The Election Campaign Starts This Morning - So Who's Up For It

[davidg]

Reem mate reem???

[Guest TPAFKATS]

This is the bit I don't quite get about you...........when you cut through the "bullshit" and "smart-arse" stuff you have a lot of things to say that are quite worthwhile listening to/reading!!

Even more reason for you to be involved (even as just a member) as with numbers we have strength when guided in the right directions. The guidance is driven by constructive debate and evolving direction to shape what we "the fans/members", "community groups/members" want the CiC to look like to help benefit SMFC and the community surrounding it.

That was actually Sid's campaign launch

[St. Sid]

This is the bit I don't quite get about you...........when you cut through the "bullshit" and "smart-arse" stuff you have a lot of things to say that are quite worthwhile listening to/reading!!

Even more reason for you to be involved (even as just a member) as with numbers we have strength when guided in the right directions. The guidance is driven by constructive debate and evolving direction to shape what we "the fans/members", "community groups/members" want the CiC to look like to help benefit SMFC and the community surrounding it.

I'm an enigma.

And naw!

[chico]

Not for me as I've not got the spare time at the right times.

Sounds interesting though and hopefully a number of folk put themselves forward.

[Stuart Dickson]

A very good Bud and fellow graduate of the FITT Club that WAS at the meeting last night suggested that there we should draw up some specific criteria to assess a candidate's suitability. The bun fight starts when you then start to argue about who should decide the criteria and who should approve it. At the moment you would have business people who value business skills above all else...leave it to fans and you would have "must be a lifelong Saints fan" - thus ruling out the community chaps altogether, which was supposed to be the entire point of this at one point.

The reality is that this all needs to start somewhere. I would actually like to see the three places specified. A wee bit like the original plan.

The old members BoD was supposed to be some general fan members / some community members / some corporate members. There are three places in the election. Why not go back to the original plan in terms of criteria. A fans member - a community group member - some corporate bawbag tie wearing wanker old grammarian ralstonian type as mush as I'd rather not. However, that seemed to be representative of the support. I couldn't give a shit about the skills these guys have - just that they are representative and trustworthy.

I'm still catching up today but I read this post earlier during a break on my mobile phone and I thought it was worth commenting on. I totally agree with you Sid on going back to the original plan of where board members are elected from. If you are looking at skill sets then I think having one representing supporters, one representing community and one representing corporate would make a great deal of sense. Of course they may or may not also be St Mirren supporters, but I think that should be seen as a secondary criteria when electing a successful board.

If was to relate it back to familiar ground for me, each club I've been at has had a rep for the participants, a rep for the coaches, and a rep for the parents and so long as each representative is doing their job properly the balance is spot on because when you think about it at Juvenile level those are the three most important factors within the club. Normally they act like a block vote, because they've all got the same aims and objectives and for others on a committee that is usually a signal that we've got it right, but where there is a split the debate can be fantastic and the conclusion they come to in the end is always spot on too.

In the case of the CIC the three most important area's seeking representation will be the standard members, the community members and the corporate members and I agree with you that the best balance would be to have all three represented.

[bud77]

I'm still catching up today but I read this post earlier during a break on my mobile phone and I thought it was worth commenting on. I totally agree with you Sid on going back to the original plan of where board members are elected from. If you are looking at skill sets then I think having one representing supporters, one representing community and one representing corporate would make a great deal of sense. Of course they may or may not also be St Mirren supporters, but I think that should be seen as a secondary criteria when electing a successful board.

If was to relate it back to familiar ground for me, each club I've been at has had a rep for the participants, a rep for the coaches, and a rep for the parents and so long as each representative is doing their job properly the balance is spot on because when you think about it at Juvenile level those are the three most important factors within the club. Normally they act like a block vote, because they've all got the same aims and objectives and for others on a committee that is usually a signal that we've got it right, but where there is a split the debate can be fantastic and the conclusion they come to in the end is always spot on too.

In the case of the CIC the three most important area's seeking representation will be the standard members, the community members and the corporate members and I agree with you that the best balance would be to have all three represented.

RA did say last night it would be up to the members to decide criteria for the board, whether they should all be directors or have specific jobs on the board. Like you I would go with a mix so that all members have a representative on the board who would understand the point of view of each area.