Loading ...
Ethical webpages
Posted by Stephanie Butcher on December 2nd, 2007
Fellow divers,
I couldn’t be at the AGM - again - due to work commitments. I understand that we have lost member(s) because of an argument about whether or not there should be information about carbon offsets on the GLUG website.
We are NOT a political organisation - it is foolish in the extreme to lose members over such an issue.
I thought we had a process that says that any links to other organisations from the GLUG website would be posted only if those organisations gave some form of support or benefit to GLUG.
I was unaware that this issue was to be raised at the AGM - I didn’t receive an agenda for the meeting, but I would like to make it clear to all members that as a Committee member I would have voted against the inclusion of such links and editorial on the GLUG website.
I would urge anyone who feels it necessary to leave GLUG to reconsider their decision - please stay and lets have a full discussion on this issue. I’d move for a postal ballot of all members on this issue - we have many members who could not get to the AGM to have their votes counted.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The AGM was posted by Chris on November 27th, and all GLUG members should have received the email. There was also a post by Jason on November 29th, asking members to take a minute to read through the Ethics and Carbon Offsets pages, and leave any comments on the main Ethics page, particularly if they were unable to attend the meeting. This post was also emailed to all members. Three members did leave comments - all were in favour of keeping the Ethics page. ALL club members have therefore had the opportunity to make their views on the subject known.
At the meeting, while almost everyone agreed that encouraging members towards particular courses of action was wrong, the majority felt that the information presented on the current “Ethics” page was acceptable, and that the page should stay.
I’m sorry if a particular member feels so strongly about this that they feel it necessary to leave the club, but I think it would be wrong to let their decision influence the course of action that was agreed democratically at the AGM.
My personal view is that there is still some work to be done on the Ethics page, to ensure that it gives a balanced and unbiased view of some issues - and possibly to rename it to something less controversial. However, to suggest that merely by providing information for members to find out more about these issues, we are “politicising” the club doesn’t make sense to me. You might as well say that “Yellow Pages” are politicising themselves by containing the contact details of the local Labour Party branch.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
We would like to say thank you for Neil’s comments. We feel that as we all had the opportunity to vote on the subject we should not inflame it again. We made a clear, democratic decision last night.
We are a great club with lots of fantastic members, and if someone wants to leave us as a result of a majority decision, then that is very sad.
Sonja and Fiona
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Well I certainly opened a can of worms! A couple of points - AGM’s should be notified atleast 28 days in advance and should contain an agenda and also motions for discussion/vote. Perhaps it did - as my email has been playing up for weeks I may well have missed it. However, I’m not sure we can rely on email - are all 104 members on email? Perhaps a postal vote system for those unable to attend? Or are we happy that less than 20% of the club are making decisions?
I shall now retire to my usual anonymity and just go back to looking after the cylinders and weights - fortunately my conscience is clear as they are transported in a lower emission vehicle and the paint s non carbon based. Phew!!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:23 am
I would have voted against the ethical link as well. Not because I am against the idea of ‘Green diving’, but because I think including a political agenda such as this is potentially divisive. For those of us who want to be proactive about conservation and other ethical issues, there are better organisations to join. I can understand how some people may feel strongly against being told to follow a party line that wasn’t there when they joined.
Sorry that I could not get to the AGM as I was away that weekend, so it was not possible for me to vote either. So far, of the 4 posted comments, the vote is 2 against 2, so that’s a tie?
My conscience is also clear as all the light bulbs in my house are low energy and my recycle box is always fuller than the bin bags. And I am not about to leave the club either.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Actually, Steph, Neil added a dedicated comments page to the website as far back as September. Only three people made use of it (and all of them were in favour of the Ethics page and against the Carbon Offsets page).
It was also in September that it was agreed that the matter would be decided, by vote, at the AGM. No mention was made of a postal ballot, and, really, if anything other than a straight-forward count of hands was to be requested or required, this is the point that it should have been raised, not after the fact.
All of this was discussed endlessly and with great passion and ire. I find it difficult to believe that any member of the club who had bothered to check the website, come to a meeting, or read an agenda or minutes any time in the last six months could have been unaware of the situation.
Personally, I feel that this issue has taken up an inordinate amount of time and energy in the club over the last six months and, now that it has been decided (democratically, and in accordance with rules agreed upon by both sides three month before), that the time has come for it to be laid to rest.
And, having just reread the Ethics page for the umpteenth time, I remain convinced that it is only ‘divisive’ because certain of our members mulishly insist upon making it so.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Mulish?? Moi???Neigh, never! Lovely carrots. Yummy!!
I think you’ve proved your point - 3 out of 104 - scarcely a staggering majority?? Perhaps I’ve msissed out the Dedicated web page!! How fab, but then again only any use to those dedicated to the pursuit of cyber space - and I have to confess I’m not one of those. Perhaps I should get an E life.
As I’ve recently pointed out, GLUG has a written constitution which lays out procedures for AGM’s, election of officers etc etc. I suspect that, if we are bothered, we may find out that the decision was actually unconstitutional as we probably didn’t follow our own procedures. I claim exemption from everything under S10, sub section 3 (a) which states that “old and boring GLUG members may, when faced with things they don’t understand, cry “DILLIGAF”. I therefore so call.
Love you all, hope that the gas expelled in the hissy fits has all been carbon neutral.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I have just returned from holiday and have been reading the posts for the last couple of weeks on the GLUG website since I was unable to access the internet whilst away. Thus I was unable to get to the meeting and express my views or vote on the issue.
I would have voted against the ethical page for much the same reasons as already expressed by Steph and Ben. If I wasn’t already a member of the club and saw the ethical page it would put me off joining. All I want to do is dive with other gay and gay-friendly divers, not get involved in (or have the impression of getting involved in) any political agendas. If I want to find out about gay rights or Amnesty International I would do that elsewhere. It seems to me that this issue has been imposed on us by a vocal minority. It’s a great shame that we didn’t all get the chance to vote on it. Perhaps in future we can have votes via the website for all those people around the country and beyond who aren’t able to be in London for the AGM. I won’t be leaving the club because of it but I’m not happy about it.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Further to all the posts to date, I have deliberately stayed quiet throughout the past few days to let the dust settle a little on the topic. I feel that yes the club is all about bringing like minded people together to dive in a safe environment with others from the LGBT society but also we should ensure we reinforce our rights as individuals and club to choose where and what we do.
As the chair I feel I am supporting members in what is best for the club through our monthly meetings which unfortunately doesn’t always fit with all individuals. Until now, other than a handful of emails from a small number of members, the Ethics page has been received well verbally at the monthly meetings and my understanding was that the majority of the members were comfortable with the content. Now however there are more people voicing their negative opinions after the preverbial ’stable door is bolted’ on the subject.
I am now therefore at a loss to the next steps and the best route forward. If people are unable to attend meetings, review agendas, read the website and make comments, other than visiting them at their homes (if they have provided home addresses and kept them current) I cannot ensure their voices are heard and opinions aired.
For me the Ethics page gives information, choice and a justification for our members to choose their dive locations whilst giving those a voice to appeal to others to reconsider their actions, all reinforce choice and free speech, which is a positive not a negative.
I was, at the last AGM reelected as chair and I will continue to do my best for the club, but this does mean that I need our members to communicate with me to ensure that we are doing 1) what’s right for the club and 2) whats right for the individual. Yes, sometimes there might be a clash but lets hope this promotes healthy debate, not a stagnant bitter taste and divide in the club.
Lets remain focused on whats important, a fun, safe scuba dive club which is open, considers it’s members, reputation, society and environment but is still aware of the injustices in a world where we are more fortunate than others.
Further to Stephs comments about our written constitution, I would love to see a copy of this. As a member of GLUG for over 4 years and chair of 2007/08 I have never been made aware of its existence and provided with a copy to follow. Although now I find myself held to a document and agreed process I have no knowledge of! In fact this was my next action point for this year, you have just saved me a job!!
December 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I’d just like to back up Chris on the point about the written constitution - I never saw one during my three years of Chairmanship either. If anyone does have a copy, then please make yourself known!
If no-one can produce a copy, then I do think it would be a good idea for the committee to get together at some point to write a new one. Apart from anything else, it would be useful for present and future committee members, to know exactly what the club’s “rules” about these sorts of things should be.