I speak as a member who was aware of the strength of feeling (mainly through discussion on YACF) and who cared enough to listen to the protracted arguments both ways and vote accordingly. What I'm trying to say is that it all mattered to me but I was not directly involved so was not affected sufficiently to feel upset or angry although, if I'm honest, I have to admit to becoming a little fed up by the whole thing in the end.
For some strange reason I didn't get this week's email newsletter but the coverage in the magazine looks fairly balanced to me. JT's written statement is presumably quoted in full as is the petition itself and the direct response from the council is no longer. Overall, it appears to me that reasonably fair proportions of the page have been devoted to either side of the argument. So, the way I see it, 600+ members called for a petition and we now have such a petition the terms of which seem pretty straightforward. I don't personally see the encouragement to vote (either way) as being unfair because following the AGM I noted the small proportion of the membership that had cared to vote on something that had taken up so much time and energy. If a greater number vote on this petition then, whatever the outcome, that's fine - that's democracy. Presumably in calling for a petition the 600+ petitioners were hoping to get a greater number of members involved than on the AGM vote.
I'm wondering what will be the effect of the outcome either way. If motion 8 is rejected presumably that will mean that the council will have to completely drop the idea of converting to a charity and move on. If motion 8 is confirmed, I guess the council will be encouraged to propose the required change to the articles again sooner than they otherwise would've as they will be empowered to take the next required step in putting into effect the wishes of what they would (if this is the outcome) have established is the majority.
