Jump to content

Kombibuddie

The 3 Monthly Spend

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

Makes no difference  if the constitution  says it has to be passed by a majority  of the members ,and not a majority  of the members who voted, it should not pass.

Interesting point, if that is the case.

No mention of it not passing in the email:

Only...

"The total cost for this request was £2600 and 94% of the 582 members who voted in the poll gave it their backing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point, if that is the case.
No mention of it not passing in the email:
Only...
"The total cost for this request was £2600 and 94% of the 582 members who voted in the poll gave it their backing."
That is not the case, the only time a majority is mentioned in the constitution in that context is here........

Screenshot_20200123-154929_Word.jpeg

Clearly nothing to do with the £2 spend option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

That is not the case, the only time a majority is mentioned in the constitution in that context is here........

Screenshot_20200123-154929_Word.jpeg

Clearly nothing to do with the £2 spend option.

As you say nothing to do with the £2spend ,so what DOES the constitution  say about spending members contributions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waldorf34 said:

Makes no difference  if the constitution  says it has to be passed by a majority  of the members ,and not a majority  of the members who voted, it should not pass.

There is nowhere that says if more than 50% of members choose not to vote that options shouldn't be progressed. It's well known your clear bias towards SMISA & BTB but you're just making stuff up now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

As you say nothing to do with the £2spend ,so what DOES the constitution  say about spending members contributions?

You are the one that's said "If the constitution  says it has to be passed by a majority  of the members ,and not a majority  of the members who voted, it should not pass."

Is that based on something you've actually seen or are you just making up a negative assertion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

There is nowhere that says if more than 50% of members choose not to vote that options shouldn't be progressed. It's well known your clear bias towards SMISA & BTB but you're just making stuff up now. 

I am all for BTB ,I am asking what and where in the constitution does it allow the Committee  to spend members contributions  when less than 50% of the members vote for the spend,simple really !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, waldorf34 said:

I am all for BTB ,I am asking what and where in the constitution does it allow the Committee  to spend members contributions  when less than 50% of the members vote for the spend,simple really !

And cockles pointed out, the only requirement for a majority is in point 64. In other words, no constitutional point prevents them approving this quarters vote. Hope that helped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And cockles pointed out, the only requirement for a majority is in point 64. In other words, no constitutional point prevents them approving this quarters vote. Hope that helped. 

And no constitutional  point allows them to spend monies if the majority of the members do not approve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

And no constitutional  point allows them to spend monies if the majority of the members do not approve?

There is no regulatory requirement for the constitution to call that out. In other words, SMISA have yet again done nothing wrong and we just have more negativity from you regarding a vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no regulatory requirement for the constitution to call that out. In other words, SMISA have yet again done nothing wrong and we just have more negativity from you regarding a vote. 
Does the constitution allow for folk to leave the AGM to use the toilet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

There is no regulatory requirement for the constitution to call that out. In other words, SMISA have yet again done nothing wrong and we just have more negativity from you regarding a vote. 

Baz, I voted for the drones so no argument from me re how the funds were spent although I absolutely understand the argument that the club should be funding such things for themselves. That said whether there is a "regulatory requirement" in the constitution or not that allows the SMISA Board to spend funds as it sees fit, it is good governance to include such a stipulation to protect members funds. I am not for one second suggesting that anyone is likely to do something underhand or any such thing but having been on a number of Committee's for both football and golf clubs it's the first time I've seen a constitution without such a clause and I don't think it's healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Baz, I voted for the drones so no argument from me re how the funds were spent although I absolutely understand the argument that the club should be funding such things for themselves. That said whether there is a "regulatory requirement" in the constitution or not that allows the SMISA Board to spend funds as it sees fit, it is good governance to include such a stipulation to protect members funds. I am not for one second suggesting that anyone is likely to do something underhand or any such thing but having been on a number of Committee's for both football and golf clubs it's the first time I've seen a constitution without such a clause and I don't think it's healthy.

I think it's a fair point regarding the club funding for themselves, I can see why people have it. Personally I just don't agree, any way us as fans can save the club money to invest elsewhere and make us more competitive on the park will get my vote. 

I think it's dangerous territory TBH. I'm not sure the alternative would be any fairer or indeed good governance. People have the right to vote, if they choose not to, why should that hinder people actively engaged? I know many BTB members that couldn't care less about this stuff, they simply want to fund the fan buyout. If Policy was to be implemented to mean it had to be a majority vote it would mean two things IMO. 

1. That policy change would surely need to get the appropriate voting to go through, don't see that happening when we know how low the vote turnout is. You would actively have to get people that don't care voting for something they don't care about. 

2. If it was in place right now, technically the tiny fraction of people voting no would have won. That isn't a fairer democratic process. Also how will that work in the future regarding the money? Saving the money has been the overwhelming unpopular option with members, this process change would get the most unpopular option in through the back door so to speak. 

Regulations and constitutions are there for a reason but there is a reason why the majority of organisations that work on similar voting structures do not use a voting majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think it's a fair point regarding the club funding for themselves, I can see why people have it. Personally I just don't agree, any way us as fans can save the club money to invest elsewhere and make us more competitive on the park will get my vote. 

I think it's dangerous territory TBH. I'm not sure the alternative would be any fairer or indeed good governance. People have the right to vote, if they choose not to, why should that hinder people actively engaged? I know many BTB members that couldn't care less about this stuff, they simply want to fund the fan buyout. If Policy was to be implemented to mean it had to be a majority vote it would mean two things IMO. 

1. That policy change would surely need to get the appropriate voting to go through, don't see that happening when we know how low the vote turnout is. You would actively have to get people that don't care voting for something they don't care about. 

2. If it was in place right now, technically the tiny fraction of people voting no would have won. That isn't a fairer democratic process. Also how will that work in the future regarding the money? Saving the money has been the overwhelming unpopular option with members, this process change would get the most unpopular option in through the back door so to speak. 

Regulations and constitutions are there for a reason but there is a reason why the majority of organisations that work on similar voting structures do not use a voting majority. 

I'm not getting in to screeds of tedious pish with you Baz but protecting funds certainly isn't dangerous territory and where you are getting "there is a reason why the majority of organisations that work on similar voting structures do not use a voting majority." is anyone's guess. What is quite common, and in my experience, is for there to be a requirement for a "Quorum" of say 60% of the membership taking part in the vote to allow the outcome of the vote to stand......more than 50% of the 60% voting in any direction carries the day. People not caring is certainly not a reason to just spend member funds as they see fit.

Edited by WeeBud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WeeBud said:

I'm not getting in to screeds of tedious pish with you Baz but protecting funds certainly isn't dangerous territory and where you are getting "there is a reason why the majority of organisations that work on similar voting structures do not use a voting majority." is anyone's guess. What is quite common, and in my experience, is for there to be a requirement for a "Quorum" of say 60% of the membership taking part in the vote to allow the outcome of the vote to stand......more than 50% of the 60% voting in any direction carries the day. People not caring is certainly not a reason to just spend member funds as they see fit.

It isn't protecting funds though is it? There is no members agreed process to say what happens to those funds if they aren't used in a vote, the policy is carried for future votes. There was an attempt to put one in place last year and less than 1% of SMISA members backed it. 

Like I say, I don't see how it could work on a majority needed, all it would ultimately mean is the observably least favourite option of any presented vote would become the norm. People have the right to vote, they also have the right not to. People choosing not to vote shouldn't result in de facto one of the options passing whether it gets a majority or not. That isn't democratic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It isn't protecting funds though is it? There is no members agreed process to say what happens to those funds if they aren't used in a vote, the policy is carried for future votes. There was an attempt to put one in place last year and less than 1% of SMISA members backed it. 

Like I say, I don't see how it could work on a majority needed, all it would ultimately mean is the observably least favourite option of any presented vote would become the norm. People have the right to vote, they also have the right not to. People choosing not to vote shouldn't result in de facto one of the options passing whether it gets a majority or not. That isn't democratic. 

Why the need to put it to a vote at all then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WeeBud said:

Why the need to put it to a vote at all then?

Because the options are there, yes to the option or no to the option and use the money for a future vote. Just so happens that SMFC are by far the popular choice for the voting members, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Because the options are there, yes to the option or no to the option and use the money for a future vote. Just so happens that SMFC are by far the popular choice for the voting members, 

I have honestly just shaken my head and thought "this is absolutely pointless"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is...

I'd bet a slew of Buddies are no longer practically allowed a vote as a 'new way of registering' was implemented, recently.

I wonder how many of those who apparently did NOT vote are (probably like me) not even sure if they are allowed a vote any longer as they did not re-register or whatever it was that was desired by The Committee...

 

I was busy.  Opened an email about the vote, with a lot of words about registering in a different way for something or tother and just clicked on the link to click.  Thought I may have registered my vote.

 

But who knows...

 

Edited by antrin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

I have honestly just shaken my head and thought "this is absolutely pointless"

Why? I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at here. If you think a majority of members should be required, fine, that's your opinion. I don't need to agree on it and you don't need to agree with me. All I have done is highlight my reasons to think differently (the main one being it would result in the observably least popular option in BTB voting history, potentially becoming the norm) 

That's it end of, different opinions, fine to have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, antrin said:

Thing is...

I'd bet a slew of Buddies are no longer practically allowed a vote as a 'new way of registering' was implemented, recently.

I wonder how many of those who apparently did NOT vote are (probably like me) not even sure if they are allowed a vote any longer as they did not re-register or whatever it was that was desired by The Committee...

 

I was busy.  Opened an email about the vote, with a lot of words about registering in a different way for something or tother and just clicked on the link to click.  Thought I may have registered my vote.

 

But who knows...

 

That's a shame, everyone should get their view... Although I'm sure you'll agree, it likely wouldn't be anywhere near the number to turn over a 547 out of 582 vote majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

That's a shame, everyone should get their view... Although I'm sure you'll agree, it likely wouldn't be anywhere near the number to turn over a 547 out of 582 vote majority. 

No.

I wouldn't agree.  Of course.

As I noted above, perhaps they couldn't be arsed anymore...

They are already disenchanted by the monies being frittered away on trivialities that should be financed by the current club ownership.

They joined with the hope their dosh would help Buy the Buds (not drones or towels...)   and when they start getting alienated, then the income will plummet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 3:56 PM, antrin said:

No.

I wouldn't agree.  Of course.

As I noted above, perhaps they couldn't be arsed anymore...

They are already disenchanted by the monies being frittered away on trivialities that should be financed by the current club ownership.

They joined with the hope their dosh would help Buy the Buds (not drones or towels...)   and when they start getting alienated, then the income will plummet...

Claiming you wouldn’t agree that sort of majority isn’t going to be turned over by factoring in people that haven’t taken the time to register, I would say that’s just silly. 
 

Regarding your claim that people might just not be arsed anymore because of previous voting, that’s their choice but there has never once been close to a majority against club benefit options. If people lose interest in voting because they aren’t in a majority, it’s irrelevant. Democracy needs to be followed in this sort of thing & it has always pointed to the majority of BTB members that take the time to vote, wanting to benefit the club.

From the first vote to the very late with no exceptions. 
 

People joining did so on a very clear mandate, it was never once said that no money would be spent on the club. People joining also should appreciate the democratic nature as above. We are now nearly four years in & member number are still over 20% above target so the claim the income will plummet is unsubstantiated. 
 

Final point on your post, if people cancel their memberships because more fellow BTB members don’t share their views, that’s their choice but it would only hurt the club & it would be in protest to change the structure to something that’s not democratic. 
 

Edit: there money is being used to BTB. The £2 was always marketed as an added extra. People (a tiny minority) getting bogged down on this is unfortunate but such is life. 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...