|
Hi SBW committee,
As established in previous complaints, the safety sub-committee set up by Mary Furness in early 2023 was unconstitutional. When the procedures proposed by that illegal sub-committee was presented to the committee for review at the August 2023 committee meeting, I pointed out that the sub-committee - and therefore its procedures - were illegal and as a result the committee should not validate the process by deciding whether the procedures should be accepted.
My observation was quickly discussed by the committee and dismissed, although as far as I can remember it was dismissed not because it was wrong, but because the rest of the committee didn't seem to care about the legalities or the constitution - they just wanted to get on with the process of evaluating the safety procedures and didn't want to ignore the hard work that Julienne and David had put into their final document.
My observation and the ensuing discussion were never minuted, which is perfectly understandable given the enormity of the task for that particular meeting. Despite not being minuted, it did happen, and the episode sets a dangerous precedent. Apparently, the committee has now decided that sub-committees can be formed in any way whatsoever and their reports will be considered by the committee who are often just rubber stamps when it comes to any new ideas.
For example, the non-constitutional safety procedures were APPROVED. The committee members code of conduct with its obvious faults was APPROVED. Mary Furness wanted total control over all SBW communications, and the committee APPROVED. Someone points out that the President shouldn't have total control over all SBW communications, and the committee APPROVED the reversal of their previous decision as well!
There are actually quite severe restrictions placed on sub-committees in our constitution. "Rule 24. Delegation by committee to Sub-committee (a)" says "A Sub-committee shall deal with matters of a special nature and shall be confined to the terms under which the Sub-committee is established". I suspect this is because committees tend to rubber stamp sub-committee decisions and this rule prevents additional, unwanted or unnecessary inclusions being made.
Because the first safety sub-committee was set up illegally, there were no terms under which the Sub-committee was established. As a result, the sub-committee could - and did - produce absolutely anything that it wanted to. Luckily, the committee - in its wisdom - considered the procedures that the sub-committee produced too complicated, and called on yet another sub-committee to simplify them. This will be the basis for another complaint I will make against John Kubale, Greg Smith and Andy Winfield - for exceeding the terms under which the Sub-committee is established".
I would like to point out again that very few of the first safety sub-committee's procedures ever made it into the final set of procedures that was eventually agreed upon - illegally - by the committee, so in the end the committee apparently agreed with most of my negative assessments of them.
Section 13 of the SBW constitution says that a complaint may be made against a member of the Club who has refused or neglected to comply with a provision or provisions of the constitution, or who has willfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Club. I contend that the entire committee neglected to comply with a provision or provision of this constitution (that it is the committee not the President that forms sub-committees), and has wilfully acted in a matter prejudicial to the interests of the club by setting a precedent that could be used against the interests of the club in the future.
Regards,
Brett
|
|
