NASRPC EGM (See post #19)

LB6

Amendments to the Constitution
Amendments to the Constitution of the NASRPC shall be agreed only at an Annual General Meeting.
Any motion to amend the Constitution shall be proposed and seconded by two member Clubs or the Committee of the NASRPC and submitted in writing to the Secretary at least 21 days before the date of the General Meeting. In the event of such a motion being submitted, the Secretary shall, not less than 14 days before a General Meeting, circulate the motion along with the agenda of the General Meeting to the membership of the NASRPC.
Amendments to the Constitution shall be decided by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at an Annual General Meeting.

A hardcopy of the 2015

Gleefulprinter

What's the 2015 constitution got to do with anything?

Are you sure that is the correct version of the constitution LB6? I heard there were several versions.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

What's the 2015 constitution got to do with anything?

Are you sure that is the correct version of the constitution LB6? I heard there were several versions.

The 2015 Constitution or whatever Constitution that was in force at the last AGM is the one that is in force right now. That means that it is the rules that we have to follow for AGM's, EGM's etc. It's got everything to do with things.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

The 2015 Constitution is the one that is in force right now. That means that it is the rules that we have to follow for AGM's, EGM's etc. It's got everything to do with things.

No it doesn't.
What people are talking about is an amendment to the constitution not the 2015 version.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

No it doesn't.
What people are talking about is an amendment to the constitution not the 2015 version.

But the vote to bring in the new constitution has to be held under the rules of the old constitution.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

But the vote to bring in the new constitution has to be held under the rules of the old constitution.

What was being quoted was an amendment to the constitution. This is a replacement of the constitution.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

What was being quoted was an amendment to the constitution. This is a replacement of the constitution.

You really don't get it, do you. The new Constitution is only a proposal at this stage. It is absolutely worthless until it is voted upon and accepted.

It hasn't been voted upon so therefore it's worthless as of yet.

What has been voted on and is in force right now is whatever Constitution was last voted upon. That's what is in effect right now. That lays down the rules that we have to follow right now.

The new Constitution doesn't exist until it's voted for.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

You really don't get it, do you. The new Constitution is only a proposal at this stage. It is absolutely worthless until it is voted upon and accepted.

It hasn't been voted upon so therefore it's worthless as of yet.

What has been voted on and is in force right now is whatever Constitution was last voted upon. That's what is in effect right now. That lays down the rules that we have to follow right now.

The new Constitution doesn't exist until it's voted for.

Excuse me I had to get the 7 year old in to explain it to me. Thank god you managed to explain it to me.

The old constitution says the clubs vote, in an association of clubs, on changes in an EGM.
You can't lose your right to vote because you never should have had one in the first place. The old constitution is badly written and has many different meanings to it. Membership being one of them and the voting rights are all over.

As I said popular vote is ridiculous for small clubs. You still haven't addressed that point. Instead you want to act like this is 1936 berlin and you just lost the vote.

homerhop

Must remember that as secretary of a different club, just draft up a new constitution anytime I like and say it's the new law.

Sparks

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

As I said popular vote is ridiculous for small clubs. You still haven't addressed that point. Instead you want to act like this is 1936 berlin and you just lost the vote.

To be fair -- and I realise that this is being a little petty as I have no dog in this hunt, but you have been making the point -- when the NASRPC were represented on the FCP by the SSAI and had one vote within the SSAI, there was blood and thunder over how undemocratic it was, how unworkable it was, how unjust it was, there were letters written to TDs, there was all manner of protest. There's a lot of irony to be endured when the same people who were protesting so vehemently, are now saying that individual shooters should be somewhere between ambivalent and happy about being in the same position within the NASRPC that the NASRPC were in within the FCP.

As to actual systemic problems with the one-club-one-vote system, in the face of malicious intent to subvert, it's pretty hopeless. Ranges and Clubs are separate organisations in theory, in law and in practice (many ranges have hosted several organisations on their facilities for years). And clubs -- for the NASRPC constitutional purposes at least, if not in the legal sense defined in section 4A -- are relatively free of requirements when being set up. Therefore if a range was of a mind to -- and I make no accusations here -- they could readily create a hundred clubs on paper using their facilities, register them all with the NASRPC and take over the organisation at the next AGM or EGM (from within or from without, as I said, I make no accusations here). The only obstacle would be cash. And if funds were short, a hundred clubs could be reduced to the minimum needed to obtain a majority (which wouldn't be as onerous).

Whereas with one-shooter-one-vote, aside from the sense of inclusion in the organisation for the shooters, such an attack would not be financially viable.

That's just one thought (well, really, it's a memory from the bad old days), but I'm sure others with more invested in it would have other objections. For the sake of the thread, perhaps listening to their objections and not dismissing them in an uncivil manner would be good, as well as being in keeping with the first rule of the forum?

BattleCorp

The old constitution says the clubs vote, in an association of clubs, on changes in an EGM.
You can't lose your right to vote because you never should have had one in the first place.

Now you are talking sh1te. There is a constitution posted on the NASRPC website for pretty much the past year. I'm assuming that it is the current constitution as it is posted on their website.

Anyway, it says what the AUTHORITY is. I'll post it here again for you.

Authority


The ultimate authority within the Association shall be the members assembled in the Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting.

That means that everyone who is a member of an affiliated club and attends either the AGM or EGM, they get to vote.

Are you saying that we weren't entitled to have a vote at the last AGM? Because if you are, then the current committee haven't been legitimately elected so.

The old constitution is badly written and has many different meanings to it. Membership being one of them and the voting rights are all over.

That may be so but it is the rules that we have to go by until they are changed.

As I said popular vote is ridiculous for small clubs. You still haven't addressed that point. Instead you want to act like this is 1936 berlin and you just lost the vote.

No matter what I say, you won't accept it. But thank you for backing up my argument. This is exactly 1936 Berlin because if this goes through, I will lose my vote. And so will you.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp, having reflected on your argument over night I have come to the conclusion that you are still incorrect.

The constitution says Membership of the NASRPC shall be open to Target Shooting Clubs, on payment to the Association of a prescribed affiliation fee, such fee being agreed by the Committee at the Annual General Meeting.

If you are talking about voting rights the fact that there was voting by individual members outside of that definition doesn't mean it was right.
Think about it for a second, the membership is the club, the voting should be with the club. According to valhalla rent a mob from last year has shown individual votes are dangerous.

The club should have a set of rules in place to take up the points the members make on various matters but that is neither here nor there.

NASRPC is an organisation of clubs working for clubs throughout the country. It is only right the vote goes equally per club. They all pay the same they should all get the same rights.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp, having reflected on your argument over night I have come to the conclusion that you are still incorrect.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, but you still get your say. Which you won't do if this constitution is passed.

If you are talking about voting rights the fact that there was voting by individual members outside of that definition doesn't mean it was right.
Think about it for a second, the membership is the club, the voting should be with the club. According to valhalla rent a mob from last year has shown individual votes are dangerous.

I've also shown you twice where it says in the Constitution that the Authority rests with the members in attendance at either the AGM or the EGM. That means that they get to vote on any items up for debate. Whether it is right or wrong is neither here nor there. It's what it clearly says in the rules.

The club should have a set of rules in place to take up the points the members make on various matters but that is neither here nor there.

I agree with you here. Clubs should have rules etc. to put forward their member's wishes but that doesn't mean that I think that individual shooters shouldn't have their say either.

NASRPC is an organisation of clubs working for clubs throughout the country. It is only right the vote goes equally per club. They all pay the same they should all get the same rights.

I've no problems with the aims of the NASRPC. More power to them and I hope they go from strength to strength, but without this Constitution. I think it is a bad idea to reduce the rights of over 1000 shooters down to about 15 votes or so.

I also don't think that the rights of the big clubs should outweigh the rights of small clubs, but this Constitution is the wrong way to go about doing that. If the Committee are running things right, then there is no need for these changes.

Vegeta

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've also shown you twice where it says in the Constitution that the Authority rests with the members in attendance at either the AGM or the EGM.

I've no vested interest here but just as a casual observer of the thread, what does the Constitution define as a member? Clubs or individuals?

Gleefulprinter

Vegeta wrote: »

I've no vested interest here but just as a casual observer of the thread, what does the Constitution define as a member? Clubs or individuals?

Seems mostly to be defined as clubs but it gets messed later on.

BattleCorp

It isn't 100% clear, but in another part of the Constitution under the heading The Annual General Meeting it clearly says:

All bona fide members of affiliated clubs present at the A.G.M. may vote on any proposal put forward during proceedings.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what has happened at every AGM since I've been shooting.

Vegeta

BattleCorp wrote: »

It isn't 100% clear, but in another part of the Constitution under the heading The Annual General Meeting it clearly says:




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what has happened at every AGM since I've been shooting.

Ah ok that's very straight forward at least. Thanks for the replies folks

clivej

Vegeta wrote: »

I've no vested interest here but just as a casual observer of the thread, what does the Constitution define as a member? Clubs or individuals?

From what I know and may be wrong on this............

At an EGM members are/is a person from an affiliated club, each 'Member' from each club has 1 vote.

AT the AGM the members are the members/people of an affiliated club. Each 'Member' has 1 vote.

AT all the AGM's I have attend I have been able to cats my vote on..
The Election of officers.
The official minutes of the officers.
Any and all the proposals put forward on the night.
ETC.

With this new constitution I/We/You will not have a vote at the AGM.

BattleCorp

clivej wrote: »

From what I know and may be wrong on this............

At an EGM members are/is a person from an affiliated club, each 'Member' from each club has 1 vote.

AT the AGM the members are the members/people of an affiliated club. Each 'Member' has 1 vote.

AT all the AGM's I have attend I have been able to cats my vote on..
The Election of officers.
The official minutes of the officers.
Any and all the proposals put forward on the night.
ETC.

With this new constitution I/We/You will not have a vote at the AGM.

The notice of the EGM on the NASRPC website says that it is one vote per club.

That seems to be at odds regarding what is in the Authority section of the current Constitution (open to debate if it's the current one or not) on their website.

Authority

The ultimate authority within the Association shall be the members assembled in the Annual or Extraordinary General Meeting.

If this means we get an individual vote at the AGM, it means that it's the same voting procedure for the EGM.

Can anybody from the NASRPC clarify this please? What is the correct version of the constitution?

Valhalla18

BattleCorp wrote: »

The notice of the EGM on the NASRPC website says that it is one vote per club.

That seems to be at odds regarding what is in the Authority section of the current Constitution (open to debate if it's the current one or not) on their website.


If this means we get an individual vote at the AGM, it means that it's the same voting procedure for the EGM.

Can anybody from the NASRPC clarify this please? What is the correct version of the constitution?

As friend of mine wrote to the nasrpc asking for clarification. Still awaiting an answer. ðŸ™

xesse

My memory is not as good as it should be but....does anyone know has the NASRPC ever had an EGM before?

LB6

Not that I'm aware of!

BattleCorp

There are two big issues regarding this EGM as far as I can see.

1. Can the Constitution be amended at an EGM?
2. Who can vote at an EGM?

Firstly, the Constitution displayed on the NASRPC website says that the Constitution can be changed at either an AGM or EGM. The previous version of the Constitution says that the Constitution can only be changed at an AGM.

Which version of the Constitution is correct? The Constitution displayed on the NASRPC website says that it was amended in April 2016. I'm curious about this. On what authority was it amended? I was at the 2016 AGM and there was no vote on any proposal to allow the Constitution to be altered at an EGM. If this is the case, then the currently displayed Constitution is incorrect. Therefore the Constitution in effect is the same one that was in effect in 2015 and this doesn't allow the Constitution to be altered at an EGM.

Secondly, (and this is possibly a moot point given my question above) what are the voting procedures for an EGM? Where are the NASRPC getting the idea that it's one club, one vote instead of the same procedure as the AGM where it is one club member, one vote?

Can anybody from the NASRPC clarify these two points because their silence is deafening?

BattleCorp

Are many from here going to go to the EGM?

Sparks

[Mod note]
Folks, I've deleted a few posts from above which were trying to work out someone's identity on facebook. It might not be obvious from the charter rules, but unless there's a section 8 involved, that kind of thing isn't on and we're not a place to do it. Thanks.
[/Mod note]

BillBen

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are many from here going to go to

Is there any point, they will just shout us down and do what they want to do

BattleCorp

BillBen wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are many from here going to go to

Is there any point, they will just shout us down and do what they want to do

You might be right but I think anybody who has an interest in the organisation should go. I don't think that we should allow ourselves to be rode roughshod across through the introduction of a Constitution in a manner that may not be valid.

I considered myself a member of the NASRPC last year. The NASRPC considered me a member last year too because I got to vote at the AGM. I don't see why things should be different at this moment in time. As far as I'm concerned I'm still a member of the NASRPC with voting rights. And my belief is that every other shooter who is a member of an affiliated club has a vote at this meeting too.

Whether the vote should even go ahead needs to be answered first. The NASRPC seem to be very unwilling to answer questions regarding the changing of the Constitution in 2016. If the Constitution was invalidly changed, then there should be no EGM on the new Constitution.

Another question, why the rush to introduce the new Constitution through an EGM. The AGM is due around now. Why did they not do it there? I'm guessing that they don't want everyone voting on the issue. I wonder why that is?

xesse

I'm going and i expect a voting card also.
i am very surprised nobody had any legal advice on this attempted Coup by the powers that be..

Valhalla18

Correct me if im wrong but ,

At the moment you can go to an agm and discuss the topics that are submitted etc , voice your opinion to other shooters from around the country , listen to their versions of events , maybe get more facts about a certain topic if your unsure etc and then cast your vote .

But for the new constitution if it comes into effect there will be one vote per club and each club will be allowed to send in a maximun of 4 submissions.

So each club sends in their submissions ( just to get a club to get their submissions down to 4 will be fun ). When the current nasrpc committee receive these they will then be sent out to all affiliated clubs for them to talk about / vote on at club level i presume. ???
Heres my problem ,
You can only get the views of your own club and not that or other shooters ( other than maybe meeting individuals and talking about stuff over a cup of coffee on the range - not the same in my opinion ). Its just not the same if you dont have an open forum .

So after each club votes on whatever it is i presume they then send in their answers .Each club is then expected to send only one voting representitive to the agm .WHY
At this agm the committee already know the answers to the submissions and whether or not the vote is carried . So why even bother with the farce of having a rep there at all . They have already been told by their club how to vote already so they cannot change the answers .
Just seems like a load of bolliks to me .
The new committee know they have enough clubs in their pockets to carry any votes at the moment so why are they afraid to have an open discussion .Are they afraid that maybe any shooters interested enough to turn up at an agm may have some hard questions to ask ??
The old committee was accused of hiding stuff from clubs / shooters etc so is this not similar .
Just seems wrong .

Gleefulprinter

"The new committee know they have enough clubs in their pockets to carry any votes at the moment" - Interested to know what you mean by that Valhalla.

Is there any indication of what why this vote will go at the EGM? Don't know what to believe out there now.