(Deon) Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 so the roadies cant vote and if there is a chance that they'll get there in time to vote Steve Hayward will move the 'election of office bearers' forward on the agenda. when this is called unconstitutional he will plead 'but the floor voted for it' NO STEVE YOU WERE THE ONE THAT SUGGESTED IT AND CALLED FOR A VOTE. ..confused. Do you surmise or did you attend and this is what actually happened? Anyone attend last night?
City Cycling Athletic Club Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 i attended - steve hayward asked if the election of office bearers be moved from nr 8 on the agenda forward to nr 3 , which was after his chairmans report. when this was objected to he asked for a vote. the reason he gave was that we did not have to wait around after the meeting to get the results.when this was objected to he asked the floor to vote - the majority voted in favour of moving the election of office bearers forward. when more objections arose he just fell back on 'but the floor wants it to be moved'. no Steve you wanted it to be moved. then he didn't want to read his chairmans report because it had been handed out - again in my mind to rush the election of office bearers. but there weren't sufficient copies to be handed out to all of the attendees- so again the floor had to vote and the majority voted for him to read it out.after we voted - a lot of people left straight away.while the votes were being counted about 12 cyclists arrived from Killarney - and there was a request for them to vote - this was turned down by steve hayward - someone said if you want to vote you must be in time - its bad manners - its also bad manners to leave a meeting en masse when its barely started like those lot who had just voted.btw - there was no independent person or auditor to count the votes - the PPA staff counted them and a few people from the audience (very staunch PPA members) - very above board.all in all - the meeting left a bad taste in my mouth.
Shebeen Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Doesn't sound good. Noticed that two of the longest serving board members nominated each other, very entrenched positions here. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, it's just plain to see. Disclaimer: have let my ppa membership lapse for the third time now, so I don't really get much of a say
raptor-22 Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Seems like the membership is too weak minded to stand up against unconstitutional agm practice. Seems to be a cape town thing
blonde kid Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 i attended - steve hayward asked if the election of office bearers be moved from nr 8 on the agenda forward to nr 3 , which was after his chairmans report. when this was objected to he asked for a vote. the reason he gave was that we did not have to wait around after the meeting to get the results.when this was objected to he asked the floor to vote - the majority voted in favour of moving the election of office bearers forward. when more objections arose he just fell back on 'but the floor wants it to be moved'. no Steve you wanted it to be moved. then he didn't want to read his chairmans report because it had been handed out - again in my mind to rush the election of office bearers. but there weren't sufficient copies to be handed out to all of the attendees- so again the floor had to vote and the majority voted for him to read it out.after we voted - a lot of people left straight away.while the votes were being counted about 12 cyclists arrived from Killarney - and there was a request for them to vote - this was turned down by steve hayward - someone said if you want to vote you must be in time - its bad manners - its also bad manners to leave a meeting en masse when its barely started like those lot who had just voted.btw - there was no independent person or auditor to count the votes - the PPA staff counted them and a few people from the audience (very staunch PPA members) - very above board.all in all - the meeting left a bad taste in my mouth. it was becoming clear from PPA AGM last night that nothing would be done for road racing including development racing which one would think would be a priority if they were interested in growing the sport. However, very late in the meeting a crumb of hope was thrown as it was agreed to form a sub-committe to discuss the possibility to re-instating league racing. Roadies don't hold your breath.
rpedro Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 What was more important? Killarney or PPA AGM.....If I felt strongly about voting at the PPA AGM I would have skipped Killarney. What is wrong with you roadies?
Meezo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 What was more important? Killarney or PPA AGM.....If I felt strongly about voting at the PPA AGM I would have skipped Killarney. What is wrong with you roadies? strange crowd! but give them the benefit of the doubt, with Killarney they are almost 100% guaranteed to get a ride, with PPA its pay more get less! :ph34r:
American Flyers Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 i attended - steve hayward asked if the election of office bearers be moved from nr 8 on the agenda forward to nr 3 , which was after his chairmans report. when this was objected to he asked for a vote. the reason he gave was that we did not have to wait around after the meeting to get the results. when this was objected to he asked the floor to vote - the majority voted in favour of moving the election of office bearers forward. when more objections arose he just fell back on 'but the floor wants it to be moved'. no Steve you wanted it to be moved. then he didn't want to read his chairmans report because it had been handed out - again in my mind to rush the election of office bearers. but there weren't sufficient copies to be handed out to all of the attendees- so again the floor had to vote and the majority voted for him to read it out. after we voted - a lot of people left straight away. while the votes were being counted about 12 cyclists arrived from Killarney - and there was a request for them to vote - this was turned down by steve hayward - someone said if you want to vote you must be in time - its bad manners - its also bad manners to leave a meeting en masse when its barely started like those lot who had just voted. btw - there was no independent person or auditor to count the votes - the PPA staff counted them and a few people from the audience (very staunch PPA members) - very above board. all in all - the meeting left a bad taste in my mouth. Steve Hayward must go... He probably knew that roadies are coming to vote after Killarney, that is why he moved vote time earlier...
Skubarra Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 What was more important? Killarney or PPA AGM.....If I felt strongly about voting at the PPA AGM I would have skipped Killarney. What is wrong with you roadies? I agree 100%. If it was that important to people they could have skipped one Killarney meeting, there is one every freakin Wednesday!
'Dale Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 According to some perspectives here, Some very dysfunctional nonsense going on hey
(Deon) Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Steve Hayward must go... He probably knew that roadies are coming to vote after Killarney, that is why he moved vote time earlier...Huh? What is the big issue with the road?? This is starting to sound like a conspiracy so my question is why and over what??
Cargyrl Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Oh PPA/CSA, it is all about the POLITIKS! Freaking hell, it has got nothing to do with cycling and promotion of cycling in the Western Cape, in all its forms.
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Huh? What is the big issue with the road?? This is starting to sound like a conspiracy so my question is why and over what??2 factions - one that see the benefit of having the investment fund and want it to build to a point where a higher spend on cycling is possible without sacrificing future income, one that wants it spent on road cycling NOW and cannot see the longer term need for a solid investment base, which places less emphasis on the need for continual sales and subs to provide income.
KarlvN Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 This bunch of clowns seem to have one singular agenda, and that seems to part us with our hard earned cash. I really cannot see the point of this organization. Perhaps because there is no point.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.