CI AGM 1 November 2014

Harrybelafonte · 04-11-2014 2:22pm

The bad language is deliberate by the way as it seems to be the way to be heard.

No, I don't take the point regarding club delegates. I believe each individual should be given the opportunity to vote. Simple as.

CramCycle · 04-11-2014 2:22pm

Beasty wrote: »

Firstly a change would require a resolution to be passed at an AGM or EGM, by those present (ie under the existing rules). Would those that go to the trouble of turning up really want to allow those who don't an equal say?

Again a common error here is that people think that a club not turning up is because no one is bothered. It's a reasonable distance to travel, and is not beyond the realms of possibility that it is financially stressful for some to go. I realise some will say that their clubs should pay but I can see why some might not want to do this. I didn't go this year as my child was sick but despite being employed, the cost of the bus down (cheapest option) would be too much for some.

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It's set up as a federation of clubs, not individuals. I definitely wouldn't support moving in the other direction.

The proxy voting could be done for clubs only via the Secretarys log in.

RobFowl wrote: »

Eligibility is one issue for CI members unattached or in new clubs (I for example couldn't attend as a delegate this year) but agree that proxy voting would be a dangerous way to go.
Bottom line is if you can't be bothered to turn up on the day and listen to the pros/cons then you shouldn't have a say....

But alot of clubs might have their AGMs just before this and tie the hands of the delegates anyway so that makes no difference. The pre moderated forum on cycling Ireland idea helps with this issue of people not having their say.

The downside to proxy voting is that it will potentially lead to lower numbers turning up on the day. I am unsure how a balance could be struck bar devolving such decisions to the provinces.

RayCun · 04-11-2014 2:27pm

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

No, I don't take the point regarding club delegates. I believe each individual should be given the opportunity to vote. Simple as.

Do you think an individual voting online should get one vote and someone there representing their club get one vote?
Or the individual one vote and the delegate as many votes as their club has members?
Do you ban amendments on the day? Amendments at any time?

Chips Lovell · 04-11-2014 3:26pm

CramCycle wrote: »

The proxy voting could be done for clubs only via the Secretarys log in.

I don't think proxy voting is workable, at least under the current system. Motions are frequently amended on the day or withdrawn entirely. What happens then to votes cast in advance? Plus, votes are being cast before the motion is debated, which is also problematic.

Harrybelafonte · 04-11-2014 3:32pm

RayCun wrote: »

Do you think an individual voting online should get one vote and someone there representing their club get one vote?
Or the individual one vote and the delegate as many votes as their club has members?
Do you ban amendments on the day? Amendments at any time?

One person. One vote. No club voting.

No amendments.

Resolutions worded clearly. Up to voters to educate themselves.

I don't go to my voting station during referenda and debate with other voters, nor do I assign someone else my vote. I go to vote as educated about the topics as I can be and cast my vote.

You may pick faults with that system but IMHO none would counter the issues I have with how the AGM is conducted.

RobFowl · 04-11-2014 3:33pm

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

That's pretty sanctimonious RF and Beasty. "Bothered"? I couldn't go for various reasons and after what was described here I see no basic attraction in going. Five ****ing hours to pass a few simple changes.

That's fine. I'll never "bother" going to any others either. I don't particularly give a **** whether A4 is 120km or not, nor do I care about the rest of the "issues" that came up.

I'll let the "dedicated" members deal with the big issues.

I didn't go this year for various reasons and don't have a problem with those who did having a say.
The AGM is more than just motions, it's also a summary of the various reports from the many braches of CI as well as the accounts (not too long ago there were real worries re the financial stability of the organization).
The AGM is the one time a year when clubs can have a direct influence on issues. They can and do make a difference and push through changes not supported by the board.
Maybe "bothered" was too flippant a phrase to use but there are a lot of important and far reaching decisions to be made and they do need to be debated. Allowing proxy voting would encourage Clubs not to send delegates and ultimately create a greater disconnect between the board and the grassroots.

buffalo · 04-11-2014 3:38pm

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

I believe each individual should be given the opportunity to vote. Simple as.

Every individual has an opportunity to vote at club level.

Harrybelafonte · 04-11-2014 3:46pm

buffalo wrote: »

Every individual has an opportunity to vote at club level.

Except those that are unattached?

Weepsie · 04-11-2014 4:00pm

On the proxy issue, why not stream it or run it as a webinar and try to push every club to either send a delegate (preferable) or register in advance online with a cap. Even very basically with Skype or Google hangouts (admittedly) you'd cycling ireland would need to set up a few accounts and bring a couple of laptops but not entirely undoable

Harrybelafonte · 04-11-2014 4:01pm

RobFowl wrote: »

I didn't go this year for various reasons and don't have a problem with those who did having a say.
The AGM is more than just motions, it's also a summary of the various reports from the many braches of CI as well as the accounts (not too long ago there were real worries re the financial stability of the organization).
The AGM is the one time a year when clubs can have a direct influence on issues. They can and do make a difference and push through changes not supported by the board.
Maybe "bothered" was too flippant a phrase to use but there are a lot of important and far reaching decisions to be made and they do need to be debated. Allowing proxy voting would encourage Clubs not to send delegates and ultimately create a greater disconnect between the board and the grassroots.

Sorry, I had a needlessly long reply to this. I've just realised that if I want there to be proxy voting I'll have to put it forward as a motion for debate at the nest AGM so wasting time arguing it here.

RobFowl · 04-11-2014 4:10pm

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Sorry, I had a needlessly long reply to this. I've just realised that if I want there to be proxy voting I'll have to put it forward as a motion for debate at the nest AGM so wasting time arguing it here.

It's probably worth debating at the next AGM. You do need a club to put it forward and then 2 delegates will have to attend to propose and second it.

Certainly the issue of non club members needs to be looked at ...

Chips Lovell · 04-11-2014 4:19pm

Wouldn't favour changing the structure to give votes to individual riders. Cycling Ireland's a federation of clubs, not an association of individuals. The clubs are the ones running events and it should be they who decide how the sport is run.

I think we should be providing more incentives, not less for people to join a club.

morana · 04-11-2014 4:25pm

Every agm I attended a quorum has never been present when the meeting was scheduled to start. We used to have the ridiculous scenario of the meeting being suspended and suspended and suspended again. To avoid this the quorum has been dropped to 5%. Yes there may be drawbacks to proxy voting but its nothing that cant be working thru but maybe in the end of it all we could get more participation.

I also dont see why a stream as somebody mentioned earlier cant be available so people could listen in at least.

Beasty · 04-11-2014 4:40pm

morana wrote: »

so people could listen in at least.

Christ - that could be the worst of all worlds. Probably incredibly frustrating for some. Maybe quite entertaining for others.....

Web links do though still work for "spectating".I'm really not sure about voting as I suspect there could be a major danger of fraudulent voting.

buffalo · 04-11-2014 4:57pm

Beasty wrote: »

Web links do though still work for "spectating".I'm really not sure about voting as I suspect there could be a major danger of fraudulent voting.

I find it amazing that the clubs don't give the list of delegates to CI for validation on the day. As a member of Club X I can show up and take one of the delegate spots without any fuss if I get there early enough.

RobFowl · 04-11-2014 5:25pm

buffalo wrote: »

I find it amazing that the clubs don't give the list of delegates to CI for validation on the day. As a member of Club X I can show up and take one of the delegate spots without any fuss if I get there early enough.

They were fairly strict at the EGM

buffalo · 04-11-2014 5:32pm

RobFowl wrote: »

They were fairly strict at the EGM

Aye, I nearly wasn't admitted because I had been upgraded during the season!

But it was the same issue - on the sign-on form is "X Club" and so many empty spots beside it. Anyone from that club can sign on, whether the club nominated them as a delegate or not.

CramCycle · 04-11-2014 9:36pm

As a matter of interest what was the reasoning behind the junior tour level being rejected. 2 as there a flat out refusal or no attempt at alternatives?

Was it beaten by alot or a little.

Raam · 04-11-2014 9:40pm

The no points for TTs seems odd. Wonder why that got rejected.

Beasty · 04-11-2014 10:19pm

Raam wrote: »

The no points for TTs seems odd. Wonder why that got rejected.

They mentioned the situation in Ulster where there are a lot more TTs run with perhaps a lot more opportunity to rise up the rankings based on TTs alone. I blame the guy who spoke proposing it though - he clearly could not make a convincing argument (I would contrast him to the one speaking in favour of continuing with the upgrade option - he managed to swing the day by a couple of votes):pac:

Beasty · 04-11-2014 10:27pm

CramCycle wrote: »

As a matter of interest what was the reasoning behind the junior tour level being rejected. 2 as there a flat out refusal or no attempt at alternatives?

Was it beaten by alot or a little.

There was certainly general support for the event coming from all corners. I think it was partly to do with setting a precedent for one event when there are a few more out there that maybe are equally warranting such support. Having seen what has happened during and following the meeting though I have no doubt those voting took the best decision.

Can't remember too much about the vote on that one though. Think after the discussion there was a lot of doubt in many delegates minds

A more general point though. CI had already set a grant level for the event. Having spoken to one or two people though I'm not sure the application process is particularly transparent, with some people being oblivious to amounts awarded to other events until the list was published last week (which did at least improve the transparency compared to prior years). It would appear that this year organisers (or at least some of them) were not asked how much they needed but the grants were largely based on last years awards

Beasty · 04-11-2014 10:30pm

buffalo wrote: »

I find it amazing that the clubs don't give the list of delegates to CI for validation on the day. As a member of Club X I can show up and take one of the delegate spots without any fuss if I get there early enough.

If I had turned up and discovered someone who had not been delegated by the club had signed in there would have been hell to pay. I do think that there is a general approach amongst most clubs of discussion and prior agreement as to who will attend. I equally suspect that in some cases there is no internal debate and it's the same old faces that turn up perhaps without any specific approval from club committees or membership

Beasty · 04-11-2014 10:33pm

RobFowl wrote: »

and then 2 delegates will have to attend to propose and second it.

The "proposing" club only need one person to turn up. Anyone attending can second a motion. At least one motion was thrown out as no-one from the club turned up on Saturday

onimpulse · 04-11-2014 10:46pm

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

What exactly were the "outbursts" and why did they cause tension? Why can't these meetings be held with some level of decorum?

I walked in about 5 minutes late by which time the "outbursts" were well underway. I really wondered what the hell I was after walking into.

I agree that one person in particular totally undermined himself but the whole episode undermined the entire organisation.

I can only think the board might be better off with someone who will stay the course and work with other members to change things they disagree with from the inside.

I've no doubt that the board is immeasurably better off following Siobhan election. She'll be a very positive and constructive influence.

Beasty · 04-11-2014 11:42pm

RobFowl wrote: »

I for example couldn't attend as a delegate this year

I believe you could have, but not as a delegate of the club you may have felt most affinity to;)

(I presume you have not had a second CI licence issued for 2014)

buffalo · 05-11-2014 12:41am

Beasty wrote: »

They mentioned the situation in Ulster where there are a lot more TTs run with perhaps a lot more opportunity to rise up the rankings based on TTs alone. I blame the guy who spoke proposing it though - he clearly could not make a convincing argument (I would contrast him to the one speaking in favour of continuing with the upgrade option - he managed to swing the day by a couple of votes):pac:

I failed to prepare, thinking the motion would stand on its own merits - especially given that we already do it in stage races and for national TT champs. If there are truly concerns that someone would hoover up lots of points and jump from A4 to A1 and ride the Rás without ever doing a road race, they can do it under the current system.

Someone pointed out that it doesn't specify whether points are awarded for the overall event, or per category. I should've included the rest of the article in the proposal, so people can see that categories are not mentioned in any of the other sections - e.g. "(a) In road races up to 50km, points to be awarded 3-2-1;".

There were valid points I failed to consider - as Geoff pointed out, road races award more points for longer distances, but this proposal didn't differentiate between a 10TT and a 100TT. Perhaps we should only award 1 point for a 10TT, and a sliding scale every extra 10k to a max of 6, or something.

I was also rather sleep-deprived and slightly hungover on the day, and perhaps not on my sharpest form. Jack Watson offered to help me make it more palatable for next year if I wished, which was decent of him.

Beasty · 05-11-2014 12:52am

Funnily enough I am really warming to Jack. I'm glad we no longer have the McQuaid "political" angle (which I acknowledge I was one of the "architects" of) disrupting things. I have absolutely no doubt though he has the best interests of the sport at heart and his dedication to the cause over the years has been immense

slow · 05-11-2014 2:53pm

We've got to remember that AGMs of CI have to deal with company law and also technical regulations. Many motions are amended by the time they are voted on. Some (like the proposed €10 non-cycling CI membership) have cost implications that need to be clarified before voting. There is no perfect way to do this. But voting by proxy could lead to uninformed decisions being made which would then require an EGM to reverse. The AGM is a long day. But everybody got to have their say (and was listened to) including the delegates who spoke about the Hall of Fame and the Junior Tour Reliability Trial / Sportive, neither of which was on the agenda.

By the end of the day, Alice Sherratt had a sheet of paper with the contact details of 20 volunteers who have offered to help her save the Junior Tour. All good people well experienced in running cycling events. There was tremendous goodwill towards the JT, even from those who opposed the €2 levy. Hopefully, the funds raised will far exceed what the €2 levy would have brought in. If there was voting by proxy, those delegates wouldn't have even been in the room...

wav1 · 07-11-2014 7:48pm

Well it all makes interesting reading and it appears I wasn't missed at all[except maybe for the noise levels]Seriously though I was aware of the situation re POS pre AGM and its a pity it couldn't have been sorted before the admin showpiece of the year.Always thought the JT levy was going to be tough to get through,but I am hugely heartened by the response of the delegates whether pro or anti levy,to help put together the proposed sportive to help the kitty.
Probably nothing to do with the board or CI in general but I think the time has come to create a Dave Raynor type of foundation here in Ireland,governed by a cross section of trustees to help out with various requirements from time to time,including helping out riders who are trying their best to give it a shot at a higher level.
I suppose what im saying really is that we should try and take control of these types of funding initiatives ourselves and try to leave less people out on a limb.

Beasty · 07-11-2014 7:52pm

wav1 wrote: »

[except maybe for the noise levels]

Don't worry - Gaybo realised you were not there and stepped into the breach once again....

CI AGM 1 November 2014

Comments