I have to agree wholeheartedly with what Pascal says. (I took the liberty of starting a new thread, since it was straying from what Daniel was discussing.)

What disappointed me was when they asked how many people read Steve A.'s concours scoring proposal. It was about half, or a little more if you count Daniel's ten fingers. I expected a larger portion of the delegates to take their jobs seriously and familiarize themselves with the agenda items.

Having two sessions would give people a chance to familiarize themselves with more complicated proposals and also to consider some of the unintended consequences like tire ratings.

It would be a bit more work, in the short run, in that a second agenda would have to be developed for the second session, but it will result in much more sound decisions and I think it would save time in the long run. For example, how much time is every slalom chairman is going to have to spend answering tire questions for an entire year while we wait for the next AGM?

Mark Stephenson
Jaguar Club of Central Arizona

Pascal wrote:

Re procedures, I must say there is room for improvement.

As a local club, we rarely have formal board meetings and work on most issues by email. We've done conference call meeting too and that worked although email is far more convenient. it's very easy when it's time to vote on a measure to make the formal motion and then ahve the secretary gathering the votes. So indeed, the intermediate board meeting could be eliminated.

At the AGM, I couldn't believe the amount of discussion taht took place. While discussion is good, a lot could have been done in the 2 months leading to the AGM via the forum. We need to encourage this for 2004. Maybe we should have a distinct forum only for AGM proposals so taht they don't get buried.

Having a 2 months lead time for AGM proposal will help to. This will allow discussion ahead of time and reduce the amount of time spent. I would have prefered, and most delegates, to spend more time looking at the cars on display than sitting in a room.

An incentive might be to limit the amount ot time spent discussing those proposal which where not submitted at least 2 month before.

another thing could be to have 2 morning sessions... this would allow items to be deferred to committes at the first session and give time to committees to meet in the afternoon to review and amend proposals which could be voted on the next morning. complicated from a logistic point of view but useful. Or a longer break at mid day for committes to meet, then have teh delegates recnvene later on the afternoon to vote on proposals tweaked by the committees...

We have a year till the next AGM, let's use that time to improve the way we work.

the trasnparency projector isn't very useful since we have the agenda on paper... having a computer and projector instead would allow the secretary to display amendments live instead of having to reread, etc... lots of time can be saved that way by editing motions live for all to see.

Pascal

Submitted by NE52-32043 on Mon, 03/31/2003 - 10:32

Daniel,

Very well put: "Under no circumstances do you let someone with an overhead projector and a 'cause' to stand up and monopolize a half hour of your meeting." The last agenda item that was considered may have had some merit, but with time running out, that was not the time to put up a complex proposal with extensive language to be considered for the first time by the AGM, and expect it to be voted on. The presenters who had taken the time to prepare a transparency could easily have photocopied the proposal and distributed it to delegates in the morning, before the meeting, so that we would have had time to read and consider it. I'd hate to make the rules so strict that important proposals can't be raised at an AGM, or that amendments to proposals can't be made because there was insufficient notice. But that can't override the need to all proposals at that level to be carefully and fully reviewed and considered.

Obviously, if someone has an issue that is important enough to bring up at an AGM, they ought to give advance notice. It is equally as important that delegates take the time to review proposals and understand them before hand. Our club had a meeting with the delegates and the club Executive Board to discuss each proposal and formulate a club response. It was not left to the whim of the delegates. We came with "marching orders" from our local club officers. Although we had discretion on several items that were unclear, for the bulk of the items we knew what our club wanted and voted accordingly.

The only way to obtain meaningful participation and input into the decision making process, on any level of the club, if to assure that information is available and that those in the decision making process not only familiarize themselves with the relevant materials, but also that all those interested in the issues have a chance to comment and have those comments considered. Things don't always go the way we want them to, but at least if we know our voice was heard and our ideas considered, we can live more happily with the results.

Steve Weinstein, JTC-NJ
'72 E-type 2+2
'89 XJS Coupe

Submitted by ghagopian@jcna.com on Sat, 03/29/2003 - 15:23

Daniel,

If, as you said, 90 % of the important stuff was decided by the JCNA BOD, then I guess they were doing their jobs!

The AGM has in the past, and is expected in the future, to address every proposal put forth on the agenda by JCNA members. I expect that the proposers considered their ideas just as important.

This is not to say that procedural changes could not result in improvements.

Gary Hagopian

Submitted by dthompson@gbc.ca on Fri, 03/28/2003 - 20:31

The answer, George, is to run the meeting more efficiently. Ever hear stories of the little old lady in the back row of the annual meeting of a big corporation who stands up with her 100 shares and monopolizes a bunch of time over some personal tirade?

You have to establish some ground rules at meetings. Motions MUST be published on JCNA.com and in the secretary's package 60 days before the AGM if they are to be called to question/discussion/vote during the AGM. Such motions will be limited to 10 minutes of discussion before they either go to vote or back to committee/original presenter. Anybody who comes in with an idea/proposal/motion after the 60 day time frame can have it added to the agenda for discussion IF there is time after the rest is done. It will NOT be voted on until the next AGM.

Basically, the onus is on everybody to read the material in advance. The president stands up and says "motion #12... everybody has read it.... 10 minutes starting now for discussion...... 10 minutes is up, call to vote... OR.... 10 minutes is up and do not see anything near concensus, we will return to committee/original presenter.

Here is where we perhaps enforce what Mark and Pascal were talking about. You give the committee or original presenter one hour at lunch to come up with a new proposal/motion if they can and re-present it after lunch.

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

All part of running a tight meeting. Under no circumstances do you let someone with an overhead projector and a "cause" to stand up and monopolize a half hour of your meeting.

Daniel

Submitted by SE98-32482CJ on Fri, 03/28/2003 - 19:58

I agree with both of you but did you notice that items that were blown away by logic or other arguments and had no chance of passing (ie: Challenge CUP points) were still brought up. What good is the discussion on the web if someone with a cause ignores the response?

George Camp

Submitted by dthompson@gbc.ca on Fri, 03/28/2003 - 10:36

Agreed guys, agreed. I wouldn't put too much blame on the delegates. Remember, this is the first AGM they've been to under the "new" version of JCNA. The amendments to article 10 were just passed last week. In the old days, 90% of the important decisions were passed at the board level and delegates at the AGM never even heard about them, much less get a chance to vote on them.

We've got a new impetus for openess, education and communication going here, let's build on it.

Daniel