Constitution update 2017

[mocad2016]

The committee has updated the Clubs Constitution. It can be viewed or downloaded downloaded here http://www.marlinownersclub.com/wp-c...ution-2017.pdf.

Basically the changes are to accommodate PayPal memberships with rolling annual subscriptions in addition to subscriptions that must be renewed before January.

Please let a member of the committee know if there are any errors, omissions or suggestions.

One thing we noticed while reviewing the final changes that there is a minor mismatch between section 8 and section 10. We would like to correct this anomaly at the next AGM in May 2018.

Section 8 states:

8.1. Membership of the Club shall be open to persons who are owners of Marlin cars or have a bona fide interest in such cars, together with their spouse or partner who shall be named on the application form.

Section 10 States:

10.2. There will be two types of annual subscription:

• Single subscription with one vote of entitlement

• Family subscription with a two vote entitlement which will cover the Member and an other.

Ignoring the semantics as to whether it should be “an other”, “another” or “A. N. Other” the question is really if it should be a “spouse or partner” or "family" member.

There is some feeling in the committee that another should be a family member. Others suggest that in this day and age we should not be so restrictive.

I believe this type of co-membership was originally set up to give long suffering wives the chance to vote on aspects of the club that might affect them. In these more liberated times relationships have changed.

Adding a second member cost 50p. The second member has to share PitStop magazine and website access. So there is little additional cost. The biggest advantage is an extra vote.

So what do members think? Should we allow any other person to be the second member or should it be more restrictive.

Are there any other aspects of the constitution that members would like to see revised?
Paul

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Inevitably I will comment.

If they are to be voting members, then surely they should 'pay to vote' just like any other ordinary member.

There is a question about postage of Pitstop etc, but members have the option of receiving that electronically, minimising postage and printing cost, at their discretion, should they chose not to receive Pitstop, but the question posed is about voting rights.

In a modern world there should be no discrimination between a member and their partner. Should a partner wish to vote, then why should they be given preferential treatment.

But this is a minor issue, because voting is restricted to those that attend an AGM.
My previous, and present circumstances make attending an AGM impractical.
So the partner of a member paying just £0.50 for voting rights, attending an AGM, has more rights than a member of 20+ years standing who for practical and financial reasons cannot attend.

Where is the practicality or equality in that situation.

I look forward to a Comittee members response.

[mocad2016]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Hi Steve,
Thanks for your post. I was willing to bet you would post in this regard but I couldn’t get decent odds.

I am also willing to bet that every post is read at least once by at least one member of the committee who will alert others as required. It is not always possible for us to react immediately to any requests. Even Google can’t promise that.

You make some good points I a hope to give a considered response in the next few weeks.

Paul

[wiggiesworld]

Re: Constitution update 2017

As said previously, Steve makes some valid points. In short if a member expects to have full voting rights then he should also be expected to pay the full membership fee. Maybe its worth considering still having the 50p second membership with the provisio that these members do not have voting rights? Then people can determine for themselves whether they want full voting rights for the second person or if they will just be limited rights members.

As for the statement regarding inability to attend the AGM to cast a vote, surely there is mileage in being able to submit postal (email) votes? Works just fine for regional/national elections and also company AGMS so surely will be just as appropriate for the MOC?

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

As for the statement regarding inability to attend the AGM to cast a vote, surely there is mileage in being able to submit postal (email) votes? Works just fine for regional/national elections and also company AGMS so surely will be just as appropriate for the MOC?

I am sure some committee members have read my post, unfortunately an official response, on this forum, from the Chairman, is in my view unlikely. It's down to him to prove me wrong.

I have long campaigned for Postal or Online voting. The claim has always been made that it is unconstitutional. My reading of the constitution demonstrates that it is not definitive, it's an implied claim.

To move on, particularly a few years ago, my mothers birthday celebration, a family event, made it almost impossible to attend the AGM, family came before MOC. My mother has since passed on, part of the trigger that also saw me moving to Spain. So for me now the logistics of attending the AGM become one of Flights, Car Hire and Hotel costs. I am on record on this forum, being willing to contribute a sum equal to my costs to a specified MOC purpouse. Unsurprisingly that generous offer on my part received no response from the committee.

There are also several Marlin owners on a reduced budget or with family commitments, when for negotiating time at stoneleigh may well be impossible, a weekend away with the family being far more important.

There are several overseas members, the Mem Sec could identify them better than me. They pay an enhanced membership to cover Pitstop postage, that I personally accept, but my supposition, despite their forum contributions, they are highly unlikely to attend an AGM. The supposition appears to be that they cannot contribute to the MOC because they are too far away. In the modern world, distance is no problem, the use of Skype or FaceTime and other ways on conference calling are now commonplace.

Taking all these factors into account it leaves a very small demographic of people attending the AGM, I venture to say male, retired pensioners, long time Marlin owners, who actually attend the AGM more as a social event, who don't like the idea of changes in the club, especially when they are proposed by 'upstarts'.

Once upon a time the club had several progressive thinking committee members. Sadly they were edged out.

My repeating mantra is that the MOC need to attract new blood, to involve them in the club. If the MOC is not seen as progressive, it will die.

Finally for this discourse, the future of the MOC relies on keeping Marlins on the road, and attracting and retaining members. How that is achieved is the responsibility of the Comittee, that I am effectively barred from voting for.

[cameronfurnival]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Steve, I will throw my penn'orth in. What is it that members would like, to see voted on postally or electrically? Most of the business at the AGM is prosaic and people turn up for the nice cup of tea and chat more than anything. There may be a couple of constitution changes to vote through, the finances need a nod, and that's about it until it comes to voting for committee members.
In order for there to be a vote on new committee members -an ideal situation for postal / e-ballots -then we would have to get names of intending nominees published a long way in advance - BUT no bugger ever wants to stand for anything! It usually comes down to the same old people (the ones who go to the AGM often) being persuaded, coerced, bribed (joke) etc to stand. Usually because a committee member has had to step down and nobody else volunteers until the 11th hour. Look at the current committee - a case in point - desperately trying to find another body (or two) yet not many names in the hat as far as I know.
Part of the issue that people don't want to stand is that they get lambasted every which way if they do - or don't- put a post on here. They can never win so who would want to do that job voluntarily? The committee is a very passionate body of people giving their time for free with no expectation of reward; I know I served for a while! They have a very difficult job and will argue passionately for what they see is the members best interests: indeed I can tell you first hand that discussions become heated - not out of malice or pig-headedness but out of a sense of duty to the club, trying to keep it going and trying (with great success in my view) to keep the club relevant.
No, I think there are other issues more important than voting rights at the AGM and the most important is getting new people to volunteer and work on the committee. So I find myself agreeing with your final point that the club needs to be progressive and I think that if someone would say what that actually means we could have a debate.

To summarise: Voting for the committee by online or postal methods will only be relevant if people show their interest at least three months ahead of the AGM (so Pitstop and this forum can advertise the fact). This has not been historically been the case - ever!
Second, what is meant by being progressive? Let's nail that down.
And thirdly, don't keep on at the committee - its a thankless job while they receive brickbats on this forum either because they say or don't say something - give them a break!

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Wow!
My comments were not directed at you Cameron (nice to see you using your name and not a forum persona)

Having served on various committees myself, I truly realise that it is often a thankless task. Don't go down the volunteer argument route, if you don't know what you are volunteering for, don't.

You highlight the lack of volunteers. If only those who attend the AGM can volunteer, then the club itself is limiting the the numbers who could help.
I can reel a list off of present and past members with the skill, dedication and motivation who could have contributed to the MOC. It's rather pointless, each and every one has been declined and demotivated. People offering to edit and rationales the database. Apparently you tasked someone to complete that project, but it never happened, even though it was budgeted? But their offers have been ignored or refused.

I would love to give the committee a break, but it appears to me that unless you have a cup of tea and a chat at Stoneleigh, you are out of the loop and are never really involved in the clubs administration.

It seems to me that the committee have the tools at their disposal, but don't have the vision that I and many others have to take the club forwards.

Sadly it is apparently (no offence intended) being run by a bunch of fuddy duddies, many of whom always attend the AGM, so future development is restricted.


We have 10 or so members joining every month, essentially simply keeping the numbers up. What is the committee and the members doing to encourage them to contribute. I suggest little or nothing. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

[Mike]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Steve

Keep it positive.

Cameron asked you to set out your Blue print for the future of the MOC (not carp at the "fuddy duddies").

We have never really resolved how many members use the Forum, or how many Non-members read it and would participate more in the running of the club if they felt more included.

So, if voting on line was adopted, and if you were elected as a committee member what would be in your manifesto to take the club forward?

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Nicely batted back Mike, I would be interested to read your thoughts too, especially as this thread is in a public forum.

Firstly and fore mostly I would remove the restrictions on non members posting rights and access to the forum. That problem has rumbled on for years as the MOC database was and perhaps still is a mess. This has made managing forum access quite a task, in my mind unnecessarily so.
Other members offered to 'clean up' the database to take the load away from committee members, that help was declined, and even Cameron tasked someone for the job, but by all appearances that never happened either.


Secondly to make the MOC more inclusive, that means accepting help from others who do not necessarily attend the AGM. There are numerous skills within the cohort of members that could alleviate the load that the committee currently carry, members actually want to make their job easier.


Thirdly to end the parochial attitude from the committee, the classic example of which was the fiasco of using the MOC logo on a charity run, organised by a club member was ridiculous. That smacked of arrogance on the part of the club rather than unequivocal support for the proposed event. It fails to encourage others to follow Keith's example.


Fourthly, certainly on the forum I would engender a mood of acceptance, all too often members cars when posted for sale on the forum or linked to eBay are denigrated, criticising build quality and prices. Should non members read some of the comments it actually devalues the marque. A car is what it is and it's value will be decided by the market place, not forum readers.


Fifthly, associated with my first point, the provision of data. A link to a document I wrote assembled from various sources, Pitstop and tech tips particularly was censored due to a complaint from a member. Which was strange, as nobody at that point had seen the document, not even the webmaster, so I have no idea how their judgement was valued or not as the case might be. Many of the pictures and excerpts I used have since been published on the forum, a case of double standards or sour grapes comes to mind.
I see no issue about sharing information from club documents, especially when they are specifically about a safety issue.
I notice that Tech Tips etc are no longer itemised in Club Goods. So a prospective member has no idea that such information even exists. I presume therefore that the MOC receives no revenue from them, so there would be no loss in making them freely available to non members, but probably the contrary, those hungry for information those wanting information about a prospective purchase are more likely to join if they see positive benefits and a lively free exchange of information rather than a closed shop.


Finally adopting an overriding philosophy, a holistic approach, to the committee decisions, to look at each one and how they might impact the club as a whole.

[milliemarlin]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Hi Steve,
Just to say this thread is on attempt by one of the fuddy duddies to engage more members with the revision of the club’s constitution.

I’ll let the member’s judge how well it’s going.

I am still considering your suggestions.
Paul

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

Hi Steve,
Just to say this thread is on attempt by one of the fuddy duddies to engage more members with the revision of the club’s constitution.

I’ll let the member’s judge how well it’s going.

I am still considering your suggestions.
Paul

Let me add another point to my list.
The membership are rarely informed of exactly when a committee meeting will be held, you are for instance considering my suggestions, is there even a timetable or is that just a platitude?

Committee meeting minutes are slow to be published as we have to wait for another meeting to confirm them. This means that the members are at least two meetings behind the times when we finally read the minutes, that's potentially six months after the event.

Presumably you have an agenda published before a committee meeting for the committees eyes only, why not make that agenda available to the members so we can see what is in process or about to be discussed, or perhaps add a new topic. Or is it the committees intent to keep it under their hat, incase the members want to contribute and cause the committee more work?

I believe greater openness would benefit both the committee and the members.

I can see and fully understand the problems of recruiting committee members from a small group of people, it's a sell fulfilling prophecy, precisely the reason why nominations and voting should expand beyond those attending the AGM. It will undoutably throw up some problems, but they should be short lived if managed correctly.

I don't believe it needs a constitutional change just a change in interpretation.

[milliemarlin]

Re: Constitution update 2017

I can confirm that any nominations for committee membership can be made at any time using any method to any committee member.

Currently the AGM is always on Sunday at Stoneleigh. Other committee meetings are generally arranged at the end of the previous meeting or as soon as convenient should the need arise. Because the committee is spread across the country meetings are arranged by consensus. For this reason only the attendees (committee members) are informed of the date and venue of the next meeting. Quite often meetings are held to coincide with another event. I know of no reason that a meeting should not be held abroad such as a trip to Le Mans.

We receive and act on a number of suggestions, recommendations, etc throughout the year.

Steve,
When I say “I am still considering your suggestions” that is a personal statement not on behalf of the committee. I am giving your posts the attention they deserve.
Paul

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

It is not really relevant where the meetings are held, provided there is a mobile phone signal you don't have to be present to be able to contribute.

If several people want to gather together in one place that requires quite a bit of organising and a minimum of a weeks notice most especially if you wanted to hold the meeting in Le Mans. Ferries need organising etc.
There is no reason why the members can not be informed at the same time as the arrangements are made.

What the greater membership do not know is what suggestions or reccomendations the committee might act upon in advance.

All the above here, simply confirms my third point in post #9. Clearly I didn't think things through enough, it should have been my first point.

It is further demonstrated in your last paragraph. Will anything ever change, apparently not in a defined timescale.

[andyf]

Re: Constitution update 2017

The modern Instant Messaging tools also allow for conference calls which would be easier to follow as a remote participant.

[stevejgreen]

Re: Constitution update 2017

The modern Instant Messaging tools also allow for conference calls which would be easier to follow as a remote participant.

Its a simple technology, but is best used with a 'pass the talking spoon' otherwise people can easily overtalk each other.