Constitution

[PeterE]

Hi All

There seems to be a few members with issues over the new constitution. I, as a long time member but not owning a 1100R, feel in my position, that maybe I should not comment on club issues. However.
Has there been in the past a need for “none bike owning members” to be alienated from club meetings or alike. I have always felt welcome at any of the events I have attended. I may have arrived on my Triumph but would not dream of gate crashing the club stand or line up. If I had been asked not to attend any event as it was for “owner members” only, I would except this and not attend, no problem. Why now is there a need to differentiate between owners and non owners. What has happened to initiate this change and in what circumstances does anyone see a problem arising. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Peter

[Anonymous]

Hi Peter,

As a member of the Club Committee I am pleased to respond.

Firstly, I would be a bit concerned why you are hesitant to ask your questions. As you are a Club member why should you not comment on Club issues ?

Clearly the answer to your first question is No! there has never been a need to alienate any members of the Club, and as far as I can see there never
will be. You have obviously not felt alienated at the Club events you have been to in the past.

Your concern seems to be that the Club’s constitution might now make members who attend events on anything other than a CB1100R feel alienated.
Myself I can’t possibly see how this could eventuate but hopefully the answer to the third part of your question will put you at ease.

In the past there has been concern that events arranged under the auspices of our Club that have been granted a limited number of concessions, such as
free entry tickets have not been fairly managed in providing all Club members equal and fair opportunity to participate. There was even a case where it was felt
non club members were receiving such concessions without other members even being offered anything.

Clearly any such occurance would not be fair to those who are members.

The problem for event organisers is that they are always exposed to potential accusations of bias and unfairness in allocating event tickets or concessions to
favoured co-members. For members volanteering their time it’s hard enough getting the events organised without having to expose
themselves to such pressures.

For this reason it was felt the Club needed a formal written guide to how manage this situation. The Constitution refers to this in section 12.

As defined in section 12.b.i allocation of concessions, tickets etc will firstly be offered to voting members of the Club. There is no differntiation between owners
and non-owners here, irrespecitive of if you own a CB1100R or not you can be a voting members of the club. I presume you have paid your subs Peter so you are a voting members for this 2012 year.

Where there is differentiation between Owners and Non-owners are in circumstances where the event in question involves riding or displaying CB1100R bikes. In these
circumstances members who are willing to paricipate with their 1100R are given first preference on any concessions.

Section 12.b.ii defines this principle in the rules of the Club.

As an example:
In June this year members have the opportunity to attend the Day of Champions at Silverstone at the run up to the MotoGP. Those participating will get free entry to the whole event and will also have the oppotunity to ride in the parade of classic bikes on part of the circuit.

This is a Classic Bike exhibition event as the bikes will be on display at the Riders for Health display marquee. The Club are invited and given the free entry concessions so they can display the CB1100R Motorcycle to the attending public.

If the Club is allocated limited tickets and more members wish to attend than available tickets it would be against the Club’s policy to allow a member to show up on a Yamaha whilst allowing an 1100R to miss out on attending.

This would clearly be a common sense approach for the CB1100R Owners Club. The purpose of writing this into the rules is to take the subjective responsibility away from the event organiser so they can’t stand accused of any favouritism or bias with distributing concessions or benefits. Any disputes resulting from such allocations
would have to be dealt with at Committee level.

I trust this allays any concern and answers your questions fully,

Thanks for raising this issue, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this to any concerned members.

Cheers

Steve

[PeterE]

Hi Steve

Thanks for your response which confirms that historically the owner member / none owner member has not been an issue, although you are concerned that it may be in the future and so feel that it needs to be clarified in the constitution.
Your presumption is correct Steve, I have paid my subs, and I look forward to seeing you at the next event.

Peter

[Glenn Kirkham]

Hi all, as a newly elected member of the committee can I first apologies for only now reading this post.

Any change from the Status Quo will always have it’s advocates and critics – the new constitution now gives a voice to all members – something that was missing in the past. This meant that most club decisions were taken by the members that could travel to the various meetings. We do have quite a considerable overseas membership too now, they are entitles to a voice – and to be honest – we need to move with the times. This forum makes communications so much easier than it has ever been before for the vast majority of club members.

The new constitution was never a political or control takeover – it’s actually a letting go of the club running to the wider membership with all members having an equal vote in what does and does not get done. Who does and does not get invited to limited number events etc. Is it perfect – NO – can it be changed yes of course it can.

Anyone who believes that something in the constitution should be changed is very welcome to write what they see as an improvement and that wording can then be proposed for constitution inclusion at a subsequent general meeting – If the change is really valuable the committee and/or the Chairman can actually call an EGM for the items to be voted upon – not something done lightly because of the time, effort and expense of calling an General Meeting.

So if anyone believes that the constitution requires improving then please feels free to send the suggestions in.

To be honest I actually want to start riding bikes again and put the constitution ‘genii’ back in it’s bottle – now whose coming to Switzerland…?

Glenn

[Author]

Posts