GNAS Constitution

Bertybobby

New member
Thanks. Found it.

The reason for asking was that at tonight's club AGM the issue of juniors having a vote came up. The chairman said they don't get a vote.

I pointed out our club constitution says nothing about it. He said it's regulated by the GNAS constitution. I smelt bull...

Can't see anything in the GNAS articles which regulate voting rights of associated club juniors.

Any views / help welcome.

Anyone know where mandatory rules flowed down into associated club constitutions may reside?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
Whether juniors get a vote at your club, is down to your club, not GNAS...
Voting rules are local to the organisation you're voting in.
The club constitution/standing orders should define it.
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
In the SCHEDULE TO THE ARTICLES COMPRISING
THE LAWS OF
THE GRAND NATIONAL ARCHERY SOCIETY

It says in
4. 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.
and on VOTES AT GENERAL MEETINGS

26†. 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.
An Adult Member is defined as a member who is aged 18 or older
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
Yes... So that means a club can't say junior members have a vote at GNAS AGMs....
It doesn't say anything about how a club arranges it's own voting, on club matters.

Regardless, the club should have defined voting eligibility. It has a bit of a hole in its setup, if that hasn't been defined... Little things like how junior members are treated, how non-affiliated associate members, or social members are treated... That sort of thing.
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
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
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
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

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.
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
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.
And clubs could still decide whether or not to follow suit on an individual basis... :)
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
Gor lummy - The Articles are agreed by members ....
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.
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.
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
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.
By the processes in place Nick they are :stirthepo

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.

...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!
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
By the processes in place Nick they are :stirthepo
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.
...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!
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?
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
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.
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:

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?
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.

For my non Scot friends - Stuchie: an uproar, hubbub, disturbance, commotion, turmoil, quarrel, brawl or row
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
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:...
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.
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
The current exercise, which is basically a fait accompli being represented as a "consultation"...? Presumably to be rubber stamped at an AGM as "pre-approved by the membership"...
 
Top