|
|
|
|
Latest News and any changes to the programme are posted here. You can contact us on salewalkers@ntlworld.com
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 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
Details of the country code can be found by clicking here.
|