SASCOC & CSA meeting

[Thug]

The bottom line is that CSA is currently as unpopular, as Ghadaffi was in Libya before he was killed.

 

Why do people hold onto power when they are not wanted?

 

My 2c worth!

 

Plan A

Hold a referendum to see whether the cycling public wants them to continue or give up.

 

Plan B

If CSA board members have any respect for themselves and the SA cycling public, they would accept vote of no confidence vote in their ability to administer cycling for the benefit of the country, and hand it over immediately to people that wants to be there for the Riders of SA!!

 

If not, they will run cycling into the ground, with no support from the riders out there.

 

 

One of the biggest problems was alluded to earlier by Mallo.

 

Unless the system of voting is changed, any small club has no influence as to who gets elected. In other words, those the big clubs want to see in a position of power become entrenched.

How do you think CGC voted themselves a meeting "re-imbursement" fee that cost the province R50k last year ?

[Minion]

How do you think CGC voted themselves a meeting "re-imbursement" fee that cost the province R50k last year ?

 

A combination of that, scheduling the meeting at a time that was very difficult for anyone with a boss to attend and sending out the meeting notice only a week before.

[Witkop]

a business is not a democracy.

 

When people demanded that cycling be ran like a business it was inevitable that those with money would force those without money out of the administration.

 

Remember business is about providing as little value for as much profit as possible, where as administration (especially non profit) is about maximizing value for as little input.

 

The reason temporary licences fees sit at R35 an event and licence cost R450 is because there are people still willing to pay this for an ever reducing level of service.

 

Lets get the businessmen out of the administration of sport..........

[Andrew mclean]

I understand and agree with some of the frustrations and constructive ideas put forward.

However one thing about the "HUB" and Twitter for that matter, that amazes me how many people come on here and blurt out "stuff" like it is Fact when in Fact it is absolute rubbish. Just saying!

 

On the club voting;

Surely one rider one vote?

Why should 8 clubs with 100 riders each have 8 times the number of votes of one large club that has 2200 members?

 

I was not at the SASCOC meeting but after chatting to a number of people who were at the meeting;

It was constructive [4hrs long] and basically CSA told [in no uncertain terms] it's house is Not in order and they SASCOC will make sure that it is in order shortly.

However CSA was also not found guilty of some of the accusations they were accused of. If anyone has evidence of anything take it to SASCOC and they will investigate. If any of you are interested in the meeting speak to someone who was there, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

Changes SASCOC insisted on;

Starting with a new Constitution that is being redrafted now in line with all other sporting codes in SA. This I think is going to make huge difference to SA Cycling. So many things that happen and have happened, E.G. Voting. that we are not happy with are actually as a result of a Poor constitution. A lot of these loop holes will now be closed.

As I said I was not there so I don't want to answer questions or get into a debate, ask the people who were there.

[i was on my MTB at Wine 2 Whales a much better place to be]

[Witkop]

On the club voting;

Surely one rider one vote?

Why should 8 clubs with 100 riders each have 8 times the number of votes of one large club that has 2200 members?

 

This Andrew is a very interesting and important point. I think the answer will lie in the "union" or federations constiution and rules. If the union has been created to co-ordinate the member clubs activities then each constituting member deserves equal representation. ie one club one vote. Remember a union is only responsible and accountable to its constituent members (ie the clubs) and not individual riders.

 

However, if the union is there to represent the interest of individual riders then there is no need for clubs at all (except to represent a grouping of individual riders in a voting block). This approach is largely un workable as not all cyclists who join the union join a club, and not all riders that join a club want to join a union.

 

Based on these two contrary view about the role of clubs and unions there could be a very lively debate on the responsibilities of individual riders, the role of clubs, the constituents of unions, the mnadate and responsibilities of CSA ext. However, these subtleties are lost as soon as people wish to ride rough shod over others, as might will in these people's eyes always be right.

[Stretch]

On the club voting;

Surely one rider one vote?

Why should 8 clubs with 100 riders each have 8 times the number of votes of one large club that has 2200 members?

Good point - and something that people quickly forget about. That said, it also has it flaws as with the emergence of virtual clubs, you have clubs with 5000 plus members which could theoretically have a significant influence in who gets voted. Things like this would need to be taken into consideration

 

[i was on my MTB at Wine 2 [b]not quite [/b]Whales a much better place to be]

fixed

Edited November 14, 2011 by Stretch

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Iron, it is not that easy. The due constitutional process has to be followed. I suggest you get on to your Provincial Cycling Body first and then you will have some say as to who gets elected. I presume you are already a committee member of your club?

 

The constitutional process as it stands in my opinion is the problem. The guy in the club has almost no outcome over who gets elected. My vote for someone in the province do's not mean that I agree with his vote forward.

 

In my opinion the due process should be people can apply for the positions on the provinces and on CSA, they send out a prospectus to everyone who is a member of all the clubs, then Joe soap votes who they want in that position.

 

Right now I have no idea what the person I vote for is planning on doing, there is no prospectus stating his education, his background, his plans forward, his experience, his past achievements, nothing, how do you expect anyone to make an informed vote with this minimal information.?

 

Its a buddy / buddy system and that's the issue.

Edited November 14, 2011 by GrumpyOldGuy

[Minion]

Good point - and something that people quickly forget about. That said, it also has it flaws as with the emergence of virtual clubs, you have clubs with 5000 plus members which could theoretically have a significant influence in who gets voted. Things like this would need to be taken into consideration

Although, why shouldn't a virtual club that has 5000 members get a corresponding number of votes? So long as the club is properly constituted, I don't really see a problem.

['Kaze Pete]

Although, why shouldn't a virtual club that has 5000 members get a corresponding number of votes? So long as the club is properly constituted, I don't really see a problem.

Agree as 'virtual' seems to mean that there are no club rides and no physical club facilities.

[TNT1]

Agree as 'virtual' seems to mean that there are no club rides

 

Why? We have plenty of "hub" rides...

[scotty]

Previous years this issue came up, future years i fear the same.

['Kaze Pete]

Why? We have plenty of "hub" rides...

When was the last "formally constituted" GP hub ride? Not aware of any the last while... Groenies, Breedts, Spruit, Bike Park, or.... a ROADIE ride? I'm sure Wonder Woman would love to "win" a Merc CLK for a weekend again ...

[Icycling]

Hubbers - when SACF and PPA came together to form CSA their should not be 1 vote per person as PPA would have 15000 votes and would basically run the show!

 

A system was created to the Max number of votes was / is 15!

 

So with 17 500 members PPA get 15 votes, WP with 500 members also get 15 votes. Some of the small provinces only get 10 votes etc

 

Maybe it is time for change - but I don't think it will happen quickly!

[Thug]

Hubbers - when SACF and PPA came together to form CSA their should not be 1 vote per person as PPA would have 15000 votes and would basically run the show!

 

A system was created to the Max number of votes was / is 15!

 

So with 17 500 members PPA get 15 votes, WP with 500 members also get 15 votes. Some of the small provinces only get 10 votes etc

 

Maybe it is time for change - but I don't think it will happen quickly!

 

The queston is, why are there TWO bodies within Western Province that have double the number of votes of a province such as Gauteng or KZN?

 

Is this perhaps what one of the requirements of SASCOC are in terms of the constitutionality of CSA?

 

At the end of the day there needs to be equal rules for all roleplayers which doesn't appear to the case.

[Thug]

When was the last "formally constituted" GP hub ride? Not aware of any the last while... Groenies, Breedts, Spruit, Bike Park, or.... a ROADIE ride? I'm sure Wonder Woman would love to "win" a Merc CLK for a weekend again ...

 

And Yes, it's time for another Mine Dump ride.

 

Tumbleweed, wherefore art thou...........

[Icycling]

At the time:

 

With 15000 members did not want to lose it autonomy by basically becoming a club which would then join WP! PPA probably would have not joined and SACF would still exist! In any marriage their are terms and conditions!

 

I was not at the meeting so I really do not know what SASCOC is referring too.