 HeadHoncho
|
Posted: 10 March 2009, 1:03 AM
is it an NZOF rule that the exec can only discuss ideas that were submitted by a deadline? NO. BUT "IDEAS" SUBMITTED IN A FORMAL SENSE TO AN ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING MUST MEET A DEADLINE (12 WEEKS)
Is that a beneficial rule? YES
When was it imposed? PASS
Is it still relevant in the age of web 2.0? UNTIL CLUB COMMITTEES MEET BY VIDEOCONFERENCING, YES
Might we benefit from greater flexibility? I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT 30 MIN OF DAILY STRETCHING IS BENEFICIAL TO ATHLETES, SO YES.
|
|
Chris
|
Posted: 10 March 2009, 8:43 AM
To clarify motions for Nick & Simon, without getting too pedantic on meeting formalities (or trying to tell the NZOF how to run a meeting), amendments may be made to motions as long as they do not radically alter the meaning or intention of the motion. Any amendment should be discussed by the membership, then voted on. If it is carried then it becomes the substantive motion and then becomes the proposal under discussion. The amended motion is then discussed and voted on.
|
|
nick
|
Posted: 10 March 2009, 9:54 AM
Cool thanks guys - very interesting
I *meant* to be asking about how we can best capture ideas from our club members. I don't mean to bog us down with procedural nit-picking (sorry). I wondered whether our process might be blocking capture, so thought I'd ask.
For instance, the 12 week deadline seems quite long (and produces unfortunate blockage: a clash with Christmas/New Year holiday period). Is there a purpose for this timeframe? Perhaps its to give clubs time to discuss and form a position on the remit? If, hypothetically, clubs could do this faster (video conferencing would be great eh!) could NZOF reduce the deadline? If so, would that be a good thing?
|
|
HeadHoncho
|
Posted: 10 March 2009, 10:32 AM
Is there a purpose for this timeframe? YES
Perhaps its to give clubs time to discuss and form a position on the remit? YES
If, hypothetically, clubs could do this faster (video conferencing would be great eh!) could NZOF reduce the deadline? YES
If so, would that be a good thing? MAYBE
Nick, clubs only meet once a month and many not in Jan so the 12 weeks is unfortunately needed given Easter (when the AGM is held most years) is a movable feast and can occur as early as mid-March.
But I wouldn't get hung up on it - remits are only a minor player in the process of a non-profit org'n and if your real Q is how best membership can "offer ideas", that basically comes down to how receptive membership perceive the org'n they belong to is to suggestions - I can't answer that but I hope that if anyone opens their mouth they at least feel they've been heard.
|
|
nick
|
Posted: 10 March 2009, 2:16 PM
Yeah fair point - the hold up is at club end isn't it... and meetings are particularly difficult at that time of year. Terrible timing; really why do we have Nationals at Easter? Jokes, just jokes 
Tom mentioned that he and his Dad had missed the deadline to get their powerpoint in front of the AGM. This got me thinking about the lifespan of ideas, and it seemed to me that you wanna get them while they're hot, so to speak.
My other thought was that a remit tends to provoke discussion, which generates new ideas. Unfortunately, these ideas might be shut out of the AGM because they weren't in a remit submitted within the deadline (of course they weren't). So, by the time the AGM comes to consider the remit, it may well be discussing old ideas, for the sake of process. Have you ever observed this to be the case?
Anyways I appreciate your responses El Presidente!
|
|
marcusd
|
Posted: 11 March 2009, 2:16 AM
I agree with Nick, the timeframe is too long and needs to be shorter, especially as the 12 weeks sits right in the December/January period when it is very difficult to organise club meeetings anyway.
Pretty much every other club and organisation that I am involved in has a time frame of about two weeks to get motions in before an AGM so I was surprised the timeframe for NZOF was so long.
Headhoncho, I understand where you are coming from with offering suggestions and getting them out there in the open. However, I thought the only real change and debate to NZOF could happen as the AGM which means you are constrained by the rules as they stand at the moment. Catch 22 maybe?
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 11 March 2009, 9:31 AM
The Dilbert strip in todays Dompost is quite good.
|
|
HeadHoncho
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 12:48 AM
"However, I thought the only real change and debate to NZOF could happen as the AGM"
Not really. Practically NZOF is "run" by a Council of 7, 6 of which are appointed by NZOF's "owners" (the clubs) - 2 at the AGM, 4 regional reps. "Change" can occur at any time - although major/fundamental issues may get referred to clubs.
The remit process is a mechanism that allows clubs to set policy on any matter the majority may agree on, and provides a check/balance on the mgmt of NZOF.
So personally I don't think the rules are constraining - an elected Council runs the org'n, employ a lackey to do all the donkeywork, and the owners (clubs) have the ability to stop and back the truck up if (they think) it's going down the wrong road.
So getting back to ideas - I'd encourage ppl to just throw them out there, and this forum is as good as any. For example, Michael occasionally throws things onto this forum for discussion and feedback, so do others. And, as the remit states, "the boldest moves in NZ Orienteering come from clubs, or more accurately from individuals". In many cases it doesn't need the involvement of NZOF for something to happen.
|
|
marcusd
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 3:44 AM
Headhoncho - thanks for the info. One question for you - if I propose that for all orienteering events we need to move towards entry cut off being the day before events and having more on the day entries where do I raise this? This forum? My club? Remit through to the NZOF AGM? Formal proposal to the Council?
I do think this forum is valuable for throwing ideas around but how do we make these ideas come to fruition, especially if it involves changes at an NZOF level. Then we will need to go through the proper process which comes back to Nick's point the 12 week period for submitting remits is too long at the moment. Two weeks should be sufficient.
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 4:50 AM
I would see the AGM as the forum for quite significant topics, such as the federation isn't doing enough, or is doing too much, etc. As such a signficant period for discussion within clubs is needed - would there be so much talk about this remit if it was only advertised at the end of March?
IMHO the AGM is not the place for discussing a specific project like an membership/entry management system. Unless, once it had been properly scoped and costed and understood, it turned out to have a huge impact on federation expenditure. Then a go/no-go decision might be appropriate.
I don't think it's the right place to discuss event-operational things either Marcus. To BIND clubs you could propose (at any time) a change in the competition rules. (Which, strangely, are more about what organisers must do than competitors!) But I don't think the compulsion would find favour. To PERSUADE clubs the most powerful method is to demonstrate it in action. You running a big event any time soon?
|
|
Jenni
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 6:14 AM
Although I generally support more flexibility that our sometimes rigid entry dates, the day before for a major event is really asking a bit much. I don't think we'd find many volunteers for generating the start list over night. A start list is not as trivial as you might think when you have to put in constraints for parent split starts, helpers starts, which courses can start together, what the starting blocks are for "feature" grades etc etc Anyone who wants later entry dates should volunteer to be the person making the start list for a major event so they can appreciate the complications.
|
|
Jamie
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 6:16 AM
With regard to the remit put:
It would be a hugely irresponsible governance for an organisation to suddenly castrate its finances as proposed without any real analysis (not that there was a lot more when it was introduced).
If the clubs decide that they want the NZOF to play a smaller part in NZ orienteering that is fine, but I hope if that is the case it is done in a planned way over several years.
In my casual observation clubs who think they don't get value for money off the NZOF have point. I feel that coaching delivered at National level has shown no signs of working, likewise with development. I also have mixed feelings about the sustainability of high performance.
I still maintain though, in the vague hope that someone listens:-), that the NZOF is the body to take the lead on map production and gaming trust funding (in a honourable way unlike other National Sporting Bodies)
Re that other stuff Nick and Marcus are pushing I'm going to have to disagree with you boys for once! The time limits are there for a reason and if anything they should be longer - so committee's can consider them before the Christmas chaos. REMITS should be for big strategic issues that don't change as quickly as you suggest IMHO. A lot of damage can/could/has been done by AGM impromptu groupthink.
|
|
Greg
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 8:00 AM
Well Jenni as you point out, we produce far more work than required by offering all mentioned. Stuff parents, find a babysitter you will hardly find this offer anywhere else in the world (or just leave them to wonder the event centre its called survival of the fittest, worked for the Morrisons), helpers start early with a start box, and as for your other complaints, sport ident takes care of that if you know how to use it properly. The Oceania entry dates were bloody ridiculous.
I dont think anyone has answered Marcus' question.
|
|
marcusd
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 8:53 AM
Jamie, agree with you on the remit. Still disagree with you on the time frames. I am not encouraging a AGM impromptu groupthink at all, just some relaxing of the remit deadlines. Lets discuss over a beer next time we see each other!
Michael, maybe...!
|
|
nick
|
Posted: 12 March 2009, 10:16 AM
Please, I'm not adamant that 12 weeks is too long. I know only too well that procedure, however turgid it may seem at times, is necessary and beneficial. That said, not all procedures are created equal.
What I *am* keen to explore is how post-remit/pre-AGM discussion and ideas can be captured and included in the considerations of the AGM. Simon and Chris explained the formal process (motion for an amendment to the remit, vote, and if the motion passes, proceed on the basis of the amended remit) which certainly opens the door *provided that* its an amendment to the remit, not a total overhaul. I wonder how a new idea grown out of post-remit discussion and relevant to the issue concerned, can be included in discussion of the remit?
I agree with Michael & Jamie's generalisation that the AGM is really a "forum for quite significant topics", whereas your bog standard NZOF exec meeting is more appropriate for operational proposals. I most certainly agree with Jamie's point that impromtu groupthink can be detrimental; one great advantage of procedure is that it slows change down to avoid that rush of blood to the head! Yet, neither point really addresses my concern which is that I still sense a blindspot in the current remit procedure.
The vibrancy of an idea has much to do with the energy of those who hold it (even a very bad idea can exist for hundreds of years if it has zealous proponents.) So, a determined person will get their idea before the NZOF eventually. Realistically though, we are not all political people, or more precisely, our ideas about orienteering tend to be fleeting "we could's" or "we should's" rather than "we will" or "we must". I fear that the blowback from our current remit procedure might be that we are effectively blind to those fleeting ideas that bubble up in remit debates after events, at someone's house, on maptalk, etc... ideas that are vibrant for a very short time because really, with timeframes so distant and procedures unintuitive, there is nowhere for them to go.
So, it looks like I've explained myself into a corner from which there is only one escape: a Suggestion Box!
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions