25-08-2013, 08:07 PM
That alcohol question put to the IJD was too vague, but I think Steve has already dropped that point. In terms of doing the job I was well impressed with the team, new and existing, and I’ve no doubt that things will move.
I know we all want to move on, but I think many of Steve’s points on the democratic issues have validity whether we like it or not. Though some matter more than others, for example the voting in pairs was a bit farcical and just caused confusion, but didn’t seem do any real harm. These things happen..
When people’s votes are explicitly sought for one purpose (the presidential campaign) and then end up used for another (by officials to unseat other office bearers in unopposed contests), it should be a concern for us all, especially the other office bearers. Thankfully, common sense prevailed in the aftermath (thanks I understand to Andy H - and of course the official with all the proxies having a change of heart), and no concrete harm was done - but this incident surely represents bad treatment (there are legit ways to complain about office bearers if you want to); if so it’s right to point it out.
I thought Hamish looked capable and experienced in the chair, but I also thought his handling of the meeting was clearly not even handed in several respects, and as Steve notes, he also didn’t seem to welcome input into future committees from the floor. More generally he seems to regard the noticeboard as just a problem, but I don’t see how without it (he hasn’t joined it anyway) he can know what members views are.
It’s not just Hamish though, there seems a tendency to centralize information and decision-making, and dismiss or evade criticism - which makes the AGM less relevant than it could be.
But apart from that side of things (it's hard to say how much these things matter if people are otherwise doing good jobs), I thought the feeling emerging from the meeting was very upbeat and encouraging.
I know we all want to move on, but I think many of Steve’s points on the democratic issues have validity whether we like it or not. Though some matter more than others, for example the voting in pairs was a bit farcical and just caused confusion, but didn’t seem do any real harm. These things happen..
When people’s votes are explicitly sought for one purpose (the presidential campaign) and then end up used for another (by officials to unseat other office bearers in unopposed contests), it should be a concern for us all, especially the other office bearers. Thankfully, common sense prevailed in the aftermath (thanks I understand to Andy H - and of course the official with all the proxies having a change of heart), and no concrete harm was done - but this incident surely represents bad treatment (there are legit ways to complain about office bearers if you want to); if so it’s right to point it out.
I thought Hamish looked capable and experienced in the chair, but I also thought his handling of the meeting was clearly not even handed in several respects, and as Steve notes, he also didn’t seem to welcome input into future committees from the floor. More generally he seems to regard the noticeboard as just a problem, but I don’t see how without it (he hasn’t joined it anyway) he can know what members views are.
It’s not just Hamish though, there seems a tendency to centralize information and decision-making, and dismiss or evade criticism - which makes the AGM less relevant than it could be.
But apart from that side of things (it's hard to say how much these things matter if people are otherwise doing good jobs), I thought the feeling emerging from the meeting was very upbeat and encouraging.