quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
and the fairytale continues... you should have been a fiction writer Shakari!!

Matt,

You might like to read one of the other threads where manners and decorum were discussed mate. You might also like to re-read my posts on this before getting into turbo tongue mode.

Rather than make yourself look ridiculously childish by hurling immature and meaningless insults, who not address the subject of the debate and try to give an adult and reasoned response instead?

Or, God forbid, actually answer the questions in my last post?

I'm more than happy to address them to you as well.

Just to remind you of the questions, they were:

Can you see that (this issue) reflects badly on SCI in general and those individuals in particular?

Can you tell us if you feel that esp in the light of recent events, the protection OoA were granted over the years was fair, open, honest and just or do you feel there was at least a sniff of something dodgy about it all?

Do you feel that the public image of hunting in general and SCI in particular could be improved if some of the aforementioned upper echelon membership who would appear to have been involved with the aforementioned company resigned their positions?

I'll look forward to your answers but I won't hold my breath!

It would appear that the original topic has been sideswiped and turned into an SCI bashing thread. So, since it is already derailed I am going to throw in my two cents.

I am a life member of SCI. I debated taking the plunge and spending the money for a number of years, because unlike many on this forum, I fall into the income bracket of hunters who have to save for many years to book a plains game hunt in Africa and will never have the disposable income for the likes of elephant or lion.

In the end though, I decided to spend the cash and become a life member. Are there things in SCI that I don't like? Absolutely. I definitely find the internal politics to be distasteful. I think the never ending creation of new awards, slams and categories to keep the rich entertained to be laughable and yet a little depressing. I have met some of the executive in the past (no names needed) whom I found to be anything but true sportsman, were crass and epitomize the nouveau riche.

There is no doubt that for many of the 'upper crust' in SCI it is all fun and games. There is a reason that they fail miserably at attracting the millions of average hunters out there and that the age demographics of the membership predict a dismal future for the organization twenty years down the road. But I still paid for a life membership.

I know that when the EU anti's once again attack grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia, when funds are needed for a critical wildlife study in Newfoundland (as is currently the case with that provinces caribou), SCI will step up to the plate.

If there are alternatives out there that work better, please let me know. In the meantime, when they create a World Slam of Giant Rodents by adding beaver, nutria and muskrat categories to complement the existing category for capybara, I will smile and shake my head. Rich people have to have games to play as well.

If you are looking for a perfect organization you will never find it. I will continue to support SCI because they are the only organization out there that are in fact doing good deeds world wide and they are making a difference.

It is always easy to find fault and use it as a reason to not support or participate in an organization.

I have to respectfully disagree about the awards. Personally, I do not enter anything and have not since my second safari in 1991. I have a large number of animals that would make the book but I just don't care to enter them.

I think it has zero to do with keeping the rich entertained. Opening up new categories is nothing more than a way to raise additional money for the use of SCI. About every organizations tries something new.

Like you , I am also a life member. There are things I don't like. Some the members/officers are arrogant pricks full of bovine excrement. They certainly have some activity that is at minimum questionable. Having said that, I will continue to support them. I think there is no one else to support our rights as hunters as effectively as SCI. Often, this is inner office things in Washington. It is not very visible but is perhaps the most important thing they go.

Besides, they aren't going to change in you or I cancel our membership.

Just my 2 cents worth.

quote:

there is no one else to support our rights as hunters as effectively as SCI. Often, this is inner office things in Washington. It is not very visible but is perhaps the most important thing they go.

Larry...on this, you are 100% correct.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
and the fairytale continues... you should have been a fiction writer Shakari!!

Matt,

You might like to read one of the other threads where manners and decorum were discussed mate. You might also like to re-read my posts on this before getting into turbo tongue mode.

Rather than make yourself look ridiculously childish by hurling immature and meaningless insults, who not address the subject of the debate and try to give an adult and reasoned response instead?

Or, God forbid, actually answer the questions in my last post?

I'm more than happy to address them to you as well.

Just to remind you of the questions, they were:

Can you see that (this issue) reflects badly on SCI in general and those individuals in particular?

Can you tell us if you feel that esp in the light of recent events, the protection OoA were granted over the years was fair, open, honest and just or do you feel there was at least a sniff of something dodgy about it all?

Do you feel that the public image of hunting in general and SCI in particular could be improved if some of the aforementioned upper echelon membership who would appear to have been involved with the aforementioned company resigned their positions?

I'll look forward to your answers but I won't hold my breath!

Geez - lighten up. You are the one who takes every opportunity to turn a thread into an SCI bash....

You are talking about a single issue - SCI's treatment of OOA - as a reason to continually and publically bash the living shit out of the worlds largest (spread) hunting organisation... A single issue out of thousands of issues and actions.

I have made my opinion about SCI and OOA very, very clear over quite a few years but you must have a very short memory. I think the situation stank, I dont know exactly why it went on for so long and I did express my opinion to SCI.

My fairy tale comments were made because your ongoing anti-SCI tirade is full of innuendo, 'allegations' and basically your imaginings about an organisation that you have almost zero involvement in. Get over it!! If you dont like the way the organisation works get involved or leave it to the current membership to run their organisation as they see fit. I have made those opinions very clear in the past too. In answer to your questions: APOLOGIES FOR THE CAPITALS

Can you see that (this issue) reflects badly on SCI in general and those individuals in particular? YES _ ABOUT AS BADLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU BASHING SCI ON THE INTERNET, MAYBE LESS.

Can you tell us if you feel that esp in the light of recent events, the protection OoA were granted over the years was fair, open, honest and just or do you feel there was at least a sniff of something dodgy about it all? AS ABOVE - I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT STANK BUT THERE ARE 1000 OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT.

Do you feel that the public image of hunting in general and SCI in particular could be improved if some of the aforementioned upper echelon membership who would appear to have been involved with the aforementioned company resigned their positions? MAYBE - BUT IT IS FOR THE CLUB MEMBERS TO DECIDE WHO RUNS THEIR CLUB AND WHO THEY EMPLOY ETC. NOT OPINIONATED INTERNET FORUM USERS WHO ARENT INVOLVED.

Can you tell us if you feel that esp in the light of recent events, the protection OoA were granted over the years was fair, open, honest and just or do you feel there was at least a sniff of something dodgy about it all? AS ABOVE - I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT STANK BUT THERE ARE 1000 OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT.

May be you can enlighten us as to the 1000 issues that SCI should be paying attention?

As to their involvemnt with Out of Africa, what evidence there is shows points over whelmingly to some sort collusion!

How the hell can one have a man who makes the decisions at SCI and be the lawyer for Out of Africa and raise no questions?

quote:

How the hell can one have a man who makes the decisions at SCI and be the lawyer for Out of Africa and raise no questions?

This question has been asked time and again yet to be responded with a convincing answer - a conflict of interests by the same people who vehemently lobby SCI ?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Geez - lighten up. You are the one who takes every opportunity to turn a thread into an SCI bash....

You are talking about a single issue - SCI's treatment of OOA - as a reason to continually and publically bash the living shit out of the worlds largest (spread) hunting organisation... A single issue out of thousands of issues and actions.

I have made my opinion about SCI and OOA very, very clear over quite a few years but you must have a very short memory. I think the situation stank, I dont know exactly why it went on for so long and I did express my opinion to SCI.

My fairy tale comments were made because your ongoing anti-SCI tirade is full of innuendo, 'allegations' and basically your imaginings about an organisation that you have almost zero involvement in. Get over it!! If you dont like the way the organisation works get involved or leave it to the current membership to run their organisation as they see fit. I have made those opinions very clear in the past too. In answer to your questions: APOLOGIES FOR THE CAPITALS

Can you see that (this issue) reflects badly on SCI in general and those individuals in particular? YES _ ABOUT AS BADLY PEOPLE LIKE YOU BASHING SCI ON THE INTERNET, MAYBE LESS.

Can you tell us if you feel that esp in the light of recent events, the protection OoA were granted over the years was fair, open, honest and just or do you feel there was at least a sniff of something dodgy about it all? AS ABOVE - I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT STANK BUT THERE ARE 1000 OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT.

Do you feel that the public image of hunting in general and SCI in particular could be improved if some of the aforementioned upper echelon membership who would appear to have been involved with the aforementioned company resigned their positions? MAYBE - BUT IT IS FOR THE CLUB MEMBERS TO DECIDE WHO RUNS THEIR CLUB AND WHO THEY EMPLOY ETC. NOT OPINIONATED INTERNET FORUM USERS WHO ARENT INVOLVED.

Matt,

You didn’t manage to find the thread that was discussing good manners and decorum then?

It's not me that needs to lighten up. I'm calmly and politely debating what I consider to be an interesting and important subject. Nothing more and nothing less. You on the other hand are losing your rag and hurling personal insults because you appear to be incapable or arguing your point calmly, reasonably and logically. I suggest you consider taking your own advice.

Regarding your accusation of my being “the one who takes every opportunity to turn a thread into an SCI bash....”

You might like to check the title of this thread, who started it and consider why he might have started it. You’ll find it was an SCI member, who like you, is fond of shouting down (albeit usually more politely) anyone who criticises SCI. His original post was what I'm sure many would agree was nothing more than a blatant attempt to stop Alan posting on a subject that reflects badly on SCI.

Just to remind you of the original post, here it is:

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Maybe Saeed and the other moderators could set up a Alan Bunn Forum so all these posts could have their own home??? The man is obviously consumed by the Rhino scene so why not??

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

All I did was exercise my right of free speech and argue against the suggestion. I certainly don’t need your (or indeed anyone else’s (except perhaps Saeed’s)) approval or permission to post my opinions here and If you don’t like that, then I suggest you don’t read my posts.

The single issue you mention is (albeit indirectly) the one we’re discussing and it just happens to be the subject that could well have the most dire consequences to hunting in general and African hunting in particular for at least three decades and I for one believe all hunters and especially SCI need to realise that fact and then address the situation properly rather than bury their collective heads in the sand and hope it all just goes away......... because it won’t.

My anti-SCI tirade as you so charmlessly call it is not full of innuendo and allegations at all. There is no doubt whatsoever (and by your own admission) that the company appear to have been given unreasonable protection by the so called Ethics Committee (and others) over many years.

Nor is there any doubt that the company appear to have been given unreasonable access to (convention) floor space, (year after year) despite no end of complaints (from members) against them and there is no doubt whatsoever that the directors of that same company have been charged with a very large number of rhino poaching crimes.

You’ve agreed that those are statements of fact, so how can they be innuendo etc?..... and your answers to my questions state that you agree with me..... So what are you bleating about?

It seems to me that you agree with me but would prefer me to keep it quiet in the hope the issues raised will go away.

In case you haven’t realised what is liable to happen as a consequence of this poaching case. When the next COP meeting rolls around, my guess is Kenya and a few others will propose that ALL CITES I animals lose their sport hunting quota completely and they’ll use the rhino situation as an example. They’ll also point towards the complete failure of hunters and the hunting industry to have done anything about the issue in the past and suddenly no-one will be able to export/import ANY CITES I trophy. I’d also expect them to try to move some of the CITES II species onto CITES I lists which will make things even worse.

Personally, I don’t think there’s a single issue more important to hunters than this current one, let alone the thousands you claim!

Regarding your statement: “IT IS FOR THE CLUB MEMBERS TO DECIDE WHO RUNS THEIR CLUB AND WHO THEY EMPLOY ETC”.

You might like to check the bye-laws etc. Firstly, it’s a corporation and not a club and secondly it’s the executive committee/ Board of Directors who make those decisions, not the rank and file members who are given no say in the matter.

You might consider trying to grasp an understanding of the society you want to support before you decide to support it mate.

Oh and Matt, to make matters easy for you, here's the bye-laws:

http://www.scifirstforhunters....gust%2027%202010.pdf

I suggest you take a long, careful look at them because they make VERY INTERESTING READING!



Matt,

I've never met you but do feel I know you from the forums, PMs and emails we've exchanged and I've always thought of you as a decent, honourable man and I'm sure I'm right in that assumption.

However, I do think you're wrong on the subject of SCI and frankly, reading those bye-laws makes me even more convinced of it mate.

As I see it, the aforementioned bye-laws read that every new membership pack they send out ought to have a large jar of vaseline enclosed as well.

"...B. No Voting Members.
No member has the right to vote at any meetings..."

There it is.
Plain and simple.

Members can bloody well complain until the cows come home, or Kevin gets Out of Africa off the hook, with the help of the SCI Ethics Committee.

But NO MEMBER HAS ANY SAY IN WHAT IS DONE IN THEIR NAMES!

Saeed,

Read further my friend. Things get a LOT worse than that.

Look for conflict of interests, ethics, ethics cttee and umpteen other things.

There's even a different set of rules for the executive etc than there is for the rank and file membership.

I really wasn't kidding about the vaseline!

Here's just some of the more entertaining bits:

BYLAWS OF SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
(As amended on August 27, 2010)
A non-profit corporation exempt from income tax as an organization described in
Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States of America.

NON PROFIT? Gimme a break!

To promote safe, legal and ethical hunting and related activities;

Ethical hunting. Someone remind me the stories we've all heard over the years that (allegedly) involve helicopters?

B. No Voting Members.
No member has the right to vote at any meetings.



(2) Members’ Bound.
Every member of SCI shall be bound to adhere to the Sportsmen’s Code of Ethics and shall be held accountable under disciplinary procedures authorized under these Bylaws for infractions to such Sportsmen’s Code of Ethics.

Helicopters again!

(b) failure to keep a confidence as required by these Bylaws; Ethics and Code of Conduct Committee Rules of Procedure or Board of Inquiry Rules of Procedure;

No whistleblowers allowed then?

Section 7. Eligibility for Awards.
A member who has been (a) sanctioned for a violation of any of the reasons set forth in Sections 6B(1), B(2) or B(4) above, or (b) found in violation of any governmental law or regulation concerning hunting in any jurisdiction that is punishable by a sentence of jail or imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000 or more shall thereafter be ineligible for, and may not be given, any award authorized by SCI which is selected and granted by an award committee or subcommittee of SCI. The ineligibility for awards set forth in this section shall not apply to SCI Trophy Awards and World Hunting Awards programs.

Two sets of rules then?

(b) Nomination by petition shall be the sole process for seeking a position as an Officer or any of the elected position on the SCI Board of Directors. Nominations from the floor are not in order for any elected position on the SCI Board of Directors.

So ordinary members have no say in who leads the corporation. Funny, I thought someone said the members elect who they want to run the hunting club?

I haven't even covered half the document and there's plenty more interesting reading there, esp about ethics and conflicts of interest etc.

Maybe I need to buy some shares in whoever makes Vaseline.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:






Maybe I need to buy some shares in whoever makes Vaseline.

PLEASE, PLEASE, the vitamin enriched one.

EISH!! Kathi and Alan started all this!!
You cannot fault Matt,he being an Aussie, a nation hand selected by the very best judges in England.

This thread has progressed way passed Vaseline I would suggest astroglide.


My 2 cents worth.

The Rhino poaching problem is the most important problem facing sportsmen today. If we do not stand united to stop the slaughter of the Rhino and openly condemn those who by there actions or inactions have allowed the poaching problem to progress to epidemic proportions we stand to lose more than just the Rhino. We stand to lose African hunting as we know it today. There are people and entire counties just waiting to use this issue to try to destroy hunting as we know it.
If you have a problem with the light being aimed at your organization,any organization or some of it's members you could be part of the problem and not the cure.

I for one will do any thing I can to help and I have emailed people who i know are actively trying to stop the poaching to offer to help in anyway I can.

And...........if there is a problem in the organization then people who belong need to stand up and tell the exec to get rid of the cancer. As always pointing fingers does nothing. It takes people working within the organization to cure the problem...............and I can assure you letters are getting written.

The big problem is that your average SCI member has no idea what is going on. They read the magazine, maybe go to the convention, enter a couple of heads. Until you get involved a little deeper you are unaware of the politics. I really had no idea until I got involved with a chapter and then the 'issues' became known.

But the answer is not to quit or fail to support the good that the organization does do..........the key is to hound the executive and chapter presidents to make things happen.

Skyline,

I agree with your theory but the reality is the Exec/BoD can do and are doing exactly as they like without a care about the opinions of the rank & file.

And frankly, I can't see that changing one iota.

Shakari..........I hear you and it is also a concern of mine. On the other hand I have and will always tell them what I think because quite frankly I don't care who they are or who they THINK they are.

There are more and more members I believe that are standing up and calling foul and putting on the pressure ..... this is true particularly with the international members I think.

In the mean time the funding that is available through SCI and local chapters to assist with important local conservation and hunter advocacy issues is not available through of from any other organization. The local chapters get to keep most of the money they raise and use it locally or for whatever their projects are and this is not the case with the other orgs I am familiar with............with those all funds go to the main office and then you have to beg and plead, make your case for funding on a project.

What are the alternatives.......don't belong and do nothing or work with the devil you know?

I certainly think the only thing one can do is complain loudly and hope someone will eventually listen but as I see it, the BoD etc are so arrogant, my guess is they won't.

What really pisses me off about SCI is that it could do so very much good and has so many really good guys and so much expertise amongst their membership AND they make so very much money but they waste so much of those things for all the wrong reasons.

I cannot argue with you Shikari and basically agree with your points. Much more could be accomplished if we could get egos, personal agendas and empire building out of the picture.

The same however could be said for every organization I have ever belonged to but it is especially disturbing when it is such a big one.

Too bad everyone couldn't focus on the real issues, like the end of the hunting industry as we know over the next 20 years and the inevitable downward spiral of government funding for wildlife and conservation as the issues that affect all people overshadow and suck up the tax dollars.

Shakari

Are you a member of SCI?

quote:

Originally posted by Gator1:
Shakari

Are you a member of SCI?

Can't you tell I'm their greatest fan?

More seriously, no I'm not. I was a member for several years and also became a measurer but after a few years I realised all I got for my money was a shiny magazine and the piss taken out of me, I left.

For those who are truly interested there indeed is a way that ALL SCI members have a vote in things SCI. Despite the negative retoric by some here, members do get to vote on SCI issues.

In a nutshell here is how it goes. I don't know of a single organization where a member can just walk into a meeting and vote. So it is with SCI. It would be very hard to find a room large enough to hold 20,000 or so members let alone count all the votes on each and every issue. So, if one wants to have his/her voice/vote heard in SCI you first must become a Chapter member. At the quarterly Board of Directors meeting all issues are put on an agenda, read before the Board, time is allowed for disscussion and then voted on.

This is how the individual members voice/vote is heard. The Chapter President is a member of the Board, the upcoming agenda is presented at a Chapter meeting, disscussed and then a vote is taken from all regular members present as to how they wish their Represenative/President to vote on each issue at the BOD meeting. Simple huh? And just like most all large organization do it. Plus each Region in the US as well as foreign ones, have a Regional rep, voted in by members of the Region they are in, to further express and deliver members thoughts and concerns to those in charge.

So if you are really interested in the fact of do you have a vote or not, yes you do. Some who post here really don't care about SCI, some don't even belong, but continue to pursue efforts in making SCI the bad guys.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Obviously I am not clear on some of it as I thought there were three board meeting. The meeting held in conjunction with the Convention, the spring meeting in DC and the August meeting in Wyoming.

Regardless, that is correct and there would be no way for 54,000 members, including international, to vote as individuals. I have never asked, but I would imagine that there are many members who do not belong to a chapter and I myself only recently had anything to do with chapters as there was little going on in Canada.

International chapters have always been sucking you know what because attending the meetings in the US has been problematic at best..........not to mention very expensive and not even practical for a lot of chapters financially. Recently the video conferencing has gone a long ways towards making it easier for all chapter presidents to participate and vote.

I think things are slowly improving. Members need to keep pounding away at the inequities they are concerned about. There certainly are two groups it appears, that are vying for control at the top and the politics can get pretty heavy if you are involved...........because you have to deal with the politics at the national and chapter level, etc.

Some people thrive on it............I'm not one of them. But you can still put forward your concerns and tell them what you think as an individual member or through your chapter.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
For those who are truly interested there indeed is a way that ALL SCI members have a vote in things SCI. Despite the negative retoric by some here, members do get to vote on SCI issues.

In a nutshell here is how it goes. I don't know of a single organization where a member can just walk into a meeting and vote. So it is with SCI. It would be very hard to find a room large enough to hold 20,000 or so members let alone count all the votes on each and every issue. So, if one wants to have his/her voice/vote heard in SCI you first must become a Chapter member. At the quarterly Board of Directors meeting all issues are put on an agenda, read before the Board, time is allowed for disscussion and then voted on.

This is how the individual members voice/vote is heard. The Chapter President is a member of the Board, the upcoming agenda is presented at a Chapter meeting, disscussed and then a vote is taken from all regular members present as to how they wish their Represenative/President to vote on each issue at the BOD meeting. Simple huh? And just like most all large organization do it. Plus each Region in the US as well as foreign ones, have a Regional rep, voted in by members of the Region they are in, to further express and deliver members thoughts and concerns to those in charge.

So if you are really interested in the fact of do you have a vote or not, yes you do. Some who post here really don't care about SCI, some don't even belong, but continue to pursue efforts in making SCI the bad guys.

Larry Sellers

SCI Life Member

Larry,

Mate, that one has more holes in it than a seine net.

You say: "I don't know of a single organization where a member can just walk into a meeting and vote".

Well, how about most clubs, associations and Company shareholder meetings? To say nothing of referendums and national elections. Then there's the options of postal and online voting.

As for the rest, I suggest you read your own bye-laws and pay particular attention to how the officers of the BoD are elected.

your last para seems to suggest that you believe SCI to be whiter than white and if that is what you're suggesting you must be incredibly naive...... and I find that very hard to believe.

Strewth, talk about grasping at straws!

Skyline - You may be correct on the three instead of four annual BOD meetings. It's been 8 or 9 years since I attended the BOD meetings as a SCI Chapter Pres. Since I now live in a rural area, not as active as I once was on the Chapter level.

Steve - Try walking into a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, NRA, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, DSC, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, BASS, Ducks Unlimited meeting as a regular member and cast a direct ballot. Just doesn't happen that way as all have basically the same structure that SCI employes. Maybe your little local club wherever you hang out lets you vote on the spot, but that's not the way it is here in the "Big Boys World" of Sporting organizations. Very precictible response, when someone offers up some actual information for those here on AR, you are quick to downgrade and dismiss it because it doesn't fit your idealology.

FWIW folks Mr. Matt Graham, Aussi Outfitter, SCI member has a good knowledge of the inner workings of SCI, is an Exhibitor (by his own choice by the way) at the SCI Convention and should be considered an accurate source on things SCI as opposed to some others here. I for one am always glad to have Matt come to the forefront when the BS starts flying from those who claim to "know all".


Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Seems about there are more threads here that turn into an SCI bashing venue. Yes, I am a member of SCI and yes it does has its problems just like all other organizations. Some things are changing, slowly. There are some new members on the ethics committee and they want to see things changed. One that I know does not like the situation with the OOA lawyer and has told me that SCI got the black eye it deserved for all of it.

But with all that said and say things were handled differently with OOA, what is the worse that SCI could do to them? Kick them out of SCI, that will really show them and should destroy OOA's business.

Get a grip people and be realistic.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Skyline,

I agree with your theory but the reality is the Exec/BoD can do and are doing exactly as they like without a care about the opinions of the rank & file.

That is pure unadulterated, make-believe, pure BS ... the reality is that you make these baseless alegations without a care for the 'rank and file', of which you are not.

BTW - I did not read the original post in this thread as being about SCI?? It was Saeed why bought it up straight away.

I am not an alcoholic

quote:

"...B. No Voting Members.
No member has the right to vote at any meetings..."

It is in the bylaws above, so how can any member vote?

Larry,

We're not talking about "a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, NRA, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, DSC, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, BASS, Ducks Unlimited meeting", we're talking about SCI. So what the others do is irrelevent.

The point with an election is that you don't have to have all the people in one room at the same time. Entire nations in many parts of the world manage to do it with ballot stations, postal voting and online voting etc.

As for your comment:

"when someone offers up some actual information for those here on AR, you are quick to downgrade and dismiss it because it doesn't fit your idealology".

Can I point out that the only person to post any proveable information is me when I posted the bye-laws, which incidentally say:

"...B. No Voting Members.
No member has the right to vote at any meetings..."

So, I have to say that, that particular accusation would be better suited to you two guys than it is to me.

I've offered proveable information , complete with source whilst Matt and yourself have offered nothing more than opinion...... and in the case of Matt, a few childish insults as well. So how can it be me who is "quick to downgrade and dismiss it because it doesn't fit your(my) idealology"".

However, if you are correct and the ordinary members can vote, perhaps you can tell me why, despite well over a decade of an immense number of complaints from members, those members didn't get rid of the bad apples in the BoD and/or the ethics committee and replace them with their own nominated representatives who would have been more open, honest and fair and started representing the interests of all those members who had been tucked up over the years?

I note that no-one ever did, so if you're right, can you or Matt tell me why no-one ever did that?

Saeed - Read back up the posts a few spots. I outlined and explained how EVERY SCI member can have their voice/VOTE heard and counted. The proceedure of members voting through a Represenative sent to a BOD meeting is used througout the USA. Guess you guys don't do it that way overthere or you would know it's SOP.

Steve - When I was on the Board as a Chapter Pres we voted quite a few "bad apples" out if I recall. Funny the only thing you know about SCI is how to complain about what they do.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

"...B. No Voting Members.
No member has the right to vote at any meetings..."

It is in the bylaws above, so how can any member vote?

Larry,

If that's the case why was there no change in the ethics committee despite numerous complaints over so many years and such a blatent conflict(s) of interests?

Or for that matter, why were the guys who allocate (convention) floor space never replaced when despite years of complaints from members, the company in question were still allowed to exhibit?

After all, it appears there was no shortage of complaints, dissatisfied members and proof.

All you have to do is read the bye-laws to find out the corporation's stated stance on conflicts of interest.

As you were Chapter Pres and voted quite a few "bad apples" out during that time, perhaps you could give us some examples (names & positions) where BoD or EC members were voted out of office by the members because said members have been dissatisfied with the performance of said BoD or EC members?

After all, they were formed all of 37 years ago and there have been several examples of dodgy behaviour by high ranking members in those years.

Larry,

It says in the bylaws that mebers are not allowed to vote.

Period.

What you are trying to say that members can ask members of the BOD of their chapters to vote on something or another.

Still does not allow the members to vote.

There is a world of difference betweean having a onemember one vote, and having a member of the BOD votinbg for you.

Saeed - I am not saying that members can ASK their Chapter President, BOD member to vote on something. Each Chapter member votes indivdually on each item on the upcoming BOD agenda, then their Chapter Pres/BOD member votes at the BOD meeting per the regular members (voted on) wishes. So in fact each and every SCI member can be involved and has a VOTE. As I said, this is Standard Operation Proceedure for most all large organizations.

What you and Steve are reading and posting is that each and every regular member cannot attend a BOD meeting and vote there. That is true, but the proceedure I outlined is how a regular member is allowed to VOTE. This is not an uncommon practice used only by SCI. Not being a smart ass, but if people would take the time to learn how SCI really works and not just stand on the outside and bitch and whine would simplify things a great deal.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Larry,

It says in the bylaws that mebers are not allowed to vote.

Period.

What you are trying to say that members can ask members of the BOD of their chapters to vote on something or another.

Still does not allow the members to vote.

There is a world of difference betweean having a onemember one vote, and having a member of the BOD votinbg for you.

Quite a bit of disagreement on the ability to vote by SCI members. I think it is actually pretty straight forward.

If by a 'regular' member one means someone who just joins as a regular national or international member, then the answer is NO, they cannot vote. They have to take the next step and join a chapter in order to have a say in how the chapter president will vote on behalf of the chapter members.

Lets face it, there are lots of members who I am sure could care less about the politics and join simply to get a handle on what is happening internationally and be able to go to the convention and try and buy cheap hunts at the auction. There are also lots who live in areas with no chapters or live in a rural area where it is problematic to actively participate and attend meetings. Lastly there are those who DETEST playing politics and just do not want anything to do with playing the games.

Having participated in a chapter and having participated in a recent video conference during an executive meeting, I can tell you that there are attempts being made to try and level the playing field with voting for all. It can be difficult and despite all of the techy crap out there the logistics of getting everything functioning for a video conference with people in different time zones all around the globe and with participants on high speed, satellite, broadband and other assorted internet providers at varying speeds and degrees of dependability.........well it is a bit of a nightmare. That is just for chapter presidents, regional reps etc. With all members it would be impossible to do.

Now up until recently there has been a faction that were dead against international chapter presidents voting unless they actually attended and particpated. They were against the video conferencing because it would allow more 'outsiders' to vote and influence who is on the executive. Despite the 'International' in Safari Club International it was very much Safari Club USA with the executive wanting to maintain US control and just get the membership fees and funds raised by the chapters in other countries.

There are still those who would like to see it as it was but fortunately some actually believe in the 'international' part of it and they are pushing forward and things are changing. We might even see an SCI president that is from another country in the next decade.

The behind the scenes lobbying that takes place really has to be seen to be believed. It reminds me a lot of the TV ads during this last sesssion of US elections. You don't see it until you get involved at an executive level in a chapter or at the national level.

It is annoying, but it is politics and with people.............well lets face it, egos, hidden agendas and the seeking of fame and personal glory. But that is true whether it is in SCI or the local 4H club.

The only way I can see things expanding in the vote department to include more of the membership would be do things like the American Quarter Horse Association does and a number of other big orgs. Mail out voting forms are sent well in advance of the elections with deadlines.

This could work, but I think you would see a lot of resistance to it because of dinosaurs that are resistant to change and also for practical reasons, such as cost and bodies to process it. Rate of return is often very low on that sort of system as well because the large number of members who really could care less about the internal workings and politics will just round file the voting info.

One last issue that comes into play with that sort of vote as well is that your average member............and I personally know this from the past..........most regular members who do not belong to a chapter do not know the 'players' who are running or what they are about and in essence their vote would be an uneducated vote.

No easy solution and no matter which way path SCI takes, in the end it will not be perfect and not make everyone happy.

Such is life.

Or they could just go the secure login online vote route.

There's not many people who are not online nowadays.

Hell, my parents are pushing 90 and have had that technology for years.

Larry,

How about answering the question I asked which was:

As you were Chapter Pres and voted quite a few "bad apples" out during that time, perhaps you could give us some examples (names & positions) where BoD or EC members were voted out of office by the members because said members have been dissatisfied with the performance of said BoD or EC members?

After all, they were formed all of 37 years ago and there have been several examples of dodgy behaviour by high ranking members in those years.

Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

Last time I checked...you didn't need video conferencing to run a vote...

I bet all the US members would be more than happy to pay 44 cents each way to be able to cast a vote.

As far as cost to count the vote...may be it is something that the $3.8M/yr of salaries and wages for non board members and non directors could do.

I didn't say you do need video conferencing, just explained how it was working, etc.

I am finding that it is somewhat impossible to just have a discussion without constant negativity to anything said. Of course you can do on-line voting and I think i already mentioned the mail in vote. On line voting has its issues as well because the uninterested will still not register on line and participate.

In any event I try to remain pretty neutral on all of this stuff. I support SCI but I certainly do not agree with everything they do or everyone who is involved. I know there are no perfect organizations having been involved with many of them over the last 50 years.

You guys all have a good day as it is clear that I am wasting my time on this forum and this topic.

Skyline,

I think you might have misunderstood.... as I read it, no-one was having a pop at you. Rather just discussing different options.....

I'll certainly agree there's no such thing as a perfect organisation....... esp when the word Government precedes the word organisation.

Skyline,

I am simply reading your post:

quote:

Having participated in a chapter and having participated in a recent video conference during an executive meeting, I can tell you that there are attempts being made to try and level the playing field with voting for all. It can be difficult and despite all of the techy crap out there the logistics of getting everything functioning for a video conference with people in different time zones all around the globe and with participants on high speed, satellite, broadband and other assorted internet providers at varying speeds and degrees of dependability.........well it is a bit of a nightmare. That is just for chapter presidents, regional reps etc. With all members it would be impossible to do.

You state that attempts are being made to level the playing field regarding voting and then immediately explain the difficulties in conducting video conferences.

Generally when one sentence follows another in the same paragraph and the second sentence has no introductory or qualifying phrase, the two sentences are construed as being related.