Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Sale Walking and Activities Group (SWAG) at Flixton House on 10 March 2010

Start time 7:45pm

Members present:

Mike Bethell

Eric Birch

Trish Horton

Sue Pinder

Nick Ash

Simon Phillips

Pete Rooke
Gary Gilbert

Oliver Hill

Phil Labrum

Tim Jeffcock

Heather Shanley

Christine Stylianou

Linda Hadcroft

Steve Buttery

Paul Winkworth

Jo Edwards

Rose Ackers

Louise Cooke

John Steele

Sheila Wilson

Colin Albin

Doreen Albin

Frances Campbell

Jill Hudson

Linda Rothwell

Sue Adams

Steve Baynes

Harvey Bell

Viv Belkacem

Megan Martin

Phil Bryan

Paul Littlewood

Trish Horton

David Matthews

Margaret Sleight

Clive Walker

Jane Hawnaur

Janet Entwistle

John Mills

Maureen Jones

Bob Mills

Jo Collins

Kate Possnett

Maureen Cain

Linda Ford

Carole Birtwistle

David Brotton

Wendy Brotton

Michelle Clavell

David Grindrod

Marie Goodier

Alan Rutherford

Cecilia Walker

Nigel Brooker

Angela Fairbairn

Debbie Byron

Arthur Chorlton

Jo Cunliffe

Simon Derek Pierce

Robert Morton

Jeanette Thorley

Alison O’Grady

Sue Thomas

Paul Tupper

Rosalind Wilson

John Small

Peter Ning

Andrew Keens

Eunice Ogden

Kim Richardson

Janine Agnew

Joyce Nelson

Wellington Tsang

Olga Bennett

Chris Corney

Margaret Heaton

Sue Goodwin

Ros Purkis

Annetta Bryan

Susan Negus

Andy Wright

Aidan Kirkpatrick

Mike greeted everybody and then gave the background to events leading up to the last AGM. Following two members receiving warning letters long after the incidents had occurred and one member being informed they were not allowed on a weekend event it was felt by himself and a substantial number of members that the pre AGM committee had acted unfairly and without a satisfactory disciplinary procedure. 

He then said things in the group had seemed to be happening which he and others felt was strange and so he decided to take some action with others.  He admitted they played their cards very close to their chest and so there were a few surprises at the AGM (Nov 29), all done within the constitution.  He was pleased to say that the new committee that was voted in has performed pretty well considering the circumstances.  He praised the new committee for the introduction of a new constitution and a Grievance & Discipline procedure, which he said we would vote on later.

He then went on to say that something that had arisen prior to the AGM was the discretionary right that had been given to an events organizer to prevent members attending weekends.  He said that’s fine providing the committee has ratified, sanctioned and investigated what has gone on.

Mike commented that the discretionary right of weekend organizers appeared to have turned into a discriminatory right. Mike further said that he abhorred discrimination in all its forms but that problems might have arisen as a result of misunderstandings and not through discrimination.

He said that if members don’t want to have certain members on their event then they could do their own “off programme event”.

He commented that some members had spoken out about the methods used at the AGM being underhand. He said that he considered the events that led up to the AGM as certainly being wrong. He said that if the members who intended standing for committee posts had announced their intentions before the AGM then the existing committee members would have “called in the troops”.

Mike pointed out that SWAG is not the committee’s SWAG but the members’ SWAG and that the members are asking for a re-election of the committee.

He explained that for this to happen a constitutional change is necessary as the constitution states that an election takes place at an AGM not an EGM.

Steve Baines enquired about how the original constitution had been formulated. Chris replied that it was drawn up in the days that the group was a YHA group and used the constitution from the YHA. Chris further pointed out that the group is now affiliated to the YHA.

On the subject of the constitution, Phil B asked why the suggestions that he had sent had not been discussed at committee. Gary pointed out that Phil’s email had been sent to all committee members for their consideration. Mike apologized that the suggestions had not been formally discussed.

Sue A said she had sent Mike a constitution from another group.  Mike said after looking at it he didn’t think it was suitable for SWAG.

Tim made the point that everyone present at the meeting should have paid his or her subscriptions. Mike said he didn’t want to go down a pedantic route and said that if you paid your subs last year he assumes that sometime this year you are going to pay your subs and therefore you would be considered as a member.

Eric gave out a register for all members present to sign their names. He went on to say that he agreed with what Mike said and wanted to speak on a personal note and also for the benefit of all those people that weren’t at the AGM and wondered what all the issues have been about. Eric then gave the following speech.

“As most of you know, I have been a group member for some time now (about 16 years) and much of that time I served on the committee. It was only after much thought that I decided to put myself forward at the AGM to serve on the committee again.

The reason that new members of the committee including myself put themselves forward at the AGM was to support members of the group who we thought had been unfairly treated by the previous committee and to redress their treatment. My aim was to get justice for all members of the group and if there is a revote and I’m not voted back in, but have succeeded in getting justice then I will be happy.

I believe that members were treated unfairly because written warnings were issued for things that had happened many months previously sometimes without a verbal warning having been issued. Some members were prevented from booking on weekends without warnings having been issued.

Some people say that the AGM was unfair, however we have acted with the best intentions and our sole aim was that members are treated fairly.

It is because some members are unhappy with the committee that we are giving members the opportunity for a revote. I certainly do not wish to be on the committee if the majority of members do not support us. We should also remember that under the constitution, the committee is elected from one AGM until the next AGM and that it is not much more than 6 months until the next AGM.

All I would ask is that each person has an open mind and considers matters on their merit instead of judging matters on personalities.

I am surprised and saddened at the behaviour of some members. It appears that some members including ex committee members who normally contribute to the programme seem to have boycotted the current programme. Despite this and negative comments sent on email, the committee has succeeded in providing a full and varied programme of walks, weekends and an excellent social programme.

It’s ironic that we’re fighting for the chance to stand on the committee; normally people have to be press ganged into serving!

I would like to compliment both Chris and Mike who have both acted with dignity over the past few months. I would also like to thank Trish, Oliver and Sue P for continuing on the committee”.

Paul L commented that members had not boycotted events. Mike said that he was pleased about that. Paul L further commented that a warning had only been issued to 2 members and that only 1 member had been stopped from attending a weekend. Mike pointed out the bizarre situation of a member being stopped from going on a weekend and then only afterwards being given a warning. It was suggested that the committee pre AGM had acted with the best interests of SWAG in mind. It was further suggested that the problems that had arisen might have been as a result of misunderstandings. Mike reiterated the need for a Discipline and Grievance policy and asked if anyone had any questions regarding the Discipline and Grievance Policy. Sue A responded with a request to change the order of the agenda of the meeting. Mike advised to keep the order as per the agenda. Tim said that if anyone was unhappy about the agenda order then they should have requested changes before the meeting. Sue’s suggestion was proposed and there followed a vote by show of hands. By a majority vote of 37 to 34, members voted to change the agenda order.

Gary said that there were no grounds for a revote and that it sets a dangerous precedent. He said that to have a revote is like saying, “let’s forget the constitution and not have any rules”. Gary further pointed out that the constitution is meant to be something that guides the group. Paul L said that we were voting just on one section of the constitution. Gary responded that the danger is that the constitution is being changed to suit members’ interests and that an EGM shouldn’t be when a re-election takes place – it should be an AGM. He commented that the current committee had not ousted all the previous committee off at the AGM, only 3 had been voted off and 3 had resigned. Viv commented about the amendments to the constitution. Eric replied that following suggestions, the current committee had amended the constitution to include a clause stating that members intending to stand at the AGM need to give 2 weeks’ notice.

Gary said that SWAG was a fun group but that the word “fun” was not featuring anymore.  Megan replied that before the AGM it used to be.  Gary said before the AGM he had seriously considered leaving the group because of the way it was heading.

Aidan spoke out to say that there were people who were friends involved in these discussions, but that he fundamentally had a problem with words that he had heard following the AGM. Mike responded to say that at a meeting some time after the AGM, he had asked Kate to take over the post of Walks Coordinator but she did not want to do it. Aidan asked about the AGM and said that at a meeting with Mike, Mike had used a word that had horrified Aidan. Aidan asked if he had Mike’s permission to repeat the word that Mike had used about the AGM. After Mike giving permission, Aidan said that the word that Mike had used about the AGM was an “ambush”. Aidan said that this was “not on” even though there might have been a strong sense of feeling about things that had happened. Aidan said that he felt very strongly about what had happened. Mike replied that the committee elected at the AGM had the best interests of the group at heart and that what goes against the central tenets of SWAG is people being told “you can’t come on my weekend because I don’t want you on it!”.

Eric pointed out to Aidan that he had not been present at the beginning of the meeting when Mike and Eric had given their speeches outlining why they had taken the action at the AGM. Eric provided Aidan with a written copy of his speech, which was then passed around.

Sheila said that the actions taken by the pre AGM committee were not taken for personal reasons and that it was not about personalities. She went on to say that they might not have done it quite 100% and to the letter. Sheila explained that they didn’t have a template or precedent to follow in terms of dealing with the kind of behaviour.  She said that they did what they thought was right at the time. She went on to say that the pre AGM committee had not intended to upset people and that the group has subsequently been damaged.

Louise pointed out that the programme says, “The weekend organiser is responsible for group conduct and damage.  Participation in weekends is at the discretion of the organiser and he/she may request moderation of inappropriate behaviour”. Pete pointed out that the paragraph on the programme constituted a constitutional change, which was decided at a committee meeting and which was never put to the membership.

Tim said that he felt that the pre AGM committee had dealt with the dispute badly by not having a disciplinary procedure and that you can’t discipline a member a year after the event.  He added that you wouldn’t discipline a child that way. On the subject of a revote, Pete pointed out that it sets a precedent that could occur again and again.

Tim said that the next committee might decide not to implement the amended constitution and grievance policy.

Sue P pointed out that if the constitution had been changed to say that advanced notice should be given for new nominees to stand then we would not be in this position of needing a re-election at an EGM.

Chris said that in the history of SWAG, voting for a committee has probably only taken place once every ten years (because normally there is no contest for the positions on the committee). Now everyone is talking about re-votes!

Mike B pointed out that Sarah Nash hadn’t been proposed or seconded.  Sue P asked if on that basis she be removed from the ballot.  Mike removed Sarah from the ballot.

Robert asked if organisers still have the right to refuse members if they are not fit enough to do an event/walk or are not properly equipped.  Mike B confirmed that in this case leaders do have the right to refuse.

Sue P raised a point about members putting the group before their personal feelings.  Mike B applauded them for doing that.

Dave M pointed out discrepancies on the grievance policy and constitution regarding the conduct warning and said that they needed to be the same.

Chris and Sue P said we could vote for the new policies in principle and go though the fine detail at the next committee meeting.  Mike B agreed.

Mike proposed a vote on whether to temporarily suspend the constitution in order to have a revote of the committee. The vote was made by a show of hands and was carried.

A secret ballot then followed. Mike and Sue Heaton acted as counters. They questioned whether it was fair for them to have a vote themselves. Eric replied on behalf of the committee that he thought that they should be entitled to vote themselves.

The results of the vote were as follows:

The new committee is therefore:

Chairman: Chris C

Treasurer: Trish

Secretary: Kate

Programme Secretary: Sue P

Walks Coordinator: Sheila

Weekend Coordinator: Helen

Social Events Coordinator: Carole

Publicity/ New member contact: Sue A

Emails: Jo E

Webmaster: Oliver

Membership Secretary: Paul L

Mike asked Chris if he wished to chair the rest of the meeting. Chris replied that he was happy for Mike to continue until the end of the meeting.

Mike proposed that the votes for the 3 issues namely:

Incorporation of amended constitution

Incorporation of grievance policy

Removal of discretionary right of weekend organisers to refuse participation

be counted sometime after the meeting in order to close the meeting. This was accepted.

Andrew K asked if the removal of the discretionary right meant that a weekend organiser could no longer prevent someone from going on a weekend. Mike replied that was the case and that if a weekend organizer had a problem with anyone booking onto a weekend then it must be referred to the committee. Mike said that no one should be allowed to prevent a member going on a weekend without a warning first being issued. It was pointed out that this differs from the right of a walk organiser to refuse participation on walks if the organiser considers that the person concerned might pose a danger to themselves or to others (ie inadequately dressed or not fit to do the walk).

Results of subsequent votes