EGM to amend the constitution (Mon 27 Feb)

[Fuzzy]

Anybody who is a fully paid up member of the canoe club is allowed to come along and vote. We will meet at 7:30 at the message board to find the room that services have given us.

Main changes that are happening

Reformatting of the entire document so that it is easier to read and a lot clearer . Some items were in the wrong sections and have been moved, and also the numbering system has been made more uniform.

Merging of the safety officer and the training officer into one role; the safety and training officer.

Creation of the new job of outings officer.

Outings officer takes on some of the roles of the secetary allowing the introduction of the fundraising clause in the secretary's task description. Also secretary's role is given a more admininstrative focus with an obligation to ensure the next years committee receives a full set of records.

Links to the documents are as follows:
prosed new constitution
current constitution

These changes are being introduced to ensure that each committee knows what has been done in the past so that we can continue to improve the service that we offer to members.

[kill]

You're gonna merge me and Dave???



Interesting... :sex:  :icescream:

[Diarmaid]

outings officer, eh? yeah, there hasn't been enough of that.


>>Rob Vambeck is gay<<

[Asho87]

outings officer??? taking a leaf out of trinity's book eh???
Sounds like a fun job

[Mr C]

Hi guys,
There's obviously been a lot of work done to get it to this point: well done to all involved. I have a couple of points/suggestions for disucssion:

- remove or update the "valid from" date at the beginning;

- the ammendments to the old constitution should be clearly marked - otherwise this is a vote on a brand new constitution;

- I think the canoe club "year" needs to be defined - possibly in Section 3; this is because the term of Captain is said to run for one year.

- throughout the document there is ambiguity on the voting process:

At such meetings any member of the committee, may be dismissed provided that a two thirds majority of members present are voting in favour of such a dismissal. However for Captain and Senior Treasurer a three quarter majority must be present.

Does this mean that only 2/3rds (66%) of those present can dismiss a committee member (eg 4 out of the 6 people that happened to turn up) whilst it requires 3/4 of the club to be present and a simple majority (51%) to remove a captain. This needs to be clarified.

- Section 4.10: I think that this section needs to be changed and expanded. It should state that all club canoeing events are required to be run in accordance with the Code of Practice. This then requires adoption of the Code of Practice for future years. Further, changes to the Code of Practice should be made by a nominated committee of (say) 5 people of at least 1 Level 4 and 2 Level 3 instructors; the remaining members are at the descretion of the committee. Something along those lines anyway.

I don't think that only the committee should be subject to the disclaimer - possibly all members of the club? What about the college? Of course this bring sup the unmentionable topic, but maybe it needs to be clarified once and for all int he Constitution?? I think we should get Cormac's opinion on this area if he would be so good?

- Section 4.8: rename as: New Member and Children Officer. There is no need for liaison, for how else is the job to be done?

- Section 4.9: The position of Graduate Liaison Officer is mentioned. if this is to be position it needs to have its job properly defined. Even if it is later stated that the Senior Treasurer and GLO are to be the same person, the jobs needd to be defined seperately.

- Removal of the Senior Treasurer: is this covered by the usual committee rules event though the ST isn't a committee member (for there is only 8 positions as defined in Section 4.0)?? Needs to be clarified.
[/list]

That's it for the moment! If I see any more I'll post. The adoption of a new constitution is not a small thing so everyone should have their say and propose ammendments. If more time until the EGM is required, so be it.

[kmck]

Just one statement, why are we keeping an eight person committee, in fairness it makes meetings difficult and two positions in particular, NML and PRO, I view these functions are covered by all the committee. This is not to say that there have been some very fine people in these postions but their jobs should be done by all the committee. I will read this more carefully before I make anymore comments.

[louise]

NML and PRO, I view these functions are covered by all the committee. This is not to say that there have been some very fine people in these postions

Damn straight....holly, meabh, phil and ........MOI!!!

sounds good fuzzy

lolx

[joxer]

good points colin. Tom I told you there is more work needed on it. I think you are rushing this too much

[Donnie]

- Section 4.10: I think that this section needs to be changed and expanded. It should state that all club canoeing events are required to be run in accordance with the Code of Practice. This then requires adoption of the Code of Practice for future years. Further, changes to the Code of Practice should be made by a nominated committee of (say) 5 people of at least 1 Level 4 and 2 Level 3 instructors; the remaining members are at the descretion of the committee. Something along those lines anyway.

This kind of thing should not be in the constitution as it is inflexible and could lead to issues of liability in the event of an accident.

[claire]

I don't know if this is really an issue that needs to included in the constitution but it is something i think needs a little bit of clarification.
I think it needs to be a little bit clearer exactly who pays for club trips and what they pay.

For example if you are using club gear but going in a private car, do you pay a full tenner for the trip? And if so do you have to pay petrol money on top of this to your driver?

Using a bit of an example Maria who started paddling this year has her own car but is reliant on club boats and rescue.. She was never charged for club trips until last saturday when she was. Now she doesn't mind at all paying the money and infact feels she should have been paying more before now as she was using the club gear but the point is there is no standard to go by.

Also (and I don't know if this is happening this year) from my experience people can come, throw all their gear on the club trailer, or use some club gear and then get in a private car. Then since they aren't on the bus they may end up not paying anything to the club who have to pay for the bus and instructors.

Now I'm really not trying to stir a huge arguement and I know a lot of people this year have taken up the €50 all trips till year end offer so its probably not even an issue till next year. But as more and more freshers get cars but not roofracks the issue of using club gear and trailer space but not actually going on the bus will become more relevant.

I think everyone would benefit from a clear policy on this.
I would propose something along the lines of...
Everyone who uses ANY club gear (including putting their private boat on the club trailer) pays half fees to the club. This leaves the other half free for petrol money to private drivers on longer trips. The drivers can then take club boats if needed. This means everyone will end up paying the same amount and by my reckoning the club will take it the same if not more for Saturday trips, which seems fairer all round    


wow, think this is the longest post i've ever made! (apologys if you all think its too long and a bullshit issue) i just got to thinking about it when maria mentioned only being charged for the first time yesterday and think it is worth having a clear policy on charging for trips.

Claire

[aidan j]

My first year in the club, when I actually paddled occasionally, i think it was set at:

€10: for bus and gear
€10: for gear and lift in private car
Free: for gear and driver of private car (no roofracks)
Got petrol money: if you drove private car with roofracks.

I don't know what it cost if you had your own gear and didn't take the bus, that seemed to be alot less common back then.

Thats how it was explained to me 3 years ago, but that could have been wrong even back then.

[Asho87]

Good point Claire! think thats definitely something that was never made clear altho i went with the 50 quid option thing whicg was also a really good idea... and also those of us (ahem.. me) who dont quite make it to all the trips are loosing money if we dont turn up so it kinda encourages u to turn up cos u know uve paid! does that make sense???

[Diarmaid]

but does that sort of thing need to be in the Constitution? couldn't it just be a rule or something?

Also, we can't make any official mention of petrol money. As anyone who has ever travelled with me will know, I have quite a firm policy of ixnay on the etrolpay until we reach the destination - in the event of an accident, as is my understanding of it, drivers who have negotiated payment of petrol money with their passengers are technically charging the passengers for transport and there's complications there... they're operating as an unlicensed taxi or they're liable for their passengers' safety or something. don't know the details but I've always been advised against any straight-up negotiation of petrol money terms.

[meabh]

hey guys, thanks for all the feedback if anyone has any suggestions do talk to one of the committee....in particular fergal or tom as they were very involved in the new const.

i agree with donnie that that paragraph re. code of good practice is too restrictive, club trips are run in accordance with the code, thats the whole pt. of having it, don't think there should be procedure's like that set in stone, they're more things that  committee's decide

A constitution is supposed to be a relatively unchanging document, obviously there should be the possibility of ammendments but that doesn't happen every few weeks, claire's point is very valid but probably just a rule that should be clarified rather than put in the const, our take on it was that anyone who needed boat, gear, bus space, trailer space OR rescue should be paying for club trips...so the only people who didn't have to pay were rescue drivers with all their own gear or their rescue passengers with all their own gear, and they can sort out their own petrol issues. obviously as i'm sure you guys can appreciate its easy to miss one or two, especially when ppl are going in private cars, but we'd more than welcome anyone who feels they want to pay etc. Also anyone who is a driver with all their own gear etc but feels they are benefiting from coming out with the club and being a member and wants to help support the club is also welcome to pay!

To kieran re the 8 members, we felt that having 8 members on the committee was a benefit, ucdcc is a very big and very active club, 1 less would not make any significant(?) differance to meetings but it does make quite a difference in the workload that people have to shoulder so we didn't want to reduce the committee below 8, also nml and pro do provide important roles and pro in particular while maybe not specific enough in the previous constitution actually is quite an important job in the new constitution with a more specific list of what they have to do.

Keep the advice coming, it can be quite difficult to see the flaws when your working on something so the outside input really helps!

[kmck]

Since I was the poor schlub with the pen & paper on saturday, I was the one getting money while tome and phil tied up the trailer. Just to say I was asked to collect money off everyone. Maria did point out that she was a driver, we had "words" after I had told her to take it up with tom. Afterwords I went to tom and suggested to him to give Maria back her money on the grounds that she was driving and bringing boats. Firstly sorry Maria if getting the sharp end of my tongue upset you, secondly this is something we need to sort out as has been pointed out more people with cars no roof racks means less people on the bus, but still gear on the bus for them. On saturday I used a club boat gave five euro to tom and five to my driver. On the issue of petrol money it is not like a taxi as you don't agree you just offer it to help cover the costs of journey not to line the pockets of your driver.
My own suggestion is this if you are getting a lift in a car using private gear, just pay your driver. If you are using club gear but it is going on the car pay the club a fiver and the driver for petrol. If travelling in a car with no roof rack pay the club a tenner and the driver should be reimbursed from the club.