McQuaid nominated unanimously by Switzerland (read warning post #78)

Chips Lovell · 15-06-2013 01:43PM

Anto Moran, sporting a fresh haircut: "The only commercial interest I've been manipulated by is Peter Mark". Legend

C3PO · 15-06-2013 01:46PM

Interesting that all of the Board supported the motion and yet the majority of the members rejected it - would indicate a substantial disconnect between us?

15-06-2013 01:48PM

C3PO wrote: »

Interesting that all of the Board supported the motion and yet the majority of the members rejected it - would indicate a substantial disconnect between us?

Who elects the board?

C3PO · 15-06-2013 01:57PM

531 wrote: »

Who elects the board?

The members, at the AGM but it's usually very badly attended so I suppose we get what we deserve!

15-06-2013 02:03PM

C3PO wrote: »

The members, at the AGM but it's usually very badly attended so I suppose we get what we deserve!

Exactly, we elect the board to make decisions. It is democratic. Like a lot of members of a lot of organisations, we should probably take more interest in who we elect. But, of course, getting people to take positions is the difficult part.

The closeness of today's vote could support the argument that the board was not that disconnected. I do not like to criticise the board, I believe they are genuine and have the good of Irish cycling foremost.

nilhg · 15-06-2013 02:08PM

531 wrote: »

Exactly, we elect the board to make decisions. It is democratic. Like a lot of members of a lot of organisations, we should probably take more interest in who we elect. But, of course, getting people to take positions is the difficult part.

The closeness of today's vote could support the argument that the board was not that disconnected. I do not like to criticise the board, I believe they are genuine and have the good of Irish cycling foremost.

I agree.

In fairness this was an extraordinary situation that led to the EGM, and to the board's credit they realised their initial mistake and called the EGM without having to be forced into it by the clubs.

This chapter is over now, I don't think it should have repercussions after today, though of course anyone who wants can put themselves forward at the next AGM.

C3PO · 15-06-2013 02:10PM

531 wrote: »

Exactly, we elect the board to make decisions. It is democratic. Like a lot of members of a lot of organisations, we should probably take more interest in who we elect. But, of course, getting people to take positions is the difficult part.

The closeness of today's vote could support the argument that the board was not that disconnected. I do not like to criticise the board, I believe they are genuine and have the good of Irish cycling foremost.

Yes I know from personal experience how hard it is to get people involved, even at club level! But that doesn't change the fact that the Board were willing to unanimously support a motion that nearly 60% of the electorate subsequently rejected!

Beasty · 15-06-2013 02:16PM

C3PO wrote: »

Interesting that all of the Board supported the motion and yet the majority of the members rejected it - would indicate a substantial disconnect between us?

I am advised the Board decided to vote unanimously in favour of the nomination regardless of any personal views on the matter. This is very surprising to me - I would have thought they would have given free vote on such a contentious matter

nilhg · 15-06-2013 02:21PM

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Excellent outcome, but am disappointed both with the level of votes in support of McQuaid received. Hopefully club delegates voted in accordance with their members' wishes.

This should put real pressure on the Swiss cycling board to reassess why it would be in the best interests of the sport for them to proceed with nominating McQuaid.

Thanks to everyone who worked to ensure the membership of CI were given an opportunity to have their views represented in this decision.

Lady in front of me, who I took from her general demeanour to be very pro PMcQ, voted twice (with two seperate slips, one white, one orange), once for the motion and once against.

C3PO · 15-06-2013 02:27PM

nilhg wrote: »

Lady in front of me, who I took from her general demeanour to be very pro PMcQ, voted twice (with two seperate slips, one white, one orange), once for the motion and once against.

I also had two slips - club and commission! She was probably delegated to vote one way by her club and the opposite way by her Commission!

ROK ON · 15-06-2013 02:29PM

Can I ask did the provinces and commissions vote?

If soni think that this is something that needs to be raised by future AGM.

I am a munster based cyclists with a Dublin club. I have a racing license.
Theoretically the road commission and Munster province should represent my views. I am not certain that my club was contacted by either commission or province to ascertain my view or the views of my ckunmates.

Who exactly donthe commissions represent?
Who do the provinces represent?

To me it exists as a way to maintain the status quo regardless k the issue being voted on. It is anti democratic and makes nonsense.

And btw if the numbers of no votes were swelled by commission and provinces I would feel exactly the same way. Tonuse these votes gives an impression of democracy, but in reality these votes can be used as a block vote against the wishes of ordinary club cyclists.

Come AGM time inthink that the board and CI in general has some governance issues that need answering.

nilhg · 15-06-2013 02:35PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Can I ask did the provinces and commissions vote?

If soni think that this is something that needs to be raised by future AGM.

I am a munster based cyclists with a Dublin club. I have a racing license.
Theoretically the road commission and Munster province should represent my views. I am not certain that my club was contacted by either commission or province to ascertain my view or the views of my ckunmates.

Who exactly donthe commissions represent?
Who do the provinces represent?

To me it exists as a way to maintain the status quo regardless k the issue being voted on. It is anti democratic and makes nonsense.

And btw if the numbers of no votes were swelled by commission and provinces I would feel exactly the same way. Tonuse these votes gives an impression of democracy, but in reality these votes can be used as a block vote against the wishes of ordinary club cyclists.

Come AGM time inthink that the board and CI in general has some governance issues that need answering.

Something else that struck me when the man from Chain Gang in Kerry spoke was that having to physically have your delegates in the room is possibly anti democratic, I know there are arguments for and against proxy/postal voting but I was only coming up from Kildare and couldn't find another member of our club to come up with me so what was it like for those farther away.

el tel · 15-06-2013 02:38PM

C3PO wrote: »

I also had two slips - club and commission! She was probably delegated to vote one way by her club and the opposite way by her Commission!

Interesting. I was under the impression that each delegate had one vote?

Beasty · 15-06-2013 02:41PM

Thanks to everyone for the support on this issue. This was as much about a democratic process being followed by CI as anything else. As I've always stated I would have respected whatever decision was taken in a democratic vote.

I do feel it important that the members of CI continue to be "active" within the organisation and I would encourage people to participate whether it be at a local, provincial, national or international level. What we have shown today is that everyone's view actually matters. We all have the right to contribute to the decision making process

We have done our bit in Ireland - now it's over to others to try and give Cycling a new impetus and hopefully restore faith in the sport at a global level

I woke up this morning with a dodgy back, a dodgy shoulder and dodgy ears. The weight lifted with the decision that was reached by the membership, and I actually feel like heading off and racing tomorrow - something I've neglected in recent weeks.

C3PO · 15-06-2013 02:41PM

el tel wrote: »

Interesting. I was under the impression that each delegate had one vote?

Apparently you could vote as both a club and commission delegate! Rory Wiley also mentioned this in his meeting introduction.

Beasty · 15-06-2013 03:02PM

C3PO wrote: »

Apparently you could vote as both a club and commission delegate! Rory Wiley also mentioned this in his meeting introduction.

It could be a bit clearer in the M&As, but that was certainly my interpretation of them

jinkypolly · 15-06-2013 03:07PM

Great result, a bit incredulous at the pro McQ vote though.

15-06-2013 03:14PM

jinkypolly wrote: »

Great result, a bit incredulous at the pro McQ vote though.

Well, that's democracy. Look at many of our public representatives and is incredulous that people actually voted for them.

CramCycle · 15-06-2013 03:16PM

nilhg wrote: »

Just home, thought it was a well organised well run meeting, most of the contributions were genuine and well thought out even if I didn't agree with them, one or two ran a little close to the old wrap the green flag/keep the Brits out line but in general that was minimised.

Was a bit shocked that this was such an issue but I did not know about the McQuaid/Cookson/Ulster thing before (still don't), so I can see why they may have felt support for PMQ.

While most of the votes were decided before hand it did seem to me that PMcQ's run to the Swiss counted against him, it was the one thing that his supporters never even tried to justify.

It really did, and if alot of the votes had not been decided before hand, I imagine it that would have been the big point against him. The pro speeches were very good, but tended to rely on his record from the 70s and 80s.The main speaker also made points in his favour, some of which were simply untrue, I half expected him to thank PMQ for the Dublin bike scheme the first time. That said I understand his POV, he appears to be a very close friend and it is often difficult to distance yourself from this. I feel that it would have been more appropriate if he left the personal stuff aside, his speech would have carried more weight for me.

jinkypolly wrote: »

Great result, a bit incredulous at the pro McQ vote though.

It is democracy, it is hard to be annoyed with it.

nilhg · 15-06-2013 03:18PM

jinkypolly wrote: »

Great result, a bit incredulous at the pro McQ vote though.

Sticky bottle is reporting that "official CI" had a total of 32 votes and used them en bloc in favour so the popular vote was fairly conclusively against.

C3PO · 15-06-2013 03:27PM

nilhg wrote: »

Sticky bottle is reporting that "official CI" had a total of 32 votes and used them en bloc in favour so the popular vote was fairly conclusively against.

Don't know how they came to that conclusion!
I was a Commission delegate this morning and nobody from CI made any suggestion to me as to which way we should vote and as it happens I voted against the motion!

greenmat · 15-06-2013 03:28PM

A great result for World Cycling, well done to all the Boardsies who were very active in highlighting the shady dealing within this issue. Hopefully this is the beginning of a new era in Cycling.

pelevin · 15-06-2013 03:29PM

Well done to everyone who helped make this happen - and what they helped make happen is it seems clearly the voice of the cycling community in Ireland getting heard loud and clear. I believe that it likely that Pat McQ's attempt to portray the dissident element as an ugly little minority backfired heavily, as did the running to the Swiss.
It's not necessarily where cycling is at that hurt him but the belligerent manner he's chosen to behave.

daragh_ · 15-06-2013 03:46PM

pelevin wrote: »

Well done to everyone who helped make this happen - and what they helped make happen is it seems clearly the voice of the cycling community in Ireland getting heard loud and clear. I believe that it likely that Pat McQ's attempt to portray the dissident element as an ugly little minority backfired heavily, as did the running to the Swiss.
It's not necessarily where cycling is at that hurt him but the belligerent manner he's chosen to behave.

Well in general we are ugly, but we aren't a minority. :-)

Thanks to all the Boardsies who attended and took such an active part on behalf of all of us and our various clubs.

RobFowl · 15-06-2013 03:52PM

CramCycle wrote: »

It is democracy, it is hard to be annoyed with it.

"The people have spoken, the bastards."

corny · 15-06-2013 04:14PM

Fair play to the vigilante boardsies. Your crusade has finally ended in absolute conquest! Well done.

Bluefoam · 15-06-2013 04:39PM

corny wrote: »

Fair play to the vigilante boardsies. Your crusade has finally ended in absolute conquest! Well done.

I think you give the power of boards more credit than it is due...

pelevin · 15-06-2013 05:00PM

daragh_ wrote: »

Well in general we are ugly, but we aren't a minority. :-)

.

Maybe that's what Pat should have tried to focus on. "Look at them, the ugly bastards! These aren't the future surely be to God."

Casati · 15-06-2013 05:20PM

nilhg wrote: »

Lady in front of me, who I took from her general demeanour to be very pro PMcQ, voted twice (with two seperate slips, one white, one orange), once for the motion and once against.

Yes - and fair play to her, she was representing her clubs wishes which were different to her own, and her commissions

Casati · 15-06-2013 05:35PM

C3PO wrote: »

Don't know how they came to that conclusion!
I was a Commission delegate this morning and nobody from CI made any suggestion to me as to which way we should vote and as it happens I voted against the motion!

Leinster, Ulster, The Board, Munster, Youth and College of Commissaries all seem to vote pro McQuaid from what I could see, maybe by accident but if it was left to these voters only I'd say it would have gone 80:20 pro McQuaid

I know some people were upset but comments questioning why so many people turned up when they are not to be seen at AGM's, and I think this is a valid point- I left the meeting thinking that because so few people turn up for the AGM's is a root cause behind why the EGM was called, and why the nomination was voted against.

Simply put not enough people are putting themselves forward for commission/ board positions and/ or those turning up at these meetings are not a representative sample. The result is that we have board and indeed commissions/ provence's that do not represent the members interests and opinions

McQuaid nominated unanimously by Switzerland (read warning post #78)

Comments