Constitutional Changes

[pablo]

Today I have received a voting form and supporting material asking me to support a streamlining of the club's management structure which suggests reducing the number of elected members of the committee from 15 to 9  but with the power to co-opt three 'specialists' as advisers. All sub- committees would be abolished.

I wondered what others thought of this proposal? The rationale as given is that in an increasingly fast moving commercial world we need more 'professionalism' - as provided presumably by co-opted specialists-  and a quicker decision making process.

I have not been a fan of the arcane structure of the club and at first glance this seems a reasonable proposal for change to a structure that has brought us - inter alia- the ground redevelopment fiasco.

On the other hand this seems to me to be a diminution of democracy- if that's not too pompous a phrase- and a further concentration of power in the hands of the usual old guard which will be supplemented by a hand picked un-elected coterie. In the past- although the Acfields, Savilles, Hilliards of this world are routinely re elected because they are most known ( and will be again presumably)- sometimes somebody outside of the usual clique finds themselves elected and, although out gunned and outnumbered, may actually represent the wants and wishes of the great unwashed of the membership. This is less likely by definition in future.

I am also not convinced of the rationale given. We are forever being told about the club's commercial successes which seems a relatively autonomous part of the operation anyway so what is the necessity for change on this basis.

I guess I am always suspicious of constitutional change because I always ask ' In whose interest is this?' but I could be persuaded to support it even if my gut instinct is not to. I'd welcome others views.

[Essex Way]

I will be voting against.
I am opposed to rules on the ages of committee members.

[nat]

Are all members receiving this? As a member I haven't received anything yet.

[essexfan548]

Nor have I ...

[alji]

Got mine

[jimmy]

My postman is off today, he's having stitches removed, expect I'll get it tomorrow.

[bwildered]

Received my form Weds , Good points made by Pablo for and against the proposal .
Do we want less committee's and committee members and more emphasis on some skilled personal with the risk of general dominance ?

[squarelegumpire]

Inclined to agree with Pablo and vote against, on the “in whose interests is this” grounds.
First of all I’m very concerned by the lack of opportunity for discussion. There’s not been a lot here .... I think that when the letter arived was any of us knew about them, the Facebook site has nothing relevant (could say ever) and these proposals have never been put up for discussion (!) or even mentioned on the Clubs own website. It’s not even as though there’ll be opportunity for discussion at the SGM, which, although not necessarily easy to attend for reasons which have been discussed here ad nauseam, could at least provide an opportunity for an exchange of views.

I like the idea of a more streamlined management, although removing the Cricket Committee does reduce the opportunity for ordinary members to contact cricket committee memebers with their views; after all this is a cricket club, and many members have considerable experience and knowledge of the game. The Cricket Advisory Committee does sound as though it could be the Chairman’s mates! Plus perhaps the Chair of the ECCB.

Having said all that, there is still the question of the Ground Redevelopment, which, one way or another seems to be stalled. To be fair, I haven’t been to Chelmsford lately to see whther any new building work is taking place. Is it? If an Executive Committee, which presumably can take decisions much more quickly can ensure some progress is made on this that would be a Good Thing!

[Blocky]

I have one and will vote in favour.

A few years back SLU and his mate Bob and I met in the pub to talk about how the club could be improved.  As all of us have significant management experience, we all at the time felt that we needed to streamline the committee system significantly.

I believe this does it. 

[Postman]

I’m not convinced by these changes either, and will be voting against unless someone can convince me otherwise in the next few weeks. Superficially, they seem to be what many people on this board have advocated for a long while, ie streamlining the committee structure and abolishing the cricket committee. But as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
The “Cricket Advisory Group” which will replace the Cricket Committee, will have its chairman elected by the main committee, but the composition and terms of reference of the Group will be determined by the new executive board.  Members would have no direct say in this and there is no need for any of this group , except the chairman,  to be a member of the club. At present the Cricket Committee has to consist of main committee members plus other co-opted people who must themselves be members of the club (Rule 11.3) and can only serve until the next AGM. Now, if the intention is to have a Cricket Advisory Group consisting of, say, the chairman of Cricket (ie Mr Irani) plus the coaches and captains, that would be fine in my book, and moves us closer to the “Director of Cricket plus coaches model” that I think we should have had long ago. But as SquareLegUmp observes, this could easily just become the chairman’s mates club, completely beyond any powers of the membership to control or remove.
Also, as I read the present rules the main Committee can only co-opt a maximum of two people (Rule 10.1 as currently in force) who can only serve until the next AGM when they have to stand for election in the normal way if they wish to continue. The proposed new rule 10.1 increases this to three, but three more people, who don’t need to be members, can be co-opted on to the new exec board under proposed new rule 11.2, and as far as I can see they can stay indefinitely as long as the main committee allows, and they can even be substituted by others.  So, we could have six unelected people-three on the main committee, three on the exec board-and an unlimited additional number on each of the Advisory Groups, as determined by the exec board.
Obviously there is a need sometimes to co-opt experts to deal with particular problems but this goes too far, and the club needs to explain why these sweeping powers are needed.

[silasgreenback]

I am an Essex and Sussex member, and the same change was implemented at Sussex two to three years ago.
Since this has happened, plenty of members have regretted it for a whole host of reasons. When I have more time I will try and go into them in details.
This is being driven by the ECB, so you already need to be suspicious, as I don't see Yorkshire or Surrey being asked to do it(read between the lines!)
I have voted 'no', and really regret it ever happened at Sussex.

[Valentines Park]

Less old farts sounds good to me.

No way would Grayson have been able to hang around as long as he did with a proper management structure in place.

[squarelegumpire]

I have one and will vote in favour.

A few years back SLU and his mate Bob and I met in the pub to talk about how the club could be improved.  As all of us have significant management experience, we all at the time felt that we needed to streamline the committee system significantly.

I believe this does it.

I’ve not backed away, Blocky; in my post I said that "I like the idea of a more streamlined management.” I am, though concerned at the way this is structured; it will give more power to the  Executive, without any corresponding opportunity to the members to contribute. Take the point of course that I can’t  have the penny and the bun!

And I still don’t like the way it is being done.

VP, if you suspect that our former coach was only kept in his post by an alliance with the then CC chair, how much worse could it be under the proposed regime?

[nat]

Less old farts sounds good to me.

No way would Grayson have been able to hang around as long as he did with a proper management structure in place.

Maybe but beware the law of unintended consequences.

[nat]

Got my letter today and voted (no) by return.