Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 196410 [2014/09/26 14:45] – sbw
+++ 196410 [2016/04/09 15:10] (current) – [At the Half Yearly General Meeting] kennettj
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ===== At the Half Yearly General Meeting =====
-T. Brown.
+J. Brown.
 Considering that, by the time all was said, all was not done, it was just as well that the September meeting was opened at 8:10 pm with a welcome to another six new members - Ailsa Moore, Rex Ulyatt, Garry Sims (not present), Terry Cupping (apologies if the surname is not correctly rendered!), David Carver and Stan Sheehy.
@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 Having run out of these matters; we turned to the cause celebre of the evening - to amend or not amend the Constitution. There were four new sub-clauses proposed, the last falling into two parts and so the whole represented five battle grounds. First was the innocuous sounding requirement that prospectives sign on the dotted line on their initial application. Ron Knightley was on his feet as soon as the motion was seconded; he opined that there was no real need for this to be in the Constitution - it was simply an administrative procedure. The President explained that most of the matters in the proposed amendments were already in the books - the translation into the Constitution was simply a ratification - Ron Knightley protested that this sounded like Presidential support of the motions, and David Ingram demonstrated the fact that such rules already applied by quoting the old by-laws. The first of a sequence of closure motions was put, carried - the first amendment went to the vote and was lost.
-Now came the new amendment requiring that prospectives attend an Instructional weekend. This was, Jack Gentle pointed out, already a prerequisite to admission to full membership, it was something we cited in club publicity, and just as important as doing the test walks mentioned in the Constitution. Frank Ashdown considered it a dangerous thing to put it in the Constitution, something that could not easily be deleted if at some stage opinion changed. Alex Colley favoured a change in the wording and proposed it be altered to 'instructional weekend walk", saying that a lazy jaunt with no walking was usually poor instruction. Jack Wren, who had seconded the original motion, opposed this amendment, arguing that some aspects of Instruction - particularly first-aid lectures, were hard to cover with a mobile party. The debate became a little muddled at times, with various people trying to speak to the original motion and being hauled back on to the amendment. Frank Ashdown was against the amendment too - he mentioned that the best explanation of a contour was given by Bob Godfrey and his models and you couldn't do that on a fair dinkum walk (memo by reporter - make a point of studying Bob Godfrey's contoured models). Bob Godfrey agreed that you couldn't do too much swift moving around and instructing as well. Mick Elfick began to develop the theme that some newcomers to the Club already had a good knowledge of things taught at Instructionals, when he was recalled to the fact that we were talking about the amendment - to add the word "walk". Finally the amendment was carried (after another gag motion) by a small majority.
+Now came the new amendment requiring that prospectives attend an Instructional weekend. This was, Jack Gentle pointed out, already a prerequisite to admission to full membership, it was something we cited in club publicity, and just as important as doing the test walks mentioned in the Constitution. Frank Ashdown considered it a dangerous thing to put it in the Constitution, something that could not easily be deleted if at some stage opinion changed. Alex Colley favoured a change in the wording and proposed it be altered to "instructional weekend walk", saying that a lazy jaunt with no walking was usually poor instruction. Jack Wren, who had seconded the original motion, opposed this amendment, arguing that some aspects of Instruction - particularly first-aid lectures, were hard to cover with a mobile party. The debate became a little muddled at times, with various people trying to speak to the original motion and being hauled back on to the amendment. Frank Ashdown was against the amendment too - he mentioned that the best explanation of a contour was given by Bob Godfrey and his models and you couldn't do that on a fair dinkum walk (memo by reporter - make a point of studying Bob Godfrey's contoured models). Bob Godfrey agreed that you couldn't do too much swift moving around and instructing as well. Mick Elfick began to develop the theme that some newcomers to the Club already had a good knowledge of things taught at Instructionals, when he was recalled to the fact that we were talking about the amendment - to add the word "walk". Finally the amendment was carried (after another gag motion) by a small majority.
 So we came to the amended motion, which Ron Knightley again claimed was purely procedure and not needed in a Constitution that was already wordy. Edna Stratton argued that most new members needed some guidance, and members were willing to impart it. Bob Godfrey agreed that although a few prospectives may be wise to all the walking knowledge, most were not. If the Constitution were amended, the position would be quite clear - every new comer must go to Instructional weekends, and the source of some arguments would be over. Beryl Chapman, newly a member of the Club, said one great value of the Instructional weekend was the advice on safety in the bush. Alan Rigby suggested an amendment giving Committee the discretion to accept without an Instructional weekend - the amendment disallowed because it was counter to the original motion - and Wilf Hilder said four other Sydney walking clubs were considering making Instructional walks compulsory. Once again the closure, and this time the Constitutional amendment was carried. It was just over the bare ¾ majority needed to change the Constitution.