider its disproportionate and indiscriminate position in favour of a more considered and moderate approach and could thus have been a triumph with which GAGB could have confounded its critics.

I hope you now appreciate why I believe transparancy is so important and why I would make it a defining characteristic of my tenure, if I am elected as chair. I want to create conditions where such lack of communication can never happen again, and moreover, that our Geocaching community can see clearly what GAGB is doing to further our collective interests.

So on to Mollyjak’s question: If elected I would work eagerly with everyone our members elect for our new committee. I think a mix of previous experience and new skills is the best combination. I wouldn't like a totally inexperienced committee because we can’t afford the time to learn how to handle the ropes. I trust our members to elect the candidates they consider most capable of excelling with GAGB’s challenges and not elect those who think things are perfectly acceptable already.

Thanks, Roderick