I'm sure Scrivy will be along directly to answer this, which is not ideal.
I doubt it's how anybody would try and run the club, and I doubt anyone could in good conscience allow themselves to be nominated for the position if they would.
Here's what I think would be a positive step in the running of our club. Anyone with aspirations of running it, should have a minimum term of being on the board first. It does a couple of things.
1. They get first hand experience of how things are done now, to better equip themselves for implementing any changes they would like to see.
2. It allows members to see how they handle themselves, and get e feel for their integrity.
3. It potentially puts them in a tough position, at making them work along side someone they don't agree with on the issue.
The third one is pertinent in this case. Jim and Chris would likely struggle at working together, especially after all this shit. How they handle themselves and the situation would be quite telling as to who is the better man for the job. Diplomacy is key in such a role, and any underhandedness would be witnessed by three other board members.
Can someone please tell me (so I don't have to look up the procedure myself), how I can table this idea for consideration and a member vote? If it's anything like other clubs I've been a member of I'll have to present the idea with a minimum time period before an AGM. So that submissions for and against can be compiled.
Bookmarks