Who runs committee meetings?

[fazza]

I have just received a letter asking my opinion on the alleged happenings at a recent league committee meeting.

Apparently, the league chairman was not present and the vice-chairman expected to take control. The Secretary requested a vote from the floor as to who should be in control, the Vice-Chairman or the Secretary?

When the Secretary won the vote, the Vice-Chairman understandably resigned.

Any comments?

[Chris_Sav]

The Vice Chairman should have run the meeting.

As his name suggests, he is the deputy chairman and should not have allowed any such vote.

As for the committee, sounds like more sheep being herded trouble ;D ;D

Shame, but what did it matter to the Secretary??

Sav.

This amazes me.

What is the Vice-Chairman's role if not to step into the Chair in the Chairman's absence ?

Perhaps if neither Chair nor Vice-Chair (or Deputy Chairman as they are sometimes called) are present, then another member of the Executive Committee (Treasurer first, Secretary second) could take the Chair.

The only variance is at the A.G.M. when out of courtesy the President is offered the Chair.

The Vice-Chairman's action in resigning when thus undermined was perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Good for him/her.

[barbelman]

Of course it should be the vice-chairman - that's exactly what his/her job is. The Secretary would (should?) find it very difficult to do both jobs properly on a committee night.

Tony

[fazza]

So, all in favour of the VC so far. Any more comments please..............

Well, put simply, unless there is a separate Minutes Secretary, part of the Secretary's job is to take the minutes of the meeting.

How can he/she perform that job efficiently if he/she is also chairing the meeting and keeping order, etc ?

[WolfLord]

Apart from an AGM the Vice Chairman gets it every time.

fazza said:

Apparently, the league chairman was not present and the vice-chairman expected to take control. The Secretary requested a vote from the floor as to who should be in control, the Vice-Chairman or the Secretary?

That almost shows disrespect to the Vice Chairman. Should never of been allowed.

[fazza]

I make that SIX votes in favour of the VC and NONE in favour of the Hon Secretary.

Any more comments from anyone?

Anyone at all?

[Chris_Sav]

Going to clue us in as to who the apparently over enthusiastic secretary was??

[davejones]

What surprises me most of all is that a secretary thinks he is higher than a vice chairman. Although I must say that secretary's are worth they're weight in gold

Agreed.
But Leagues should state the order of hierarchy in their constitution.

Eg, "The Executive Committee shall consist of a Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Treasurer and Honorary Secretary. A President and Vice-Presidents shall also be elected, and serve as Ex-Officio Members of the Committee".

Just an example, but very commonplace in sporting organisations.
When bar billiards leagues were first set-up they took local football as a guide for their constitutions anyway.

[fazza]

sav said:

Going to clue us in as to who the apparently over enthusiastic secretary was??

I would have preferred that to come from the Secretary himself. He does use the forum!

Perhaps does not have the courage of his conviction!

[Sparky]

As a Vice Chairman myself, I too believe that the Secretary acted wrongly and that the committee as a whole should not have voted as they did, which leads me to assume that there is more to this than meets the eye.

Also if the votes were against the Vice chairman, what does that tell you!
Fazza could you tell us where from?

[bigtj]

It certainly seems there must be more to this than meets the eye as the committee voted and sided with the secretary, whilst etiquette would suggest it was not a matter of a vote, but a straight forward case of the vice chairman should have automatically chaired the meeting. Also I realise it was probably a matter of principle that he resigned, but personally I would be making a stand against the disrespect shown.

100% agree with you.

The words etiquette and disrespect have been mentioned, and are very relevant in the circumstances.

I have have two strange experiences sitting on committees, the first was when a long-serving (Horsham) chairman was eventually 'retired' and took over the Presidency.
But seemingly he was reluctant to let go of his previous duties, still attended all committee meetings and insisted on having a big say in matters. As Secretary I was instructed to write him a letter requesting him to take more of a back-seat role as he was undermining the position of the new chairman !

The second was during my stint as Deputy Chairman (to Peter McCallum) of the Sussex County Association. Yes, I was in the chair a couple of times when Peter couldn't make it, and I conducted the very meeting when a certain person, usually very vociferous from the floor, had sent a letter in to the committee which was both dictatorial and threatening. We discussed the matter calmly, and the then-Secretary (Charles Cordery) was authorised to send him a reply saying that the committee would not be told what to do.

Out of diplomacy and deference to their opinions I do not feel that ANY of these people should be named.

[fazza]

I am considering disclosing the league (and therefore personalities involved), but I am a little loathe to do so, for quite a few reasons. I would much prefer the Secretary (who definitely uses this forum regularly) to come and tell us the reasoning behind his actions for the purpose of balance of debate. There may well be extenuating circumstances which forum members could take into consideration before they judge unfairly. I (personally) know that the former VC concerned can be a little difficult to cope with at meetings, but others cannot judge for themselves unless you tell us your reasoning.

Unfortunately, the latter is NOT computer literate as far as I know as all his letters to me are always typed (fairly badly) or sometimes even handwritten.

Perhaps the Secretary concerned does not believe in forum debate as much as he may have appeared to indicate in the past!

It is time to come clean and have your say!!!!

[fazza]

tommo said:

Agreed.
But Leagues should state the order of hierarchy in their constitution.

I am not sure that there should be an order of hierarchy as such.

Most leagues obviously define the jobs each (executive) committee member is asked to do, but what else would a VC do if they do not Chair meetings when the Chairman is not present?

In my experience, the Secretary has plenty to do at meetings, whether they are involved in taking minutes or not.

I would have hated having to do the Chairman's job at league meetings when I was a Secretary.

But, above everything else, it is actually overruling decisions made at an AGM, which (I am sorry) is NOT allowed under any circumstances.

fazza said:

I am not sure that there should be an order of hierarchy as such.

Point of order, Mr Forum Master.
I maintain there is a pecking order of sorts.

The Chairperson runs the show;
The President is a "figurehead" but is usually invited to take over Chairperson's duties for the AGM (only);
The Secretary is a servant of the committee.

Sub-committees can of course be formed, involving fewer "key members" - like in the Billingshurst League where the Competitions Draw Sub-Committee consists just of Secretary Peter Gibbs and his cat (who indicates which ticket to turn over with his paw.) ;D

[fazza]

I was referring to the "pecking order" below the Chairman.

[Colemanator]

Re, who it is, well I can rule out us.

Fairly confident in saying it's no-one in Sussex or Surrey either.

[Chris_Sav]

Thinking about this further and wearing my global moderator's (Manx GP) cap, I think it is time to take a step back from this one.

I (and inded any of us not actually at the committee meeting) do not know the facts, and feel if any more is to be said on this forum, it should come from the members of the league concerned.

The Vice Chair may not be 'Computer Literate' but there must be others in the league who are. I don't see what involving Fazza in it was meant to achieve and he only has one side of the story.

Opinions have been asked and the precedent is (on the surface) obvious, the Secretary was out of order. Any further complaint should be dealt with in the league concerned by its normal Chairman.

Please respect the privacy of those involved.

Sav.

[Sparky]

I tend to agree with Sav on this one and hope that the discussion we have had in this thread will help the League concerned to settle this issue internally.

Hear hear, Sparky.
We're not averse to airing the odd piece of dirty linen in public on this Forum, but no need to hang it out to dry for too long. ;)

[Chris_Sav]

I agree with the esteemed forum members above and have decided this thread is best brought to a close.

Sav