NASRPC EGM (See post #19)

Cass

EGM called regarding the constitution.

Details in post #19

BillBen

Didn't see that coming!!

clivej

Link to the proposed new NASRPC Constitution

http://nasrpc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/DRAFTCONSTITUTIONANDRULESNASRPC.pdf

BattleCorp

Am I reading it right. Can anyone clarify the two points below for me please.

Each club will have one 'accredited delegate'? Is this correct?

Is the new constitution saying that only one person from each club can have a vote at the AGM? See below?

If that's the case, what's the point of going to an AGM if you don't have a vote. Fcuk that.

Annual General Meeting (AGM)






The Annual general meeting (AGM) of the members of the Association shall be held once

every calendar year.

The meetings shall be held in a central location in a room capable of hosting a meeting with

at least one hundred (100) persons present, unless larger or smaller numbers required..

Any member in good standing of a member of the association may attend, however, only

accredited delegates shall enjoy voting privileges.

Each accredited delegate shall be issued with a delegate voting card at the time of

registration at the AGM by the Association Secretary.

clivej

BattleCorp wrote: »

Am I reading it right. Can anyone clarify the two points below for me please.

Each club will have one 'accredited delegate'? Is this correct?

Is the new constitution saying that only one person from each club can have a vote at the AGM? See below?

If that's the case, what's the point of going to an AGM if you don't have a vote. Fcuk that.

Looks like your are correct. We don't have a vote on anything now if this new constitution is excepted............

"........
- “Member” means a club, in good standing.
​ - “Accredited Delegate”- At any meeting of the Association, where members are represented, each member must nominate one person who shall cast any votes on behalf of the member and commit to providing a report to the member on the meeting........"

Valhalla18

clivej wrote: »

Looks like your are correct. We don't have a vote on anything now if this new constitution is excepted............

"........
- “Member” means a club, in good standing.
​ - “Accredited Delegate”- At any meeting of the Association, where members are represented, each member must nominate one person who shall cast any votes on behalf of the member and commit to providing a report to the member on the meeting........"

Anyone from an accredited club may attend but only the nominated person from that club can vote on anything. It also looks like the chairman can if he wishes limit proposals from each club to only 4 .Or if he is not happy with them , he can throw them out. - happy to be corrected on that but that's what it looks like to me ?-.

BattleCorp

Valhalla18 wrote: »

Anyone from an accredited club may attend but only the nominated person from that club can vote on anything. It also looks like the chairman can if he wishes limit proposals from each club to only 4 .Or if he is not happy with them , he can throw them out. - happy to be corrected on that but that's what it looks like to me ?-.

This constitution is a pile of sh1te. It really is taking power away from shooters.

clivej

Also it looks like 'We', you and I, cannot now put forward resolutions at the AGM. They can only come from the clubs. And a maximum of 4 resolutions from any one club.

Page 18.
"...........
Resolutions
Proposed resolutions to a meeting of the Association should be submitted on the prescribed
form (See Appendix) , to the association secretary, no later than fourteen (14) days prior to
the meeting, by the club secretary of the member club.
The Executive Committee shall be empowered to, should the need arise, limit to four (4)
the number of Resolutions submitted by any member to an Annual General Meeting.
.............."

Rimfire Shooter

BattleCorp wrote: »

This constitution is a pile of sh1te. It really is taking power away from shooters.

Straight out of Hiltlers' bestseller ............ "take overs & power grabs for dummies".

Looks like they're trying to ensure they don't loose "power" at then next AGM? Be 2 x clubs against the rest (15 odd) I'd say if this is carried.

Looks to me like the set up th NARGC have. Which I reckon personally is a feckin disaster! A

I was an interested bystander hoping to get into Gallery stuff now I reckon I'll give it a miss

BattleCorp

Quick question. Who gets to vote at the EGM?

Does everyone who attends get a vote (bona fide club members) or is it only one vote per club?

BillBen

As far as I'm aware it's one club per vote. I could be wrong

Rimfire Shooter

Old constitution stands until new one is accepted. Each club members would still have a vote I'd say.

Gleefulprinter

Do the clubs all pay equal membership?
If the clubs pay equal membership to the NASRPC then it is only fair that they get the same number of votes.
If they are paying membership fees based on the number of club members then it should be weighted.

clivej

From the NASRPC website @ http://nasrpc.ie/egm-notice/

EGM

"Voting Privileges

As per the current constitution:
One third (⅓) of the members of the Association are required to attend, for the meeting to be declared quorate.
A two thirds (⅔) majority, of the votes cast, is required to carry an alteration to the constitution.

On the motion duly submitted, each Member Club shall be entitled to cast one (1) vote.

Voting shall be by a show of voting cards, one of which will be issued to each attending association member, at registration.
In the event of a tie – the Association Chairperson shall have the casting vote."

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

This constitution is a pile of sh1te. It really is taking power away from shooters.

How?

BillBen

Because until now the individual shooter had a vote, now they won't

clivej

BillBen wrote: »

Because until now the individual shooter had a vote, now they won't

Only if this new Constitution is excepted by the attending clubs 'That have a vote' at the EGM.
And it's only the clubs that can attend an EGM.

The whole point of this is the have the Constitution changed before the next AGM and thereby taking away the 'Clubs Members', (that's all of us), voting rights as they now stand.

I just hope that the different Clubs around the country inform their members about this, that their members will loose their voting rights at the AGM.

Cass

I've been informed this is a big enough issue to warrant its own thread so i've split out the post regarding hte NASRPC EGM into this thread.

NASRPC

Notice is hereby given of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the
National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs.

To be held at Radisson Blu Hotel, Athlone, Co. Westmeath at 3pm, Sunday January 29th.

Business to be Transacted

To vote on the following resolution:

“THAT the Constitution contained in the attached document entitled
‘Constitution and Rules of the
National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs’and whose internal version is marked
‘2.4’
be approved and adopted as the Constitution of the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs
to the exclusion of any existing Constitution of the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs or
Code of Discipline of the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs”

This resolution is proposed by the Committee of the NASRPC.

Voting Privileges

As per the current constitution:
One third (⅓) of the members of the Association are required to attend, for the meeting to be declared quorate.
A two thirds (⅔) majority, of the votes cast, is required to carry an alteration to the constitution.

On the motion duly submitted, each Member Club shall be entitled to cast one (1) vote.

Voting shall be by a show of voting cards, one of which will be issued to each attending association member, at registration.
In the event of a tie – the Association Chairperson shall have the casting vote.

Background

As you will all have been aware there was a lot of turmoil within the NASRPC in 2015.

NASRPC received a lot of comment regarding the validity of its constitution as a result of that including:

• Process for calling an EGM
• Voting procedures at EGM and AGM.
• Definition of a member ‘in good standing’
• Clarity of affiliation and affiliation fee due dates.
• Disaffiliation process for members of the association.

to name but a few.

NASRPC sought legal advice as to what changes were required and it was determined that the existing constitution was not fit for purpose, as there were so many errors, omissions and contradictions within it, and that a new constitution was required.

The NASRPC Committee formed a sub-committee to rewrite the constitution, taking into account best practices among other National Governing Bodies and sports bodies.

We also enshrined the concept of “the Governing Body” within the constitution.

Once this was drafted, we again sought legal advice, correcting any problems that were highlighted.

This is the document before you.

We feel that this is a far clearer document, which solves all of the problems highlighted with the previous one. It has far less room for interpretation and will therefore provide clarity in any instance where it is required.
We respectfully request that you adopt this as your constitution.

Any alterations that may be required, shall be dealt with, by normal procedure, at the coming Annual General Meeting.
Please click here to view the proposed constitution

NASRPC Committee

Gleefulprinter

BillBen wrote: »

Because until now the individual shooter had a vote, now they won't

They still have the vote through the club.
If it was a different way then it would mean that the smaller clubs wouldn't get a look in at all and their votes wouldn't count for much.

BillBen

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

They still have the vote through the club.
If it was a different way then it would mean that the smaller clubs wouldn't get a look in at all and their votes wouldn't count for much.

Not every person in the same club has the same opinion. What then??.

Valhalla18

On the motion duly submitted, each Member Club shall be entitled to cast one (1) vote.
___________________________
If you read the wording it says( member club) not( club member )so they have already brought in the rule regarding who can vote . Correct me if I'm wrong.

Gleefulprinter

BillBen wrote: »

Not every person in the same club has the same opinion. What then??.

Wouldn't it be majority then?
Imagine this scenario...something comes up that will benefit a club with lots of members but not smaller clubs. The bigger club can have a huge number of members turn up individually to support the motion. The smaller clubs cannot compete with the numbers. Are you saying that's fair?

BillBen

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Wouldn't it be majority then?
Imagine this scenario...something comes up that will benefit a club with lots of members but not smaller clubs. The bigger club can have a huge number of members turn up individually to support the motion. The smaller clubs cannot compete with the numbers. Are you saying that's fair?

What I am saying is that it has always been every person has a vote and should stay that way.

Valhalla18

BillBen wrote: »

What I am saying is that it has always been every person has a vote and should stay that way.

As much as i disagreed with the rent a mob last year I believe one person one vote is still the best way. I certainly don't want my club deciding everything for me. I want to voice my opinion and if at the end of the day the majority vote against then so be it. At least I can say I tried.

Gleefulprinter

BillBen wrote: »

What I am saying is that it has always been every person has a vote and should stay that way.

But do you think the every person has a vote is unfair to clubs with less members?

Gleefulprinter

Valhalla18 wrote: »

As much as i disagreed with the rent a mob last year I believe one person one vote is still the best way. I certainly don't want my club deciding everything for me. I want to voice my opinion and if at the end of the day the majority vote against then so be it. At least I can say I tried.

So you think the system is the best even though you think it can be controlled by rent a mob at any time? How does that make sense???

BillBen

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

But do you think the every person has a vote is unfair to clubs with less members?

Weather I think it's fair or unfair is not relevant, there has never been an issue with one person one vote until now.

Valhalla18

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

But do you think the every person has a vote is unfair to clubs with less members?

Don't think there is a perfect solution.In this case can just give my opinion. If the vote is carried I won't even have that.

Gleefulprinter

BillBen wrote: »

Weather I think it's fair or unfair is not relevant, there has never been an issue with one person one vote until now.

Well I disagree with that. Valhalla just raised the issue saying there was a rent a mob last year and they were treated differently because there was a one person one vote rule.

Valhalla18

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Well I disagree with that. Valhalla just raised the issue saying there was a rent a mob last year and they were treated differently because there was a one person one vote rule.

Last year there was a rent a mob and it carried the vote. Call me nieve , but this I would hope was a rare case of how it can be " misused ". I still at the end of the day think each person should have a say and a vote.

BattleCorp

Whatever way you dress up this new constitution, it's taking away power from ordinary shooters and putting it in the hands of a select few. That won't be good for the sport in the long run.

Gleefulprinter, do you honestly think that is a good idea?

Gleefulprinter

Yes I do think it is a good idea because no one has said anything to the contrary. People are so concerned about the ordinary shooter but no one is saying how they are affected. I asked the question earlier:

Do the clubs all pay equal membership?
If the clubs pay equal membership to the NASRPC then it is only fair that they get the same number of votes.
If they are paying membership fees based on the number of club members then it should be weighted.

No one answered it. Until someone says why it is a bad thing with some proof then what is wrong with it?
Also I don't think this has anything to do with a select few controlling. Each club could vote on issues before the meeting and tell that person how the club is to vote. It is the club's vote not the person.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Yes I do think it is a good idea because no one has said anything to the contrary.

I'm saying it's a bad idea. I think that is contrary to your view.

People are so concerned about the ordinary shooter but no one is saying how they are affected.

The way things stand, I have a vote. You also have a vote.

If this constitution goes through, neither of us have a vote. That's how ordinary shooters are affected.

No one answered it. Until someone says why it is a bad thing with some proof then what is wrong with it?

Are you honestly saying that it is a good thing for you to have your power to vote removed from you? Seriously???

Gleefulprinter

Ok again what proof do you have.
all you have said is I think this and that is it so it must be true.

Could you answer this:
Do the clubs all pay equal membership?

clivej

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Ok again what proof do you have.
all you have said is I think this and that is it so it must be true.

Could you answer this:
Do the clubs all pay equal membership?

YES look in the constitution it's €200 per club. As has been for the last 2 years

And in the new proposed constitution on page 18.

Gleefulprinter

Ok. Then why shouldn't it be equal votes if they are paying the same?

Valhalla18

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Ok again what proof do you have.
all you have said is I think this and that is it so it must be true.

Could you answer this:
Do the clubs all pay equal membership?

What proof do you need . What proof would be good enough for you. None as far as I am concerned. You are so entrenched in your own opinion It makes no difference what the rest of us say.

Gleefulprinter

Valhalla18 wrote: »

What proof do you need . What proof would be good enough for you. None as far as I am concerned. You are so entrenched in your own opinion It makes no difference what the rest of us say.

maybe you should think of the things you want to say first and make sure there is some substance to them before pressing enter.

All you are saying is I think this and therefore it is true because I said it.

clivej

At last years AGM I was able to submit proposals to be voted on at the AGM. I stood up and spoke about my reasons for my proposals.

With this new constitution I won't be able to make any direct proposals,only through my club IF they agree with my proposal. That right is now being taken away from me within this new constitution. Not good IMO.

IMO the main amendments as submitted are not in the best interests of the Gallery shooting community. What little say YOU and I had will be taken from us.

I just hope that the national clubs affiliated to the NASRPC inform their members about all this and get their members to vote on how their club should vote at the EGM.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Ok again what proof do you have.
all you have said is I think this and that is it so it must be true.

Could you answer this:
Do the clubs all pay equal membership?

What proof do I have? It says in the new constitution that it will only be clubs allowed to vote. Written down in black and white. Have you read it?

Do you vote in a general election? Or would you be happy enough for somebody else to decide your vote for you? Because that's what is proposed here.

Do all clubs pay the same affiliation? I'd hope so. They should all pay the same.

But I still think it should be one person, one vote. Anything else isn't fair.

Democracy is one person, one vote.

Gleefulprinter

Isn't the NASRPC an association of clubs not individuals? Why would individuals be allowed vote then?

Rimfire Shooter

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Isn't the NASRPC an association of clubs not individuals? Why would individuals be allowed vote then?

The NASRPC wouldn't want to forget that without those individuals there will be no NASRPC !

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Isn't the NASRPC an association of clubs not individuals? Why would individuals be allowed vote then?

FFS. Lads, it's like talking to a wall.

We are currently allowed to vote at the AGM, and have been for as long as I'm involved in shooting. The current NASRPC committee were voted in by individuals at last year's AGM, not clubs, but individuals.

clivej

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Ok. Then why shouldn't it be equal votes if they are paying the same?

Right now you Gleefulprinter you have a vote at the AGM on whatever is spoken about and every time a vote is called for.

As items are discussed peoples minds will be made 'For or Against' whatever is on the agenda. At the present time YOU can make a decision on the night and vote.
With only a clubs representative to vote do all the attending clubs members all go off and vote on the item and then tell their clubs rep to vote that way???

Well it's not the way I would like it to go.

BattleCorp

clivej wrote: »

With only a clubs representative to vote do all the attending clubs members all go off and vote on the item and then tell their clubs rep to vote that way???

Even if the attending club members did tell their 'club representative' what way to vote, there's no obligation on him/her to follow that direction.

xesse

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Isn't the NASRPC an association of clubs not individuals? Why would individuals be allowed vote then?

If individuals voted in this standing committee why do you think it is strange the same individuals would want to vote on this EGM that wants to introduce a motion to remove the voting power of the individual shooter????
If we cant vote on the EGM them there would be a case for saying the committee were illegally elected.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

FFS. Lads, it's like talking to a wall.

We are currently allowed to vote at the AGM, and have been for as long as I'm involved in shooting. The current NASRPC committee were voted in by individuals at last year's AGM, not clubs, but individuals.

Who suggested otherwise? What wall?
I am talking about the new constitution.

Just because something was done with previous committees doesn't mean it was the correct thing. A lot of people here seem butt hurt that they are going to have the same say as everyone else. A say through their committees. A vote for each club to make things fair in an association for clubs not an association of egos and individuals.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Who suggested otherwise? What wall?
I am talking about the new constitution.

Just because something was done with previous committees doesn't mean it was the correct thing. A lot of people here seem butt hurt that they are going to have the same say as everyone else. A say through their committees. A vote for each club to make things fair in an association for clubs not an association of egos and individuals.

I'm getting tired of this crap.

Only an idiot would think that having their vote removed is a good thing.

Nothing to do with egos. Just to do with democracy and one person, one vote.

Wadi14

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Isn't the NASRPC an association of clubs not individuals? Why would individuals be allowed vote then?

I think we all agree that NASRPC is club based, but with this change I believe they will loss the respect of some members, funny when I write that I think of individuals, not clubs.

NASRPC cant have it both ways, it cant say its club based but on the same document say it wants to discipline individuals, if its club based is it not clubs it discipline's ?
Disciplinary Proceedings Should the Secretary of the Association receive a formal written complaint regarding a member, or an individual, the following disciplinary procedures shall be followed.

You cant use the club based card and expect all individuals to be happy, when the constitution reaches as far as individuals.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm getting tired of this crap.

Only an idiot would think that having their vote removed is a good thing.

Nothing to do with egos. Just to do with democracy and one person, one vote.

Tut tut BattleCorp. You shouldn't swear so close to Christmas- Santy will bring you coal!

It is an association of clubs where club members vote. How does that make sense?