I realize it's only been a couple weeks, but I'm still trying to figure out how the Driven Division trailering rule got passed. I would really like it if Sherman or someone could post the BoD and AGM minutes. All I've been able to find is the synopsis on the AGM page of the web site. If it's already been posted, could someone provide a link? This should include the vote tallies for the various agenda items, correct?
Could we also get the proxy assignments and absentee club list posted on the web site?
There are a lot of rumors floating around right now, and it would go a long way to restoring a modicum of faith and credibility in the voting process if this information was made public as soon as possible.
This should all be public information that is readily available. If the information is in the process of being compiled, can we get a date when it will be available?
Thanks,
Submitted by NE08-35179J-J on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 17:29
Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 01:41
Detailed AGM minutes posted anywhere? How about vote counts?
Good point, Daniel.
My thought was if they were listed, it would bring positive attention to the club for having gone to the trouble to have a member attend. I guess to build upon your metaphor, it would be like the guy who had the wisdom to get the root canal compared to the person who just let his teeth fall out. ;-)
Submitted by coudamau@yahoo.com on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 11:56
Detailed AGM minutes posted anywhere? How about vote counts?
Daniel,
Mark's comments and those of others, myself included, speak to the need for a suspension of the new trailering rule until a thorough review of this years' AGM proceedings can take place. Such a review would determine whether JCNA By-Laws and RobertsÔÇÖ Rules of Order have, in fact, been adhered to. At the very least, it would restore needed transparency to those proceedings and dispel much of the controversy that has occurred since.
Submitted by dthompson@gbc.ca on Mon, 04/21/2008 - 08:58
Detailed AGM minutes posted anywhere? How about vote counts?
You'll have to explain to me how forcing JCNA to list the clubs that attended the AGM and which delegates carried proxies will "encourage clubs to attend".
With all the poop that is being slung here, do you really think that the marginal, apathetic clubs WANT to attend an AGM? I think they'd rather have a root canal.
Daniel
Submitted by mark1mark@jagu… on Sun, 04/20/2008 - 12:43
Detailed AGM minutes posted anywhere? How about vote counts?
I think, under the circumstances, getting the AGM minutes posted sooner rather than later would give JCNA members an accurate, official insight into how the trailering amendment was brought to the floor and if there is any alternative to having an ill-conceived rule in place for an entire year.
If the BoD minutes are not made public, they should be. There are a limited number of sensitive issues that most public corporations handle in closed sessions -- employee matters, salary issues, price negotiations with suppliers, etc. -- but issues that deal with the general operation of the business and that directly affect the membership, should be made public.
Finally, I think it's important that JCNA make public what clubs participated in the AGM, which clubs didn't participate, and which delegates carried proxies and for whom. Not only will this encourage clubs to attend, but it will indicate if there's a worrisome concentration of votes in the hands of a few people. At previous AGMs, (perhaps in the agenda?) I've seen a list of clubs present, represented by proxy, and not present or represented by proxy. Was that information available this year? I think we need to add who carried the proxies to that list.
Submitted by coudamau@yahoo.com on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 09:00
Detailed AGM minutes posted anywhere? How about vote counts?
I agree, Mark. A little transparency would go a long way about now. Can you help us out, Sherman?
Yowza All,
Still waiting for Mr. Weinstein to answer my letter detailing my complaint. The legitimacy of this rule is in question. There is not a problem with having a "mechanism" to remove this as technically it doesn't exist.
Now if only our esteemed Counsel would research the matter. Judging by the volume of postings, minus mine, this is still a big enough issue to warrant someone to man-up and do what needs to be done, id est, be accountable. My guess is the BoD is going to see if they can wait this one out. I'm sure the "shredding" is going at "light speed" .
I'd hate to see someone decide to put their own attorney on the issue as it could get very, very costly (meaning the Club would pay dearly) in light of the lack of transparency that seems to be coming from our Counsel.
Yours, Bob Lovell