ICU AGM Motions

Irish Kayaking and Canoeing discussion forum.

Moderators:Seanie, EoinH

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm
ICU AGM Motions

Post by Seanie » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:54 pm

Any ideas?

Adrians
Posts:212
Joined:Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:22 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Adrians » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:38 pm

God Sean the way things are its hard to know what to put forward as a motion as the current state of affairs is not overly clear.

I'm not sure how practical it is but I would be keen to see the abolition of the voting bloc and direct proportion system currently in operation at the AGM.

I would be in favour of a direct one vote per person present with the option to postal vote and the proxy vote removed from the technical committees. Having attended AGM's in the past it was my perception that those controlling the large voting groups where dictating the direction of the Union to suit their own agenda without consultation those whom they are meant to represent.

I know it is not as clear cut as that but anyone who has attended an AGM in the past and seen how a small select group can dictate the whole direction of Canoe Ireland often against what would be popular to the general paddling public.

Also such a change would server to include the recreational paddler who is not attached to a club or a competitive paddler.

Of course getting enough votes for such a motion would be like asking turkeys to vote in favour of Christmas

What do people think?

Ken
Posts:49
Joined:Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 pm
Location:DCU
Contact:

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Ken » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:48 pm

How about a motion to require board minutes be published?

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Seanie » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:09 pm

Ken wrote:How about a motion to require board minutes be published?
I like it. I'd add executive board meeting minutes to that too.

Ken
Posts:49
Joined:Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 pm
Location:DCU
Contact:

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Ken » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:39 pm

Is there separate meetings of the executive and the board? in which case yes, a motion that all should be published would be good. I think it could help to clear up much of the confusion and misinformation that seems to be generated about the ICU on a regular basis.

It would probably be a good idea to make some type of specific exclusion for matters which refer to a particular person or persons (I'm thinking disciplinary matters or matters relating to employment) as I'd imagine there are legal considerations here.

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Seanie » Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:29 am

Yes, there are separate meeting of the executive committee.

I agree with the exclusion, but it will have to be very specific.

canned
Posts:83
Joined:Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:37 am

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by canned » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:17 am

Would love to see some sort of college club representation....

leftism
Posts:52
Joined:Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:14 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by leftism » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:25 am

Any motion which increases transparency in our sport can only be a good thing. I think publication of the minutes of board and executive meetings should be mandatory! I'd even stretch it to technical committee meetings too. www.Canoe.ie should have individual pages for each discipline where technical committee members and minutes of meetings can be accessed easily.

User avatar
Seanie
Posts:841
Joined:Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Seanie » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:52 am

Reform the voting system. One person, one vote. Reform how Proxy's work.

Several people at the AGM use proxy's vote cards to represnt members form their club or organisation. In some cases these votes might represent 100 people (100 people =10votes at the AGM), it based on the number of card carrying ICU members in your club. Sometimes one person might represent several organisations or clubs. Some of these proxy votes come from outdoor schools or companies, where the "Chairperson" is actually an employee and there is no committee, and no means to get the members views, in some cases they were just a customer with no long term affiliation with that organisation. They might not know what the ICU AGM is. These proxy's are are often used at the AGM, and they have been the deciding factor for several votes.

Outline of the Motions:
- I would recommend that the block system is scrapped. The block system counts 10 people as being 1 vote. If you attend on your own you cant vote. Each member should have one vote at the agm. (I think company law would dictate that we would have to do it this way soon or later anyway.)

- Proxy's could still be accommodated. But the club or organisation would have to get an individuals signature on a proxy form beside the members name thats giving a committee member the power of proxy for their vote.

kev
Posts:30
Joined:Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:41 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by kev » Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:25 pm

I'd like to see a cap on the length of time you can serve on the executive to avoid burnout.

Adrians
Posts:212
Joined:Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:22 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by Adrians » Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:31 pm

Kev,

There is a cap on the amount of constitutive terms you can serve on the executive, funny enough the executive a couple of years ago tried to remove this cap in a real shady manor.

Adrain

kev
Posts:30
Joined:Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:41 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by kev » Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:42 pm

Sorry my bad so, I had thought that the change had gone through in 2008. The download section of the icu site seems to be off line at the minute so couldnt check, but thats good news so

dave f
Posts:18
Joined:Thu May 01, 2008 12:12 pm

Re: ICU AGM Motions

Post by dave f » Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:55 pm

I'm certain a cap was brought in, like Adrian I thought it was 2008, could have been 2009...it was the AGM held at Kilcullen that this rule was brought in. The reason I remember was one of the ICU executive members lost their seat, accidentally, as a result of the rule change. I think the rule was that a person could not serve in the same role for more than 3 terms. The person who was being proposed had already served those terms and could not be reelected. There was distinct displeasure from ICU management as a result.

My two cents worth


Dave

Post Reply