Originally Posted by RobF
I think what Neil is saying is for some contingency to happen it needs to be taken from the forum to the actual bfta meeting.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that I don't think in this case that there is a requirement to take it to a bfta AGM/EGM meeting, because there's a stipulation in the rules that the BFTA has the right to vary the the nominated events at any time.
What Neil is arguing is that it still means that a vote would need to be taken at an AGM/EGM, but of course the BFTA has the right to change anything at an AGM/EGM, yet there isn't a similar disclaimer in the constitution stating that the BFTA reserves the right to vary any and every rule at any time.
So the inclusion of that particular term in the rules implies that this is an extra power that the BFTA has - the ability to vary the events at any time without needing to call an EGM to do so.
It's ambiguous, but that ambiguity swings both ways.
What I'm saying here is, if there's a solution that would be the best solution to the problem that we can't actually action because of the BFTA rules, then the bureaucracy isn't helpful, it's actually forcing our hand to come up with a less than ideal solution.
In that instance, there is a rule with sufficient ambiguity to allow the bureaucracy to be bypassed in order to action the best solution, rather than actioning a less than ideal solution.