SHU COUNCIL MEETING 7th MAY 07

[Guest WINGS 04]

 

With respect, don't think either of these are the real problem so wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference removing them.

 

The Union governing body is Council. Based on what has been said here, ordinary members aren't always electing the right folk as SHU delegates, they don't always mandate their delegates, and consequently Council cannot run itself let alone govern union affairs properly .. that is, run the union as the members wish it to be run..

 

well what is the problem ???

[Guest]

 

if you don't think either of them are the problem you are needing a labotamy

 

 

whits that  :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/

 

 

Harky - It is part of Glasgow Student Pub gents-toilet-wall humour, 'I'd rather have a frontal labotomy than a bottom in front of me.'

 

Tam - Before you can solve anything, you got to know what the problem is and where it lies. Take JB and WoS, which you think are the main 'probs', out of the SHU equation - do you think that would have made any difference to the conduct of the meeting? [JB wasn't in the chair]. Would the people there have discussed issues, behaved as adults, come to a decision after 3 and a half hours of 'discussion' and acted upon it?  I think the short answer is No.

 

JB & WoS are only symptoms.

 

 

[frank-123]

you never answered bruno

if jb and the wos are the symptoms whats the remedy?

[johno]

any organisation is heavily dependant on leadership and example. to say that certain individuals and organiations are only symptoms is like saying that individuals such as hitler or franco or mussolini were only symptoms of the spanish civil war and the second world war. the responsibility for the scottish homing union lies in the hands of the president. this is clear when you see the presdent has the right to allow or disallow motions and can use his power of veto. the wos organisation officials have responsibility for the wos. the example being set in both cases is the resposibility of jb and the wos federation management committee.

[Guest TAMMY_1]

 

 

 

 

Harky - It is part of Glasgow Student Pub gents-toilet-wall humour, 'I'd rather have a frontal labotomy than a bottom in front of me.'

 

Tam - Before you can solve anything, you got to know what the problem is and where it lies. Take JB and WoS, which you think are the main 'probs', out of the SHU equation - do you think that would have made any difference to the conduct of the meeting? [JB wasn't in the chair]. Would the people there have discussed issues, behaved as adults, come to a decision after 3 and a half hours of 'discussion' and acted upon it?  I think the short answer is No.

 

JB & WoS are only symptoms.

 

 

bruno if it was not for the issues arising about them there would not have been a meeting in the first place

[Guest]

bruno sometime i wonder if you live on the same plannet as the rest of us its not about the wos other than the fact that they allowed themself to be dragged into it by letting that man in the back door i would bet that most of there club didnt even know it was happening untill it was to late!!!

[Guest]

you never answered bruno

if jb and the wos are the symptoms whats the remedy?

 

The problem is first of all us, the members, Bart, and secondly Council. As we elect Council, the problem's the ordinary membership. Said so in two of my previous posts:-

 

 

My own feeling is that the running of the Union seems to have got away from ordinary members. Things brought out here only happen because folks stand by and let them happen. At the end of the day these people were voted into office by us, and from accounts of this meeting posted here , appears in some cases at least that our choice of representative has been poor.

 

 

The Union governing body is Council. Based on what has been said here, ordinary members aren't always electing the right folk as SHU delegates, they don't always mandate their delegates, and consequently Council cannot run itself let alone govern union affairs properly .. that is, run the union as the members wish it to be run..

 

The solution is to get ordinary members more involved. Fifer's idea of a membership ballot on the 'reading' of club & fed numbers (Rule 2) might be a good starting point. If our elected Council members can't or won't cast our vote for us ... then we can.

 

[Guest]

bruno sometime i wonder if you live on the same plannet as the rest of us its not about the wos other than the fact that they allowed themself to be dragged into it by letting that man in the back door i would bet that most of there club didnt even know it was happening untill it was to late!!!

 

Agreed. I do live on a different planet. Here one person doesn't tell everybody else what's going down. Prime minister doesn't tell Cabinet what policy is going to be ... the Cabinet tells him, (and the political party informs cabinet).

 

Our Cabinet is Council. Our party is ordinary membership. That bit of Union governance just isn't working. Disnae matter who is in the chair if Council can't perform the task it designed for - to run Union affairs the way the members want.

[Guest WINGS 04]

 

 

 

Our Cabinet is Council. Our party is ordinary membership. That bit of Union governance just isn't working. .

 

i think you have just answered what everone is saying

[Guest TAMMY_1]

 

i think you have just answered what everone is saying

 

eventually ;D

[Guest]

 

i think you have just answered what everone is saying

 

Think we are starting to go round in circles.  

 

What 'everyone' is saying is much the same as you :-

 

i can only see 2 things that would stop all of this is for the president to step down and for the wos to withdraw their fed application .i am not trying to pick on the wos .  

 

Don't agree that will change anything. If JB stands down tomorrow what's to stop same sort of thing happening again? Until the whole house is put in order, bottom to top, nothing,

 

Don't agree president stepping down is right thing either - if he has been involved in 'interpretation' of the rules, outside Council, the correct procedure would be to remove him from office. That would send out the right message to everyone..

[48RTC]

 

Think we are starting to go round in circles.  

 

What 'everyone' is saying is much the same as you :-

 

 

 

Don't agree that will change anything. If JB stands down tomorrow what's to stop same sort of thing happening again? Until the whole house is put in order, bottom to top, nothing,

 

Don't agree president stepping down is right thing either - if he has been involved in 'interpretation' of the rules, outside Council, the correct procedure would be to remove him from office. That would send out the right message to everyone..

 

 

do not understand your last paragrah bruno perhaps you could explain it to me as i cant get your point, thanks.

 

PS. what do you think needs puting in order within the shu council????????

 

[me]

Don't agree president stepping down is right thing either - if he has been involved in 'interpretation' of the rules, outside Council, the correct procedure would be to remove him from office. That would send out the right message to everyone..

 

 

Well said Bruno here here he should be slung out!

 

[Guest]

at last bruno i think you are starting to see through the woods but you still need to grasp the fact that the current shu presedent and his merry men in council can still manipulate the whole thing because they bend the rules as they see fit for there own end but there days are numbered i think more and more are seeing through them you are testomony of that and i wonder if they have the votes at council to carry on!!!!!

[gangster]

  WELL BOYS YOU ALL HOLD THE KEY TO THE PROBLEM....AS SAID BEFORE KICK HIM OUT ON HIS *expletive removed* AND HIS MONKEYS.........................................

[Guest TAMMY_1]

at last bruno i think you are starting to see through the woods but you still need to grasp the fact that the current shu presedent and his merry men in council can still manipulate the whole thing because they bend the rules as they see fit for there own end but there days are numbered i think more and more are seeing through them you are testomony of that and i wonder if they have the votes at council to carry on!!!!!

 

MAYBE A LOT ARE NOW FRANK

[Guest]

do not understand your last paragrah bruno perhaps you could explain it to me as i cant get your point, thanks.

 

This is about the meaning of Rule 2 which came out of the meeting. See Posts 8, 9 & 10. My point is one of principle - no one is above the law. It is Council’s decision to determine the meaning of our rules & constitution. If anyone has flaunted them for whatever reason, then the membership has got to be shown that Council will uphold our rules & constitution (same  principle no one is above the law no matter who it is) and if someone in office has flaunted them, then the only way to show it is to remove them from office … doing so gives a clear message of intent to everyone..

 

PS. what do you think needs puting in order within the shu council????????

 

There have been two threads about conduct of meetings. See Posts 13, 27 & 30. There have been a number of threads on delegate responsibilities to membership. From the description of the meeting here some delegates don’t appear to have conducted themselves properly, or discharged their duties well on behalf of the membership, or the Council, or the effective running of the Union. As you were also there perhaps you would care to comment? For example, your understanding of Rule 2 and the mandate from your Fed for the meeting, given the Agenda?

 

 

 

 

[48RTC]

 

This is about the meaning of Rule 2 which came out of the meeting. See Posts 8, 9 & 10. My point is one of principle - no one is above the law. It is Council’s decision to determine the meaning of our rules & constitution. If anyone has flaunted them for whatever reason, then the membership has got to be shown that Council will uphold our rules & constitution (same  principle no one is above the law no matter who it is) and if someone in office has flaunted them, then the only way to show it is to remove them from office … doing so gives a clear message of intent to everyone..

 

 

 

There have been two threads about conduct of meetings. See Posts 13, 27 & 30. There have been a number of threads on delegate responsibilities to membership. From the description of the meeting here some delegates don’t appear to have conducted themselves properly, or discharged their duties well on behalf of the membership, or the Council, or the effective running of the Union. As you were also there perhaps you would care to comment? For example, your understanding of Rule 2 and the mandate from your Fed for the meeting, given the Agenda?

 

 

 

 

i was really looking for your personl opinion on why you think john barlow should be removed from office, after all he did not chair the meeting in question, perhaps if he had the meeting would have been handled better, as for flaunting the rules john barlow has not broken any rules and does not deserve all the crap being said about him he is delegate for wos who meet the criteria to be a federation according to the constitution of the shu, some would have you beleive the council have the power to undo this well the truth is they dont, the council can only interprit the rules, they do not have the powers to change them and thats a fact.

 

as for posts 8, 9, 10, 13, 27, 30, i have read them and i think it is hardly fitting for a junior vice president of the shu to come on this forum and give his interpretation of the shu constitution knowing that it is contrary to the interpretation provided by the shu solicitor at the request of would you beleive the vice president and the junior vice president, (solicitors letter read out to council by vice president ian noble ) do you honestly think if the council voted to interpret the constitution the way the vice president would like us to and we ended up in court do you think our errors and ommisions insurance policy we pay for would defend us knowing the council had ignored the advice of their own solicitor, perhaps we should be more concerned about the conduct of our junior vice president who has the cheek to ask john barlow to step down and lanarkshires number one delegate to step back from council when i am not aware of either of these gentlemen coming on this forum to mislead anyone.

 

as for the conduct of the council i never witnessed any misconduct by any of the council members during or after the meeting but i am sure the vice president will have endeared himself to council by referng to them as clowns and the meeting as a circus.

 

perhaps you could tell me how i could possibly be mandated how to vote by my federation at this meeting when there was no agenda other than "irregularities" it would appear only certain councillors were informed of the real agenda.(by the way i did discuss the matter with my president and as he is the only one who can call meetings he obviously did not feel the need to based on the fact he trusts me to look after the federation and shu interest.)

 

while we are on about being mandated from your federation and the fifer saying delegates are messengers i would like to express my own views on this matter,

how can delegates possibly be messengers when situations such as this meeting keep arising, in my opinion delegates are there as representatives of their federations and their job is to look after the interests of their members and the members of the shu as a whole, that means every member of the shu not just the chosen few. the only mandate i have from my federation is to uphold the rules and constitution of the shu and i challenge any councillor to state otherwise, i have no personal agendas or ulterior motive for being on the council, my only wish is every councillor was given the same mandate as my own from their federations  (by the way contrary to what you might hear on this forum the majority of councillors do have the interests of the shu and the members interests at heart.)

 

please dont think i am having a go at you bruno, i know from reading your posts that you are a supporter of the shu and the sport in general, unlike some on this forum you ask the questions from the appropriate people when possible and try to get to the truth.

 

cheers.

 

PS. as a matter of interest who told you i was at the meeting??????

 

[Guest]

Thank you for your comprehensive reply, 48RTC.

 

In reply to your opening question - let me again make it clear that I do not wish JB to stand down / be removed as President as part of the present factional witchhunt i.e the one which has burned openly for some time in several threads on this forum.

 

But certain accusations were levelled in letters to the BHW and to bottom these accusations an emergency Council meeting was called. My post was on the findings of that meeting, that if anyone in office had been discovered to have flaunted the rules or constitution, for whatever reason, then they should be removed. I believe that to protect all our reputations - we members are after all the SHU - public accusations need equally public rebuttal, or if found to be factual, equally public remedy.

 

No one told me you were at the meeting. I recognised your alias from an earlier post, knew you to be an SHU delegate and asked you for your opinion on the conduct of the meeting and the meaning of rule 2, which you gave. This adds  balance to the current debate, which I believe is always helpful.

 

 

 

 

[GUTTY HEN]

Ronnie lets set one or two point out to you.One the members have every right to be mabe aware of what is going on at the shu council meetings.You along with your chosen friends are not the shu as you would like it to be.That we the members pay our money and you along with one or two council members can run the union.As long as i am on the shu council i WILL tell the members of the outcomes of their meetings no big deal as far as i am concerned.The next point is you did see what went on at the meeting along with others.We even had a man shouting out that another had been assaulted more than once or didnt you hear that?Their were at least two or three people should have been put out of the meeting and you also have to agree with that.I have every right to ask John Barlow to step down and stand by that.I along with others feel this would be best for everyone .I also want everyone to be aware that Ian Noble and myself the two vice presidents are not happy with the situation that we are in at the moment and will not just go along and say nothing .I dont want to be a part of the past i want to be the future of the sport in Scotland and people who are hell bent on stopping the union going forward need to step aside.You along with the majority of the people on the shu trust seem to be the main men who are hell bent on sticking your flag in the ground and keep harping back to the last 5/6 years when we have had real problems in the shu and many members walking away.We are back there again and we need to go forward.I feel that the time is right for to try and save the sport in Scotland and go forward for this to happen we need people with an open mind.I along with others can see the hurt and bad feelings from the past but we Must forgive but not forget and try and all work together.I was ata sale on Sunday in lanarkshire where pigeon men fron rpra and shu were all united as one for a very good cause selling youngsters for to give a family money for the death of a young member at TEN years old.This you could see everyone had a heart all we need is for some to have a brain and we could resolve all of this .WE will all have to give a little to gain a lot.Lets all put our hand up and say we have made mistakes but will give it a go after all if they can srt out the Irish then IF people want we can sort this sport out in Scotland but only if YOU want.It may be that some like it the way it is after all we had a council member say at the meeting that he didnt want these members back or didnt you hear that.What an advert fot the sport council members who dont want members.The point on the legal letter well what can i say that was one solicitors view on the matter but as we all are aware half the time they are wrong or they would all win all of the time for every good one there may be 10 bad also what advice was he given and from hume?I have spoken to another solicitor with a different view on one or two points from our council meeting.Ronnie where do we go with this you keep backing the past.I keep trying to look to the future.Result 0-0.Could i also say that you come to the meeting already made your mind up not willing to change your mind or others point of view all this about mandate from fed members.What a joke your members are not aware of all the facts.You are when you come to the meeting and have to look at the facts and do the right thing if the members dont like what you do on there behalf then they can change the council member at your fed level agm.

[GUTTY HEN]

Well said Bruno.Hope you see how cetain people always lokk into things that not there.This is one of the problems in the sport some members thik the world is against them and that everyone has it in for them.Look at the big picture if you can HELP THE SPORT GO FORWARD

[dandydoo]

Scott I have said it before ..... Committeess of any organisation can end up the nemesis of that organisation. The people who populate them feel that they are more important than the aims of the organisation. It is there position and and status that is more important than the aims and furthering of the organisation. My rules of thumb are

 

People should be interviewed and assessed regarding their ability to govern an Org i.e.what skill or knowlege or ability can they bring to the Org i.e. a bank Manager could help with finances etc ....just cos 10 folk put their hand up at a meeting doesnt say they are good at it

 

You need fair honest open brokers with no axe to grind and generally those folk would not go on a committee or become sickened and leave. Everyone who is part of a club fed region Union has a duty to ensure their reps all along represent them ....if they dont boot them off and elect someone that will ensure your views are heard. Huge egos and no ability and vendetta's detract from moving the sport forward and factions and sides. Who does what is best for the sport?

This is not confined to any ONE union in GB ...... its up to the root and branch members ....you only get what your willing to put up with

[Guest]

I’ve edited down your post to highlight bits I’d like to pick up on:-

 

 

 

as for flaunting the rules john barlow has not broken any rules and does not deserve all the crap being said about him he is delegate for wos who meet the criteria to be a federation according to the constitution of the shu, some would have you beleive the council have the power to undo this well the truth is they dont, the council can only interprit the rules, they do not have the powers to change them and thats a fact.

 

With respect, I do not think that Council has reached a decision on any of this. For example:-

 

(1)     How did John Barlow become a delegate for WoS and was the procedure within the rules & constitution of WoS Fed?

 

(2)     Who interpreted rule 2 in a way that perhaps most people would have not?  For example what is your own reading of the meaning of Rule 2, and what is your Fed’s reading of it?

 

(3)     What is Council’s interpretation of Rule 2?

 

 

i think it is hardly fitting for a junior vice president of the shu to come on this forum and give his interpretation of the shu constitution knowing that it is contrary to the interpretation provided by the shu solicitor at the request of would you beleive the vice president and the junior vice president, (solicitors letter read out to council by vice president ian noble ) do you honestly think if the council voted to interpret the constitution the way the vice president would like us to and we ended up in court do you think our errors and ommisions insurance policy we pay for would defend us knowing the council had ignored the advice of their own solicitor

 

Scott Gibson revealed issues which would be of concern to ordinary members. He is not alone in his reading of Rule 2. The existence of a legal opinion is interesting in that it hasn’t been given in full. For example: What was Rule 2 original intent and is this ‘new’ interpretation in keeping with that? Is the legal opinion on the original or new intent (Rule 2)? If there had been a change in intent, (interpretation) when was this done, why was it done and was Council responsible for the change?

 

Council is also given final say in the interpretation of Constitution & Rules. What is its interpretation of Rule 2 and does this reflect the wishes of the membership?

 

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps you could tell me how i could possibly be mandated how to vote by my federation at this meeting when there was no agenda other than "irregularities" it would appear only certain councillors were informed of the real agenda.(by the way i did discuss the matter with my president and as he is the only one who can call meetings he obviously did not feel the need to based on the fact he trusts me to look after the federation and shu interest.)

 

The irregularities formed part of a letter published in the BHW which has wide readership in Scotland.. You needed two pieces of information to decide whether they were irregularities or not – the number of members for a club, the number of clubs for a fed; your own fed members must have been among those that saw the letter and had an opinion on what those numbers were? What was your fed members’ opinion?

 

 

 

 

[Guest TAMMY_1]

BRUNO I HAVE COPIED PART OF YOUR POST HERE AND AFTER IT IS READ I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY MORE THAT NEEDS SAID EXCEPT FOR THE ANSWERS TO YOUR POST

 

With respect, I do not think that Council has reached a decision on any of this. For example:-

 

(1)     How did John Barlow become a delegate for WoS and was the procedure within the rules & constitution of WoS Fed?

 

(2)     Who interpreted rule 2 in a way that perhaps most people would have not?  For example what is your own reading of the meaning of Rule 2, and what is your Fed’s reading of it?

 

(3)     What is Council’s interpretation of Rule 2?

[Guest]

just have to wait on the best seller coming out that will ans.all