HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |
BALLOT - WHAT BALLOT??
We have now received a preview of the ACU&S Chairman's statement which is to appear in the next edition of "How's That?" This document has already been circulated within Thames Region, courtesy of the Regional Councillor and Mr Lowden clearly wants all members to join in the debate, so we oblige by providing further opportunity via this forum. The full text of the statement follows:
Human institutions are of two kinds, the traditional and the contrived. Most partake of some element of each, with one or the other predominating. The British monarchy is an obvious example of the traditional; the American constitution is an example of the latter. The difference resides in the fact that, whilst everyone assumes that no human institution lasts forever and that every long-standing institution develops its own customary ethos, contrived institutions look for intellectual justification in terms of the ideologies at the time of their creation, whilst the traditional are judged by the extent to which they are considered useful in practice for the society in which they exist. The one question is 'How well does it work?' and, judging how well it works, one can do worse than first consider how much it is loved by those who share its membership and dwell under its authority.
The above paragraph, which appeared in my annual report, as Regions Co-ordinator, some twelve years ago, is even more pertinent today. The prevailing, unprecedented conditions, that exist within the Association necessitates, if not demands, that each and every one of us ask the question, not 'How well does it work?', but 'How well can we make it Work?' To this end, major questions concerning the future structure of the Association are to be addressed.
During 2005 ECB decided to set up its own Officials Association, and declared an intention to become more involved in the control of umpires and scorers. It was uncertain what that involvement would be, and Officers of ACU&S were authorised to negotiate with ECB. Recognising that no decision affecting the status of ACU&S could be taken without the support of its members, General Council sought authority to canvass that support by a postal ballot of those members, and the appropriate resolution was passed at the SGM in March 2006.
When General Council met on 8th April 2006 there was considerable discussion as to how such a ballot should be conducted.
Any ballot was clearly dependent on some proposals coming from ECB, which the members could accept, or reject. It was agreed ECB would be invited to put their proposals in their own manifesto, which would be distributed to members with the ballot papers.
ECB consider it is premature to ballot members at this stage. ECB appears to be relying on the demise of ACU&S, and to pick up the pieces (?) These are not proposals on which members can be balloted. If members were to join ECBOA en bloc, how would the continuing liabilities of ACU&S be determined? The laptop lease payments have still to be met. What would happen to our administration staff and offices?
At General Council it was agreed that if there was to be a ballot, a second choice would be offered to members. If, and only if, the members voted to remain independent of ECB, they would be offered the further choice, of joining ICU&S, rather than remaining with ACU&S.
It has been repeatedly stated to General Council, and at Executive Board of General Council (EBGC), that ICU&S is a fall back option, to provide an independent alternative in the event that ACU&S may be subsumed by ECB, or we simply could not continue.
ACU&S can continue. Members are not being asked to vote on any ECB proposals, therefore, as ICU&S is only a fall back option, the alternative proposal need not be put, consequently, I can confirm that there will be no ballot for the time being. The decision NOT to hold a ballot was agreed nem con at the EBGC meeting, held on Thursday, 11 May. Those officers who are involved with the Institute proposals stated their continuing commitment to the Association.
The main income of ACU&S is the subscription income it receives from members. That money is received at the start of the financial year, and is already in the Association's bank. Continuous efforts are being made to control expenditure, and the indications are that the Association will survive until the next round of subscriptions are received in November 2006.
Despite all the troubles of the last 18 months, and the threats of members to withdraw from the Association, the evidence belies this. Membership continues to grow, and is this year up by approximately 10% on last year. The number of members attending training courses, and taking and passing the new exams, shows a significant and heartening increase.
What we shall be doing, over the coming months, is asking the question I set out above, "How well can we make it work?"
I would like to invite every member to participate in this exercise. Please tell me, or your Regional Officers, what we need to do to provide a better service for yourself, and to recruit and retain new members.
Geoff Lowden
Chairman
17.05.06
Well Well Well!!! So there's to be no ballot after all instead we are going to have another debate. It will be Christmas before we know it!
OK then if that's the way they want it, let's all enter the debate …… AND THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE - 'WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM??'
We have continually asked for a full statement of the current (half yearly) accounts and a budget for the full year and at least the next two years. If General Council are so confident that ACU&S can survive, why can't we see the figures?
Come on Geoff show us your money!!
In the 6th paragraph of Geoff's report he asks the questions, "…how would the continuing liabilities of ACU&S be determined? The laptop lease payments have still to be met." Come on, Geoff! You were there!! At the General Council Meeting of 22nd October 2005 (when you became Acting Chairman following the engineered resignation of David Burden) the President "Lord Griffiths said that he had had legal research carried out and had been advised that Mr. Stuart-King would be personally liable, and it was possible that others, namely members of General Council and the Finance Board, could be liable. The Association being an unincorporated body, the general body of members would not bear responsibility." That is a direct quote from Minute 4764 of that meeting.
We also have the promise of Stuart-King (as read out on his behalf by Anthony Farnfield at the AGM in March) to indemnify the Association himself.
As Captain Nolan said to Lord Lucan in answer to his plaintive question at Balaclava, "There, Sir, there are your guns!"
It may be of interest apropos of nothing that in his covering E:Mail to Thames Region officers on 19th May the Regional Councillor Peter Bradshaw wrote: "I attach the statement that will appear in the next issue of How's That? …….. The ECB don't want to know. So where do we go from here? Our new General Secretary is continually under fire and the infighting continues, especially from Tony Bastable, the ACU&S Media Officer, who declares himself to represent the Executive Board of the ICUS! How can a self-declared non-existent body (NB it's certainly not non-existent Peter!!) have an Executive Board? Where is the light at the end of the tunnel? Where is the tunnel?
This presumably is the same Tony Bastable, Media Officer, ACU&S, now not responsible for anything (see Meanwhile, Down in St. John's Wood Something Stirs) who only a couple of months earlier, amongst other things had said: the ACU&S needs help, not hype; and its members deserve leadership, not lassitude - to add to his first No. 1 hit - Independent Officials deserve official independence. The Thames Regional Councillor emailed a copy to the Regional Executive and started with the words, "It's quite a relief to read some sense at last… If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs… (not, we suspect, a reference to the picture that appears at the head of the pages of our website!).
It is good to see that the truth is finally getting through to members of General Council - and indeed Mr Bradshaw continued to show that he had (finally) dropped off the fence in a further E:Mail dated the same day, this time to his GC colleagues:
From: PEBradshaw@aol .com
Date: Fri, 19 May 10.27
Subject: Handbags
Colleagues (I think!)
For ***'s sake why don't we put away the handbags at dawn, swallow pride and get on with what is surely the most critical matter, i.e. getting the Association we all know and love back on an even keel? The continual backbiting and infighting is getting us absolutely nowhere.
Cathy was right when she says that "ALL members of GC, both past and present, have contributed in their own ways to the current demise of ACU&S". I would add to her list of failings, the fact that we have all proved how gullible we are and how adept we are at being conned (by you know who). So let's get on and do our best to put things right, BUT we must talk, we must communicate (meaningfully, not bitchily) and, as she says, we need trust - and that, EBGC, is a two-way thing.
It is a bit worrying when our new General secretary says that "the ICUS has been set up by those officers of ACU&S who have brought the current problems upon the Association". It is a worrying view, but it is not an uncommon one. In fact, I would suggest that that is the view of the vast majority of the grass root membership, and possibly the 8,700 that did not attend the Lord's AGM. This misconception is based simply on poor communication, misinformation AND, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, THE OFFICERS NAMED IN THE SECOND MOTION OF THE DERBY SGM.
We, the members of GC, know that this is not COMPLETELY true. Our problems are financial, so it is totally unreasonable to include those officers (and ex-officers) not involved in our finances, in the list of the accused. I accept that this leaves a few (sorry Cathy), but it is for them to plead their own case.
Please, can we see (and be told about) some meaningful progress.
Well, of course, they could have put their own case if they had attended the AGM but, unfortunately, they had to stay at home and wash their hair. As to the rest of it, do we detect the beginnings of a Nurnberg-style defence? In which case somebody needs to be told the eventual outcome of the hearing!
Sadly, Mr Bradshaw is not alone in his rather extraordinary view of events. Throughout all of this most members of General Council have sat back and just allowed it to happen. Few, if any, of them have queried the goings on of Stuart-King and his colleagues; few, if any, of them have pushed hard for answers but now the house is falling down they are doing their level best to ensure it collapses with little collateral damage (there, one of us has used the word for the first time in relation to ACU&S!) to themselves - other than their credibility, pride and reputation.