Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting (AGM)
Kirkintilloch Miners Welfare - 29th November 2007
MS Word Document Version - HERE
Clubs represented: Magiscroft, Monklands, CSCAC, Lanarkshire
Organisations represented: Corporate (Castle Loch Fishery), individual (J MacDonald)
Proxy votes vested in the chair in advance: SCG, PAAS
Exec committee present: Gus Brindle (chair), Martin Mitchell (vice chair), James MacDonald (secretary), Chris Paton (national team manager)
Apologies: Ron Woods, Brian Lynn, Alastair McPhee, Rab Lee
| Detail | Action |
|
Minutes of previous meeting Minutes of the 2007 AGM had been circulated in advance and were approved. Proposed by : Lanarkshire Seconded by: Magiscroft
|
|
|
Chairman’s introduction UKCC Written report provided relative to the implementation of UKCC. UKCC aim is to get rid of poor coaching practices in all sports in the UK. Every sports coach by 2010 will require to be UKCC accredited. Implementation will require significant work on the part of the SFCA. Funding will depend upon UKCC compliance. All angling governing bodies have formed the Angling Development Forum for Scotland. The basic requirement is to develop, implement and communicate a set of criteria required for participants to progress to the next level of their chosen sport, and to produce a fair and open system thereby. All international coaches should be qualified at level 3. There is currently no-one at that level, and indeed a level 3 course does not yet exist. Communication The SFCA recognises that its communications are poor, and that the website is not currently effective. The exec committee commits to improve on this.
|
|
|
Monklands CAC proposal The proposal was read to the meeting by Dave McAuley. Copy Here Several points of information were raised: Magiscroft: would juniors be restricted by age to only selection for the junior team? A: no National team manager: Who is currently not being considered? A: without naming individuals, none of the winning team of this year’s SFCA league was selected for the national team. Secretary: why should wild cards be restricted to SFCA league participants? A: to support the SFCA league. The chair added that SportScotland have advised that any SFCA policy would require to be non-discriminatory. At first blush, such a policy in its present form would be discriminatory. Advice had been sought from SS. No other sport had as restrictive selection criteria as the ones proposed. SFCA have responsibility for selecting strongest team to represent the country, and an obligation to ensure a fair, open, transparent and communicated policy. There is room for improvement on transparency and communication. The advice of SS was sought as to the selection of the national team by grassroots membership. The response from SS was that they suggested that SFCA should look urgently at its procedures. This sort of decision should be made at executive level, and by an international selection committee. Whatever was decided required to be reviewed in any event in light of UKCC by 2010. The UKCC criteria will be common to coarse, game and sea angling. He also highlighted the ongoing need for good coaches and encouraged members to get involved. CSCAC: the constitution does not currently require SFCA matches only A (chair): the current requirement is only to “support” SFCA matches. Magiscroft: if this proposal were to be passed, the manager’s hands would be tied A: the proposer disagreed with this, and suggested that the proposal was fair and open. Lanarkshire: how would the proposal deal with those who would qualify but did not wish to represent Scotland? A: the process would go down the pecking order to identify further candidates. The national team manager spoke in opposition to the proposal. He noted the proposer’s confirmation that this was not a personal issue. When CP took over as team manager Scotland had finished the World Champs in joint last place. The team had significantly improved since then. A great deal of unpaid work had gone into that. The team is currently in the top 15 in the world. He was concerned that the proposal would weaken the team’s position. CP acknowledged that taking away the nominations was an error. However, this had happened because too many people had said no. On the restriction of selection to Scotland-based anglers, he commented that Jamie Masson and Brian Clark have nothing to prove. He was concerned that the current choice of venues for the league, are not conducive to CIPS rules. Further, he was interested in anglers who had been consistent not over 1 year, but over a longer time. Dropping down the pecking order in the manner suggested cheapens the team. Magiscroft added that visiting anglers make the team better. If the manager is currently picking the best team, he should be allowed to get on with it. Further, fishing the league to CIPS rules may well make it smaller at a time when efforts were being made to expand it. Proposal Proposer: Monklands Seconder: CSCAC The proposal was defeated by 4 votes to 3, with 2 of the votes against by proxy held by the chair. There was one absention.
|
|
|
Exec Committee Counter proposal A written counter proposal had been circulated in advance. Copy Here The issues relative thereto had been part of the general discussion under the Monklands proposal. Proposal Proposed by : JM (individual) Seconded by: MM (corporate) The proposal was carried by 4 votes to 3, with 2 of the votes in favour by proxy vested in the chair. There was one abstention.
|
|
|
AOCB There was no other business. The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the chair.
|
|
|
Date of next meeting 2008 AGM. Will be held in March 2008. Date and venue TBA.
END |
|