Topic: Re-electing committee members

[Cruz]

We are currently contemplating ways of ensuring that cliques don't come to dominate our allotment committee and are looking at various possible rule changes.
Two suggestions have been put forward:
1. To limit the number of years that a committee member can stay on the committe.
2. To make each committee member receive at least two-thirds of the votes of the members attending the AGM to retain their post.

We can think of pros and cons for both. In 1 the bad thing is that some good committee members will be forced off after their alloted period and there might not be anybody good enough to replace them. On the flip side, if you limit to three years the maximum period in office, with a possible return after two years away, you do effectively stop cliques.
In 2, a committee member really does have to get out there and do stuff to get re-elected. However, popular members will always get back on, while waste of space members will be forced out. But you could have a sitution in which a committee member does get more votes for than against, without reaching the magic number. In that situation, we think honourary posts could be created.
Has anybody been down this path?
We know of one association near here that has 10-year limits on membership, which we think are simply too long if you are looking to limit.

[kt.]

At our AGM, each committee position is up for re-election.  Any plotholder can put themselves forward and election is by majority vote even if the majority is one.  For the past 4-5 years, nobody has put themselves forward as competition for any of the committee positions.  We have no complaints about the committee so I would like to think we are all doing our job fairly and proactively. 

Why do you want 2/3rds of the votes and not just a majority?  Surely members are elected democratically?

[Deb P]

Our committee posts are for two years (to give someone a fair shot at it) then are up for re election (if they want) or replacement at the AGM. Like KT, we do not usually get many people coming forward, although I have a feeling that may change..... ::)

[lavenderlux]

We (probably like most organisations) have difficulty in getting new people to come forward as committee members.  We ask for new people to come forward prior to and at our agm but no one has for the past four years, thus the committee is re-elected.
If you bring in these 'rules' you may well replace a team of very efficient and hard working committee members with those 'not so good'.
Our committee is ten - of those three are very active, four fairly active and three who only attend committee meetings.  
We do get complaints at times on how we run the field  but suggestions to those complaining that they might like to join the committee are never taken up!   Our plot holders also have the opportunity (and they are reminded about this before each committee meeting) to raise any specific points they have grumbles about - initially it would be in writing to the committee and then, if they are not happy about the result, attend a committee meeting in person.   But we haven't ever had anything put forward - so feel we must be running our field well

[manicscousers]

every year for the last 3, Ray has stood down as chairman and been pushed back into it, that makes 5 years, he must be good..again, all positions are up at the AGM and no-one puts themselves forward even when they are encouraged to do so  :)

[Sparkly]

I would think you could easily get yourself into a real situation where you can't reappoint your current committee, but nobody wants to do it either.

I have been on a number of committees. People like to moan, but when put on the chopping block they are not willing to do it themselves!

If you have a committee that is doing a poor job and it is really upsetting society members, then a majority vote will replace them with someone more suitable. After all if the members don't vote on this issue then it isn't important enough for them to make the effort.

You often have a few very vocal members who are doing the complaining and their view may well not represent the majority.

[davyw1]

Election of a committee should be an annual event  so every and any member can put their name forward for election at your AGM It should the last item before Any Other Business so the old committee stand down and the new take over.
An application form for each position should be made available to all members.
There should be one form for each position for members to submit their names to IE Chairman, Secretary Treasurer and Committee. As part of your agenda for the AGM the members vote for whom they want to have in whatever position, the majority vote winning.

This gives every one the right of challenge.


 

[Robert_Brenchley]

You could be shooting yourself in the foot if nobody else wants the job! You also get situations where cliques nominate their friends all the time, or unelected people set out to control the people in the job, who are treated as tokens. I had a situation where I took on responsibility for the property at church. A certain individal who had not offered to do the job promptly told me that I was incapable of doing it, and made it clear that she was in charge. The battle raged for years, but I think I've won at last. Meanwhile, I've been getting jobs done that should have been sorted twenty years ago.

[Trevor_D]

Our AGM is at the beginning of February. So at the November Committee meeting I give a form to every existing member who wishes to stand again. That has to be returned to me with the name of a proposer and seconder. In late December we then post to all members: their bill for the next year, the notice of the AGM, a list of proposals to date and a newsletter. If there is a known vacancy, this is advertised, but there is a blanket invitation for any member who wishes to stand for the Committee to send me their name plus a proposer & seconder by the Friday before the AGM. We don't have a fixed number for the Committee, so there hasn't yet been an election needed.

As several others have said, most folk don't want to be on the Committee. Most folk on our site are willing to help - we had a working party this morning to cut trenches and loads turned up and worked their socks off - but they don't actually want to be in charge.

[grandad]

Hi we are only a amall site with 32 plots but we can`t get any of our committee members out, because between six of them they have 15 plots and 10 more belong to family and friends; so we in the minority and can`t get a chance to be elected . I think 3 years would be a fair length of time in office and then give someone who wants a chance to have a go and perhaps make a difference to how the site is currently being run.

[Unwashed]

I think the best you can do is have the committee automatically resign each AGM with no bar on re-election.  The membership have to decide who's doing a good job and who isn't, and it's undemocratic to try and engineer anyone out.  Of course, the kind of people you don't want running a site won't play fair, but that's the price you pay in a free and democratic society.

However, it's possible that your Committee of Management has too much authority.  Ideally your committee doesn't make policy, it just executes it, so there's little advantage to anyone with a hobby horse in getting on the committee.  Really you want a mandate from the membership for any broad policy, by vote at the AGM or via some kind of cunsultation, and the job of the committee is to serve the wishes of the members.  Obviously you balance that against the need for the committee to show leadership and initiative, but serving on the committee should not give the member any more say on an issue that any other member.

You might also think about making attendance at the AGM compulsory...

[Trevor_D]

Our AGM is divided into three parts:

First, the Chairman reports on what has happened during the past year and the Treasurer presents the accounts.

Then the Committee resigns, the officers are voted in individually and the committee members usually en bloc, as so far there hasn't been a situation where we have too many applicants (!).

Then the Chairman puts forward what the Committee feels are priorities for the coming year, after which we throw it open to the floor for further suggestions, so that hopefully we end up with some form of mandate from the members.

It seems to work....

[Cruz]

We are definitely comtemplating going down the path put forward by Unwashed. I am hoping that this time around the agenda at the AGM will be membership-driven, rather than dictated by the committee. I think committees should have as little true power as possible. Clearly, people have to be elected to take decisions, but really, what they should be doing is implementing the wishes of the membership and ONLY what the membership wishes.
I do find, however, that even when somebody wants to challenge a committee member, members often feel obligated to re-elect committees however bad they might be!! I don't get this, especially when there are sometimes alternatives.
Have any of you seen a particular committee member re-elected year after year despite that person being totally out of touch with the membership? There was a case near here, whereby an inactive chairman did nothing for years and was kept in power by a group of 25+ laggards, who effectively stopped newcomers from making any changes. It took a coup d'etat over several years to get things changed.

[tonybloke]

Cruz

There was a case near here, whereby an inactive chairman did nothing for years and was kept in power by a group of 25+ laggards, who effectively stopped newcomers from making any changes. It took a coup d'etat over several years to get things changed.

where abouts exactly are you in the UK?

[Robert_Brenchley]

I've seen things like that as well. I've seen them kicked out the moment anyone stood against them as well. There comes a point where someone goes too far, annoys too many people, and it's time to act.