Bertybobby
New member
Anyone know where I can find a copy of the GNAS Constitution?
Tried the website but could not find it.
Ta!
Tried the website but could not find it.
Ta!
and on VOTES AT GENERAL MEETINGS4. No Regional Society, County Association, Associated Club or Associated Organisation recognised by the Society shall include in its constitution or shooting regulations any provisions that conflict with those of the Society. A copy of the constitution of each County Association and Regional Society shall be deposited with the Society.
An Adult Member is defined as a member who is aged 18 or older26†. On a poll, votes may be given either personally, or by proxy. On a poll, every Official, Individual and Associate Elector shall be entitled to one vote. Every Club Elector shall be entitled to one vote for each adult member of the club so represented with the proviso that no member may count towards the votes of more than one club.
That is only relevant to GNAS meetings and voting, though, MK1. Allowing juniors to vote on club matters in no way conflicts with the constitution of GNAS, as, as has been pointed out, it is a local organisation. The section on "Electors" is simply the means of determining the relative size of clubs when it comes to a GNAS general vote, and says nothing about juniors. Of course, it does prompt the question of why GNAS feels that junior membership should be irrelevant to such votes - it is not as if the juniors themselves are voting at such meetings. Or could it be that GNAS does not wish to encourage juniors to take an interest in the Society? :stirthepo
And clubs could still decide whether or not to follow suit on an individual basis...Gor lummy - The Articles are agreed by members - maybe if the Westminster or Scottish Governments reduce the age of voting to 16 we might all be persuaded to reduce the age in our Articles.
Ha, I say, and ha again. Actually, the articles, as proposed by a small sub-section of the Board, are agreed, generally with minimal discussion because of lack of alternatives or rationale, by representatives of clubs who can get to the General Meeting and the proxy votes wielded by the Chairman, generally one of that small sub-section. This may be the best way of doing things (though I can think of better), but it does not necessarily mean they are agreed by the membership.Gor lummy - The Articles are agreed by members ....
By the processes in place Nick they are :stirthepoHa, I say, and ha again. Actually, the articles, as proposed by a small sub-section of the Board, are agreed, generally with minimal discussion because of lack of alternatives or rationale, by representatives of clubs who can get to the General Meeting and the proxy votes wielded by the Chairman, generally one of that small sub-section. This may be the best way of doing things (though I can think of better), but it does not necessarily mean they are agreed by the membership.
But, of course, you are missing the point. Under the present system a club that has, say 25 adult members but, because of excellent community relations and development work, has 75 junior members has half the influence of a club that has 50 adult members and a policy of "No Brats". This is not about the voting age - as I said, how a club decides to exercise its votes is a local decision - but about how the size of a club is determined.
I note well that ":stirthepo" .It is such a relief to know that the Chairman and Chief Executive have a firm grasp on the matter, and nothing but the best interests of the members of the society at heart.By the processes in place Nick they are :stirthepo
Serious question:- I realise that many members, perhaps most, and certainly some who should know better, have no knowledge of the "Constitution" and no interest in increasing that. So a OMOV approach would perhaps not be the best. So, at what level of the organisation should we expect - as in "require" - participation in constitutional matters of the Society? And what participation should that be?...and add in that many members probably don't even know how the person who fills in the Club proxy form has placed their votes!
Well we can't change anything without membership permission - Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? - It's hard to work out from what you say Nick :sonar:I note well that ":stirthepo" .It is such a relief to know that the Chairman and Chief Executive have a firm grasp on the matter, and nothing but the best interests of the members of the society at heart.
In Scotland we have one person one vote. It means that the SAA Board has to talk to the membership about what is going on and Club secretaries have to talk to their Club's members about matters governance. It was very effective at our last AGM - we'll see how "interested" people are at the approaching AGM now that the "little stuchie" is over.Serious question:- I realise that many members, perhaps most, and certainly some who should know better, have no knowledge of the "Constitution" and no interest in increasing that. So a OMOV approach would perhaps not be the best. So, at what level of the organisation should we expect - as in "require" - participation in constitutional matters of the Society? And what participation should that be?
It is absolutely right - so long as things are done openly and fully. Take the current exercise - which is being presented to the membership as a limited change, required from outside etc etc. In my view - as I hope you were made aware, though possibly not - the proposed change has a potential to affect the Society that seemed to me to require further examination of the Board structure, governance and oversight in line with modern thinking. It is easier to lead people in the direction you want one small step at a time.Well we can't change anything without membership permission - Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? - It's hard to work out from what you say Nick :sonar:...