I'm currently trying to work out what to do as far as the three motions go:
I was under the impression that as a result of the last AGM, the levy has already been withdrawn pending a full consultation with both SCA members and affiliated members (i.e. the clubs) to report back at the next AGM. Doesn't this resolution essentially shut down that consultation? What's wrong with having a consultation with everyone, not just the few members likely to turn up at the GM, and then put it to the AGM?1. The SCA Board will withdraw the announced £5 levy to non-members of SCA affiliated clubs and make no levy on this category of club member.
If this motion is defeated, am I correct in saying that the SCA membership will effectively have voted *in favour* of the £5 levy, and the consultation is still duff?
I might be misunderstanding, but basically this is saying that we shouldn't trust the elected board with the running of the SCA, right?2. Any proposed future changes to membership or other fees will be considered by SCA members at an AGM or SGM and be voted on by members at the same AGM/SGM. The SCA board will draw up any required changes to the Articles of Association to facilitate this.
I was under the impression that when I elected the board members, I was giving them a 12 month mandate to run the SCA (including working out how to pay the bills). What's the point in having a democratically-elected board if we want to second-guess every decision at a full GM? If they aren't doing a good job, they can be voted off at the next AGM. This is how representative democracy works!
This motion sounds a bit too much like a vote of no-confidence to me. Has the proposed £5 levy provoked a vengeance motion from some unhappy members? Or is that too cynical?
This is very worrying. If the CCCUK have enough votes to carry the motion, then clearly they'll have enough votes to elect themselves onto the Review Group exclusively - 100% of the group will be Jim Breen & associates. So, what this motion is effectively saying is, "do you want to make CCCUK an official Review Group of the SCA"?3. An open and consultative review will be conducted by the SCA on coaching and the introduction, impact and content of the UKCC Awards in Scotland, to include the following:
3.1 The appointment of the Review Group of up to 8 full SCA members made up of a majority of non SCA Officers, Officials, Technical or other Committee or Board members. These majority members of the Review Group should be invited as volunteers onto the Review Group at this SGM, and where there are more than 5 volunteers, then voting should take place at the meeting - allowing the use of the SCA proxy voting arrangements.
Now extremely worried. So it's really "do you want to make CCCUK an official Review Group of the SCA, able to dream up its own Terms of Reference".3.2 The Review Group will prepare, confirm and publish its intended Terms of Reference to members before commencing its review.
Suppose, for instance, that the Review Group decided to include the confidence of the membership in the SCA Board in its remit, and then (surprise) decided to recommend that they should all resign?
I.e. the SCA would be obliged to fund a potentially limitless number of letters and/or phone calls to *every single member* as long as the Review Group (read, CCCUK) should see fit within their self-defined terms of reference? Sounding better and better. There are already insufficient resources to address existing issues like the hydro problem. Where will the time and money come from to run this infinite review?3.3 Consultation in the review process will be undertaken with all registered SCA coaches, Full Members, all clubs and organisations affiliated to the SCA, and with others as the Review Group sees fit
This is a bit bizarre. Apart from notably declining to specify a timeframe for the review (boundless), we see a further expensive GM to vote on the results (not a presentation at the next AGM) and there is a beautiful catch-all that says even the SCA's membership within the federated BCU is subservient to implementing the recommendations of the CCCUK review. The existing BCU review (which explicitly included UKCC awards in its terms of reference) is to be ignored.The review will commence within 10 weeks of the adoption of this motion at the SGM. All findings and recommendations in the review shall be made available to the SCA membership within 4 weeks of the completion of the review. Thereafter within a further 4 weeks, a Special General Meeting of the SCA will be called to review these findings and recommendations and to decide on their implementation, irrespective of current relationships, agreements and any other reviews or studies operating or planned within the BCU federated structure.
At the moment, I fail to see anything of merit (and a lot to fear) in this GM. It's bad enough trying to get at the BCU coaching scheme through the SCA, but to do so with a group consisting perhaps entirely of the CCCUK Scottish co-ordinators with an unlimited terms of reference, and a blank chequebook is rather scary.