BFA AGM - 7pm Friday 27th January

[Graeme]

So, if Joe's resolution to reduce the committee size is passed, and Joe and John are re-elected Chair and Treasurer, we're then looking at five committee members from the following list:

Chee Meng Au
Chris Lyall
Martin Landers
Jon May
Andrew Nubbert
Steve Lyall
Boris Atha
Ben Mason
Mayya Racy

Personally (and I guess it will be the same for other people) I would find it very difficult to decide who to vote for from this list, even thought I know them all personally. I have quite limited information about who has done what on previous committees, for instance (although this isn't the only thing I'm going on).

If any of the people standing have time to say even a couple more sentences about what their priorities will be, what they have achieved in the last year if they've already been on the committee and so forth then I'd be very grateful.

[Bundy Volume 1]

Though my initial proposal was to reduce the committee to 7, I can accept a compromise of 9 (which is allowed under the current constitution).

I think it is great that we have this number of people who want to be involved in the committee, but we need some way of encouraging everyone to carry out their proposed goals for being on the committee. This has failed to happen with some. The best solution I have now is competition for places on the committee, which a reduced committee size will hopefully provide.

Though it will not be easy talking about those on the committee, at the AGM I will point out those who have been quieter and less active on the committee. I also have a record of voting for those on the committee which will be presented. I know doing these things isn't easy, but as Graeme says, those not in the committee are unaware of what has gone on within it in the last 12 months.

Of course I do not wish to be critical of people, and I don't feel I will be, but some honesty will be needed to shape the best committee we can.

Joe.

[Jonathan may]

You need to read the BFA constitution in a bit more depth.

http://www.britfoos.com/sites/britfoos. ... -Feb11.doc

Voting does not follow the pattern you have described.

On a related note, I hope Joe's proposal does not pass. Although I think large Committees can be detrimental as they are "non-competitive" and some people lack motivation, this is a problem that can be overcome by structure, guidance/leadership etc. The converse problem of too few resources, discovered part-way through a term, cannot so easily be overcome.

Moreover, reducing the Committee size should only be done with a serious effort towards strengthening "working groups" or executive groups to whom decision-making and activities can be delegated. Without this effort, reducing the Committee simply has the effect of making it more homogeneous and less transparent.

Joe - I believe you are not entitled to present any information from the Committee forum without the permission of the Committee, which I hope will not be forthcoming. Naming those who have been - in your view - ineffectual, is not a constructive way to encourage development.

[ybbun]

I don't think the proposal will pass in its current form at the AGM. If we pass anything it will be to reduce the number of voting members to 7, while allowing other less active members observer status so they can still contribute but don't vote. This had more support when it was mentioned in the commitee forum. And as far as I can see, this would solve most of the problems of a large committee size while keeping most of the benefits.

[Graeme]

Jon, yes you're right, I should have read the Constitution more carefully. The Women's Officer and Webmaster can be in addition to the (currently 5-9) Executive Committee members, so Mayya is not in direct competition with the others in the way I suggested. This doesn't really change what I was trying to say though.

Also I was certainly not suggesting that anyone should 'dish the dirt' on ineffectual committee members. I completely agree this is not constructive.

[Alex MM]

I was wondering if anyone running for the committee has specific plans, aims, goals etc that would support clubs. The benifits of being a club are stated on the website atm as:

• Provisional BFA membership for all registered players
• Full BFA membership to registered BFA Cup team members
• Eligibility to compete in BFA team competitions (including but not limited to the BFA Cup) Only teams affiliated to registered clubs may compete in the BFA Cup!
• Ability to attend and vote at General Meetings (1 vote per club in addition to representatives individual vote if representative is a full member)
• Representation on relevant BFA Commissions and Working Groups

I feel this list certainly could be added to.
The most important one for me, as an exec member of a club, is "Representation on relevant BFA Commissions and Working Groups" as this is where the support for organising tournaments comes from. I cannot emphasis how helpfull people have been especially members of the committee however I really wanted some proper written info which to my surprise I found hidden away on the Britfoos site. I'm confused as to why no one pointed me towards it in the earlier. Also there are some really usefull posts in the forum for university societies burried away here. They clearly should be editted and put on the website. The support is often there but accessing it is difficult I feel it lacks structure. If there is anyone running for the committee who specifically aims to tackle this issue or would like to discuss there aims for the club structure in more detail I would be most eager to read their response.