Jump to content

CPS committee changes debate


Vic2

Recommended Posts

Someone suggested that votes would need to be counted by someone independant, which is plainly ludicrous. To be honest, if you think we are going to fiddle the system in our favour you have a very low opinion of us and I think you should either vote us all out or just find another plant society.

That was me. Thank you for considering my suggestion and coming back with a rational, non-confrontational answer! In my eyes, your only interest in this thread is that of defense of the CPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apart from some updating (slow and steady wins every time! Maybe the tortoise has finished his nap) I don't see the cps as a failing society, at all the shows I've seen them at they more than hold there own and unlike most society's who's memberships are dwindelling (there words I've spoke to enough of them) ours is always garantead new blood, when was the last time you saw a 16 year old get exited about anything green that they couldn't smoke? Also as I understand things there are issues if a society makes too much money, over night they go from a group of like minded individuals with a passion to share into a red tape ensnared 'business' that has to actually employ people in certain posts costing money that our niche hobby I fear would not support. Not trying to be negative about our hobby I evangelise about them like the next man but I don't see a day where there as common as let's say cacti, I say this with years of experience of the look on most peoples faces when you tell them how easy they are to grow and that's still to much hassle, "seems folk be thinking were all csi new York when I fear we more miss marple!"

I've only ever attended a couple of agms and I didn't feel I'd walked into a stalin like dictatorship, when Steve spoke I stopped clapping first and I'm still here! Lol no seriously I saw the memberships heads bow when they asked if there were any nominations blah blah not through fear and intimidation but more "s**t don't look at me I got enough work at home thanks". You get out what you putin (I left that in nice Freudian slip) and i can let everyone into a big secret people want to know how to get some of the free tickets to Chelsea, NEC etc that Paul and Steve apparently cream off the society? It's simple you volunteer to do a day on the stand and bingo as if by magic they arrive by post. You can see it in this thread that once some solid commitment is required people back out, that's not a criticism it's a fact I do it myself, 3 kids, mrs, job, plants etc and I feel that's the only reason most of the time posts go unaposed not through some KGB style police society, were losing perspective on what we are! I feel like Phil says that even. If there issome opposition and they get elected that after the noveltys worn off and they feel there own greenhouse needs attention more than RHS paperwork show schedules blah blah blah that like others before them will step down leaving the few left to try and do more providing an even poorer society than we apparently already have until it final collapse's into the bog from wence it came. Just my opinion and ya know what they say "opinions are like arseholes we all have them and most the time there full of......

I love free speech were the noisy minority drown out the silent majority. Xx

Edited by diva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept that voting by a show of hands is unfair because not every can or wants to attend the AGM. That is a fair enough comment. But to replace it with another means of voting that equally disenfranchises another section of the membership is also equally unfair and for that reason I have to oppose voting by email or via this forum. ...

Therefore I have to rule out voting purely by electronic means. Voting by post is the obvious option. ... Someone suggested that votes would need to be counted by someone independant, which is plainly ludicrous.

The other suggestion of a combination of a postal and electronic voting system is interesting but I can't quite see how it can be administered simply. ... I'm not ruliing it out but I'm not convinced since it just seems to be adding another tier of bureaucracy.

Looking on the poll at the moment I'm quite surprised that no one has voted for postal voting alone.

So undemocratic as it may seem, I am in favour of electing any committee post that is unopposed by default, so effectively without voting.

I helped introduce a system where we could vote by email on some issues so that we didn't have to wait for a full committee meeting to take a vote and make a decision. This has introduced a further dynamic to the committee which means we can respond quickly where we need to.

... as a committee I think that we need to check any potential candidates and approve them before submitting them for election. If nothing else this is to make sure that the candidate has a certain level of committment. ... I don't think democracy means that anyone can stand for any post unless they are willing to show a level of commitment to carry out their job.

As part of the selection I'd like to see any candidate providing a small piece detailing how they intend to carry out the post ... if someone can't come up with something of this nature then they are unlikely to have much time and energy for the post they are intending to occupy anyway.

... Again, if this seems undemocratic then I make no appologies.

Do we elect someone unopposed by default. ... It's hard enough to persuade people to stand for committee but to persuade them to stand in opposition to someone else?

I'm in favour of offering even an unnoposed new committee post for election despite my misgivings about only having one person to vote for simply because getting a vote does give them some sort of mandate from the membership.

We've always said that the society is run by the committee but we always listen to comments from the membership. That doesn't mean you should all assume that we will act according to how the membership here think we should do of course. Neither should you assume that just because we don't comment from time to time that it means we aren't listening.

Phil

Just when it was looking positive for the majority of the membership to be able to vote privately and easily... Disaster. :rolleyes:

The authoritarian jackboots have gone back on.

The straw poll is being ignored before it's even completed, and the membership is relegated to having what the Trustees and Committee say is good for it. You might have a postal election sometime in the future, and certainly after the AGM next Saturday.

Steve Cottell and Paul McKeown back in, unelected, as Chairman and de facto Vice-Chairman, to again ignore the Society and its membership.

But still take first pick at the free tickets to Chelsea and Gardener's World Live.

Well, CPS members...

I can only offer you two lights at the end of this tunnel:

The websites of the ICPS and Carnivora.

'Nuff said,

Very-Disappointed of Letchworth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As there there for a week before setting up etc your suggesting they shouldn't get a ticket? Any one can have them if you help out you need a ticket to get in! Simple but only you can make it into a sinister consipercy to rape the other members, you really pick n choose, please become a politician it's your natural calling.

Flick and society I felt those accusations that you'd interfear with a vote were way off target, how did we get from vic having a problem with anyone who doesn't think like him to accusations of lack of integrity and down right dishonesty. I've found all members of the society to be trustworthy in any dealings I've had with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First step would be to open nominations I assume.

As Phil says, discussing voting is a bit pointless if there's nobody to vote for.

But if you can get two people per post, and they submit statements, then it's progress I suppose.

I design the papers for a few NHS elections each year. An example is here: Example statements

Hi Alexis,

Thanks for the examples. Yeah - this is exactly what I had in mind. Don't suppose you fancy a job? Lol!

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just when it was looking positive for the majority of the membership to be able to vote privately and easily... Disaster. :yes:

The authoritarian jackboots have gone back on.

The straw poll is being ignored before it's even completed, and the membership is relegated to having what the Trustees and Committee say is good for it. You might have a postal election sometime in the future, and certainly after the AGM next Saturday.

Steve Cottell and Paul McKeown back in, unelected, as Chairman and de facto Vice-Chairman, to again ignore the Society and its membership.

But still take first pick at the free tickets to Chelsea and Gardener's World Live.

Well, CPS members...

I can only offer you two lights at the end of this tunnel:

The websites of the ICPS and Carnivora.

'Nuff said,

Very-Disappointed of Letchworth

Yawn. I'm bored with this now. I've given you a right of reply and you are too chicken to take it up. Put up or shut up I say. You have not one positive thing to say about the post that I spent hours composing. You can't or won't consider a single point. All you do is make the same old boring insults to the same old set of people.

Get a life Vic and go find someone else to bore.

Note to the moderators. I know Andy said that this thread will be closed after the AGM but can we close it now and continue with a level headed debate about elections etc on yet another thread. I'd like to consider how for instance we can encourage members to stand for posts. Free jelly babies perhaps? :rolleyes:

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was me. Thank you for considering my suggestion and coming back with a rational, non-confrontational answer! In my eyes, your only interest in this thread is that of defense of the CPS.

Thanks Mobile. On on!

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to the moderators. I know Andy said that this thread will be closed after the AGM but can we close it now and continue with a level headed debate about elections etc on yet another thread.

Phil

What would be the purpose of opening another thread? The 'arguments' between you and Vic would just continue there... pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

A few points from a committee member.

It is not undemocratic to have a postal vote which is limited to members. It is the way to easily ensure that only members vote. It is the way it is done by other organisations I have belonged to including those which are political and voting in Trade Union elections . We could probably do something in the member's area of the website if members area really want it; however, making sure that members only voted once could be administratively onerous. Voting via CPUK would also be problematic. We would need to set up a member's only area. Any volunteers to keep that updated for over 400 members?

We have had committee elections at the AGM since the society was formed 30 odd years ago. No one has raised the issue before but now that someone has, the Scoiety will put it to the membership to vote on even though the issue was raised by a non-member. Democracy in action.

In the email discussions I have had with other committee members the concensus is in support if that is what the members want.

Voting for Trustees is slightly more problematic. Charity Commission guidance states that some officials (committee members like the chairman and treasurer) should also be Trustees. They further say it is the responsibility of the existing Trustees to ensure that new Trustees are not legally disbarred from being Trustees (ie each new trustee would have to be vetted by the existing trustees). Appointment of new Trustees without a vote is recognised by the Commission as an acceptable method particularly where the new trustee brings some required expertise. It is the way the majority of charities operate. Certainly the RSPCA has never given me the chance of voting for their Trustees.

With regard to claims that the the Society is not meeting its charitable aims - the Trustees are required to send a statment of our activities to the Commission each year so that they can check that is what we are doing. To the best of my knowledge we have never been challenged on this.

I have been very disappointed/angry by claims that the committee is "stalinist". I am particularly incensed by a suggesstion that the committee cannot be trusted to run an election honestly. There is no conspiracy to stop any member from being on the committee. The problem has been that it is difficult to get anyone to volunteer particularly when they realise the amount of time required.

As always, the Committee will stand down at the AGM and some will seek re-election. Some members may oppose them (unlikely on past experience) and consequently some members may have their arms twisted to serve on the committee either at the AGM or subsequently. This is what happened to me, Darren, Ian and Dianne to name but a few.

I suspect that members will be ballotted on whether to have full member voting and, if the majority vote for it, volunteers with proposers and seconders will be sought. They will be asked to submit a short statement that will go on the ballot sheet. The ballot will be held, he results will be published and the new committee formed. Democracy in action. This will not happen before the AGM because of time constraints.

I hope that as many members as possible attend the AGM - particularly those who raised their concerns on CPUK about the existing committee. If you are a member and cannot attend but would still like to raise an issue you can contact me on [email protected]. I will bring it up and give you a response. I believe the Treasurer and Secretary have made the same offer.

Regards

Dennis Balsdon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am particularly incensed by a suggesstion that the committee cannot be trusted to run an election honestly. There is no conspiracy to stop any member from being on the committee. The problem has been that it is difficult to get anyone to volunteer particularly when they realise the amount of time required.

If you are referring to my comment...

Any postal votes would need to be counted by a totally independent person, i.e. someone not affiliated with the CPS in any way.

... then you have misinterpreted the reason I made this comment. If you allow members to count the votes then you leave yourselves totally open to accussations of vote fixing by those who may have some 'grudge' towards the elected members. By having these votes counted by someone totally independant you avoid this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting via CPUK would also be problematic. We would need to set up a member's only area. Any volunteers to keep that updated for over 400 members?

We have had committee elections at the AGM since the society was formed 30 odd years ago. No one has raised the issue before but now that someone has, the Scoiety will put it to the membership to vote on even though the issue was raised by a non-member. Democracy in action.

In the email discussions I have had with other committee members the concensus is in support if that is what the members want.

Voting for Trustees is slightly more problematic. Charity Commission guidance states that some officials (committee members like the chairman and treasurer) should also be Trustees. They further say it is the responsibility of the existing Trustees to ensure that new Trustees are not legally disbarred from being Trustees (ie each new trustee would have to be vetted by the existing trustees). Appointment of new Trustees without a vote is recognised by the Commission as an acceptable method particularly where the new trustee brings some required expertise. It is the way the majority of charities operate. Certainly the RSPCA has never given me the chance of voting for their Trustees.

With regard to claims that the the Society is not meeting its charitable aims - the Trustees are required to send a statment of our activities to the Commission each year so that they can check that is what we are doing. To the best of my knowledge we have never been challenged on this.

I suspect that members will be ballotted on whether to have full member voting and, if the majority vote for it, volunteers with proposers and seconders will be sought. The ballot will be held, he results will be published and the new committee formed. Democracy in action. This will not happen before the AGM because of time constraints.

I hope that as many members as possible attend the AGM - particularly those who raised their concerns on CPUK about the existing committee. If you are a member and cannot attend but would still like to raise an issue you can contact me on [email protected]. I will bring it up and give you a response. I believe the Treasurer and Secretary have made the same offer.

Regards

Dennis Balsdon

Thank heavens for Dennis Balsdon! :yes:

A voice of reason and consideration for members, to counter the (dare I say) undeniably Stalinist views of the CPS Secretary.

For a minute there, I was worried that Phil was speaking for all the Trustees and Committee. Phew... :yes:

Nice to hear that the concensus of the Committee is in favour of doing what the members want! :rolleyes:

Re. Dennis's points above:

The CPUK member's area only needs to be updated once a year. I volunteer to do it. :yes:

As you know, I've done this for the CPS before.

Voting for Trustees normally wouldn't be an issue. But Steve and Paul have proved themselves to be neglectful and self-interested, to the point that the Society's legally charitable aims are demonstrably not being met. (CP conservation, and an enormous pile of members' money dawdling in the bank for years, in case you ask again!)

If voted out of office as leaders of the CPS, a prime concern is that Steve and Paul would retain control within the CPS by remaining as Trustees. Steve and Paul have used their positions as Trustees to bring in their long-time friends, who are covering up for S & P's long-term neglect like mad, instead of facing the problem with the membership and resolving it.

Assure the membership that Steve and Paul wouldn't remain Trustees if voted out of leadership positions, and the problem goes away.

So far, the straw poll shows that over half the voters want an online election, which Andy says can be private, free and fair on CPUK.

But it's democratic for a postal vote for those who can't/won't vote online.

You just determine who's voting online and who by post. The members who opt for postal votes don't get added to the CPUK member's voting area. Simple!

I can't see a ballot for full member voting at the AGM failing to be passed, can you?

If it did fail, there would be uproar from the absent majority of members, and rightly so!

IMHO, you could proceeed right now to the full-member elections, without the slightest fear of contradiction... !! :D

It is also - with great regret - that I must now add Phil Wilson to Steve and Paul as CPS leaders and Trustees who deserve to be voted out of leadership positions.

Phil is abusing the power of the offices he holds, wanting to tell the membership what to do instead of it telling him, proven mendacity and alleged libel on behalf of the Society, and a demonstrable wish to stifle rightful dissent and the truth.

I knew it would be difficult to lever out the seriously bad things in the CPS - for they are well entrenched over many years - but I had no idea it would come to this.

I have considerable faith in Tim, Dennis, Flick and Sheila... :yes:

And I've heard good things about Dianne's contributions.

Let's hope some more sunshine comes in soon, eh?

Vic

Edited by Vic2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the purpose of opening another thread? The 'arguments' between you and Vic would just continue there... pointless.

Because this thread is being closed after Saturday and I'd quite like to keep the debate on ballots etc going after. As long as it keeps positive and constructive. And yes Vic will continue to post his nonsense. What would you do if he attacked you? Ignore him? I tried that and it doesn't stop him so I may as well respond, even if I'm aware that he's only trying to bait me.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are referring to my comment...

... then you have misinterpreted the reason I made this comment. If you allow members to count the votes then you leave yourselves totally open to accussations of vote fixing by those who may have some 'grudge' towards the elected members. By having these votes counted by someone totally independant you avoid this.

That's an easy one to deal with. We keep the voting slips and make them available to anyone who wants to see them. As long as there are no personal details on the voting forms we can do this without contravening the data protection act. I suppose it doesn't get over the possible accusation that someone might be shredding a few votes that they don't want to see but I can't see a way round that unless we employ someone independant.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic, I totally agree about what you say,the membership should tell the elected what to do.

But they are elected by the membership to do the best for the society as they see it at the time.They can't write or e-mail every body with every tiny little detail can they?

Phil has invited you to the AGM Personally as his guest.

If i was you and said what you have,i would be there come hell or high water,to defend what i had said and prove myself right in front of those who can be bothered to turn up for the AGM.If you feel so strongly about the CPS i'm sure your friends would understand your cancelling at the last minute.

All the issues you have raised could be sorted out then instead of simmering on for another year.

I don't have all the info you claim to have,but take Phils offer/challenge up and lets get this sorted and finished and move on.

ada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this thread is being closed after Saturday and I'd quite like to keep the debate on ballots etc going after. As long as it keeps positive and constructive.

Sorry... I misinterpreted the reason for closing it. Yes, I agree that continuing a constructive debate would be of benefit.

What would you do if he attacked you? Ignore him?

Yes, as all the thread turns into is an argument between the two of you, in which no one will win and it detracts from the positives in the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it doesn't get over the possible accusation that someone might be shredding a few votes that they don't want to see but I can't see a way round that unless we employ someone independant.

You could possibly try asking another independent society if they could assist in this... Rotary club, WI etc? I guess that this is where online voting is preferable, as then it is not necessary for 'anyone' to be involved in the counting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank heavens for Dennis Balsdon! :yes:

A voice of reason and consideration for members, to counter the (dare I say) undeniably Stalinist views of the CPS Secretary.

For a minute there, I was worried that Phil was speaking for all the Trustees and Committee. Phew... :sweat:

Vic,

I find the accusation that I am a Stalinist with Stalinist views completely and utterly offensive.

You've finally managed to get to me so well done. I quit this debate. Say what you like about me and the CPS. I no longer care.

Goodbye.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the accusation that I am a Stalinist with Stalinist views completely and utterly offensive.

You've finally managed to get to me so well done. I quit this debate. Say what you like about me and the CPS. I no longer care.

Goodbye.

Phil

Unfortunately, if all the committee members take this decision then there will be no one listening to the positive suggestions and views of members in the thread. So, no more mud slinging please, as it's of detriment to the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic, I totally agree about what you say,the membership should tell the elected what to do.

But they are elected by the membership to do the best for the society as they see it at the time.They can't write or e-mail every body with every tiny little detail can they?

Phil has invited you to the AGM Personally as his guest.

If i was you and said what you have,i would be there come hell or high water,to defend what i had said and prove myself right in front of those who can be bothered to turn up for the AGM.If you feel so strongly about the CPS i'm sure your friends would understand your cancelling at the last minute.

All the issues you have raised could be sorted out then instead of simmering on for another year.

I don't have all the info you claim to have,but take Phils offer/challenge up and lets get this sorted and finished and move on.

ada.

I'd like to, ada, believe me I would. :yes:

But I'm not letting down my friends and losing my deposit for this.

If the CPS wants to organise a showdown which I can attend, I'd gladly join in the debate!

It'd be interesting, taking apart the cover-up and revealing the leadership's persistent neglect and self-interest, in person in front of the membership :sweat:

PM me to arrange.

The truth is that I've already revealed about as much as I can about Steve and Paul's neglect without embarrassing other people. And I've reached a far wider section of the membership than would ever be possible at a physical AGM.

And, even if there's a leadership change, it won't affect me. I'm in permanent exile, unless I sign a forced confession that I was wrong, and I lied, when I wasn't and didn't - I've always told the truth. And I've proved it.

I've done my best for the CPS. But only the whole membership - including those good Committee members whose names shall be hallowed forevermore :yes: - can really replace Steve, Paul and Phil with something better.

I can continue to promote and facilitate free, fair and private elections for the whole CPS membership - and point out the leadership's excesses and untruths! - but then it has to be up to you, the members.

I really do hope the CPS improves for its members, as we've seen on this topic that it badly needs to.

Good luck,

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an on and off member of the CPS going back 30 years but having never met either side, I have actually only a passing interest in this squabble, however;

We are all capable of re-joining or not as we see fit and don't need to be cajoled into doing either, by either side.

The fact that commitee members may make decisions without resorting to asking every member is not a surprise and is how democracy in reality actually works most of the time, we elect people to make decisions for us and kick them out when we don't like the result. If anybody is unhappy with the leadership then why not stand for election as we are all entitled to do, end of story.

Internet/postal elections - good idea, lets get it done.

Beyond that I fail to see what re-hashing these smoke and mirror accusations and counter accusations are actually achieving or even what they are trying to achieve, its certainly not in the best interest of the CPS, looks very much like rattles being thrown out of prams to the slightly bored and disinterested onlooker, and I dare say if I was chairman in a similar position I wouldn't lower myself by bothering to reply either, and no he's not a mate of mine, i've never met him.

Suffice it to say if there are any serious breaches of rules then they should be reported to the relevant authority with evidence, end of story, no need for a rehash.

Sadly, this subject is a bit like groundhog day but less interesting, if that's possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic,

I find the accusation that I am a Stalinist with Stalinist views completely and utterly offensive.

You've finally managed to get to me so well done. I quit this debate. Say what you like about me and the CPS. I no longer care.

Goodbye.

Phil

I'm sorry you're leaving the debate, Phil.

And I didn't mean to cause you personal harm. :yes:

It's the attitude and behaviour - not you personally - at fault, IMHO.

Please read through your posts, and you'll hopefully see why I think that the description unfortunately fits, and rather too well for my liking.

I'm also sure you can change your leadership style to reflect the conscientious, decent man lurking underneath, as I know he does.

You weren't at all like this before you became a Trustee and CPS Secretary.

FWIW, I enjoyed your SOH on the Committee! :sweat: We had a few good laughs there, didn't we?

Sorry,

Vic

Edited by Vic2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why committee members took offense to the suggestion of independent counting being required. I pointed out the reason many posts ago

Post does go astray and if the votes were being counted by the current committee, the result would be open to accusations of being 'biased' or tampered with.

Nothing about personal trust of them - just being above reproach. After all, MP's are 'trusted' to run the country - but imagine if they wanted to count their own votes :sweat:

As I see this thread, there are three main issues,

1) - it seems generally agreed that the CPS web site leaves much to be desired. It needs to be kept up to date AND as importantly, the CPS committee needs to actually use it to put important information on and so inform ITS MEMBERS - preferably as the FIRST place they put information, rather than the last - if anyone can be bothered and after people have complained that it isn't on there.

2) - voting for committee posts. I think it is already quite clear (feel free to disagree), that most members are voting for online voting, with (quite rightly) the option of postal voting for those who can't use the internet. This shows that the membership is fair and want an inclusive voting system, rather than just the few able to attend AGM's.

However, it has been made quite clear by the committee, that any voting will likely be irrelevant, as there would be no vote unless two people contested the same post. And I don't believe that most members have any issue what so ever, with MOST of the current committee.

Now Phil pointed out the consequence of 'voting out' certain committee members, but neatly avoided the posts of most concern Steve & Paul. But much earlier he said

Well with all due respect I think you're wrong Vic!

If you had any idea about how a committee works you would realise that committees can and do reach decisions every day without the input of the chairman. In fact the only special voting and decision making that a chairman has to make is that he or she has the casting vote in the event that the committee is unable to reach a majority vote. Certainly the chairman and (sic) vice-chairman have no authority to prevent the committee from taking a decision. The committee works as a democracy.

So it looks as though there would actually no consequence of 'deselecting them'.

Which seems to be the 3rd point.

3) - a vote of confidence in Steve and Paul. And their absence in this debate has been very obvious, even though there are several CPS members raising issues here, the CPS Chairman has said not one word.

Now despite the Vic / Phil W. issues, I don't think most (if any) members have any problems with Phils work, but if he wanted to, I'm sure he'd receive a full vote of confidence.

But again - no one seems to really be questioning Steve and Paul being Show organisers - it has already been said they do a good job. It is just the Chairman's post and 'apparent' vice Chairman.

And it does seem to me that CPS members are now calling for a vote of confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Join the CPS Donate


×
×
  • Create New...