Voyageurs Organization Referendum Proposal

[Grizzly]

The two recent threads on the topic of the Voyageurs organization and leadership have been locked in favour of a Facebook event where discussion is occuring. I do not see the purpose of this at the moment for several reasons:

1) The Facebook group is currently an open event so anyone can join or read it thus I don't think it is any more private than anything on this forum.

2) There are many Voyageurs who are not on Facebook or who will not be aware of the Facebook debate so the numbers of people participating will be even less than the number of people who posted on the above threads.

3) MOST IMPORTANTLY: No decision has been reached about whether the Voyageurs should be reorganized or not. Those calling for a reorganization are doing so on the belief that the Voyageurs should be run more democratically yet the current discussion about how we should reorganize does not have democratic merit because no democratic decision has been made about whether we should reorganize. Only a small number of Voyageurs posted in the threads on the topic above and there were widely differing views on the matter. Many of the long serving and prominent Voyageurs have not posted on these threads.

Before any discussion occurs about how we should reorganize a democratic decision has to be made about whether to dissolve the current leadership structure and replace it with a different one. At the moment the only thing that has happened is that Winnipeg Fury has temporarily resigned his position and we are currently leaderless. This situation has to be resolved as quickly as possible as it is very detrimental to our best interests. If the current leadership is to be maintained it needs to resume working on behalf of the Voyageurs as soon as possible. If it is to be changed, then we have to determine how to change it as soon as possible so the new organization can continue the work of the Voyageurs. Months of debating the topic will only lead to stagnation and a lack of action and resolution. Whatever the decision, there needs to be leadership in place and active in the near future.

<center>Proposal</center>

We need to hold a referrendum on whether to maintain the current structure and leadership or replace it with a new one.

I think the vote should be on a simple yes or no question.

The vote should occur over a short time period, I would propose one week.

I think those voting need to have shown a certain commitment to the Voyageurs so I think there needs to be a minimum post count by the start of the process to be allowed to vote. I would propose that anyone who has made 200 posts be allowed to vote.

I think the vote should be open on a thread, ie. everyone votes yes or no and their user name is displayed as usual when posting. I think a closed/private vote is too hard to organize and may cause suspicion about the results. I also don't think a private vote is necessary because in my opinion this is not a personal matter and should not become one. If people vote against my position I will not take it personally and noone else should either. Everyone's opinion should be respected and everyone should respect the results.

A mail should be sent to all eligible Voyageurs telling them of the vote and encouraging them to voice their opinion.

There should be no campaigning as it would be devisive. I think there should be a short statement from the current leadership and those opposing it concerning their point of view and a link to the two threads for those wanting to read in depth views on the subject. Then people should be left to vote as they please. Likewise, I think on the vote thread people should simply post yes or no, it is a referrendum not a debate and we debated the subject enough on the two threads.

The vote would be decided by a 50% + 1 margin.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I don't agree with the jist of the referendum Grizzly.

The real open question is whether people think the Voyageurs should make the change to a non-profit, legally constituted, or not. If you think we should vote on a recent very reasonable proposal to make the V's legal, meaning having membership criteria, a voted board, accountability especially in finances, corresponding board minutes and financial reporting, and qualify for possible funding as an NPO, then I would agree that is a reasonable basis for a referendum. And let me say I have no real clear opinion as to what I would vote given the choice, I am frankly split on that question as I see pros and cons on either side.

But for me and from what I gather from others here, many who have been shut up and shut out for reasons I do not understand, that is the essential question facing the group. Though as I say, I do not feel the same urgency about things as some, as I agree that 99% of those who have stepped up and done things over the years have done an admirable job as volunteers and have represented the overall sentiment of those here reasonably well.

I have more to say but if you were to change that one line in your post, the subject of the referendum, I would agree with it totally. The only other possible point of debate is who should vote, as we do have longstanding Voyageurs who post little but have done so for a long time, and very constructively. But it is a lesser point as I am sure you will agree.

There is more to say but it is best to let more jump in before dragging this post out.

[Grizzly]

The first order of business is to determine whether we want to change from the existing structure and leadership to a new one. Only after that is decided should there be a debate/referrendum on what the new structure should be, ie. whether the Voyageurs should become a NPO, have an elected Board of Directors, Incorporate, etc. The current leadership is entirely willing to resign and in part has already done so but it is only fair that before we undertake a major change in structure and leadership, a majority of posters have to agree that they would like to see this happen.

I agree that the post count is not a perfect system but it is the only impartial one. There are Voyageurs who rarely post but read the forum and attend many games. I would like to vouch for them and let them vote but there is no way this could be done fairly without the appearance of being partial or stacking the vote with friends.

I take great offence to your comment, "for me and from what I gather from others here, many who have been shut up and shut out for reasons I do not understand". This is blatantly false. I don't know of anyone who has been shut out and if there are cases they were few and done for good reason (people unable to work with others, people who insult other members, people who seem to be unstable). For the most part very few people have volunteered to help. In fact, this is a big concern of mine that if we do democraticize, how many of the people demanding change will be willing to volunteer the time and effort to do the organization required. Regardless of that, if people disagree with my opinion I am fine with that but do not make false statements and lies about how the organization has been run in the past. If you are going to make accusations of being shut out then you need to post actual instances when this has happened. I would also suggest that if it has happened in the past it may have to do with the frequency of posts you make insulting other members like this little gem from about 10 days ago (concerning SCF08 in http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2806):

quote:"I thought you were relatively intelligent based on your posts, but this one has to rank amongst the most ignorant I have ever read on this board. First off you obviously know nothing about Maradona, and secondly you sound like you want to run football on the basis of a Calvinist dictatorship of the sort you used to enjoy in Holland, where you have to do a morality test. But even then you are clueless, because he fell into drugs like a lot of stars at a time when there was no awareness of the damage and when his circle did not protect him properly (we are talking about his Barcelona years, at a time when the city was almost dangerously libertine), and secondly because he has in fact been a rather exemplary family man and still is, despite some marital problems along the way. The guy is always with his daughters, if your parents had spent so much time with you I doubt you'd be as bitter as you obviously are now.

Another thing, of course, is that you just generally hate those spics?

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I take great offence to your comment, "for me and from what I gather from others here, many who have been shut up and shut out for reasons I do not understand". This is blatantly false. I don't know of anyone who has been shut out and if there are cases they were few and done for good reason (people unable to work with others, people who insult other members, people who seem to be unstable).

Take a look at your original proposal:

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I think those voting need to have shown a certain commitment to the Voyageurs so I think there needs to be a minimum post count by the start of the process to be allowed to vote. I would propose that anyone who has made 200 posts be allowed to vote.

Now, take a look at the "Hume Hospitalised" thread. You are shutting out a third of the posters on the first page, including the one who started the thread.

Just pointing out the obvious.

Personally, I'm finding these threads a little tedious (mostly because I'm too lazy to go through the mountains of verbiage that seems to ensue).

[gator]

I'm not sure about all this guys! I have enjoyed the board the way it has been for many years, I'm not so sure change is necessary! It seems with our failed WCQ campaign we're getting away from the football, which is what this is all about! There seems to be more and more threads about how we're going to govern ourselves! This is just my opinion and I will support what the majority wishes! As pointed out Grizzly, it would be very difficult to set a benchmark of the number of posts for voting rights, if you take someone like myself who has been a longtime member, I believe I just went over the 200 post mark, that doesn't mean I don't share interests or read the board all the time! Contrary to that are the guys that have joined and posted like crazy for a year or so, then vanished, so my point is, that's always going to be tough! These are just MY opinions and I support all the hard work everyone has done here, I guess I'm of the mentallity that if it ain't broken, why fix it?

[bettermirror]

Who decided to close those threads?

[superbrad]

quote:Originally posted by gator

I'm not sure about all this guys! I have enjoyed the board the way it has been for many years, I'm not so sure change is necessary! It seems with our failed WCQ campaign we're getting away from the football, which is what this is all about! There seems to be more and more threads about how we're going to govern ourselves! This is just my opinion and I will support what the majority wishes! As pointed out Grizzly, it would be very difficult to set a benchmark of the number of posts for voting rights, if you take someone like myself who has been a longtime member, I believe I just went over the 200 post mark, that doesn't mean I don't share interests or read the board all the time! Contrary to that are the guys that have joined and posted like crazy for a year or so, then vanished, so my point is, that's always going to be tough! These are just MY opinions and I support all the hard work everyone has done here, I guess I'm of the mentallity that if it ain't broken, why fix it?

Liability.

[Cheeta]

^ Wasn't me.

Generally speaking if the person who opens a topic requests it be moved or locked, regardless of the evolution or activity on the topic, I'll usually respect that posters wish. Most locked topics can be found on the forum someplace. Those that can't have been deleted (or moved to a private archive) for a variety of the usual reasons. Spam, too much violent conduct, legal issues, etc.

I'll speculate the reason this discussion was taken off-line was to allow those interested in a more formal Vs organization to get together (amongst themselves) and formulate something to bring forward to the Vs population. Nothing written in stone mind you but a blueprint, if you will, of what sort of organization they intend, how to make that organization happen, and most importantly it's purpose.

If it will fly, it will fly. If it doesn't, it doesn't. That will be your referendum, Grizzly. But it's hard to vote (verbally or with your feet) unless you know what you're voting on.

Again, I go to lengths to say nothing on the website will change should some Voyageurs choose to formally organize. At least not outside of natural evolution.

I'm not on Facebook but the Wee Elf is so maybe I'll do some snooping. See what's going down.

[piltdownman]

I know a few Voyageurs that do not post here but are very active outside the internet. Because of this I would suggest that the voter MUST have 200 posts OR provide proof that they have attended a Canada Game within the last 4 years. ie. Post a picture of their ticket, with there username written beside it. Grizzly what do you think? Otherwise I strongly approve with everything you say as well as keeping the website open to all.

[canadianfoot]

okay I got to go digg around for my visa statment...Does the Group tkts for U-20 count...guess won't help me since we didn't play in Vancouver. I might find the statment of Canada - Guatemala from Yallop days....somewhere....

[squizz1402635577]

I agree with Grizzly's idea of a referendum, but Jeffrey S. makes a good point in saying that the current proposal is a little too unfocused. I haven't been around here for too long, so Grizzly's statements about a "current leadership structure" caught me a little off-guard, as I assumed that most things were done on an ad hoc basis. The fact that there already is a leadership structure, of some variety, gives credence to what Cheeta said -- rather than having a vote on whether or not there should be a vote, why doesn't the current Vs brain trust come up with some sort of concrete plan which could be put to a vote by the masses?

One thing I do agree with, as well, is the suggestion that there needs to be some cut-off point for voting privileges. Whether it's a post count, or match attendance, there needs to be a reasonably stringent control in place to prevent the sort of mayhem that ensued when the tickets for the August 20 match were going on sale.

Final thought: "democracy" is a nice ideal, but remember, not everyone in a democracy bothers to vote, and at the end of the day, Canadian democracy usually results in more than half the people not getting what they wanted. I don't believe that the Vs brain trust can afford to wait until every single member of the rank and file (i.e. yours truly) is appeased. It is important to get a reasonable consensus before any major changes are made, but I don't think we can indefinitely put off the evolution of the group, waiting for every single possible wrinkle to be ironed out (because that'll never happen).

[The Ref]

I am anxious to vote, let the referendum roll as originally proposed.

[Vic]

Oh look, we're the CSA. Anyone promises Fred Nykamp ANYTHING they're disbarred.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by squizz

I agree with Grizzly's idea of a referendum, but Jeffrey S. makes a good point in saying that the current proposal is a little too unfocused. I haven't been around here for too long, so Grizzly's statements about a "current leadership structure" caught me a little off-guard, as I assumed that most things were done on an ad hoc basis. The fact that there already is a leadership structure, of some variety, gives credence to what Cheeta said -- rather than having a vote on whether or not there should be a vote, why doesn't the current Vs brain trust come up with some sort of concrete plan which could be put to a vote by the masses?

I have been informed that a detailed proposal will be put together in the coming months and presented to the forum. Thus, my referendum idea and this thread are no longer relevant and probably a mod should lock yet another thread on this topic though I leave that up to their discretion whether to do so. Apparently the Facebook event is preferred for debating this topic for appearances sake, ie. so people coming on the forum don't have the impression we are all arguing and fighting amongst ourselves.

To address a few of the issues:

El Hombre, I think it is readily apparent I am talking in the past tense about non-voting procedures like offering to participate in or start various projects. I am not aware of anyone being shut out of such things and as I stated what has mostly happened is very few people have offered their services. As for shutting people out of voting, this has never happened as far as I know because I can not remember us ever having a vote before. However, I think it is blatantly obvious that we need some sort of way of confining the vote to regular Voyageurs for the same reasons that tourists and recent immigrants are not allowed to vote in national elections. The number of posts required is debateable, it could be 100, 150 or 200, we could determine that at another time. For those who are below such numbers this is a good reason to make some posts on the forum about those subjects that interest you as long as you don't spam the forum to get your vote count.

Regarding alternative ways to determine who gets the right to vote, I agree with you piltdownman that there are some people who don't post here but yet regularly attend national team games and who are full Voyageurs in my books. I would like to allow some of them to vote as well but don't see a good method of doing so. I don't really feel that being in possession of one Canada game ticket necessarily qualifies you as a Voyageur. To some extent this might be an argument for having paid memberships (those who pay get a card and voting priviledges while others can still post and participate for free) but that can also be debated in the future. On the other hand I do think that posting is also part of the parcel of participating on the Voyageurs on a regular basis so those who do not post really can't complain about not having a vote as they only have themselves to blame. Additionally, I think the number of voters in this situation would be extremely small and not worth creating some difficult and controversial method of having them declared eligible.

[smiddy]

Can I just repeat this post till I hit 200 posts?

[Toronto MB]

Gents.

This will be my first and last post on the matter concerning Voyageurs structure and leadership.

1. I do not support the motion to elect formal leadership. Unprecedented levels of leadership, both regional and national, were undertaken during this cycle of WCQ. We all recognize that there is lots of work to be done, but I would rather genuine individuals continue to step forward and quietly do the work when needed. Ultimately, if you have a contribution to make, speak with some of the veterans, they will point you in the right direction and connect you with the right contacts to make it happen.

I am not prepared for this group to be represented by any one, or any cheateau-clique.

2. I do not support the motion for formal organizational status and structure. While I do see the inherent benefits of this structural alignment, I simply do not think we are prepared for the accountability that is attached to this motion. We remain bonded by our will to support, and strengthen the soccer culture in Canada.

3. I think that we can be doing a much better job of using our 'Canadian-Soccer.com' property as a better online news and information outlet. As the gentlemen behind Canucks-Abroad have begun to prove, we can be doing a collectively better job at providing public information about our players as well obtaining official press status for conference calls, interviews and match-day events. The war we are waging is very much one of public image and importance as we strive to have our team(s) better regcognized in the public sphere. This will likely be one of the endeavours I will be looking to be a part of as we move forward. I hope to speak to some of you in regards to this soon.

As long as we all offer our specialized skills to the collective cause, that form of leadership will suffice for now.

[River City]

quote:Originally posted by smiddy

Can I just repeat this post till I hit 200 posts?

And that's the problem with picking an arbitrary number to determine who has a say and who hasn't. I don't know when Smiddy joined and I really don't care. He came out to Edmonton to cheer on Canada. That makes him a full fledged Voyageur. No ifs and or buts.

If we cut the voting to those with 1,000 posts or more, Reza couldn't vote but I could. Where's the sense in that? Arbitrary numbers are just that, arbitrary. Since there isn't an application process or membership requirements, if someone took the time to register, they're a V.

[piltdownman]

Rivercity, respectfully I disagree. I think their has to be some level of 'arbitrary cutoff'. I think their should have to be some level of commitment to actually have your opinion count. I don't think post counts should be the only factor (I have some 1100 posts about much of nothing ) That's why I suggest anyone who went to a Canada Match, and then takes the time to take a picture of the ticket also should qualify. I still think in the long run that paid membership is the way to go (but that's a whole other topic). But I would argue that the forum and website should always be free for all.

[redhat]

I would suggest an arbitrary cutoff of 100 posts by the end of November.

That will cover approx. 10 pages of members, which is more than the majority.

It's arbitrary, and it's only a proposal out of respect for the people who post

and use this board. No disrespect to anyone, especially those who may disagree.

I also suggest the vote to begin in December; at that point any formal proposal

will be presented, especially regarding transparency. Let the games begin!

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB

Gents.

This will be my first and last post on the matter concerning Voyageurs structure and leadership.

1. I do not support the motion to elect formal leadership. Unprecedented levels of leadership, both regional and national, were undertaken during this cycle of WCQ. We all recognize that there is lots of work to be done, but I would rather genuine individuals continue to step forward and quietly do the work when needed. Ultimately, if you have a contribution to make, speak with some of the veterans, they will point you in the right direction and connect you with the right contacts to make it happen.

I am not prepared for this group to be represented by any one, or any cheateau-clique.

2. I do not support the motion for formal organizational status and structure. While I do see the inherent benefits of this structural alignment, I simply do not think we are prepared for the accountability that is attached to this motion. We remain bonded by our will to support, and strengthen the soccer culture in Canada.

3. I think that we can be doing a much better job of using our 'Canadian-Soccer.com' property as a better online news and information outlet. As the gentlemen behind Canucks-Abroad have begun to prove, we can be doing a collectively better job at providing public information about our players as well obtaining official press status for conference calls, interviews and match-day events. The war we are waging is very much one of public image and importance as we strive to have our team(s) better regcognized in the public sphere. This will likely be one of the endeavours I will be looking to be a part of as we move forward. I hope to speak to some of you in regards to this soon.

As long as we all offer our specialized skills to the collective cause, that form of leadership will suffice for now.

BINGO. I agree with this 100% at this point in time. Your point #3 is critical. I find it ironic that Speedmonk (who created the feeding frenzy on this) had committed to making #3 happen a few months ago before he pulled the V's summit idea out of his hat last week (Note how POLITE I am being James!!!!).

I do see there is a desire to bring about some formalized V's leadership but I don't necessarily see any benefit to it.

[Reza]

Hi Grizzly

I just wanted to bring this up, since most might not be aware.

A number of years ago, around 2001 or so, we did vote on a Charter for the Voyageurs.

http://www.canadian-soccer.com/en/aboutus_charter.asp

It did call for an annual voting to allow for modification of the charter. However, for various reasons, including general lack of interest in having one, we haven't done this up until now.

We could have this vote done, but even in order to have it done, we need some ground rules set and that was the intent of the facebook event.

Now, the facebook event is open until the end of the week, and really, anyone with any level of interest, should be able to join it by then. And at that point, instead of creating a frenzy in the middle of forum which should be about Canadian soccer, we could discuss, try to form a consensus and then put out the result to a vote as the original and the only agreed upon charter of the Voyageurs states.

[RJB]

This could really fracture the Voyageurs.

The way things are now with our current 'leadership' structure includes Winnipeg Fury as our leader, simply because he is very active in talking to the CSA, seems to have many contacts, and was a leader with the Voyageurs Cup. I think that this works for me, and many Voyageurs because Winnipeg Fury is dedicated and has done a quality job.

But what is stopping me from calling a newspaper, or saying something on a radio station as a representative of the Voyageurs. As it is now, it seems that anyone can speak for us. We've been smart about it, and WF has done a great job, but right now we have no protection against rogues.

Any structure to the Voyageurs should mean that this forum remains unchanged, and that all voices continue to be heard. I've advocated for an organization in the past, but I think I've come to realize that what we actually need is a formalized leadership structure to maintain our ship. As it stands now, people like Grizzly, and Daniel, and Gian-Luca, and other senior members are leading us simply on the basis of their long standing membership. Is this actually the best idea? The Voyageurs Cup is a very good example of people that had very different ideas.

We need to be inclusive too, so any post quota is a restrictive and bad idea. Just like restricting input on the Voyageurs Cup to those who contributed to the trophy. Any serious/official discussion on anything Voyageurs should be happening here and not on Facebook.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB

Gents.

This will be my first and last post on the matter concerning Voyageurs structure and leadership.

1. I do not support the motion to elect formal leadership. Unprecedented levels of leadership, both regional and national, were undertaken during this cycle of WCQ. We all recognize that there is lots of work to be done, but I would rather genuine individuals continue to step forward and quietly do the work when needed. Ultimately, if you have a contribution to make, speak with some of the veterans, they will point you in the right direction and connect you with the right contacts to make it happen.

I am not prepared for this group to be represented by any one, or any cheateau-clique.

2. I do not support the motion for formal organizational status and structure. While I do see the inherent benefits of this structural alignment, I simply do not think we are prepared for the accountability that is attached to this motion. We remain bonded by our will to support, and strengthen the soccer culture in Canada.

3. I think that we can be doing a much better job of using our 'Canadian-Soccer.com' property as a better online news and information outlet. As the gentlemen behind Canucks-Abroad have begun to prove, we can be doing a collectively better job at providing public information about our players as well obtaining official press status for conference calls, interviews and match-day events. The war we are waging is very much one of public image and importance as we strive to have our team(s) better regcognized in the public sphere. This will likely be one of the endeavours I will be looking to be a part of as we move forward. I hope to speak to some of you in regards to this soon.

As long as we all offer our specialized skills to the collective cause, that form of leadership will suffice for now.

This is more or less how I feel as well.

[RJB]

quote:Originally posted by Reza

Now, the facebook event is open until the end of the week, and really, anyone with any level of interest, should be able to join it by then.

Foolish. This discussion should he held HERE! If people want to talk about it elsewhere, then so be it. However, to direct people away from this website to have a discussion about this website is assonine.

[Reza]

Just to clarify something.

It's hard to make a decision on a forum thread.

Through the facebook feature, all we are trying to do, is compile a list of people who are willing to work on ideas on how to improve the Voyageurs and then to put it out to a vote. This could be done through mailing list as well, but why go through a mailing list, when facebook offers the same feature?

To achieve anything, we do need the following:

1) A list of people with a cut off date, not a constantly open ended discussion which goes in a different discussion every 2 days.

2) A discussion that is not open to showmanship and is about ideas.

Forums are great for stirring ideas, but for forming a consensus and a decision especially when you are dealing with fundamental stuff, most would agree they are not the place to be. In fact, I would say that no serious organization does their decision making on a forum.

Also, the Charter we agreed upon last time, does allow for updates to the Chater on annual basis, so if you feel your idea is not heard, there is always the next, if you are so passionate about it.