Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 79 of 79

Thread: Committee

  1. #51
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 6 2003, 01:09 AM
    If you think it ought, then electing the first leader unopposed makes such a claim of democracy that much harder.
    Making someone stand who's totally unsuitable for the post, just so we can have a contested election, is not particularly democratic either!

    Why not include just Ron (Re-Open Nominations) in the ballots? (Or "none of the above", if preferred). That way the difference between "abstained" and "voted against" is clear, and people would be voting on T&J's suitability for the post, not the contender's unsuitability.

  2. #52
    Wood Smoke Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 10:57 AM
    Having an option, in addition to those standing for the post, called "None of the above" ... common in US elections and shows the strength of feeling against those standing (if there is any). That way no one if forced to vote one way or not vote at all ...

    Gets around the problems that MCL raised.

    and from Teasel

    Why not include just Ron (Re-Open Nominations) in the ballots? (Or "none of the above", if preferred). That way the difference between "abstained" and "voted against" is clear, and people would be voting on T&J's suitability for the post, not the contender's unsuitability.
    This is a UK election and it aint done that way here.

    We have nominations, if someone feels strongly enough that the nominated candidate is not the right one for the job they get someone to stand against them. If not they are elected unaposed.

    Thats the UK way, and that's the way it should be.

    Woodsmoke

  3. #53
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Wood Smoke@Aug 6 2003, 04:51 PM
    This is a UK election and it aint done that way here.
    Eh? I've never been a member of any foreign clubs, so I can't comment on the way it's done elsewhere. But I can assure you that it's quite commonplace for Ron to stand for election to committees all over the UK!

    OK, so it's not the way we vote for our legislature. But then where in the UK democracy are we allowed to vote for who gets the top job anyway?

  4. #54
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Lady Jane@Aug 6 2003, 06:56 PM
    For the sake of democracy/stupidity (delete as appropriate) would somebody please propose me so that I can stand against Tim & June. Personally I would rather we get on and accept the clear leaders and launch straight into electing a committee instaed of having a RON and add a delay of another 6 weeks.

    Get on with it for pity's sake or is somebody trying to take over. by pi**ing em off then they will give up.
    Ok, I've never heard of Lady Jane, have no idea who she / they are, but heck, if she is stupid enough to want to stand, then I'm happy to propose her. I'm not too sure if she will get any votes, but that is the power of democracy!

    (because of the democracy we have, and the fact that there is a secret vote, then that does not necessarily mean I will vote for her....)

    =============

    hmm... thinking about the various constitutions I have read: there is often nothing to stop anyone proposing more than one person to a post, nor usually anything that requires that person to vote at all. In a way, that can be useful, as it allows someone to also propose a motion in order to have a 'positive refusal', thus giving a commitee direction.

    And as for someone else's comment about "that isn't the way things are done here" has never bothered to read the rules of voting for any university! At Southampton, certainly back in the 1970's, there was quite a comprehensive STV system, which allowed you to have 20 candidates for 6 posts, and you could list as many (or as few) of them on your voting sheet as you liked. The rules also meant that an abstension was a valid vote, and candidates had to get greater than a certain %age (depending on the # of seats) of all valid votes - including those abstensions - to get in. Too many abstensions could lead to a re-election!

  5. #55
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Lady Jane@Aug 6 2003, 06:56 PM
    For the sake of democracy/stupidity (delete as appropriate) would somebody please propose me so that I can stand against Tim & June. Personally I would rather we get on and accept the clear leaders and launch straight into electing a committee instaed of having a RON and add a delay of another 6 weeks.

    Get on with it for pity's sake or is somebody trying to take over. by pi**ing em off then they will give up.
    By no means should all this be rushed. The committee (including chair) will be the group of folks that us "proles" decide, by democratic/stupid (delete as opinion dictates) vote, to represent us when consulting with Land Management Organisations (and other mucky jobs besides).
    The whole debate in these fora is perfectly healthy. To debate is to encourage progress. Sometimes progress sucks, sometimes it's magically wonderful. In this case, I hope it will be the latter. To be sure of getting the right bums on the right seats, it's great that we're all arguing about this.
    Remember, the GAGB is still in an embryonic state, and all good strong things take time to grow.

    Not too sure about the RON thingy, though. I mean I know what it is, it's just that it does indeed seem that T n J are the right folks for the job. Anyone who disagree's email me and I'll happily nominate you. That's democracy, folks!

  6. #56
    Mr & Mrs Hedgehog Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 6 2003, 07:24 PM
    Ok, I've never heard of Lady Jane, have no idea who she / they are, but heck, if she is stupid enough to want to stand, then I'm happy to propose her. I'm not too sure if she will get any votes, but that is the power of democracy!
    So now we have to waste more time with an election.... great... I see nothing wrong with just T&J being nominated. I was once Chairman of a local branch of an International organisation. When I first stood for the Chair I was unopposed. Obviously no-one thought that was un-democratic.... I went on to 10 years of un-opposed Chairmanship before I quit wanting some fresh blood to take over. Obviously people thought I was the best man for the job... so why need to waste time with an election?

    Peter

  7. #57
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Mr & Mrs Hedgehog@Aug 6 2003, 08:51 PM
    So now we have to waste more time with an election.... great...
    Saly, it seems that there ARE others who feel that an election would be a good thing.

    Personally, I feel that, even if there is just one person standing, it is important that that person is SEEN to have the support of the organisation. I say this from experience at an organisation that has occasionally had the worry that they could end up with a single, unsuitable, candidate.

    Ok, in THIS case, I believe that the person standing is a "good person", but that isn't always the case.

    So, if we feel we should have an election anyway, then it makes no difference if the election is between T&J, Lady Jane and "none of the above", or whether its between T&J and "NOT T&J"!!!!


    Paul

  8. #58
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Admin+Aug 6 2003, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Admin @ Aug 6 2003, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MCL@Aug 5 2003, 01:51 AM
    We must have at least one other person to stand against ...
    You offering ? [/b][/quote]
    Oh Admin&#33;

    One doesn&#39;t offer. One gets nominated, and seconded, then one either accepts or declines the nomination.

    So, no. I ain&#39;t.

  9. #59
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Lady Jane@Aug 6 2003, 07:56 PM
    by pi**ing em off then they will give up.
    Let me get this straight.

    I am not for one moment suggesting that anyone get peed off. Why would anyone standing for a post be pi**ed off just because they had competition? That is not a mature and adult attitude to have, and I&#39;m sure T&J are both mature and adult.

    No the thing that worried me was not so much the fact that we might have no opposers, but that people were not willing to stand because of who they were standing against. In other words, it had nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with personality. I believe that to be a teeny bit alarming thats all.

    If they had said "I couldn&#39;t possibly stand because I have no good ideas to offer" or "I am not worthy of the position" or "I&#39;m a convicted tax-fiddler with a penchant for offshore funds" or "I have a medical allergy to committees" ... then I would be more amenable to their argument.

    But to admit the reason they won&#39;t stand is because of the person they would be standing against, just raised alarm bells when I read it. It is not healthy for democracy to have *that* sort of attitude.

    If everyone else has other "genuine" reasons not to stand then I will support an unopposed election. But that, at the moment is not the case. Some people, by their own admission, are using personality not policy to prevent them from standing.

    I apologise if anyone misunderstood my reasons for speaking up, and do feel free to disagree with my stance if you want. I am not in any way trying to delay things or gum up the works.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 7 2003, 01:56 AM

    .........Some people, by their own admission, are using personality not policy to prevent them from standing......


    Where does anybody mention that they are not standing because of personalities??

    I am not standing because I know, as do most people on this forum, that T&J are the best people for the job.


  11. #61

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Admin has received an email from Lady Jane as folows :

    Hi Admin,

    I made my post in the forum to indicate the stupidity of some of the comments and my point was missed.

    I am not going to stand for chair and make the mockery deeper.

    Please delete my post and remove me from membership as it is a sham sign up anyway. This should have been obvious to everyone.

    So, Lady Jane has not been added to the list of nominations and her post has been deleted as per request.

  12. #62
    Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 7 2003, 01:56 AM
    If they had said "I couldn&#39;t possibly stand because I have no good ideas to offer" or "I am not worthy of the position" or "I&#39;m a convicted tax-fiddler with a penchant for offshore funds" or "I have a medical allergy to committees" ... then I would be more amenable to their argument.

    But to admit the reason they won&#39;t stand is because of the person they would be standing against, just raised alarm bells when I read it. It is not healthy for democracy to have *that* sort of attitude.

    If everyone else has other "genuine" reasons not to stand then I will support an unopposed election. But that, at the moment is not the case. Some people, by their own admission, are using personality not policy to prevent them from standing.

    I apologise if anyone misunderstood my reasons for speaking up, and do feel free to disagree with my stance if you want. I am not in any way trying to delay things or gum up the works.
    Sorry if I&#39;m being thick but why would personality come into it? What are you trying to suggest? Are you suggesting that people are frightened of T&J? I&#39;ve met them and found them to be most plesant couple... so why the personality thing?

  13. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by Lost in Space@Aug 7 2003, 07:31 AM
    Where does anybody mention that they are not standing because of personalities??

    I am not standing because I know, as do most people on this forum, that T&J are the best people for the job.

    Exactly. How much longer is this shilly shallying going on for?

    It&#39;s pretty much agreed that Tim & June are the best for the job. no one will stand against them, not because they are frightened or intimidated, but probably because they know that T&J would win a vote by a large margin. And rightly so. GAGB is their baby, they have done some sterling work with HCC, so let&#39;s get them appointed and stop messing about.

    All those in favour of electing Tim & June unopposed as chairpersons say "Aye".
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Aye
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  15. #65

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    St Helens, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Aye&#33;
    Enjoy your caching!

  16. #66
    Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog Guest

    Default

    aye

    now lets get on with it and stop all this nit picking

  17. #67

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    We propose "BugznElm&#39;r" for the position of chair.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  18. #68

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 7 2003, 04:13 PM
    We propose "BugznElm&#39;r" for the position of chair.
    Seconded &#33;&#33;
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

  19. #69
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Pharisee+Aug 7 2003, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pharisee @ Aug 7 2003, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tim and June@Aug 7 2003, 04:13 PM
    We propose "BugznElm&#39;r" for the position of chair.
    Seconded &#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Thanks for the nomination Tim&June and the seconding Pharisee.

    Whoever is going to chair the GAGB will certainly need a thick skin and will need to work overtime bringing everyone together. Handling all the inputs from various sides won&#39;t be easy and I&#39;m sure tough (read unpopular with some) decisions will need to be made. Whoever ends in the hot seat is going to be extra busy&#33;

    And this is the reason why I/we have to decline this nomination. Our amount of free time comes and goes and this role is serious. Points raised in the past few weeks have had nothing to do with powerplay h34r:

    If the GAGB ever grows to the point where in needs regional representation in Wales and we were nominated, we might consider.

    Tim&June ... the road is clear again

  20. #70
    MCL Guest

    Default

    On 21st July Admin ruled:
    In view of the point raised by Paul G0TLG below, the nominations will remain open until 09:00am 11th August in order to allow those on holiday to make their nominations.
    That should answer all those people who have posted complaining about how long and dragged out the election is. I didn&#39;t make the rule, Admin did. If you can&#39;t wait till 11th August then I&#39;m not the person you need to be talking to Furthermore, Admin posted this message in red bold type, just in case anyone might miss it.


    On 23rd July, Tim and June posted
    Please though, do continue make your nominations, because there must be others who could do an equally good job.
    It is plain from this that they don&#39;t *want* to stand unopposed, and neither do they consider that they are the best people for the job. This follows logically from the assertion that there must be others who could do an equally good job.

    On 30th July, Admin then posted
    C&#39;mon you guys, let&#39;s have some more nominations here.
    ...making it quite plain that Admin didn&#39;t want a one-horse race either, no matter who the horse was. (oops that sounds terrible, but you all know what I actually mean&#33

    On 1st August I posted that I supported what SimonG had just said, about eighthing and ninthing T&J&#39;s nomination. That should make everyone aware as to who my favoured candidate for the job is. I have already planted my colours.


    Now I turn to the question posed by Lost In Space, when he asked me
    Where does anybody mention that they are not standing because of personalities??
    ..and also Mr & Mrs Hedgehog said they didn&#39;t understand where personality was coming into it. They hinted that I should explain, so here goes:

    Well, on 4th August, Pharisee wrote:
    Sorry, guys, there is just no way I&#39;m standing against Tim and June for the head honcho&#39;s job.
    This was the first one that I spotted. Then, with the most historic irony of all, Lost in Space (the one who asked me the question...) said, on the same day (4th August)
    I am honoured by the nomination though there is no way that I could be considered against such respected company as T&J
    Lost in Space, you asked and answered your own question. Thankyou&#33;

    It was this aspect of personality-over-policy that I thought a bit alarming. But hey, if no one else minds, I&#39;ll go with the flow. At least I have tried.

    Now, everyone just damn well grit your teeth and WAIT for 11th. Don&#39;t be so darned impatient with your Admin&#33; You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

  21. #71
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle@Aug 7 2003, 12:53 PM
    How much longer is this shilly shallying going on for?
    Until 0900hrs on 11th August. See top of this thread for further details.

    And why would waiting for a preset deadline be "shilly shallying"?

  22. #72
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle@Aug 7 2003, 12:53 PM
    GAGB is their baby.
    Is it? I may be wrong on this, and someone correct me if I am, but I was under the impression that GAGB was the "baby" of about half a dozen people. To make a statement apportioning the entire birth to T&J runs the risk of possibly upsetting those others who may have had a sizeable input.

    Either

    - That statement is potentially upsetting to other parties, since it appears to dismiss their part in things, or
    - You know something that I don&#39;t.

    I&#39;m prepared to be corrected on this. To be honest I don&#39;t know how much of GAGB was and was not down to T&J, and in such a situation, would not make such an assertion.

  23. #73

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 8 2003, 02:22 AM
    To be honest I don&#39;t know how much of GAGB was and was not down to T&J, and in such a situation, would not make such an assertion.
    I wasn&#39;t aware that you had made any such assertion.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  24. #74
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle+Aug 8 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Muggle @ Aug 8 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MCL@Aug 8 2003, 02:22 AM
    To be honest I don&#39;t know how much of GAGB was and was not down to T&J, and in such a situation, would not make such an assertion.
    I wasn&#39;t aware that you had made any such assertion. [/b][/quote]
    No, Muggle, you are quite correct, *I* hadn&#39;t made any such assertion.

    I was suggesting that *you* had, by saying that GAGB was Tim and June&#39;s baby. I was making the point that, were I in your position, I would not have written a post which could be construed as having that implication.

    Does that explain it better?

  25. #75

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 8 2003, 08:02 PM
    Does that explain it better?
    Yes it does thank you.

    According to the "About the GAGB" page on this website "Initial members of the association were Moss Trooper, Tim & June, Richard and Beth"

    Is it reasonable to suppose that GBGB was Tim & June&#39;s baby? I think what I said was fair comment and as for running the risk of possibly upsetting those others, I&#39;ll apologise to Richard & Beth and Moss Trooper just in case.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  26. #76

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Yer wrong.. It was mine.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  27. #77
    The Northumbrian Guest

    Default

    AYE

  28. #78

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 8 2003, 10:02 PM
    Yer wrong.. It was mine.
    In that case, I am happy to stand corrected. Apologies all round.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  29. #79

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Nominations are now closed.

    Thanks to all who nominated somebody, Now, on with the poll.

Posting Permissions

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