2006 Annual General Meeting (AGM)
S.F.C.A. Constitutional Reform Proposal
Present position
It is accepted that the SFCA is Scotland's governing body for coarse angling.
Membership of the Federation is open to clubs, individuals, and latterly membership was extended to corporate members. By far the majority of the present membership is made up by clubs.
Clubs presently pay the same membership fee no matter the size of the club. In return, each club has equal voting powers at SFCA meetings. At present individuals have one aggregated vote and corporate members have no voting rights at all.
However, as the Federation's constitution presently stands, there are no powers conferred upon the Federation to govern the sport.
In the last few years, the SFCA has made great strides forward in terms of its public profile on policy issues and the politics of sport in Scotland, and importantly, has secured significantly greater funding for the development of the sport.
The above means that the way in which the SFCA operates is now open to greater external scrutiny than ever. We thus as an organisation require to consider whether our constitution is adequate for the aims we are working towards.
The Executive Committee has highlighted 3 areas where the present constitution may require to be reformed:
- The classes of membership and associated voting rights;
- Regulatory provisions; and
- A "benchmarking" scheme for member clubs.
Membership
It is proposed that the present category of corporate membership be split, into standard and "enhanced" corporate membership.
Corporate membership would be open to all limited companies, partnerships and sole traders who operated a business under a trading name, and whose business had a clear connection with coarse angling in Scotland.
Standard corporate membership would be the category which we presently have in the constitution. Standard membership would allow members certain marketing opportunities via the SFCA website. It is proposed that the annual cost of standard corporate membership would be similar to, if not identical to, that of a club.
The idea of enhanced corporate membership recognises the real and substantial business opportunities available in associating with the SFCA. There is potential to link direct to an e-commerce site from the SFCA website, and in addition, there is the potential for worldwide marketing via the FishScotland site. It is proposed that the cost for enhanced corporate members be substantially higher than that currently paid by clubs.
Voting rights
It is proposed that voting rights be extended corporate members in a similar manner to that currently afforded to individual members ie one block vote for all. There would be no distinction in this context between standard and enhanced corporate members.
At present each club has an equal vote. However, some member clubs are much larger than others. Is it right that each should retain the one-club-one-vote rule? Is there a will to change this?
If there is, it should be recognised that the voting rights could be enhanced to perhaps 2 votes for a club with more than 50 members. There is no proposal to extend the voting powers beyond this, as it may then be that one club could effectively "control" the SFCA.
It would of course follow that increased voting powers would correspond with an increased membership fee. It would seem to be fair in this regard were the fee to be doubled if the voting rights were doubled.
Regulatory powers
It should be noted that these proposals be read together with the "benchmarking" proposal below.
The SFCA requires to look much more professional in the way in which it conducts its business. These powers are required to do so.
The SFCA does not wish to become an appeal tribunal for club disputes, nor does it wish to become involved in club discipline issues. However, the SFCA requires the power to sanction a member ie a club, corporate member or individual member (not the member of a club), in the event of a breach of the aims, or the expected standards of the SFCA.
These sanctions would include the power to censure, to suspend a member or in an extreme case, to expel.
Benchmarking
It is hoped that this proposal will allow clubs to understand more easily what it is we expect them to comply with as members.
What is proposed is a list of standards, each one based on common sense. If a club can achieve these, it would be accredited. We would encourage all clubs to work towards the accreditation.
The requirements of accreditation would include:
Ø A written constitution
Ø A child protection policy, if required
Ø A child protection co-ordinator, if required
Ø A properly maintained membership list
Ø Disclosure to the SFCA Secretary the names and contact details of club office bearers, and the prompt notification of changes thereto to the SFCA Secretary.
Ø Adoption of a non-discrimination policy
As can be seen from the above, the criteria for benchmarking simply reflect good practice in the running of a sports club.
Where now?
The above proposals are tabled at this AGM for the purposes of discussion and consultation. It would be envisaged that these proposals would be placed on the agenda for voting on at the 2007 AGM
James MacDonald
01/05/06