| Subject: Re: Meeting Proposal |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:53:13 05/30/03 Fri
In reply to:
Lise
's message, "Re: Meeting Proposal" on 00:38:34 05/30/03 Fri
I'm sorry if Stuart was unclear on what was being voted on, but I really thought it was quite clear, and it seems everyone else did. I recall clarifying before the vote was taken exactly what was being proposed with those people who were proposing it. Everyone else at the meeting seems to have been clear on what was being voted on, and I don't think Stuart's abstention was critical in deciding the vote anyway. When we have the minutes, we will be able to clear this up completely.
The purpose of allowing amendments and ad hoc changes is to try and come to the best possible solution. Caroline and I posted a suggestion, and everyone seemed to be in agreement with it. However, at the GCM, suddenly lots of people seemed to have objections. Some of those people post on this board all the time, so that was a little surprising, since I would have expected those objections to have been discussed and the issue resolved in advance.
Nonetheless, the counter-proposal was aimed at keeping the number of offbeats, allowing everyone to take part. Stuart, I believe, asked those people with experience of putting together offbeat routines whether 1:45 was long enough. NOONE at the meeting said that any longer was required, nor made any objection to this proposal. Had someone had an objection, they could have made it, and it would have been discussed.
The 'must have competed at SUDC/ NUDC' clause was not in there to reduce the number of entries, and I don't think it will. The number will remain the same, except that you would expect offbeats to enter SUDC/ NUDC as well. That is why I think the quality at IVDC will increase, though the number of under-rehearsed offbeats at these earlier competitions is likely to increase. But timetabling issues are not really a problem at these much smaller competitions.
Caroline and I, who's priority was merely to make more time for IVDC to accommodate changes to the team match, and make timetabling possible in the event of higher entries (IVDC was strained to breaking point this year, and I can send you a copy of our complete timetable if you wish), dropped our original proposal (which it was clear would be defeated) in favour of the new amendment. That is always going to be a possibility at meetings.
OK, so I don't really care with this amendment, or another, remains in place, but the simple truth is that time NEEDS to be made in the timetable. In fact, about 45 minutes needs to be freed up in order to run IVDC in a reasonable fashion, and given the complaints regarding the number of couples on the floor at some points this year, this clearly is a problem that can't be ignored. So if you don't like this proposal, then come up with a new one, bring it to the next GCM and have that passed. If there is a better way of making up that time (presently the strategy is to cut 15 minutes from the ex-students advanced combined competition by getting rid of the semi-final, and half an hour by reducing the length of time taken on offbeat), then I'm sure everyone would be happy to hear it.
>>The amendment may have been clear at your end of the
>>table -but it obviously was not at mine. Surely it is
>>one of the roles of the chair to ensure everyone is
>>clear on what they are voting?
>
>I must say, this above all other things concerns me.
>What seems to have been voted on was not what was
>initially proposed before the meeting, and futhermore
>there does seem to be disagreement about what has and
>hasn't, or should and shouldn't have, been voted on.
>Is anyone else alarmed by this?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 