There has been quite a lot put on the discussion pages of the web site and I have had a couple of calls regarding these articles. This is a follow up to last weeks Bulletin and Snowy Jeffs comes back with the following. “My thanks to Sid Barkel for his answers to my four questions on which I would now like to comment as follows:-
Proposition 8 quite clearly does NOT conflict with any current RPRA rule(s). And as it was passed by the members in the AGM ballot, it is now a rule of the NFC – whether we like it or not. As such, it cannot simply be set aside by the President, committee or any other member(s) of the club for that matter, because as Sid so rightly says, they cannot change a decision made at an AGM. It can ONLY be amended or deleted by the adoption of another proposition at the next, or subsequent, AGM. So in effect any attempt to rule Proposition 8 ‘out of order’ under RPRA rules is itself out of order. Realising that the members were not going to stand for Proposition 8 being side-lined, it seems that some of the committee began searching about for another method to get round what was by that time already a club rule. Clearly some of them did not like this rule and suggested that the committee would lose several of its number as a result. If this is the case, doesn’t it demonstrate that each of those concerned thinks more of their other specialist club than they do of the NFC, otherwise they would give up their other club first, wouldn’t they? That’s how it seems to me, anyway. In another attempt to get round Proposition 8, the committee suggested that legally any member of an organisation can stand for election as an officer. Now we have the outcome of the case between the Football Association and Mohamed Al Fayed (who undoubtedly had a large financial interest in the three clubs concerned, don’t forget!) thrown up as a way of circumnavigating this rule.
Come on, chaps, isn’t this all getting just a little bit too silly? This is a pigeon club we’re talking about here. All that’s needed to run it are its own rules and a modicum of common sense – or at least that should be enough. Once the committee resorts to the ‘big stick’ approach to force through its own wishes ahead of those of its members will surely herald the beginning of a potentially terminal decline in my opinion!
Another point that has never been properly explained, is why it took until after Proposition 8 had been passed for the committee to begin raising any objection to it. To my knowledge, a version of this same proposed rule has been on the ballot form on at least two previous occasions, although it failed both times. Yet there wasn’t a ‘peep’ out of the committee then – it’s only now, when it’s too late because it has already become a rule, that efforts are being made to block it. We now also learn that the new rule required as a result of Proposition 8 being passed is to be left out of the rule book. This in itself is out of order and seems likely to bring the committee into even more conflict with its members.
NFC Bulletin 10 carried a note concerning the costs of 168 meetings, claiming that they are being called for no apparent reason. This is an insult to the membership in my view, because if the club was being run to their satisfaction (which is what they are entitled to expect) there would be no need for ANY 168 meetings. This may be painful to some, but it’s the plain truth. Turning to the matter of co-option of members onto the committee, this is not a ‘right’ for club committees to use as and when they choose, but needs to be specified in the rules and constitution of the club before it can be put into practice. The fact is that there is no provision anywhere within the NFC’s rules for this to take place, and in any case even if there was it would normally only allow the committee to co-opt members to assist them on (say) a sub-committee formed for a specific purpose – for example the arranging of the annual dinner etc. Any co-opted member would not be allowed to vote or take part in any business conducted by the main committee. Therefore the co-option of several members onto the main NFC committee at the first meeting after the AGM was constitutionally flawed, and any business resolved by vote since then in which the co-opted members took part is therefore out of order! If I am correct, I find it particularly galling that the members who had quite literally just been co-opted onto the committee were immediately involved in carrying the vote to disregard the members’ wishes on Proposition 8, thereby safeguarding their own position. This begs the question; If the votes of the co-opted members are declared void as they should be, would the outcome of the attempt to scupper Proposition 8 still be the same? Somehow I doubt it as, to a man, the co-opted members clearly had a vested interest in the outcome. And the fact that other members had been co-opted onto the committee in the past can also be disregarded, because two (or even more) procedural wrongs do not make a right!
With regard to the loss at the last dinner, I’m obliged to Sid for his comments concerning the balance sheet. With respect, however, all that I wanted to know (and still do!) is what is the total amount lost by the club over the last five years on the running of this annual function. I am concerned because it seems to me that a large part of the extra revenue gained from the latest increase in membership fees from £12 to £15 paid by all members is going to be eaten up in subsidising a function that few of them attend.
Our sec Sid comes back with the answer’s. “After reading Snowy Jeffs last comments, I feel I must hold back the handbook and race entry forms and write my own comments as follows: - Surely proposition 8 cannot be a rule, if it is illegal. If this proposition was allowed to be in the rule book, then it opens the door for legal cases to be brought against the club which could cost the club a lot of money. It isn’t a case of whether the committee like it or not but one of what is right and in the end, in this case, the outcome is right. The points regarding the member’s ballot making proposition 8 a rule and not being able to change it until the next AGM can be argued against, on the grounds that the Annual General Meeting ruled that the proposition was out of order. Under RPRA rule 153, “The business to be conducted at the annual general meeting of the organisation shall be the …..the consideration of any alterations to the rules of the organisation proposed by any member”, makes the decision in order! The law of the land rules over RPRA rules, which rules over NFC rules. The matter of whether the Annual General Meeting ruled over the member’s ballot and which decision should stand is irrelevant when the conclusion is that the proposition is against the law. The outcome of proposition 8 not being in the handbook is a correct one, and the way in which it was done, also is irrelevant because the outcome is right. The aim of proposition 8 was to stop committee members with a conflict of interest voting on matters which could be detrimental to the NFC and advantageous to a competitor club! Certain rules within the RPRA cover interested parties, rule 172 etc. Common courtesy should also prevail with any concerned individuals and it’s probably law that anyone who is an interested party cannot vote on that issue! The second paragraph is incorrect. The majority of the committee only received their voting result at the committee meeting prior to the AGM, a small few, the night prior upon my arrival at the presentation venue. As far as I know, committee members never assumed or realised that members were not going to stand for prop. 8 being “sidelined”. Nor do I know if this is actually happening! Some of the committee thought that this proposition was included onto the ballot paper by mistake and it was against RPRA rules. The outcome of this committee meeting resulted in the outcome of the Annual General Meeting. The final decision lies within the Annual General Meeting where all members can attend and approx. 70 or so did. Therefore the members agreed to “sideline” the proposition! No attempts have been made by the committee to get round proposition 8 nor have they tried to circumnavigate the proposition! For the two years prior, I feel that the committee didn’t realise that such a proposition was against the law. But prior to this, I think three years ago, the proposition was ruled out of order! Some of the current committee at the October and December meetings expressed their views on the proposition being out of order. The committee members have changed every year for the last three years and opinions have and will always differ with each person. I hope that this explains paragraph 4 and highlights that it isn’t because it was “too late because it had already become a rule that efforts are being made to block it”. The statement is incorrect and again the outcome of the A.G.M. was that it was out of order.
The next paragraph states, “Seems likely to bring the committee into even more conflict with its members.” It was the Annual General Meeting where the decision was made, not at a later committee meeting. Although I must state that the item has been brought up on the last two committee meetings after the AGM and that it was highlighted that the committee couldn’t go against the decision made at the Annual General Meeting.
With regards to NFC bulletin 10 concerning the costs of 168 meetings. The view that the article, specifically, “168 meetings are being called for no apparent reason, is insulting to the membership”, is misconceived. Let me inform members of the following: - A member calls a 168 meeting of the National Flying Club at a cost of approx. £1,000.00. His reason being, the committee appointed a member to a position, when the AGM voted against this happening. At the A.G.M., no such vote was taken! Does the club have to call a 168 meeting at such cost to here a grievance without any substance or any grounds to have a 168 meeting? It’s not about the way the club is being run, it’s about misunderstandings, misconceptions and possible behind the scene motives? This is the painful, costly truth.
Regarding co-opting members onto the committee. In the past, a precedent was set when co-option was first introduced. Co-option has occurred for the benefit of the club, i.e. Take Jack Roberts. He was co-opted onto the committee for his business acumen. He organised the first car to be flown for in the N.F.C. Losses were turned into profit, etc., etc. Others may have been invited for specific reasons. Those co-opted on to the committee at the February meeting, were co-opted on because a) There weren’t any members representing their sections. b) Five of the seven co-opted were marking station i/cs. Failure to co-opt these members on could have resulted in looking for new i/cs or closing marking stations. c) The committee numbers were close to breaking general rule 6, after a lot of former committee members or general members didn’t stand at the last AGM. d) Two were already Life Vice Presidents. There wouldn’t be much point be of co-opting onto the committee and not allowing these members to become involved in the running of the club etc. On this point re the Dax race, the majority voted for the Dax race without counting the co-opted members in! Paragraph seven, is not correct and therefore, there is no need to find anything particularly galling. Again the decision re proposition 8 was made at the AGM and not at a later committee meeting. No questions need to be begged, there has been no attempt to scupper! No vested interest has occurred. Without any rules governing co-option, then when a precedent has been set, the occasion can be used to justify a later similar occasion. If any member feels that a new rule is needed to cover the co-option of members onto the committee then please feel free to submit propositions for a new rule. My comments still stand with regard to the balance sheet. I myself would have to go through each years accounts to find out any answers. Every member can do this and find the answers themselves. I also highlighted that certain actions were being taken to ensure that the dinner covers itself financially. I personally feel that some members are under the misapprehension that the committee are breaking rules at every opportunity, ruling with a ‘big stick’, are being insulting, etc., etc., and this isn’t the case. The committee of management are elected officials by the members attending the AGM. Co-opted members are confirmed at the next A.G.M. The committee try to manage the club in the best interests of the members for the good of the club, for the betterment and overall satisfaction of the majority of the members and for the financial betterment of the club. I personally feel that Snowy has had a lapse of concentration here. These words are unnecessary, unjust and bring the club into disrepute. I also personally think that the moderator should have blocked these words prior to publication. A retraction and / or an apology wouldn’t go amiss.
Let me also state that at this moment there are vacancies for the committee in sections
B (1), C (2), H (2), I (2), should any members feel they wish to participate in the management of probably the GREATEST AND BEST CLUB IN THE WORLD! I end this letter being yours sincerely and in sport, Sid Barkel.”
I have spoken to Sid several times in the past and have pointed out that he is always in the position to answer the questions that arise at length and I feel that this contribution has answered them all and gentleman please let us get on with racing the pigeons.
