Moss Trooper Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Just so you fine folks know I have posted a thread on GAGB forum that you may be interested in..Vent My Spleen Moss the Boss... Sorta Quote Link to comment
+The Spokes Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Went there read it your WRONG. Keith Quote Link to comment
+Rocky Balboa Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 I started playing this game because it was fun, kept me entertained when I had a few spare hours and gave me the oppertunity to see some great sights I would otherwise pass by. Since this whole thing kicked off the whole state of play has changed with this hobby. I may not be the most knowledgable member of this community, or the most teched up but I do know 1 thing, things were better when I started caching in Feb '02. It's obvious very few are out there to cause problems & this is not meant as a dig at any person/s, but please, for the sake of what we all love doing, can we just work together, talk about things without having to stoop to insults & in general remember why we are all here, because we love the sport we all play. In the end it is nothing more than that, we don't need rivalry, we don't need tension, we just need a GPS and a set of coords, maybe even an inflatable boat sometimes I don't know if I speak on behalf of anyone but myself but I want caching to go back to its roots, it's time to stick together and to enhance, not destroy the foundations we have laid. Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?! Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk - Stash Notes, forums & Much more... Quote Link to comment
+Chris n Maria Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Move along Nothing to see here... Quote Link to comment
+Chris n Maria Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Dan Wilson:<snip> I for one completly agree with you Dan. Now where can I buy a sense of perspective ? Chris If only life had an undo button.... London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net Quote Link to comment
+Richard & Beth Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Dan Wilson: I don't know if I speak on behalf of anyone but myself but I want caching to go back to its roots, it's time to stick together and to enhance, not destroy the foundations we have laid. Whilst I agree with the sentiments, it's not true to say that everything was quiet and peaceful before Feb 02. Most notably in the UK there was the saga of a certain person, which at the time, and on a number of occasions since resulted in caches being pulled, or the threat of pulling caches. Even before then there were rows in the geocaching community that resulted in the other geocaching sites, in the person who hid the first cache falling out with GC.com and so on. To be honest whilst we'd all like everybody to get on, and that people on both sides of the current arguments have good intentions, I seriously doubt if that will happen. As with any group some element of group politics comes in. There is public discussion on forums such as this, and at GC:UK and GAGB, and then private discussion over e-mail, MSN, and at cacher meets. All of which contributes to the politics. Whilst a lot of the time it seems that by only looking at the forums people have overeacted, perhaps it is due to the private discussions rather than what has been said in public. IMHO it happens in any organisation or group of people, whether that be Geocachers, in a company or in the government. People are always going to have different aims and opinions, and there will always be times when these different aims and opinions will lead to arguments and conflict. It's just a fact of life. As an example, one of my workmates has just told me about this... Apparently one of the groups that dress up as Star Wars characters is currently going through arguments over realism. One group says that when in costume, members should always be in character, the other said there should be exceptions, for example having a sandwich or going to the loo. However the first group maintains that as we never saw a Storm Trooper eat a sandwich or use the loo in the films, then without guidance from George Lucas people dressed as Storm Troopers aren't allowed to go to the loo in sight of the public. It all sounds totally trivial, but to those people involved, it is serious enough to split. Richard Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 An association can/should draw up a constitution for itself (usually proposed by a committee and approved by a vote of members.) Within that constitution an association can draw up requirements of membership, for which some laws of the land (eg: sexual/racial equality regulations) do not apply. However, I don't think that that constitution can bar a full member from standing for committee. I also beleive that a member/group of members can not bar any full member (proposed and seconded by other full members) from standing for committee. It is upto the membership as a whole to decide if they want that person as part of the election process (who's rules should be defined in the constitution.) To bar a member from standing for election is, if not actually illegal (which it could be,) unjustifiable in my opinion. If the person is said to have a conflict of interests, it's for the membership to decide if that conflict is a problem worthy of not having that person on the committee, and they decide that with their votes. The only other related issue I have experience of is co-opting of committee members by a vote of the committee if there is space available on that committee. This should be done after any election to make numbers up only.... again the maximum and minimum number of committee members should be stated in the constitution. As far as I can see the refusal to let a member stand is unconstitutional, possibly illegal, and most definately wrong. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Just going from memory, now because I don’t have the time to search through all the postings… When Moss was proposed for membership of the GAGB committee he was geocaching.com approver of caches in the UK. Some people, me included, had a problem with that. It’s a precarious path you tread when you try to wear two different hats simultaneously. Very few manage it successfully. I’m not sure which came first but Moss subsequently withdrew his committee nomination and also resigned his post as geocaching.com UK approver. I’m not aware that he resigned from the GAGB so now, as far as I can see, there is no objection to Moss being a GAGB committee member as there would not be any apparent ‘conflict of interests’. The only problem, as I see it, is that having withdrawn his nomination, nobody re-proposed him for membership after he resigned his ‘approvership’ and the nominations are now closed. Personally, I would be happy to see his name amongst those currently being voted for and even at this late stage, I would have no objection to his nomination being re-instated. John Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 well put... I suggest that his proposal is still valid... if he still wishes to stand, but feel that any COI would apply to each and every member as we all have our vision for caching... as long as the COI didn't become an issue, whereby the committee could deal with this, and if deemed desirable vote somebody off committee. I am currently unable to post to GAGB as my password is lost and the bot won't e-mail me another??!! So I guess my votes won't be accepted! Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by NattyBooshka:...but feel that any COI would apply to each and every member as we all have our vision for caching... as long as the COI didn't become an issue, whereby the committee could deal with this, and if deemed desirable vote somebody off committee. As one of the new GAGB committee’s first task presumably would be to draw up some sort of constitution (and I’m suggesting this without having any previous committee experience of any sort). Wouldn’t one way out of this problem in the future be to make one of the constitutions rules state that no GAGB committee member can be an elected or appointed official of any other geocaching orientated body. Would that be legal or ethical? John Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Again, limited experience... but I don't think you can bar a member from standing even within a constitution. A constitution should be drawn up as soon as the elections have taken place though, and given to the members to vote on at an "EGM" for approval. Once in place a constitution cannot be ammended without a members vote, so should be presented at an "AGM" as a norm, or "EGM" as an exception. Of cours for AGM and EGM read discussion followed by vote on the relevant forums as we are not really in a position to all pile round the chairman's house... unless he/she is willing and has a well stocked wine cellar and lots of beer of course! Said constitution is then taken as the operating guidelines for the committee. I am willing to send via email a list of such matters that should be included in a constitution to the elected chairman if this is wanted, but as a non-committee member it will not be my place to actually work on this document. I just hope that nothing like this happens again, as it's not good for us to be arguing when there's lots of pubs we can be sat in/outside drinking beer and just having a laugh with each other [This message was edited by NattyBooshka on September 10, 2003 at 04:04 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+Slytherin Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by NattyBooshka:Again, limited experience... but I don't think you can bar a member from standing even within a constitution. Just a thought. I wonder if there is anything in the Labour party's constitution that bars anyone from standing for office if they are an elected official of another political party. The use of the Labour party is just an example. It could apply to any of them. alex. ------------------------------------------------ Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout..... Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by NattyBooshka:I just hope that nothing like this happens again, as it's not good for us to be arguing when there's lots of pubs we can be sat in/outside drinking beer and just having a laugh with each other Yeah... very definitely what he just said!!! John Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Slytherin:I wonder if there is anything in the Labour party's constitution that bars anyone from standing for office if they are an elected official of another political party. A very good point Alex, without being a member of any political party I don't know the specifics... but all MPs and prospective MPs have to declare their intrests up-front... maybe this would be good for GAGB? In such a case as you describe, a member of the Labour party would be unlikely to be nominated for election by the Labour Party if one of his declared intrests was "I'm a member of the Conservative Party." I wonder though if it has ever happened? Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Would a memeber of the Conservative Party be accepted for membership of the Labour Party anyway? John Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Pharisee:Would a memeber of the Conservative Party be accepted for membership of the Labour Party anyway? Yes they would... there have been many occasions where sitting MPs have switched party... this is usually done as a defection, and so resignation from the first party would follow joining the other. Not sure, the second party would demand the resignation of membership of the first, but I guess the former would be expelling that member anyway! Quote Link to comment
+Chris n Maria Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Pharisee:Would a memeber of the Conservative Party be accepted for membership of the Labour Party anyway? Yup and he is prime minister too If only life had an undo button.... London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net Quote Link to comment
+Richard & Beth Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Slytherin:I wonder if there is anything in the Labour party's constitution that bars anyone from standing for office if they are an elected official of another political party. I think a better analogy would be the relationship between a union and the Labour party, rather than two different parties. Having said that I'm not sure whether someone can hold office in both a union and the Labour party, however they can certainly be members of both. Richard Quote Link to comment
+Paul G0TLG Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by NattyBooshka:Again, limited experience... but I don't think you can bar a member from standing even within a constitution. You can...a body which isn't a registered charity can do more or less whatever it wants (ask Booshka's Dad about some of the rules of an organisation he and I both belong to!). Even a registered charity can bar members from standing for committee under certain circumstances: Examples I know of are, not been a full member for a certain period of time, or, has served on committee for X years and must take an enforced rest. Paul A member of the Geocaching Association of Great Britain Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Sure... I used to belong there too! For my sins, I served on a committee there... and the constitution had to be shown to magistrates... not sure if this was just an alcohol thing. The thing is, the examples that you gave, being in a constitution, would have been voted for by the members. Also an organization is exempted from some rules, but not all of the rules. It comes under "private club" law for want of better words and is there to protect working men's clubs and the likes from lawsuits pertaining to discrimination. GAGB would, probably, benefit from a "one full year membership before standing for election" rule, next year! As for enforced stand-downs after X years... this is a good thing, as it stops people thinking they own the place (as a couple of people did on the above mentioned committee I served on.) I never heard of anybody being barred from a committee of an organization they have been accepted into for any other reason though. The looser laws surrounding private clubs is associated with joining. As the assocaition we're talking about here doesn't have a constitution agreed by the members, I don't see why somebody should be stopped from standing as the members can decide for themselves on the "COI" issue as they vote. I still feel that to discriminate against someone on a percieved COI that may or may not affect they way they do the job is wrong, but they should be brought to task if it manifests itself in their actions as a member of that committee. The only thing that I heard of close to the situation GAGB had was somebody opposing a nomination for committee at the AGM, therby forcing a vote on the person standing... silly as they were just about to vote on whether or not to elect the guy! Quote Link to comment
+John Stead Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Interesting as this debate on constitutional matters may be, are we not getting a bit off topic? This started when Moss compared the objections to him being an approver for G.COM and a canditate for GAGB, with the nomination of a central figure of G:UK for the same post. I am afraid that I don't see G:UK as an organization with members but a resource which we can use or not use as we choose. I don't see therefore that involvement with G:UK precludes service to GAGB. Yes I am aware that actions of individuals both in G:UK and GAGB have caused offence to others and that there is some animosity, but I don't see that as a valid reason to challenge an individual's suitability for the committee. Surely better for differences to be aired and resolved in a committee than in public especially as I believe that some of the ill feeling that exists results from failures of communication in the past. Happy to be member of GAGB and user of GeocacheUK Quote Link to comment
+Flackadder Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I would like to make a nice sensible adult reply, but I really think I may well be wasting my time. Bob.... http://www.bobh.co.uk 'Life, it's a game with one serious bit - geocaching!' Quote Link to comment
+Grynneman Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Shouldn't this GAGB issue be just kept to the GAGB forum? Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Grynneman (L & S):Shouldn't this GAGB issue be just kept to the GAGB forum? Sorry at the time of my first coments I was unable to talk on the forums there... I now fell I've said my peice on this matter. I just hpe that the elected committee can make more sensible decisions than this one. Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by jstead:Surely better for differences to be aired and resolved in a committee than in public especially as I believe that some of the ill feeling that exists results from failures of communication in the past. I agree John, however, at this time we are in the process of electing the committee. Committee elections would normally form part of an AGM, which would technically be a committee meeting, with a chance for members to air their views. My comments on here started when I was unable to post to GAGB forums... the 'bot there wouldn't issue me with a password change for some reason. This has now been resolved, so I intend to make any points I wish to discuss on the GAGB forum from now until the election process is over. Once a committee is formed I will "fall in-line" so to speak and e-mail any future points to a committee member/Mr and Madam Chairman for discussion at committee. Quote Link to comment
+Eckington Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Grynneman (L & S):Shouldn't this GAGB issue be just kept to the GAGB forum? Hi Guys, Grynneman is correct of course, but I understand Nattyb's reasons for utilisuing these forums to discuss an important UK issue. Thankyou all for the points you have raised, they have been relevant and interesting, but if you could switch channels now and continue elsewhere............... .........unless of course you wish to raise issues that are gc.com related! Eckington Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.