Ducati Sporting Club UK > DesmoDue Race Series > DesmoDue - General Questions and Chat > User Moderation

[phoenix n max]

Originally Posted by Ian

Lynn, - all members signed to accept the club rules/constitution/terms(?) that are on the back of your membership form, there is no provision for an EGM within those rules. The MT have agreed (they did not have to, but listened to requests and opinion) to a new constitution/rules to which all members were invited for input, - 1 member turned up at the meeting!

Really ? So it's not a 'club' then ? Because thats not how I see a 'club' working at all In fact - is that even legal ?

[JPM]

Originally Posted by Ian

Lynn, - all members signed to accept the club rules/constitution/terms(?) that are on the back of your membership form, there is no provision for an EGM within those rules. The MT have agreed (they did not have to, but listened to requests and opinion) to a new constitution/rules to which all members were invited for input, - 1 member turned up at the meeting!

Ian,My understand was the new constitution was brought about because the old "existing" constitution was not legal and was heavily flawed and contradicted itself on several points????

[khushy]

Originally Posted by JPM

Ian,My understand was the new constitution was brought about because the old "existing" constitution was not legal and was heavily flawed and contradicted itself on several points????

well suited to the DSC then???


Khushy

[CK]

oy, slow down - its taking me ages to copy & paste, just in case the thread gets pulled

[Redruth]

Ian,

My comment referred to your opening line in that e-mail, which you may have felt was justified given my 11th hour involvement in the constitution redrafting, or it may simply have been an inoccuous introduction to the main body of your text.

The thought that 'you were aware' of something, in the light of these revelations about PM's, does make me very uncomfortable. As we haven't discussed anything directly, you may have gleaned this particular 'awareness' from another member's comments, rather than from PM's, in which case I apologise.

In the words of Paul James, I am a staunch member of the DSC and I shall wait for the AGM to raise this, and other issues. In the meantime, I shan't be using 'PM's' until we are all assured that they are what they claim to be, private.

[JPM]

Come on Charlotte I know you're quicker than this From memory the existing constitution was heavily leaning towards the MT rather than it's members, the members didn't have much if any say of who's on the MT and what happens to the DSC's funds and who's accountable etc. I'm sure I could probably find the old constitution and the old posts regarding the issues back then...I guess if needed I/we could clarify the need for a new constitution by contacting Gizmo.... he'll be in darkest Wales today as he's down there doing some testing, but I'm sure he's contactable if needed

[CK]

Jon
I think the MT need to question WHY there was such a poor turnout to consult over this document.
From the one that AK got, I raised my eyebrows just a tad, in suprise that Gizmo had not quite covered items that should have been covered.
Maybe these points were raised by emails tho from members - no doubt you will see them in the next pronto tho
(I have been involved in doing 2 constitutions for a national club and also an International club, so like to think I have a reasonable idea as to what ought to be there )

Ref the electing of the MT at the AGM (has been mentioned on several threads today) at present only 3 of the current MT stand down at the beginning of the AGM,(as they are not able to serve more than 3 years without re-election at present) they are then eligible for re-election at the AGM.
Anyone else who wishes to stand has to get their nomination to the MT within a certain time before the AGM, along with info about how their skills can be of service to the MT in the job.
However, what I cant find (and didnt in 2004, 2005 & 2006), is information as to WHO is going to step down each year, until you actually get the the AGM.

This will prove a bit of a problem for prospective MT members, in not knowing which positions to apply for.

Finally, of the total number on the MT at present there are a couple of people - who having been co-opted since the AGM was held - cannot vote on any issues at the MT meetings.

However, I stand to be corrected about my comments on the above.

C

[Ian]

Ruth, - I do not doubt your staunchness.


Lynn it would actually be more illegal to change the terms that members have signed up to, although questioning the legality of a private members club is quite strange, - a private members club can be whatever it wants to be as long as it does not operate outside of the law, - although even then it can, - golf clubs with men only areas (???). The club constitution could have insisted on ownership of Red Ducati’s only!!! - people have a choice when they join, - read the rules, agree with them, join; so the MT has a duty to stick to those rules for the term of their membership. The MT cannot change the constitution at the drop of a hat as members have signed to join the club under that constitution; - notice has to be given to all members that their terms of membership are going to change, thereby giving all members the opportunity to say that they do not agree with them so they will not renew. In truth a new constitution should be voted in at the next AGM, and then it come into being at the following AGM; members have a right to operate under the rules that they signed for (sorry repeating myself). However the MT are going to put out a recommendation to the entire membership via post that the new constitution is accepted and carried forward from the next AGM.

JPM, - my take on the change of constitution was that times have changed, so we needed different rules inline with website use, and different positions within the MT etc.. As I have said above a private members constitution cannot really be illegal as members have a choice to abide by the rules and join, - nobody is forced. If potential members were not shown the rules then there would be a case, - or if we changed those rules part way through their membership.

The truth is that the MT did not have to listen to the request for change, - we could have thrown it out using the existing rules, - a member could have proposed it to be heard at the next AGM, a year taken for deliberation and then it come into being at the 2008 AGM. The MT has a massive image issue right now (something that I said in Saturday’s MTM), in my opinion it needs somebody like Lily who works in this field to work with us to get us back on line, - the very sad thing with all of this is that pre the last AGM I think a lot of people had some very good ideas about change for the club, but since that AGM, the personal campaign against certain members of the MT has continued (even an attempted vote at the Cadwell meeting) as has the campaign to take away a member asset from the members. It was clear to me at Brands SBK that members have had enough of the continued politics, - it has got to a point of the MT now having to do something, before the club implodes.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by CK

Finally, of the total number on the MT at present there are a couple of people - who having been co-opted since the AGM was held - cannot vote on any issues at the MT meetings.

However, I stand to be corrected about my comments on the above.

C

CK, - membership of the MT has to be ratified by the membership, - are you saying that I could bring in a mate, co-opt him or her in up until the AGM and they could vote on material decisions to do with the club? I am sure that you would complain if that was the case. Those members of the MT (Paul S and Flanks) who are not ratified are just as able to put across their points at a meeting as I am. – And actually Flanks did vote on Saturday as although his vote may not be official his opinion was required for the record.

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by Ian

Ruth, - I do not doubt your staunchness.


Lynn it would actually be more illegal to change the terms that members have signed up to, although questioning the legality of a private members club is quite strange, - a private members club can be whatever it wants to be as long as it does not operate outside of the law, - although even then it can, - golf clubs with men only areas (???). The club constitution could have insisted on ownership of Red Ducati’s only!!! - people have a choice when they join, - read the rules, agree with them, join; so the MT has a duty to stick to those rules for the term of their membership. The MT cannot change the constitution at the drop of a hat as members have signed to join the club under that constitution; - notice has to be given to all members that their terms of membership are going to change, thereby giving all members the opportunity to say that they do not agree with them so they will not renew. In truth a new constitution should be voted in at the next AGM, and then it come into being at the following AGM; members have a right to operate under the rules that they signed for (sorry repeating myself). However the MT are going to put out a recommendation to the entire membership via post that the new constitution is accepted and carried forward from the next AGM.

JPM, - my take on the change of constitution was that times have changed, so we needed different rules inline with website use, and different positions within the MT etc.. As I have said above a private members constitution cannot really be illegal as members have a choice to abide by the rules and join, - nobody is forced. If potential members were not shown the rules then there would be a case, - or if we changed those rules part way through their membership.

The truth is that the MT did not have to listen to the request for change, - we could have thrown it out using the existing rules, - a member could have proposed it to be heard at the next AGM, a year taken for deliberation and then it come into being at the 2008 AGM. The MT has a massive image issue right now (something that I said in Saturday’s MTM), in my opinion it needs somebody like Lily who works in this field to work with us to get us back on line, - the very sad thing with all of this is that pre the last AGM I think a lot of people had some very good ideas about change for the club, but since that AGM, the personal campaign against certain members of the MT has continued (even an attempted vote at the Cadwell meeting) as has the campaign to take away a member asset from the members. It was clear to me at Brands SBK that members have had enough of the continued politics, - it has got to a point of the MT now having to do something, before the club implodes.

I'd suggest you read the current club rules Ian......

The new constitution can be proposed by MT NOW - under the terms of the current rules a majority of members must disagree for it not to go ahead ( no procedures are outlined, another example of the poor wording and lack of accountability). this would mean the new rules are in place prior to AGM and members can then get the democratic changes they requested at last AGM. Delaying it will only cause further problems and could be perceived as some as another attempt to maintain a status quo.

Under the current rules MT can do almost whatever they like and without consultation, this is not a satisfactory situation for any "members club" and needs addressing quickly, the consequences of not doing so are plain to see.