2017 AUK AGM hustings

[LittleWheelsandBig]

The next AUK AGM is coming up in February and I have thrown my hat into the ring again for non-exec director. The blurb is below. I don't know whether there are more nominations than allotted positions this time but, if you wish, ask me questions here or by PM and I'll do my best to answer them.

Nomination for non-executive director of Audax UK - Dave Minter AUK 6814
Proposed - Aidan Hedley AUK 4521
Seconded - Roger Cortis AUK 7244

I have been Audaxing for a fair while; having ridden my first Audax in 1992 and joined Audax UK in 2002. To date, I’ve finished 5 x PBPs and 2 x LELs (hopefully riding another later this year), collected various AUK awards including Ultra Randonneur and Brevet 25000, and ridden brevets up to 1600km long in 11 countries. Not much beats riding good roads amongst friends new and old.

In Australia, I introduced Audaxing to Queensland in 1994 and organised brevets ranging from 50km to 1000km, including the local version of the Easter Arrow. I served on the Audax Australia National Committee for three years and was National Calendar Coordinator for a year. My "A Little Audax History" article for Audax Australia has been republished by several randonneuring groups. http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1200.0 I continue to cooperate with the ACP and other groups to clarify records and answer a variety of questions. This background gives worthwhile insights into not just AUK (often a leader in the Audax world) but also how other national organisations function and solve issues.

I was a bicycle mechanic early on, before getting a proper job as a civil engineer. Recently that involves transport projects on four continents. Inevitably it provides quite a lot of experience in resolving conflicting views and achieving objectives in a practical and pragmatic fashion.

The AUK Board has generally performed well but I believe that some decisions would have benefited from more robust examination; part of the responsibilities of a non-executive director. I hope that my extensive experience and enthusiasm for long distance cycling will benefit AUK and its members.

[Whitedown Man]

 

[jsabine]

I believe there are only two hats in the ring this year: mine is the other.

It remains open to AUK members to vote against either our both of us ...

[LittleWheelsandBig]

That would be an interesting result.

[Veloman]

I believe there are only two hats in the ring this year: mine is the other.

It remains open to AUK members to vote against either our both of us ...

Or indeed abstain which the majority of AUK members will probably do based on previous voting patterns!

[Veloman]

I believe there are only two hats in the ring this year: mine is the other.

It remains open to AUK members to vote against either our both of us ...

Just received notification of the AGM and I note only 2 candidates for the 2 posts of Non-Executive Director.

If this were a local council election and 2 nominations had been received for 2 posts, the requirement for a vote would be void as the posts are 'uncontested'.

Also, the vote was by Ballot last year as 3 candidates were nominated for 2 posts.  Surely a Ballot style approach is appropriate just as in any election where you have a vote to support a candidate and by default you do not have to vote against anyone as that is obvious by not voting for them in the first place!  I assume just one vote for each of the candidates should suffice to elect both as there should not be a For/Against on this matter.

Would seem bizarre if both candidates were not approved at the AGM by way of a Ballot.

[jsabine]

It ain't a local council election ...
</obvious>

Pretty sure that last time it was possible to cast votes against even a sole candidate: I'd definitely draw a distinction between that and merely not voting for them.

I think it's useful, actually, as a means of gauging how divisive a candidate may be - I'd draw different conclusions about someone who had (say) 600 votes for and 200 against, rather than someone who simply had 400 in their favour.

(And no, I'm not saying that polarising opinion in that way is necessarily a bad thing, more that the reasons might bear looking at.)

[LittleWheelsandBig]

It has been possible to vote against even the sole nomination for a post for a couple of AGMs now. Only a few Board folk managed no votes against. From memory, Perm Sec and Mem Sec consistently avoided any negative votes. No doubt there were others.

[Veloman]

It ain't a local council election ...
</obvious>

Pretty sure that last time it was possible to cast votes against even a sole candidate: I'd definitely draw a distinction between that and merely not voting for them.

I think it's useful, actually, as a means of gauging how divisive a candidate may be - I'd draw different conclusions about someone who had (say) 600 votes for and 200 against, rather than someone who simply had 400 in their favour.

(And no, I'm not saying that polarising opinion in that way is necessarily a bad thing, more that the reasons might bear looking at.)

No question about it not being a council election, but I'm sure the process was understood whereby an unopposed candidate can be vetoed by a braying few, and the number of folks who bother to vote could be viewed as 'a few' compared to the overall membership of AUK.

Also leaves the way forward for no candidates being elected.

Sad that we could consider the voting procedure as evidence for gauging how divisive a candidate may be, or indeed having a process whereby we might consider someone volunteering for a role on AUK as doing it for divisive reasons.

What next? Talk of Momentum style lobby organisations on behalf of candidates?  My view that we are just a bunch of cyclists happy to get on with cycling while being grateful for folk volunteering to do the behind the scenes work at AUK is clearly wrong.

[Philip Whiteman]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Veloman]

I also note from the AGM in 2014 the result of the voting for the post of Calendar Events Secretary:

Martin Foley was elected with 333 votes with Tim Sollesse’s 206 votes

No mention of the For or Against votes, just the votes received in a straight competition, presumably by Ballot, for a single vacancy.

Again, reflects what happened last year when 3 candidates were nominated for 2 posts.  Ballot taken and 2 candidates with highest number of votes elected without the For and Against show of hands.

I assume a Ballot will be taken at the 2017 AGM, which reflects past processes, rather than a For and Against vote which is normally reserved for confirmation, or otherwise, of single appointments.  I also assume that if a For and Against vote was taken, it would have to be for each candidate which means I would have 2 votes, one for the first candidate and one for the second candidate, meaning I am voting twice as opposed to a Ballot where I select only one candidate and exercise a single.

Or am I missing a point about how business is conducted at an AGM?

[ian.r.mcdonald]

my impression is that the agm and associated voting has been presented in a superb professional way, and that the number voting will be increased . Whoever put the pack together Well done!!!!

[Veloman]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Fully entitled to your opinion Philip. but I'm sure you may recall events of last year and the unease in some quarters regarding the process and options for considering the number of candidates for the posts of Non-Executive Director.  Perhaps clarification should be sought prior to the AGM to save valuable debating time at the AGM which could be used for other matters.

Alternatively, as we will be holding the AGM in Room 101, then perhaps .......................!

my impression is that the agm and associated voting has been presented in a superb professional way, and that the number voting will be increased . Whoever put the pack together Well done!!!!

Definitely support that comment.  Excellent work.

[mattc]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Fully entitled to your opinion Philip. but I'm sure you may recall events of last year and the unease in some quarters regarding the process and options for considering the number of candidates for the posts of Non-Executive Director.  Perhaps clarification should be sought prior to the AGM to save valuable debating time at the AGM which could be used for other matters.

Philip that is a rather childish comment. The fact is that a lot of this admin/political stuff is pretty tedious to many members, but
it is bloody essential that somebody make the effort to sort it all out!

If you just want to ride your bike and leave the admin to someone else, then just be grateful and STFU

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Just for comparison, in the past couple of years Audax Oz has had major difficulties filling essential committee positions, despite calls for replacement volunteers months before. There has been some discussion there of shrinking the organisation and reducing the types of events and numbers of awards to reduce the committee workload. Randonneurs USA has had the same sort of debate about volunteer workloads.

Somebody has to do at least some of the boring stuff for Audax to happen at all. We already know that it is boring, that isn't news.

[LiamFitz]

Somebody has to do at least some of the boring stuff for Audax to happen at all. We already know that it is boring, that isn't news.

Well said - every time I get on my bike on the start line I'm grateful.  I might moan at the bonkersness of some to the way we do things, despair at some of the decisions etc but someone is giving up their time and I'm getting the benefits.  If you're willing to be part of the process - chapeau

[Redlight]

I'd agree too. I'm very grateful to everyone who gives up their time and energy to help me enjoy riding my bike, whether its an organiser's daughter serving tea at a control or the entire AUK board.  As with anything that requires a bit of commitment and organisation, those that will do, and those that won't criticise. My riposte to the latter would be to become the former.