SGM Blues

Alan Linford

Web Note:  The YRC was an all-male club. However, following a 2012 ballot of members, we now welcome applications from both men and women.

The discussion and voting at the 1994 SGM on recommendation one of the forward plan gave me cause for concern and some thought.

When members vote at the SGM, do they vote for what they as an individual need from the Club or do they vote for what is best for the Club?

What causes members to remain silent or abstain and then discuss the issue afterwards?

In the ‘Case Against’ it was suggested that members joined because it was an all male club. I wonder how many joined because it was an all male club. ‘Positively obscene’ HR might say. I joined in 1957 because I wanted to climb and cave and my sponsors had transport. A purely selfish interest. It was only later that I appreciated the depth of fellowship and comradeship so elegantly described in the ‘Case Against’.

On the issue of what is best for the Club, selfish needs must not be allowed to dominate. I felt the sub-committee had managed to separate emotion from reality and personal (selfish) objectives from what is best for the Club. It cannot have been an easy task and I was disappointed at the SGM to hear little support for the sub-committee (who received majority support from the full committee) and any in-depth questioning of how the proposal would be applied. The rejection of the recommendation amounted to a vote of no confidence in the Officers and committee.

What exactly were the sub-committee asking for?

Females as automatic members?    No.
Children on meets?   No.
Thin end of the wedge?   No.

We, the members have total control of who is proposed and elected. Certainly not the open door that the ‘Case Against’ suggests. I see little chance of a non-climbing, non-caving rampant feminist being proposed, seconded, notified to the membership and being elected after gaining at least 75% of the votes cast in a ballot of the committee.

It seems that all that is likely to happen is that some younger members may have females with them and the females may feel that they can contribute to the Club activities better as members, be proposed and elected. Likely numbers? I suggest perhaps five within ten years with it being unlikely that they all turn up on meets just as with other, male, new members. In reality it is riot a problem. The sub committee seem to be saying we need this facility as a contribution to the future prosperity of the Club.

I hope the issue will be raised again -preferably by the younger, more active members. Then it will again receive my support.

Socrates was asked by a young man ‘Is it best to be married or remain single?’. The great man replied ‘Whatever decision you make, you will repent.’

We will repent the ’94 SGM.