EGM Communication

morana

all I have just sent this note your Club Secretarys. You can expect more communication from us in the very near future.

RobFowl

Whirling it's way around the Twitterverse.....

irishpeloton

Orwell Wheelers are organising their own EGM to decide which way the club will vote at the Cycling Ireland EGM

http://www.orwellwheelers.org/news-and-events/492-egm-and-other-dates.html

buffalo

irishpeloton wrote: »

Orwell Wheelers are organising their own EGM to decide which way the club will vote at the Cycling Ireland EGM

http://www.orwellwheelers.org/news-and-events/492-egm-and-other-dates.html

Stealing my thunder *grumble grumble* :P

buffalo wrote: »

Well, Orwell are having their EGM on 27th May - details at http://www.orwellwheelers.org/news-and-events/492-egm-and-other-dates.html

The club secretary confirmed that 99% of the emails were either calling for an EGM, or asking for McQuaid to go. But he also said that on closer examination, some emails weren't from Orwell members. Hence we're having a sign on sheet at the EGM. And secret ballot in case people are ashamed to show they're pro-McQuaid, or don't want to let the CI mafia know they're anti-McQuaid.

I know we've got a good number of members on here, many of whom feel passionately about the issue. Please consider acting as delegates for the CI EGM - we've struggled in the past to find people wiling to go. It's easy to write an email, or vote in the comfort of clubmates, but you'd be doing a great service to attend the CI EGM and carry the club's decided vote.

A club EGM is the only fair and full way to canvas the members IMO. There are many members who don't use the club forum and aren't on any email lists who obviously have every right to a vote. And the committee certainly isn't comfortable deciding which way the club should go on this, such an emotive issue.

Beasty

buffalo wrote: »

Stealing my thunder *grumble grumble* :P



A club EGM is the only fair and full way to canvas the members IMO. There are many members who don't use the club forum and aren't on any email lists who obviously have every right to a vote. And the committee certainly isn't comfortable deciding which way the club should go on this, such an emotive issue.

The more participation at grass roots level the better in my opinion. For a club the size of Orwell an EGM seems sensible. There are other options though - clubs could simply invite a "vote" on the EGM resolution from its members, or leave it for their Committee to decide.

As I indicated in the other thread it's partly down to the constitution of the club in question, but it's also a matter of the membership making their feelings known to their committees. It's little different from the original CI position where the backlash to the original "Board" decision clearly took them aback, resulting in tis EGM being called second time round.

This is the chance for rank and file members to get their say - exactly what some of us have been campaiging for - now it's over to the members to make their feelings known and make sure the clubs vote in accordance with the wishes of their members

pprendeville

Think I got an email from my own club asking which way I wanted to vote a few weeks ago (hazy memory at the moment due to overloading my brain for exams with material which will fade away quickly into oblivion). I gave my opinion and asked could I attend also as I'd be interested in seeing what happens first hand. They had said 3 or 4 club representatives were going to attend. Haven't heard back yet. Beasts, can you clarify?

Beasty

pprendeville wrote: »

Think I got an email from my own club asking which way I wanted to vote a few weeks ago (hazy memory at the moment due to overloading my brain for exams with material which will fade away quickly into oblivion). I gave my opinion and asked could I attend also as I'd be interested in seeing what happens first hand. They had said 3 or 4 club representatives were going to attend. Haven't heard back yet. Beasts, can you clarify?

I believe we have 4 delegate slots, which have been filled by Committee members and 1 non-Committee member. Basically we will vote in accordance with the members vote, although clearly some members who have not yet responded may still wish to do so.

In terms of members who are not delegates attending, this is usually allowed, and there is a separate sign-on sheet provided. I think you need to show your CI membership card. However one word of caution - I asked our secretary to check with CI on this point, but if more people turn up than can be accomodated, clearly priority will be given to voting delegates. I have no idea of the capacity of the room being used, and presume there will be "standing room", but these things can be affected by Fire Regulations and the like

I presume there will be some "standing orders" issued by CI ahead of the EGM setting out the framework under which it will be held. Delegates are usually allowed to speak but I guess that may be restricted by time (at the AGM I think standing orders restricted speeches to 3 or 2 minutes). Non delegates can only speak if invited to (by the Chairman I presume). A lot of this will be governed by the numbers that turn up - with a request to lay on busses from the other Provinces I am hopeful there will be a large number of delegates (and indeed non-delegates) there. The more people that turn up the better from my perspective - basically it's democracy being seen to work.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

I believe we have 4 delegate slots, which have been filled by Committee members and 1 non-Committee member. .

Surely not a non-committee member!

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Surely not a non-committee member!

Don't call me Shirley

Eamonnator

My club has selected our two delegates for the EGM.

CramCycle

How does a club notify which CI which members are attending to represent them?

morana

CramCycle wrote: »

How does a club notify which CI which members are attending to represent them?

delegates just turn up and sign on you dont need to inform CI

Beasty

morana wrote: »

delegates just turn up and sign on you dont need to inform CI

That's the standard process in the past, and will probably happen this time. However if they think there's a risk that people will turn up without "due authority" (because of the contentious nature of the underlying issue) they could always change procedures. It should all be covered in a delegates pack which I assume will be posted on the CI website shortly before the EGM

morana

Beasty wrote: »

That's the standard process in the past, and will probably happen this time. However if they think there's a risk that people will turn up without "due authority" (because of the contentious nature of the underlying issue) they could always change procedures. It should all be covered in a delegates pack which I assume will be posted on the CI website shortly before the EGM

Sorry you will need a licence you sign on against your club which has a number of slots based on your numbers of delegates.when they fill thats it.

I can trust the staff to ensure correct procedures are followed i.e. all licences checked and people cant sign on in other clubs slots etc.

I am meeting the CEO tonight so I will discuss with him.

Eamonnator

It looks, as if the EGM will now be a futile exercise.
This was posted on Cycling News in the last few minutes:


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-backed-by-swiss-cycling-federation-for-uci-presidency

cdaly_

It won't be futile if, as Beasty suggested, he's not allowed to switch federation mid-year. In this case, if the EGM results in no nomination from CI, his Swiss nomination be open to legal challenge...

Eamonnator

Yeah, and use Kimmage's fund to cover the cost.

RyanAndrew

I wouldn't want to steal any ones thunder by posting the result of last nights EGM, but perhaps a little colour commentary.

36 voting members were there , plus me and the chair. The debate was started by two speakers each given 5 minutes to set out their stall . The initial thrust was along the lines of for: PmcQ has done so much for Irish cycling, cycling in general, is very fair minded, and has always cycling interests at heart & btw CI voted for him; Against ; he has not done a good job, cycling has been damaged, signs were there, turned on whistleblowers rather than users. Both presenters made coherent and cogent arguments .

Floor was then opened up and a number of speakers , maybe 10 or 12, made short contributions. I felt it was muted and quite low key and of the floor speakers there certainly wasn't a two thirds majority one way or the other. There was little ambiguity among the speakers though, they said what they felt, had clearly given the matter some thought and were very definitely either for or against.

After everyone had an opportunity to say their piece, the two presenters were invited to close out their discussion and to reply to points raised from the floor. Then the debate was closed and the voting began.

There had to a 2/3 majority in favour of a particular position or the Orwell delegates would be instructed to vote 50:50 at the EGM.

Inquitus

RyanAndrew wrote: »

I wouldn't want to steal any ones thunder by posting the result of last nights EGM, but perhaps a little colour commentary.

36 voting members were there , plus me and the chair. The debate was started by two speakers each given 5 minutes to set out their stall . The initial thrust was along the lines of for: PmcQ has done so much for Irish cycling, cycling in general, is very fair minded, and has always cycling interests at heart & btw CI voted for him; Against ; he has not done a good job, cycling has been damaged, signs were there, turned on whistleblowers rather than users. Both presenters made coherent and cogent arguments .

Floor was then opened up and a number of speakers , maybe 10 or 12, made short contributions. I felt it was muted and quite low key and of the floor speakers there certainly wasn't a two thirds majority one way or the other. There was little ambiguity among the speakers though, they said what they felt, had clearly given the matter some thought and were very definitely either for or against.

After everyone had an opportunity to say their piece, the two presenters were invited to close out their discussion and to reply to points raised from the floor. Then the debate was closed and the voting began.

There had to a 2/3 majority in favour of a particular position or the Orwell delegates would be instructed to vote 50:50 at the EGM.

The outcome was already posted in the other thread. Fair play to Orwell, I would imagine the outcome is a good yardstick for most clubs.

buffalo

RyanAndrew wrote: »

There had to a 2/3 majority in favour of a particular position or the Orwell delegates would be instructed to vote 50:50 at the EGM.

Just to correct this - if there was not a 2/3 majority, the delegates would be split in the ratio of the vote. i.e. of 36 votes, 24 being a 2/3 majority, if it had been 23:13 either way, the delegate's votes would have rounded to be 4:2.

edit: I just realised my maths is shocking. Thankfully I wasn't in charge of counting.

kenmc

RyanAndrew wrote: »

I felt it was muted and quite low key and of the floor speakers there certainly wasn't a two thirds majority one way or the other.

On the contrary, I can only recall 2 from the floor speaking in favour and saying that they would be voting for him, whereas many more were fairly clearly in the "time for change" camp. In fact several were of the opinion that "yeah he's a nice guy, i know him/worked with him/raced with him but it's time to go, nothing personal"

Vino Veritas

Only 36 from Irelands biggest club ?
I assume most present were from A4/Boards group

RobFowl

Vino Veritas wrote: »

Only 36 from Irelands biggest club ?
I assume most present were from A4/Boards group

Slagging off those who bothered to turn up is a rather poor argument.
i would have thought those who didn't sho simply have no strong opinion one way or the other.
I assume (perhaps incorrectly ) that you come from a pro McQuaid pespective. If so the having a tiny minority showin up to support him at the countries biggest club speaks volumes for the level of support his candidacy has generated......

DirkVoodoo

Vino Veritas wrote: »

Only 36 from Irelands biggest club ?
I assume most present were from A4/Boards group

I think it was fairly representative for most of the club. I spotted a good few A2s in there, not sure what point you're trying to make, probably something along the lines of real cycling people would vote McQuaid or some other nonsense.

el tel

Vino Veritas wrote: »

Only 36 from Irelands biggest club ?

Is it?

Beasty

el tel wrote: »

Is it?

It's not actually - Ratoath BMX claim 600+ members ...;)

el tel

Also, can't a club have members who are not CI members? I'd say 36 is a fair turn out., that could be 1 in 10 of eligible voters for all I know...

Edited to add: Orwell website says "almost 300 members" so 36 is possibly 1 in 8 or 9.

Also, at least one Ulster club has over 300 members.

Just sayin' like.

Beasty

Given the claims regarding his Swiss nomination and general apathy when it comes to general meetings in all walks of life (only a handful of people turn up to my employers AGM, which is a FTSE 100 company, although proxy voting is allowed) I think the turnout is pretty good. What's more telling to me is that it looks like McQuaid could only get less than 2% of this particular "electorate" to turn up and support him!

buffalo

RobFowl wrote: »

i would have thought those who didn't sho simply have no strong opinion one way or the other.

I'd concur with this. I also think perhaps that some of the original emails that called for an EGM were pro-democracy rather than anti-McQuaid.

Speaking to some of the club members, there would be many who race, but don't follow pro-racing. And then some of those wouldn't follow the 'political' side of that. Add to that the significant proportion of the club that's involved on the leisure side (though some of those were in attendance last night), and you have many people who couldn't care less who the next head of the UCI is.

edit: And to concur with Dirk, there was a good cross-section there: A4, A3, A2 racers, leisure riders, Men of the Rás, committee members, males and females, youth and vets, etc. I think it was a good representative sample.

morana

Vino Veritas wrote: »

Only 36 from Irelands biggest club ?
I assume most present were from A4/Boards group

CI used the argument that they only got 23 emails opposing pats nomination, "a tiny proportion of the overall membership" they said, to justify nominating him. On the flip side they only got 1 truly independent email supporting him.

Its a common argument "sure the new members shouldn't have a vote, we are in this game years" and that's as bad as "He is Irish".

What do people want a two tiered system where you are ineligible to vote if you are, to use your words, an A4 or Boards poster? I suppose democracy is great until it goes against you!

seamus

buffalo wrote: »

I'd concur with this. I also think perhaps that some of the original emails that called for an EGM were pro-democracy rather than anti-McQuaid.

I imagine most of the members are like me - don't really follow pro racing, got bored of the Lance affair very quickly, have no opinions of Pat McQuaid, so there's basically no way in hell I'm going to kill myself to try and make it to somewhere on a Thursday evening after work to vote on something I don't care about.

kenmc

seamus wrote: »

I imagine most of the members are like me - don't really follow pro racing, got bored of the Lance affair very quickly, have no opinions of Pat McQuaid, so there's basically no way in hell I'm going to kill myself to try and make it to somewhere on a Thursday evening after work to vote on something I don't care about.

Just as well, cos you'd be there on your Tod, twas a Monday

seamus

Even worse!