NASRPC EGM (See post #19)

BattleCorp

I've read the minutes of the last AGM and I don't recall the motion to allow the Constitution to be changed at an EGM being voted upon. Neither can anybody else that I've talked to. I'm of the opinion that it wasn't voted upon.

The two problems I have with the upcoming EGM are to do with rules.

1. Was the Constitution changed legitimately?
2. Where is the idea of one club, one vote at an EGM coming from?

I'm not the only person with these concerns by the way.

If the NASRPC want to do things in an open and transparent way, I think they should cancel the EGM and schedule an AGM. It's pretty much time for the AGM anyway as it's about a year since the last one.

The NASRPC could then put forward the new proposed Constitution at the AGM as a motion and have it discussed and voted upon. That would remove my own concerns about the way this proposed Constitution is being introduced. There would then be no confusion over versions of the Constitution, voting rights etc.

If the new proposed Constitution gets voted in at the AGM, so be it. That's democracy at work.

Why the big rush to get the new Constitution in place before the AGM? Is there a reason why the NASRPC don't want shooters voting on this? I think it is too important an issue to leave to 15 or 20 people to decide. We should all have a say.

Valhalla18

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

"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.

Exactly what it says. Of the 20 or so clubs currently affiliated to the nasrpc most of them support them.

clivej

I can't see why and EGM is necessary to carry a vote for a change in the current constitution when the committee already made a change to it in April.

As at last years AGM the present committee had enough clubs in their favour/pockets/rent-a-crowd (enlisted from the bar downstairs) to vote IN any proposals they wanted.

Gleefulprinter

"favour/pockets/rent-a-crowd"

Could you explain what is meant by this? It gets thrown around the place all the time.

clivej

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

"favour/pockets/rent-a-crowd"

Could you explain what is meant by this? It gets thrown around the place all the time.

What it says on the box

Valhalla18

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

"favour/pockets/rent-a-crowd"

Could you explain what is meant by this? It gets thrown around the place all the time.

The fantastic amount of new members a certain club received just in time to be told what way to vote at last year's agm. ( as if you don't know. )

BattleCorp

I wonder do all the members of An Riocht, Bracken, BRC, Courtlough, Donegal, DRC, Eagles, East Coast, Fermoy, Fingal, Gorey, Harbour House, Hilltop, IPAPC, Lough Bo, Munster, Mourne, Rathdrum and I believe Midlands (open to correction on that and apologies if I left anyone out) realise that they currently have a vote as to how the NASRPC administer Gallery Rifle here in Ireland.

I'm guessing that there are well over 1000 members in these clubs.

If the new Constitution is adopted, these 1000 + individual members will lose their vote. Has this been explained to every member of these clubs? I very much doubt it. The votes of 1000+ members would be removed and replaced with 19 or so votes.

Who in their right mind would vote to give up their vote?

Valhalla18

BattleCorp wrote: »

I wonder do all the members of An Riocht, Bracken, BRC, Courtlough, Donegal, DRC, Eagles, East Coast, Fermoy, Fingal, Gorey, Harbour House, Hilltop, IPAPC, Lough Bo, Munster, Mourne, Rathdrum and I believe Midlands (open to correction on that and apologies if I left anyone out) realise that they currently have a vote as to how the NASRPC administer Gallery Rifle here in Ireland.

I'm guessing that there are well over 1000 members in these clubs.

If the new Constitution is adopted, these 1000 + individual members will lose their vote. Has this been explained to every member of these clubs? I very much doubt it. The votes of 1000+ members would be removed and replaced with 19 or so votes.

Who in their right mind would vote to give up their vote?

And not just gallery rifle but it will impact on pistol and bench rest and any other shooting sport currently under the umbrella of the nasrpc.

LB6

Valhalla18 wrote: »

And not just gallery rifle but it will impact on pistol and bench rest and any other shooting sport currently under the umbrella of the nasrpc.

The benchrest, is under it's own NGB called the NRBAI (National Rimfire Benchrest Association of Ireland), is affiliated to the EuropeanRABSF and the WorldRARBF.

Gleefulprinter

LB6 wrote: »

The benchrest, is under it's own NGB called the NRBAI (National Rimfire Benchrest Association of Ireland), is affiliated to the EuropeanRABSF and the WorldRARBF.

I don't think Valhalla is interested in facts.

Makes more sense for an association of clubs to be run by clubs.

And FYI I do not know about the rent a mob last year at the AGM. As far as I am concerned they were all legitimate unless it can be shown otherwise.

Did you ever think enough people had a problem with the old committee that so many turned up?

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

Makes more sense for an association of clubs to be run by clubs.

Do you really think it would be better for you not to have a vote at any future AGM or EGM?

And FYI I do not know about the rent a mob last year at the AGM. As far as I am concerned they were all legitimate unless it can be shown otherwise.

I'm past having an issue with this. No argument with you here.

Did you ever think enough people had a problem with the old committee that so many turned up?

I'll sort of agree with you here too. Yes, there were lots of people who had problems with the old committee.

But what has that got to do with the way this new Constitution is being brought in? Absolutely nothing.

And regarding the old (current) Constitution not being a good document, fair enough, it probably needs to be tidied up. But tidy it up at an AGM where everything is open and transparent, where voting rights are clear and where every version of the Constitution says that it can be done legitimately.

This new Constitution isn't a few minor tweaks correcting errors. It's a disaster for democracy in the NASRPC as it takes away my vote and your vote.

homerhop

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

I don't think Valhalla is interested in facts.

Makes more sense for an association of clubs to be run by clubs.

And FYI I do not know about the rent a mob last year at the AGM. As far as I am concerned they were all legitimate unless it can be shown otherwise.

Did you ever think enough people had a problem with the old committee that so many turned up?

The main issue last year at the agm was accusations of solo runs by a committee member on his own bat which lead to solicitors letters being sent to the minister. There was a lot of discussion here about it. The committee member was heckled at the agm and when it was happening the current chairman stood up in the meeting and stated he had been aware of all said meetings as he had been
Informed before they happened and what the context of each meeting was about so he could pass on the information to the sports coalition. Nice friend to have to let your mate go through the abuse he received.

With reference to the rent a mob, I take it the fact that people there said they didn't even own guns but were told to attend doesn't count. Fact I was there at the agm.

Valhalla18

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

I don't think Valhalla is interested in facts.

At least I can own up if I made a mistake. Hopefully the screen shot of the nasrpc homepage makes it clearer.

BattleCorp

They also claim benchrest as one of their disciplines.

LB6

BC - they may say it's one of their disciplines, but the competitions that are run do not have any effect on the rankings tables for the NGB of the discipline.

It was and always has been a minor detail to the nasrpc, long finger, back of the press, forgotten about discipline, that no committee had ever encouraged to grow.

The NGB of the benchrest is the NRBAI.

clivej

LB6 wrote: »

BC - they may say it's one of their disciplines, but the competitions that are run do not have any effect on the rankings tables for the NGB of the discipline.

It was and always has been a minor detail to the nasrpc, long finger, back of the press, forgotten about discipline, that no committee had ever encouraged to grow.

The NGB of the benchrest is the NRBAI.

And it's only ppl like yourself LB6 that promote and encourage more to shoot benchrest. Well done :)

Any chance more 10/22 AKA semi-auto 22 benchrest comps (2 cards in 10 minutes) will be run this year??

homerhop

clivej wrote: »

And it's only ppl like yourself LB6 that promote and encourage more to shoot benchrest. Well done :)

Any chance more 10/22 AKA semi-auto 22 benchrest comps (2 cards in 10 minutes) will be run this year??

She can bugger off that was my suggestion ðŸ˜

LB6

homerhop wrote: »

She can bugger off that was my suggestion ðŸ˜

lol I never claimed it :-)

But to answer your question - yes Clive - we'll be doing them again this year. We'll keep you informed.

We're not all that bad on the dark side and we've even got comfy seats

clivej

In an Email from my club today.

"We have been informed that the voting procedure is “ONE VOTE PER MEMBER CLUB”; however this does not exclude individual club members from attending this EGM."

BattleCorp

clivej wrote: »

In an Email from my club today.

"We have been informed that the voting procedure is “ONE VOTE PER MEMBER CLUB”; however this does not exclude individual club members from attending this EGM."

I'd love for someone to show me where it says in the Constitution that I don't have a vote at the EGM. Because I can't find it written down there anywhere.

BattleCorp

I've had a look at the current Constitution on the NASRPC website. I know lots of people have questions regarding the validity of it but lets put that aside for the time being and assume that it's correct.

Here is the part of the Constitution that covers an EGM.

Extraordinary General Meeting

An E.G.M. of the Association shall only be called by the Association Secretary on the instructions of the committee, or by written request of at least one third of the association membership. Only the specific business of the meeting shall be transacted at such a meeting. The Secretary shall give 30 (thirty) days notice in writing to the affiliated Clubs of such a meeting, stating the date, time, venue and business to be transacted.

That's all it says about the EGM. It does not say anywhere that it's only clubs that get a vote. It doesn't mention voting at all.

Moving on, there is conflicting information in the Constitution regarding voting at the AGM.

In the section labelled "The Annual General Meeting" it says the following:

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

and then in the section labelled "Voting Procedures at Annual General Meetings" it says:

On each motion duly submitted to an Annual General Meeting, each member Club shall be entitled to vote.

Given that we have all had a vote at all AGM's this decade and longer, I take it that the NASRPC are happy that the "bona fide members of affiliated clubs" part is the correct one. The current Committee were, after all, elected by 'bona fide' club members and not the clubs themselves.

So, if the current voting method is bona fide club members, where in the name of God are the NASRPC getting the idea that it's only clubs that get a vote at the EGM?

Valhalla18

What a load of BOLLOCKS. Clubs who support this should be ashamed of themselves. The current nasrpc committee are pushing through rules that are illegal under the current constitution. Shame on them aswell. What's next , anyone who opens their mouth against the nasrpc to voice their opinion will be banned. Oh wait , that's in this new constitution they are pushing through.

Gleefulprinter

The whole issue of who is and is not a member is confusing. The constitution needs to spell it out correctly.
BattleCorp if you look at Appendix 1 it says "Once associate membership has been awarded, these groups or individuals (associated
providers) will then have the right to advertise their goods or services through the NASRPC Newsletter".

Seems clear to me that you are a member if you pay your fees directly to the NASRPC to become an associate member. Otherwise you are a member of your own club.
As I said before it needs to be corrected in the constitution and a proper meaning of membership needs to be introduced.
I think it should be that an individual is a member of a club which is in turn a member of the NASRPC. Makes the most sense.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

The whole issue of who is and is not a member is confusing. The constitution needs to spell it out correctly.
BattleCorp if you look at Appendix 1 it says "Once associate membership has been awarded, these groups or individuals (associated
providers) will then have the right to advertise their goods or services through the NASRPC Newsletter".

Seems clear to me that you are a member if you pay your fees directly to the NASRPC to become an associate member. Otherwise you are a member of your own club.
As I said before it needs to be corrected in the constitution and a proper meaning of membership needs to be introduced.
I think it should be that an individual is a member of a club which is in turn a member of the NASRPC. Makes the most sense.

I'm agreeing with you to some extent. Yes, the current Constitution isn't clear on certain matters and this needs to be rectified.

The problem I have is with how the NASRPC are going about changing the Constitution. There are legitimate ways to change the Constitution, however I don't believe that the NASRPC are doing this according to the rules.

In the absence of clear guidance (rules written down in the Constitution) regarding voting at an EGM, the same voting procedure for an AGM should be used. And that's even if a vote on the Constitution can take place at an EGM as there is doubt to the validity of the version of the Constitution posted on the NASRPC website.

Like I've said in earlier posts, vote on this matter at an AGM where everyone can vote and that would remove all concerns regarding how this Constitution is being introduced. Let everyone vote fair and square. That's the most democratic way.

As things stand, it looks like the NASRPC are making up the rule about one club/one vote to suit their own agenda.

Gleefulprinter

BattleCorp wrote: »

As things stand, it looks like the NASRPC are making up the rule about one club/one vote to suit their own agenda.

I agree with this to an extent!
The rules about the club/vote and who can vote in what could be interpreted in any manner.
Suppose it did go to an AGM. After that I guarantee some shooters would start the "It wasn't properly done and it should have been an EGM so it isn't valid".
Has to be interpreted at some point by the committee to bring about the change.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

I agree with this to an extent!
The rules about the club/vote and who can vote in what could be interpreted in any manner.
Suppose it did go to an AGM. After that I guarantee some shooters would start the "It wasn't properly done and it should have been an EGM so it isn't valid".
Has to be interpreted at some point by the committee to bring about the change.

Some people will always complain. Give them €100 and they'll complain that you didn't give them €110.

But if everyone gets a vote on the Constitution at the AGM, then less people will complain because the current rules allow for that to happen.

I think most logical minded people would accept things they didn't like if everybody got a vote and the majority voted for it. It's a lot harder to accept something you don't like if you are excluded from voting on the matter because the NASRPC Committee made up a rule to suit themselves.

badaj0z

The current constitution is the same as it has been for the last few years with one major exception which relates to EGMs. Prior to the AGM held in January of last year, voting at AGMs was from the floor (only recently, previously it was only by clubs) and voting at EGMs was by clubs. Also, the constitution could only be altered at an AGM, not at an EGM. The major change at the last AGM was to allow the constitution to be changed at an EGM. See below from the minutes, recently circulated:

Motion – David Hayes
Under Section “ Amendments to the Constitution” That: “Amendments to the Constitution
of the NASRPC shall be agreed only at an Annual General Meeting.”
Be replaced by:
“Amendments to the Constitution of the NASRPC, shall be agreed at the Annual General
Meeting or an Extraordinary General Meeting”
● Motion Carried Unanimously

It therefore follows that the proposed EGM to change the constitution is valid ,according to the constitution, and only clubs can vote, one vote per club.

It would have been of enormous help in this debate, if the minutes and documented proceedings of the affairs of the NASRPC had been handed over to the incoming committee after the last AGM. I do not know if this happened. Perhaps if the previous secretary of the NASRPC is looking at this thread he may like to enlighten us on this?

LB6

I was there for the whole meeting - I do NOT recall that happening. And as that only came from the "ABRIDGED" minutes of the meeting, it's not actually proper and above board. By the way, who seconded the motion? not noted? no, because it never happened......

badaj0z

Are you saying that all of these minutes are not correct LB6?



Following a short recess , the new chairman brought the meeting back to order and discussed
the following
● Updating E-mail contacts for each club and point of contact including mobile number
● Question on 2016 Competition Calendar for Jeff McCann, When will it be ready?
● Action of Committee : moved 4 motions out, seconded the remainder
Motion – Donall McGroary
NASRPC Calendar year to commence on 1st day of March and finish on the last day of
february in the following year
● Motion Carried
Motion – Donall McGroary
50% of the money raised by a national competition run by the NASRPC would remain
with the affiliated club and 50% would be retained by the NASRPC.
● Motion Rejected
Motion – Clive Jackson
From each NASRPC national and International event held that 10% (ten Percent) of the
NET takings (profits) , after all expenses involved in running the said event are deducted,
should be given back to the Club where the event was held. And that if a loss is made by
the NASRPC from running said event that the NASRPC suffer that loss.
● Motion Rejected
Meeting Minutes : 2015 Annual General Meeting : National Associtation of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs
Motion – Gerry McCarthy
That no member of the committee serve more than two consecutive terms regardless of
the position on the committee.
● Motion Withdrawn
Motion – Noel Thompson
That a portion of all monies raised from NASRPC competitions be put aside to help fund
the international teams’ travel expenses.
● Motion Carried
Motion – Adam Smyth
I would like to propose a motion to get some clarification on the course of events recently
which led to An riocht claiming they are excluded from the NASRPC.
● Motion withdrawn
Motion – Adam Smyth
(My third motion. - Relates to conduct of committee members). That no one member can
verbally or otherwise bring the NASRPC into disrepute by verbally or otherwise
castigating another member, and that any member who feels so aggrieved, is entitled to
formally petition the committee and seek the removal of that person from the committee if
found to be in breach of this condition.
● Motion Carried Unanimously
Motion – David Hayes
Under Section “ Amendments to the Constitution” That: “Amendments to the Constitution
of the NASRPC shall be agreed only at an Annual General Meeting.”
Be replaced by:
“Amendments to the Constitution of the NASRPC, shall be agreed at the Annual General
Meeting or an Extraordinary General Meeting”
● Motion Carried Unanimously
Motion – David Hayes
That € 10 per person member per affiliated club agreed at the 2014 AGM be removed
forthwith.
● Motion Carried Unanimously

clivej

LB6 wrote: »

I was there for the whole meeting - I do NOT recall that happening. And as that only came from the "ABRIDGED" minutes of the meeting, it's not actually proper and above board. By the way, who seconded the motion? not noted? no, because it never happened......

Same here, never happened.
AND....... it was not in any Emails send out before the AGM that stated what the motions for discussion at the AGM were on the agenda.
Maybe it was voted on in the pub after the AGM finished.

And according to these minutes it was voted on between the motions I put forward and those of LB6 and another HH member