One Team - One Vote

[Chris n Maria]

The Wombles

I'm nominating Tim and June for joint Chairmanship.

Whilst it might get a little crowded if they both use the Chair at the same time, it seems to me that they both make major contribution to everything that they do, they always cache together as a single unit so it is appropriate that they share the Chair.

If other members feel that this is inappropriate because they feel that the nomination should be for a single person only, then would they please open a new thread for that debate to leave this one for nominations only?

Not sure what others feel about this but that was the way I saw it working. As people cache in teams then comtitte places would go to teams. For instance if the wombles were elected (is that the first time that sentance has ever been used I wonder ) then they would take up one place and consiquently 1 vote.

In real life I expect few things would be voted on by the committee - usually they would come up with a plan and seek ratification by the membership. Though I could be wrong (and usually am )

Chris

[Tim and June]

one place and consiquently 1 vote

Agreed 100%

Anything other would be undemocratic to say the least. Suppose a committee member could invite 30 people to join his "team" and therefore have 30 plus votes !

I suggest that 1 position 1 vote becomes part of the GAGB constitution (when we get to that stage).

In real life I expect few things would be voted on by the committee - usually they would come up with a plan and seek ratification by the membership.

Also agreed, more minor decisions, no problem, but a more major decision should be approved by the members. We do have an easy method of asking the members unlike most clubs/associations.

Chris, of course you are wrong, just like me. After all, you're a bloke and us blokes are never right. :lol:

[MCL]

Well I agree it sounds sensible for a team to have one vote. However, there is the small problem of what happens when a Team also has individual members who themselves have their own accounts. One example that springs to mind is Team Blitz, but there are undoubtedly others too.

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by MCL@Jul 24 2003, 02:01 AM
Well I agree it sounds sensible for a team to have one vote. However, there is the small problem of what happens when a Team also has individual members who themselves have their own accounts. One example that springs to mind is Team Blitz, but there are undoubtedly others too.

And that raises another point: I believe (but feel free to disagree&#33 that any team / person on the committee should be over 18 (for many legal reasons).

Not that I'm trying to exclude Mike for any reason


Paul

[el10t]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jul 24 2003, 08:31 PM
And that raises another point: I believe (but feel free to disagree&#33 that any team / person on the committee should be over 18 (for many legal reasons).

Not that I'm trying to exclude Mike for any reason

Ooh you're a harsh father!

[MCL]

I would tend to disagree, Paul. To exclude people under 18 is to send a wrong message to our youth that although we can trust them to get married, have a gay relationship, drive a car, and have kids of their own, all under the age of 18, we can't trust them to help run their own hobby!

Let anyone stand, whatever age, and leave it up to them to persuade enough people to vote for them. There are plenty of successful businesses run by smart kids, I don't see why we should pre-exclude the chance of having one of our own.

What "legal reasons" did you have in mind?