Elections

[Tim and June]

The caretaking committee have discussed the subject of elections and feel that now that we have a solid membership its time to consider electing officers.

Contact has been made with a number of other associations around the world asking them for feedback on what they find works for them.

Many have said that small is the way to go because more seems to get done. The idea sounds reasonably good, particularly when you consider that each elected member can have others to assist. For example, we will need an officer who is tasked with maintenance of the website. There are many members with strong talents/experience (a number have offered) in that department who can give that officer some help, and so they should.

We envisage that there will always be some way in which each member can help if he/she feels inclined.

We also feel that the GAGB belongs to the members and the members should dictate how the association is run. To this end, before we hold polls to decide who should represent us, we should find out what roles should exist on the committee.

As I said above, small would probably be better but here are a few suggestions of some roles which might be worth considering. Perhaps some of the roles should be integrated and others just deleted.


Chair
Webmaster
Secretary
Negotiation Officer (for negotiation with land managers etc)
Comunications/Publicity
Law/Statutes (to keep us up to date with legislation)
Environmental/CITO
Regional Officer (with helpers in each region)
Events Organiser (to organise events and get togethers, of course)
Geomuggle Guardian (to help introduce Geomuggles to caching with loads of helpers of course.)
ETC. ETC.

As we believe that there will never be any association funds or fund raising, we do not envisage the need for a treasurer.

So, What do the members think ?

[Chris n Maria]

Ok working on the principle that small is beautifull MHO is:

Chair - well you have to have one (like film producers no one knows what they do but you have to have one ;) )

Webmaster - possibly not a comittee place but a helper to communications?

Secretary - someone has to do the work

Negotiation Officer (for negotiation with land managers etc) - advisory role would be collate and distribute experience of negotiations.

Comunications/Publicity - lots of helpers including webmaster etc.

Law/Statutes (to keep us up to date with legislation) - bit of a specialist job, if there is someone out there then perhaps they shouldbe a helper to the Negotiation Officer

Environmental/CITO -what does CITO stand for?

Regional Officer (with helpers in each region) - is this really needed yet? perhaps one for later?

Events Organiser (to organise events and get togethers, of course) - perhaps or would it be better done on an event by event basis (as now)?

Geomuggle Guardian (to help introduce Geomuggles to caching with loads of helpers of course.) - helpers to communication


What do others think ?
Chris

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jul 2 2003, 01:13 PM
-what does CITO stand for?
Cache in, Trash out.


:D

[Mr & Mrs Hedgehog]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 2 2003, 09:11 AM
As we believe that there will never be any association funds or fund raising, we do not envisage the need for a treasurer.

Just one quick point. Surely the accociation will have expenses. For example domain names, web site hosting, stamps for letters to landowners etc. Where would the money for these items come from?

[marinor]

Lots of titles, lots of complications and job 'boundaries' with potential of overstepping them and disagreements...

I respectfully suggest that we have an 'Admin' group of max 6 persons (to allow for holidays/illness coverage etc.), this group would cover all requirements. If and probably when assistance is required in whatever area, then the admins could post a request in the forum for helpers, or if they know of a member with the expertise required could approach directly. Maybe the members could add into their profiles what areas they could and would assist in, what geographical areas they could cover and when they are available, weekends, afternoons etc.
IMHO less works.

All the best
Bill

P.S. my recommended admin group would be the people who had the foresight (and bottle) to set GAGB up in the first place.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Well here go's Chairperson(can't be sexist). Overview, link between committie members.
Negotiations Officer, negotiations with national organisations and countie councils
Reporting to above(Regional, to provide local geocachers with support in talks with local land owners)
(Legal, to provide legal advice on current and future legislation, also reporting to Chairperson)
Public Relations Officer, providing good publicity about the Organisation and Geocaching, liason with members of the press and information services[tv, radio, printed]
Reporting to the above(Geomuggle Guardian, geomuggle introduction trainer/helper co- ordinator. Able to pass details on to local cacher willing to act as introduction trainers/helpers)
(Web Master, caretaker of the organisational web sites, advice to the committie on the look/ contents of the web sites)
Secretary/ members officer,day to day running of the organisation/ liaison with members over membership problems
Reporting to the above(Regional Membership officers, initial contact for local members over membership problems, local joining contact)
Sorry it's a bit convoluted when put down like this, looks better when written down as a organisation chart on paper. What it gives you is a four person committie, with three support members plus the regional support members reporting to individual committie members. Depending on the no of regions this gives a reasonably small chain of command.(Regional posts can be combined to keep the no's down) Long post sorry, Mancunian Pyrocacher

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by Tim and June+Jul 2 2003, 04:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Jul 2 2003, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Chris n Maria@Jul 2 2003, 01:13 PM
-what does CITO stand for?
Cache in, Trash out.


:D [/b][/quote]
doh&#33; :blink:

[Bill D (wwh)]

I certainly think the committee should be small. In my own experience small committees are much more focussed and effective.

I don&#39;t think that (at this stage anyway) members need to have specific roles or job titles, with a few (obvious?) exceptions. There should be a chairman/woman/person to take charge of meetings and generally chivvy and bully everyone along. There should be a secretary, whose main function should be the keeping of records of meetings etc. And it seems to me there should be a treasurer. As Mr & Mrs Hedgehog pointed out, there will surely be expenditure, in the future if not immediately. Individuals may be happy to stand out-of-pocket expenses themselves at the moment, but that shouldn&#39;t be a requirement of the job, and in any case expenditure could grow in all sorts of unexpected ways.

My preference would be a total committee of perhaps six or seven, including the above mentioned three (normally called officers of the committee), and three or four ordinary members without specific roles.

If the elected committee should decide to put individual (already elected) members in charge of individual areas then that would of course be entirely up to them, and likewise if they should wish to co-opt non-elected people to take charge of particular areas they could. If co-opted members only attend meetings that they&#39;re requested to be at then the thing remains small and manageable, and doesn&#39;t become an overgrown talking shop.

Finally, like marinor, my vote would go to <.quote> the people who had the foresight (and bottle) to set GAGB up in the first place<.endquote>.

[paul.blitz]

I am on the Winchester Hospital Radio exec committee, and we have discussed committe structure quite a bit recently.

There seem to be 2 ways to go:
(a) a set of predefined roles
(B) a group of people, who work out amongst them what to do

The advantage of (a) is that we would be electing specific people to do the jobs we want them to do... ie the members get to control who does what. But it does require that the posts are carefully defined.

The advantage of (B) is that it allows the committee themselves to work out who can do what (ie is able, has the time...), and allows the job-sharing to be quite dynamic. This all requires more trust of the committee by the membership.

Given that GAGB is pretty much in its infancy, I prefer the idea of (B): elect a team, and let them get on with it. I would suggest that maybe their tasks for the first year would need to include "The Constutution" (or whatever name it goes under....) and "The Committee Structure".

If we go for (B); I think it important that those standing should make it clear what their skills are, and where they feel they can help the organisation.... after all, we need to end up with a team that can cover the main areas... but remember that they are 100% allowed to delegate anything they wish. Sounds like "ability to deal with others" will be high on the list of their abilities&#33;

As for the chairman: let them elect their own.

But by this time next year, I would envisage that we would be wanting to elect specific posts.


Did that all make sense? It did to me, but I have the advantage that I wrote it&#33;&#33;&#33;

Paul

[chuffer]

Is not the Cart being put before the Horse here ? Surely a constitution needs to be thrashed out before officers can be elected.

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by chuffer@Jul 3 2003, 08:54 AM
Is not the Cart being put before the Horse here ? Surely a constitution needs to be thrashed out before officers can be elected.
Well, we did think of that, but ...

As there is no elected persons, who has the right to decide what the constitution should be comprised of ?

[Brenin Tegeingl]

May I suggest that we have a vote of all members on the issue of electing the current caretaker admin, to the official committee with a remit of the day to day running of the association and formalising a constitiution. Which is to be put to a formal vote of all members. The above to run for a fixed period of 365 days, by which time a formal committee is to have been elected. This would allow a continuity of the association, after the official elected committee takes over, and would allow formal consultation with members over issues before a vote. And possibly the most important issue, would place a unified front backed by its members to the non geocaching community. We have been very lucky that the hard work of the few has turned out so well with HCC, to be able to show that we can act in a unified way before a formal constitiution and elected officers under that constitiution, can only help us with other large land owner/management organisations. Mancunian.

[stumper]

Originally posted by Mancunian@Jul 3 2003, 10:52 AM
May I suggest that we have a vote of all members on the issue of electing the current caretaker admin, to the official committee with a remit of the day to day running of the association and formalising a constitiution. Which is to be put to a formal vote of all members. The above to run for a fixed period of 365 days,
Whoa... whoa... whoa...
There were a couple of things about GAGB that troubled me at the start. The first was the "single voice for all geocachers" in the original website. That was a concern of quite a number of people and was taken on board and addressed.

The other was that GAGB appeared from nowhere with what looked like a ready made committee. Various accusations about this were bandied about on the GC.com forums and Tim & June gave an assurance this was not the case and that a new committee would be elected. On the basis of that assurance I decided to join GAGB.

Whilst I&#39;m sure that any elected committee would probably be made up of some of the current encumbants I think it would be a very bad idea to elect them en-bloc and unopposed. This is a democratic organisation not a building society. :D :D

Mike.

[Motley Crew]

My thoughts on this .......

I think a committee of 5 or 6 would suffice at this stage. Each individual will have different areas of expertise, resources and available time and the group should be left to decide amongst themselves which activity each individual would undertake.

I would suggest staggering the &#39;voting in&#39; of new committee member over the next year - say elect posts every 2 months, with the post up for re-election yearly. This should ensure that some continuity is maintained throughout. I don&#39;t think it would good for GAGB if all posts were up for re-election at the same time. If the staggered method of bringing in new committee members is implemented then the new incumbent can be &#39;mentored&#39; gently into the fold by the outgoing member.

On the &#39;who should be the first committee members&#39; question I, as previous posters have intimated, would be happy for those currently occupying the admin positions to be voted in as committee members should they so wish. They have invaluable experience and knowledge to offer the community. Should anyone else be prepared to serve on the committee then they should make the fact known which would ensure the membership can consider them also.

So, how about members who have the skills/available time/expertise etc. and, most important of all, would be willing to serve on the committee, putting themselves forward on these forums now so we can find out who (if anyone) is willing to take on a committee position. Perhaps a new topic &#39;Committee Candidates&#39; would be in order?

[The Hornet]

Well I bet many of you are surprised to see me posting here. As you will no doubt be aware I had serious misgivings about GAGB, its stated aims and the way in which it was sprung upon the geocaching fraternity. Since then I have seen it develop, its aims be refined and I have decided to join. One of the reasons being that with any democratic organisation the only way to guide it in the way you think is right is from constructive criticism within.

So now I am an insider :o will I start criticising? No, not now.

I have seen the founding fathers (and mothers ;) ) listen to what members (and even non-members) have been saying and have seen how things have been changing. These changes are the result of democracy in action. That I can relate to&#33;

So now for another surprise ;) I agree with what Paul Blitz said above&#33;

I think a fairly undefined group of about 6 people although with a Chairman (lady or man - I hate and detest the PC version &#39;Chair&#39;) to guide meetings & discussions is as much as we (wow&#33; did I say we? :P ) need right now.

As the association develops then maybe more clearly defined roles will emerge but for now keep it loose and informal.

Thank you from your newest member. I think I need to sit down now&#33;&#33;

[Lost in Space]

As they say..."Like father, like son" and so here am I.

In my past life as "professional" meeting attender/leader/facilitator, and in my current life as Chairman of the local branch of a National Society, ( Name not to be divulged as those who know me would laugh out loud - and NO it is NOT Alcoholics Anonymous), I would like to add my thoughts.

The initial committee should be a maximum of 6 and the first thing they should work on is the development, and concurrence, of a "Mission Statement", (Why is there an Association, what does it do, how does it do it..??)
From the Mission Statement the committee can then develop a "Strategic Vision", (Where do we see the Association in 5, 10 years..?), and from that can develop an Operating Plan for the next twelve months or so, (What are we going to do, who do we need, do they need to be on the committee?)
Then, you can develop a "constitution" (how long are elected officials to stand, must the whole committee stand down and be re-elected every year, when should AGM&#39;s be held, how do members vote, etc, etc....)

My own personal opinion is that the original 6 committee members be selected, (undemocratically, by T&J, Moss T, and Eckington) to represent, where possible the regions.

Just my thoughts..................... :huh: :blink:

[Paul G0TLG]

I&#39;ve been on a fair number of committees in my time and based on THAT experience - I think the best suggestion is: For now, elect six members, let &#39;em sort out their own jobs, and draft a constitution, mission statement etc for approval by all of us.

I &#39;kind of&#39; agree that en-bloc election of the so-called "secret six" would smack of undemocracy (even if it wasn&#39;t, it would look like it was), but would personally vote for them all if they stood individually.

Paul

[Omally]

Originally posted by The Hornet@Jul 6 2003, 05:34 PM
Well I bet many of you are surprised to see me posting here. <snip> One of the reasons being that with any democratic organisation the only way to guide it in the way you think is right is from constructive criticism within.

So now I am an insider...

Spot on, Hornet, I agree totally&#33; :D
I can fully understand your misgivings at first. Must admit: I also thought it a bit strange how it was sprung on us all of a sudden. I decided to give GAGB the same chance you just have, albeit slightly earlier and before seeing the recent moderations/adjustments. Blind faith on my part perhaps, but faith nonetheless.

My experience of committees is limited to say the least. I feel the slowly-but-surely approach may be a good&#39;un. I particularly like the suggestion put forward by Motley Crew about electing one or two members every couple of months. This would give the committee a chance to grow gently and become stronger and more effective in the process. Maybe start with the position of Chairman/lady (I hate PC as well&#33;) just so we have a "figurehead" and work our way through the rest? The existing "committee" seem to be doing OK so far, and the role of caretaker is not to be surrendered lightly.

[washboy]

Originally posted by Lost in Sapce@Jul 6 2003, 06:27 PM
My own personal opinion is that the original 6 committee members be selected, (undemocratically, by T&J, Moss T, and Eckington) to represent, where possible the regions.

I seem to remember that one of the issues with the way GAGB was launched was its apparent "ties" with gc.com.

For its initial committee to be selected by gc.com moderators and/or approvers might stir up a hornet&#39;s (best make that wasp&#39;s ;)) nest again.

BTW, at the risk of being accused of drawing attention to bad spelling, etc., did Lost in Space really intend to register as Lost in Sapce? :rolleyes:

[Lost in Space]

Originally posted by washboy@Jul 7 2003, 03:40 AM


BTW, at the risk of being accused of drawing attention to bad spelling, etc., did Lost in Space really intend to register as Lost in Sapce? :rolleyes:



There you go&#33; Sainsbury&#39;s Vin Rouge strikes again&#33;&#33; :blink: :blink:

If any forum moderators/owners are reading this and can correct "Sainsbury&#39;s" error, I would be most grateful...

Lost in SPACE

[Admin]

Originally posted by Lost in Space@Jul 7 2003, 09:02 AM
If any forum moderators/owners are reading this and can correct "Sainsbury&#39;s" error, I would be most grateful...
Consider it done :D

[Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog]

Having been on committes before and formed an organisation which I eventually became Chairman of for over 10 years, I would agree with most of the comment here. Have a small committe to start with. Maybe the odd specialist post... depending on what the members think is a priority for the org. eg liasing with Local Authorities.....

Peter

[Pharisee]

Committees, kwangos, teams, especially teams I avoid like the plague but I have always been an advocate of the KISS way of doing things. It usually works and can be applied to just about anything.