Thanks Richy
1) "Never asked them"
The point of an AGM is to allow the membership to hold the officers to account and review matters like the Rules.
How could the members possibly be happy when the ABkC Rules (which include the details on how to get the Rules changed) have never been shared with them (I‘m not aware that they have)?
2) "accept rule changes"
And they also assume that the decisions taken by the ABkC are taken in the best interests of the members of the clubs.
In reality, the ABkC is designed to make decisions on a very different basis, with a strong commercial bias, eg the "tyre tax".
3) What can the members do?
This has never been fully explained to the members of the clubs, as far as I am aware.
You start to ask questions like "What is the actual aim of the ABkC?".
Should the ABkC aim to grow participation in the sport? If so, this has failed badly and the organisation is overdue being restructured, which needs the members to get their own clubs to take action which reflects their views (eg by adding agenda items to be debated by the 19th of November).
The tyre tax is, of course, directly at odds with growing the sport.
Or should the ABkC aim to maximise the revenue per club member for those with a commercial interest?
It will be interesting to see whether those in authority at present allow this debate to go ahead between now and the AGM, or whether it suits them not to have the debate at all.
By doing nothing, club members are silently agreeing to the tyre tax and decisions being taken with a commercial bias rather than in their best interests.
Club members then can‘t whinge afterwards when they are lumbered with the results.
|
|