Meeting with Defra in August.

[steve pitts]

Do you know if NFSA and SACN have the same mandate and can the info be found on the NFSA site ? with them being the main voice for the UK sea anglers you would hope they have kept their angling public informed.

 

Don't know Glenn, but I assume that both have a constitution or similar set of agreed proceedures where the protocols for group representation are agreed by the membership. It is not unusual for groups to appoint members of a committee to act on their behalf during the committee members' term of office. Sometimes there will be limits to this authority or an unconditional mandate is given.

 

The NFSA conservation group are answerable to the NFSA board I would imagine and I understand that the NFSA has canvassed its members in issues surrounding the RSA strategy, by a postal survey.

 

The NFSA has a website and forum, so I imagine that news will be disseminated via these.

 

Cheers

Steve

[steve pitts]

Hi Steve

 

I agree that circulating an email so close to meeting is not the ideal way to get considered feedback.

 

I'll emphasise again that Defra sent this out late Friday afternoon to one individual, so blame Defra.

 

I don't now the reason why it wasn't forwarded to me until Monday, but it's not beyond the realms of possiblility that the recipient didn't open it over the weekend. What I do know is that it would have been forwarded at the earliest opportunity.

 

Yes - it was a cock-up when more notice should have been given, but that's Defra for you. They do it all the time.

 

I'm not about to disect your answers to my reply to you, but I stand by my original statement that the BASS committee and restoration team have a renewed mandate to represent BASS and this is what has happened wrt the meeting.

 

The committee and restoration team are fully accountable to the membership and relay information in a variety of formats, so that the membership are kept fully informed and involved.

 

At a cost of £800, BASS circulated a newsletter earlier this year, to all members, which devoted 4 pages to the RSA strategy consultation - http://ukbass.com/downloads/news8.pdf pages 7 - 11

 

Whatever your opinons of the NFSA and SACN and how they keep in contact with their members, I fail to see how you can continue to argue that BASS is in any way being secretive by withholding information and not seeking opinion from its members.

 

Another example Steve - You put a proposal to the AGM and you got a lot of time allocated to your proposal. The proposal was then voted on.

 

You were then genuinely congratulated and thanked for having the balls to raise the subject (a round of applause as I recall), but no-one called you a trouble maker, an idiot or a hybrid, or any such insult. You got a very fair hearing and that, as I see it, is an indication of the fair and democratic process that prevails within BASS.

 

You're confusing the name-calling that breaks on on this forum, with the respect for other people's views, that BASS members (on the whole) afford each other.

 

Its well-known that there is no love lost between you and the NFSA and SACN and now you have chosen to lump BASS in with your accusations of secrecy and under-handedness within this post.

I find that unfair - hence my reply to your post.

 

Your portrail of BASS, as some sort of clandestine, self-centred group, headed by unaccountable mavericks is not recognisable to me and I'll end my contribution to this thread at that.

 

Regards

Steve

Edited August 14, 2008 by steve pitts

[Steve Coppolo]

Steve

We appear to have been going round in circles again. Like you, I have no wish to continue doing so. I will, however, address the AGM proposal and vote because I see it as relevant to what we've been discussing.

 

Another example Steve - You put a proposal to the AGM and you got a lot of time allocated to your proposal. The proposal was then voted on.

 

You were then genuinely congratulated and thanked for having the balls to raise the subject (a round of applause as I recall), but no-one called you a trouble maker, an idiot or a hybrid, or any such insult. You got a very fair hearing and that, as I see it, is an indication of the fair and democratic process that prevails within BASS.

 

As you know, my proposal was to prevent the very scenario that is causing you so much grief. That is, BASS being lumped in with the other RSA organisations. The proposal did get a very fair hearing and I was more than willing to accept the members' vote, whichever way it went. However, if you remember, an amended version of my proposal was put forward by a member of the BASS committee, who then withdrew it before the membership got a chance to vote on it. From the contact that I've had with various BASS members since, I don't think there was anyone present who wasn't surprised and puzzled by those actions. Democracy at work? It didn't look like it to me. The membership probably wouldn't have gone for my proposal anyway, but the fact that a member of the BASS committee found it necessary to play around with the rules .....................I don't have to say any more, do I?

 

Also, I don't know if you could see from where you were sitting, but I applauded the members right back as I walked off because I was very impressed with the way they listened, asked their questions and gave me a fair hearing.

 

As I've said, this thread was not about having a poke at BASS. It was about highlighting a problem, which it has done. The fact that BASS got mentioned in the same sentence as the NFSA and SACN is a sign of the times and due to the loss of respect and credibility that BASS has suffered recently, for various reasons. And that isn't just sour grapes from me, Steve, take a look at how BASS are being ridiculed elsewhere on the internet on a regular basis. That wouldn't have happened 5 years ago. I sincerely hope that BASS are able to do what's necessary to regain the respect that they worked so hard to earn in the first place. It would be a terrible shame if they can't.

[steve pitts]

As you know, my proposal was to prevent the very scenario that is causing you so much grief. That is, BASS being lumped in with the other RSA organisations. The proposal did get a very fair hearing and I was more than willing to accept the members' vote, whichever way it went. However, if you remember, an amended version of my proposal was put forward by a member of the BASS committee, who then withdrew it before the membership got a chance to vote on it. From the contact that I've had with various BASS members since, I don't think there was anyone present who wasn't surprised and puzzled by those actions. Democracy at work? It didn't look like it to me. The membership probably wouldn't have gone for my proposal anyway, but the fact that a member of the BASS committee found it necessary to play around with the rules .....................I don't have to say any more, do I?

 

 

The fact that BASS got mentioned in the same sentence as the NFSA and SACN is a sign of the times and due to the loss of respect and credibility that BASS has suffered recently, for various reasons. And that isn't just sour grapes from me, Steve, take a look at how BASS are being ridiculed elsewhere on the internet on a regular basis.

 

Hi Steve

 

I've have to respond publically to you on this for the benefit of other forum readers (if anyone is following this).

 

Your proposal to the AGM was to put into practice a new rule, which would have precluded any member of the committee or restoration team from holding any other office with any other representive group or club if I remember rightly. This was presumably to avoid a potential conflict of interest as you saw it .

 

It would have meant that, if sanctioned by the membership, several members of the committe would have either had to stand down and relinquish their positions on the BASS committee or resign from posts that they held elswhere with (as an example) other angling clubs, shooting clubs and as appointees to SCFs.

 

I'll be honest and admit that I can't remember the reason for, or the content of the proposed amendment, but it is the prerogative of a proposer to withdraw his counter-motion if it is considered and discussed and then he or she feels that it is not a solution to the issue at hand. The normal process is to ask the proPoser of the ammendment if he/she wishes to see the ammendement go to a vote.

 

This was done the ammendment withdrawn and your original proposal, having been seconded was voted on by those present.

 

Nothing sinister or under-handed in any of that Steve, just normal proceedure as the formal part of the AGM.

 

The problem that has been highlighted here and upon which we can both agree is that Defra send out complex documents only a day or two before the meetings, which are planned well in advance and then expect some sort of rational concensus from the meeting delegates. Your guess is as good as mine whether this is intentional but it has nothing to do with secret squirrels or withholding of info. by BASS which you are implying.

Jesus - I sent you and others a copy of the document 5 minutes after I finished reading it.

 

 

It does strike me that some of the 'loss of credibility' of which you speak may perhaps be due to the way that some people incurrately portray BASS on these internet forums. You know the usual crap about 'elitist fluff chuckers who only care about one species'.

 

It's rubbish Steve- you and I both know that and you should also know by now that if I suspected any undemocratic behavoir by those who represent BASS, I would be the first to holler 'foul ref'

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited August 14, 2008 by steve pitts

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Steve

Also in the interest of transparency;

 

It would have meant that, if sanctioned by the membership, several members of the committe would have either had to stand down and relinquish their positions on the BASS committee or resign from posts that they held elswhere with (as an example) other angling clubs, shooting clubs and as appointees to SCFs.

 

I'll be honest and admit that I can't remember the reason for, or the content of the proposed amendment, but it is the prerogative of a proposer to withdraw his counter-motion if it is considered and discussed and then he or she feels that it is not a solution to the issue at hand. The normal process is to ask the proPoser of the ammendment if he/she wishes to see the ammendement go to a vote.

 

This was done the ammendment withdrawn and your original proposal, having been seconded was voted on by those present.

 

Nothing sinister or under-handed in any of that Steve, just normal proceedure as the formal part of the AGM.

 

The proposal was that no person who represents anglers for another angling organisation, on a national level, would be able to also represent BASS. Nothing to do with local fishing clubs, nothing to do with shooting clubs. Questions were asked and, I admit, it became apparent that the wording of my original proposal wasn't clear on this. The BASS committee member then proposed an amendment, (that I agreed with), that addressed the problem of the poor wording. The members were then asked to vote on the original, poorly worded, proposal which they voted against. Then, when everyone was expecting to get to vote on the amended version, the committee member withdrew it so no one got the chance to vote on it.

 

I don't know about you Steve, but in my eyes, that wasn't a fair and democratic process taking place.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Steve Coppolo

[steve pitts]

Steve

 

Here's your proposal -

 

'No individual who holds office within BASS, or who represents BASS in any official capacity, shall be permitted to hold office within, or represent sea anglers on behalf of, any other sea angling group or representative group, body or organisation'

 

You are right - it would not affect anyone who was an official or representative of a shooting club. My mistake.

 

However - the key word 'National' was not in your original proposal and if this was a fundemental point of your proposal then I agree that it was not clearly worded.

 

As I've said Steve, the wording of the ammendment escapes me, but it will be on record within the minutes of the AGM.

 

You're giving the impression (well more of an accusation - a committee member played around with the rules etc.) that you were stitched up by 120 BASS members who voted against you on the day.

 

I think that some found the proposal unworkable and others found it dictatorial.

That's why it wasn't carried and was voted against unanimously.

 

 

Bearing in mind that the AGM was in March, this is the first time that you've publically mentioned any irregularity or dissatisfaction with the proceedings.

 

Time perhaps to take this over to the BASS forum where we can ask for other peoples' recollections of the day's events.

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited August 14, 2008 by steve pitts

[Brian Carragher]

Hi Steve

 

I've have to respond publically to you on this for the benefit of other forum readers (if anyone is following this).

Cheers

Steve

 

 

Well I'm following it and am an interested outsider looking in

 

The normal coarse of events would be to vote on the amendment first and if the amendment won it would be the substantive motion, if the amendment lost then the original proposal would be the only proposal on the floor and would have to be voted on

 

If the sequense of events has differed any from those outlined then there may well have been a breach of procedure, if they have followed those lines then that means someone has got their grasp of events surrounding the meeting wrong

 

As i say I'm just an interested outsider with no axe to grind but it would be useful to know which scenario is right

[Steve Coppolo]

You're giving the impression (well more of an accusation - a committee member played around with the rules etc.) that you were stitched up by 120 BASS members who voted against you on the day.

 

I think that some found the proposal unworkable and others found it dictatorial.

That's why it wasn't carried and was voted against unanimously.

 

 

Bearing in mind that the AGM was in March, this is the first time that you've publically mentioned any irregularity or dissatisfaction with the proceedings.

 

Time perhaps to take this over to the BASS forum where we can ask for other peoples' recollections of the day's events.

 

Cheers

Steve

 

Steve

I've no intention of carrying this on on the BASS forum where no one else can see it except BASS members. I've said it so many times now that I'm beginning to think I must be going mad; My post was not intended to be a poke at BASS, it was a poke at all the RSA orgainsations who were invited to the meeting and who didn't let anyone else know that it was even taking place. It was made to highlight a problem, communication breakdown, or whatever else you want to call it, and it did just that. The fact that you got all defensive because I dared to mention BASS in the same sentence as the NFSA and the SACN is nothing to do with me, or anything that I posted. By defending something that didn't need defending, you have brought to light something that was probably best kept within the BASS society. Again, your doing not mine.

 

I have not said I was stitched up by 120 BASS members at all. What I said was that I would have accepted the members' vote whichever way it went; and I did. The fact that they didn't get to vote on the amended proposal was a surprise to many of those present and was, also, nothing to do with me. As you say, the AGM was in March and I haven't said anything publically about the events of the day until now. What you may, or may not, know is that I took the matter up with the chairman of BASS straight after the AGM. Without wishing to air any more of BASS's dirty washing in public, suffice to say that nothing came of it. I could have aired my dissatisfaction with the way the vote was carried out on a public forum if I'd wished and the fact that I didn't flies in the face of what you seem to be implying. i.e, that I want to discredit BASS in some way just for the sake of it, or for the sake of controversy, as you put it.

 

If you keep making an issue out of something that isn't there, I will keep on responding.

 

Steve

[glennk]

Does sound like someone stitched you up there Steve, I have come to expect no different from such organisations though and the members of "Higher Status" likely discussed silencing you long before you knew about it. I am sure Bass has its good points and some of these were recently highlighted in the kayaking forum in a discussion on help with bass fishing techniques. I am told they offer top level help and advice on fishing for the species. Perhaps they would be better off sticking to this side of things ???.

 

Sadly when you get involved in the political side of things there is a tendency for the **** to hit the fan. Their allegiance with other RSA bodies probably does them no favours either, the recent bass press release a fine example of that.

[steve pitts]

If you keep making an issue out of something that isn't there, I will keep on responding.

 

Steve

 

As you said in one of your earlier posts - life's too short.

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited August 15, 2008 by steve pitts