-----Original Message-----
From: Buck House Crew Jackie [mailto:buckhousecrew@...]

> We propose that the posts of Chair, Secretary and Treasurer be
> for a period of no more that three consecutive years. After
> which they should not serve again in any post for a minimum of
> one year.

Rational: The three Committee positions listed are the only legally
required Committee positions, other Committee positions are not legally
required for the running of a Club.

Other organisations / governing bodies (i.e. Major PLC's, National
Government (UK, USA, international democracies) etc. have time limits
and why should the MRC be different?

(Alison) As far as I am aware the MRC has grown up on the principle of being
different. Even within the rat fancy as a whole she has stood up and been
counted on many and various issues. She has led the way and been proud of
it.I don't think she has ever done anything just because everyone else does
(even if it was true that everyone else did). I have served on a number of
other committees outside of ratdom and have never come accross this kind of
rule. Perhaps because we are not a PLC, nor National Government... heck if
you want that model the members (ie the nation) don't even get to elect the
'Chair', nor any of the secretaries, nor the treasurer... that would be the
role of the majority of the comittee (dominant political party). Anyway did
anyone tell Maggie T that she was only allowed 3 years in office...?? No -
indeed - we have a better democracy that the government, or any PLC that I
am aware of (except perhaps Traidcraft... ;-)) We should be defining the way
that is right for us, not doing things because other people do them. The
National Childbirth Trust (one of the other committees I have been a part
of) actively encourage stability in these kind of roles as they feel that a
sound and visionary chair, or a capable and committed secretary, or a
trustworthy treasurer are assests to be held on to for as long as they are
willing and committed to their roles. I would have thought if any roles
could be argued for rotation it would be the ones that rely on new ideas and
not stability, such as Publicity (though I would rather keep Lesley forever
please), and Fun Events (which is coming up for a natural change anyway). At
the very least it is a rule that should apply to all committee posts if it
is to make any sense at all. Again I feel this rule (if it were to become a
rule) would simply reduce members' choice, as another group of people would
not be accessible to them as committee members. What on earth would be the
point of losing a dedicated and enthusiatic committee member to a rule, when
there might be no-one even willing to take over the role? I remain convinced
that the members are capable of making good choices and do not need
legislation that can only serve to reduce the choices available.

Love Alison
and the Shunamite rats
http://www.shunamiterats.co.uk












--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/05