AGM,S , Constitutions, Voting , Rules

[soccer mom]

Re: 1 - I am on an NFP (non-soccer) and didn't know. Although we did amend our organization so board members are not liable financially (in consultation with Society Act and CRA).

Re: 2 - The board itself may or may not realize this so for individual members to not realize would not be shocking. But, I imagine before a board member can be held personally liable a lot of factors would have to be considered (I don't know what those factors would be). I don't think it's something very easily done to hold a board member liable.

Re: Delta - I am a President of a board, and I don't understand what the president could have done to cost the club money. Presidents can't act on a whim, and can't sign for things without a 2nd person also signing. But, maybe the president was and then someone realized the president can't do that (not trying to gossip - my postulation is re: NFP board presidents in general).

Totally agree that the President can and can not act on a whim. However this one apparently must have and thus the lengthy suspension from all soccer related activities by the governing body BC Soccer.

 

[TKBC]

Yes, I agree. Obviously something very untoward happened. My guess is the board itself didn't realize what was happening, or if they did know they didn't realize it was wrong or not until it was too late....difficult to say. My guess is the President is not some evil guy. He probably thought he was doing his best, but was simply mislead. This doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished - ignorance is not a defense.

 

[soccer mom]

someone posted earlier about apathy. Many boards have that culture and are not comfortable taking a stand against someone that is doing something wrong. I suppose that is why it should be clearly outlined the consequences to the board member as a result of remaining apathetic. Its not enough to say " I don't want to get involved or stand up to this individual or rock the boat". The ramifications to that apathetic approach is possibly putting themselves in a liable financial position. And if you are uncomfortable making a stand for what is right maybe than those board members should bow out and allow someone else to have that voice.

 

[soccer mom]

paid coaches getting to vote is just not right on many levels.

 

[TKBC]

paid coaches getting to vote is just not right on many levels.

I agree.

I also have an employee within my NFP, and that employee cannot vote. We take her opinion very seriously, but she knows she can't vote and respects that completely. The risk of conflict is far too great.

 

[FB1]

If a club is a non-profit society then voting rights are held by members. Clubs define members, as they see fit, in their constitution. It's all pretty straight forward. In my club, membership is defined as parents of registered players, registered adult players and registered coaches. And yes, paid coaches get a vote. In most cases, coaches' pay amounts to nothing more than an honorarium and expenses, not a living wage by any stretch. (And I know there are some exceptions!)

But again, membership is defined by the club in their constitution or at least should do. I don't think a club would be compliant with the society act otherwise.

I find all these stories very interesting. I've been part of many clubs and seen some eventful AGM's and dysfunctional boards. But nothing compared to what seems to be commonplace on the south side of the Fraser.

 

[TKBC]

If a club is a non-profit society then voting rights are held by members. Clubs define members, as they see fit, in their constitution. It's all pretty straight forward. In my club, membership is defined as parents of registered players, registered adult players and registered coaches. And yes, paid coaches get a vote. In most cases, coaches' pay amounts to nothing more than an honorarium and expenses, not a living wage by any stretch. (And I know there are some exceptions!)

But again, membership is defined by the club in their constitution or at least should do. I don't think a club would be compliant with the society act otherwise.

I find all these stories very interesting. I've been part of many clubs and seen some eventful AGM's and dysfunctional boards. But nothing compared to what seems to be commonplace on the south side of the Fraser.

I'd be quite surprised if parents would not be given member rights at a soccer club, and if a club was excluding them I'd be even more surprised if someone challenged that that the club would be told to change the constitution to make the parents members.

But, yes, as it is clubs can define members however they wish. Doesn't mean their definition is correct.

The Society Act is changing - I urge every club to make sure their constitution falls in line with these changes.

 

[soccer mom]

the challenge with constitutions are that they were created in most cases by yesterdays executive in rather loose looking legal jargon and than interpreted by today's executive. That is the value of lifetime as advisors on that type of stuff. Not day to day operations unless of course a life member is active (most arent).

And most people are honest and flexible and do serve the best interests of the club as a whole. I have to believe that. In the case of what appears to have been a bit of a show at the Delta Youth AGM and the heavily publicised CCB AGM, it appears that certain individuals chose to interpret the constitution to best suit their needs and not the club.

So based on BC Soccer suspensions list which is online it appears that the former President of Delta Youth at the least was punished and removed from soccer as those type of individuals should be. Than those particular clubs need to learn from that and revisit the constitution and tighten up those particular ambiguities so idiots like that guy dont have the same opportunity again. Or at least it is minimized.

In the case of Delta it looks like they are and in the case of CCB I suspect they also are working in that direction. Lets hope anyways.

 

[4_the_kids]

The really issue is board members are all just volunteers. Some understand how NFP and Society Act are meant to work most don't, some take the time educate themselves most don't and some have just enough knowledge to make them naively dangerous. They all have ideas , wants and agendas though. Further the Society Act is just an act and enforcement requires someone to challenge a decision or action in court which as previously mentioned can be very costly. As such minor issues that are adding up to bigger issues are hard to stop, thus members collaborate and try to force change through elections at AGM's , current board will attempt to defend themselves. A tribunal would makes much easier...
Really it isn't much different than Strata's. I believe everyone is well intended , mm well the majority are anyways. Members disagree on the direction, or goals ,sometimes they have the same goal but disagree on how to get there.
You have volunteer parents providing direction to how a soccer club should run including the programming of course they don't agree just talk to parents watching a game they all have different opinion or view on how it should be run especially on the development programs and select team selections.
Hopefully the new BC Soccer Charter will help end most of this...

 

[TKBC]

two excellent posts.