PREFACE TO THE REVISED CONSTITUTION
I wish to thank the members of the Association who attended the EGM held at the Queen’s Head, Stokesley on 26th November, 2007 and then listened so attentively to my
presentation. Further, I would like to add my appreciation to that expressed by many others, of the exemplary manner in which that meeting was conducted by our
Chairman.
To address certain concerns expressed at the meeting, I have made amendments to the following clauses in my original draft constitution:
a) 5.4.2 amended and adding 5.4.3 with consequential amendments to the definitions of ‘Non-executive Officers’ and 'Officers' in 2.1.
b) 5.7 amended and adding 6.3.
c) 6.5 and 6.7 added..
d) 7.3 c) amended.
The above alterations essentially deal with the power of co-option. When the question of 'substitutes' was discussed, I gave an assurance to certain members that the
clause in my original draft was designed to ensure, for example, that a sudden unavailability of a delegate would not result in the Association being unrepresented at
a particular meeting. The Chairman could select another member to attend immediately. He was not obliged to exercise this authority and, in any event, any decision for
co-option was subject to ratification. Later, it was considered that the Executive Committee should have this authority but the desire to have its meetings open to
members, and so on notice, would have eliminated a swift response to a problem which might be necessary. Accordingly, I have endeavoured to satisfy both sides.
It should be noted that 8.3 is unchanged, notwithstanding the proposal made from the floor towards the end of the meeting to increase to 20 the number of members
needed to call for an EGM.. Prior to this being raised the quorum provisions in my draft had been discussed and generally accepted. Only on reflection did it occur to
me that such a change would create an absurdity, namely twice as many members would be needed to call an EGM than had to be present to pass any resolution. The
alternative would have been to increase the quorum to the same level. In my judgment, given attendances at general meetings of the Association, there would be a
likelihood of pointless gatherings of members short of a quorum. The balance of potential evils dictated that I disregard the proposal.. I am confident that had I
explained this complication at the meeting, the suggestion would have been withdrawn.
e) 9.3 added.
f) 10 heading, substituting ‘financial’ for ‘fiscal’.
In conclusion, the above illustrates the point I made at the start of the meeting. A legal document is like a jig-saw puzzle: only the correct pieces fit together.
There are invariably 'knock-on' effects to any variation introduced to an original picture. It is the main reason why the current constitution and rules fail. The
principle will need to be borne in mind when I present the proposed new rules'.
Philip N. Mitcheson." |