Management of the Committee

If a a member of the committee was found to be acting in the name of the GAGB without mandate, how would you propose this was managed?

[sandvika]

A nice tough question!

Unfortunately, in my experience in other settings, I am aware of others exceeding their authority. Each case has to be considered in its own particular circumstances and maybe no more than a reprimand from the committee and an apology from the individual concerned is required.

However, if the person concerned will not desist from or retract their inappropriate actions, then regrettably there may be no alternative to requiring their resignation.

GAGB does not have a mechanism for this as far as I am aware, but it might be prudent to create one. It could comprise a standards committee which would meet with the individual concerned to determine the outcome. The composition of our standards committee should be impartial. It could comprise our Chairman & Secretary (or replacement from our committee if one of them is the individual concerned), our Returning Officer and another trusted and impartial third party. The objective should be to reach a unanimous decision, but if a 50/50 split decision is reached, then the Chairman's vote should carry greater weight.

I think this would ensure a fair hearing and it should serve the purpose, whilst also ensuring that there can be no deadlocked outcome. However, this is from my experience of such matters: I'm open to alternatives that might suit GAGB better.

[The Wombles]

In such a circumstance the committee should debate the matter and agree an appropriate course of action.

[geocaching womble]

In such a circumstance the committee should debate the matter and agree an appropriate course of action.

Ditto

Thanks
Dominic

[mollyjak]

In such a circumstance the committee should debate the matter and agree an appropriate course of action.

I cannot give a better answer than Dave as I am in full agreement.

[Team Microdot]

In such a circumstance the committee should debate the matter and agree an appropriate course of action.

+1 for this

The idea of yet another subcommittee to police what the other committees and sub-committees are getting up to just seems like red tape for the sake of it.

would there have to be another sub-committee charged with deciding the remit of all the other committees?

If a team of eight people can't reach concensus and act as a unit then there would seem little point in continuing.

[mollyjak]

8 Committee plus chair - 9

[Team Microdot]

8 Committee plus chair - 9

Nine people then

[Zomblou]

Can I assume that no action would be deemed necessary if the committee member acting without mandate secured an outcome beneficial to the GAGB.

[northking]

Each situation/issue would have to be dealt with on its own merit. Trying to give a broad brush answer is impossible. The committee does however need to show transparency in these matters. I am concerned that there is a feeling that the committee carries out a lot of business from behind closed doors.

[Palujia]

I thought the general accusation was that the committee did nothing anyway !!!- I'm not sure that there were any secrets discussed other than the proposed assassination of dissenting members (mostly who would be first against the wall when the revolution came)
Lighten up people - this is our hobby not stalinist Russia

[keehotee]

I thought the general accusation was that the committee did nothing anyway ..

I don't think anybody accused the committee of doing nothing - just not what they were asked to do by their members, or had promised to do themselves

[countrymatters]

I am concerned that there is a feeling that the committee carries out a lot of business from behind closed doors.

If that is true, then I don't appear to have been on Committee for the last two years. I'm not aware of any doors, closed or open, or any business transacted behind them...or not...!

[bobo frett]

I have nothing further to add. I can't imagine a scenario where that would be the case

[The Tares Clan]

As I have said a number of times, transparency is the key here.

If everything is transparent, we will see if the committee does nothing or if they do things behind members backs.

At the moment, I do not have enough information to base a valid judgement on and that leads to the perception of no or little value to the UK geocacher which in turn leads to lack of understanding/antipathy of the GAGB.