Are there any rules governing how an Association can be run?

[Cruz]

One of our more pedantic members says that an Association has to be run in a certain way, because that's the way all associations have to be run.
Is that true?
Our Association has its own Constitution and list of rules, both of which were unanimously adopted at an AGM and have subsequently been amended at another AGM. Both are as simple as possible so as to be easily understood by anyone.
Is there anything out there that says we must organise ourselves in a certain way?
When the Council asked us to become self-managed, the only things they said we must do is have an AGM, elect a committee and produce annual accounts. We've done all that, plus introduced the Constitution and rules.

[Cruz]

[saddad]

You seem to have covered all the key areas... what's his specific gripe?
:-\

[tonybloke]

have you had a word with NSALG? http://www.nsalg.org.uk/

[Unwashed]

Technically the committee of an unincorporated association contract with each other to run the association according to the association's constitution, but the common law implies a few terms too and legislation also trumps the constitution.  If you're self-managing on behalf of a council that also obliges the association to comply with a bunch of other legislation too, too numerous to list.  So there's no simple answer, but generally you need to run yourselves like your constitution says, which is basically however you want within statutory and common law limits.

So what's the dispute?

[Cruz]

Hi Unwashed
We don't call the Constitution a Constitution; it's known as The Rules Governing ***** Allotment Holders' Association, but is in effect a constitution.
Our other document is known as the Allotment Rules.
These names were adopted to make it 100% clear to everybody what they refer to. Nobody else has a problem!
The first one says that, for an AGM to go ahead, there has to be a quorom of 10% of the total membership. Our rebel member says this isn't correct; no quorum is required.
However, this was what was agreed by our members -unanimously at an AGM.
It is also being disputed that some changes agreed by the members at the last AGM pertaining to two changes in the constitution should not be sent out to members in the form of a revised document before minutes of the AGM are released. This is pedantic. The Minutes will simply reflec the changes in the circulated document. At other associations I have been a member of, minutes of the previous AGM were only agreed at the beginning of the next year's AGM; members never saw them before that!
We also have a clause in our constitution that says, WHERE POSSIBLE, the committee should reflect the membership in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. Unfortunately, although two women and three blokes stood for the last election, the three blokes were elected. The clause was included in the constitution to prompt anybody to feel comfortable standing. However, elsewhere, it is made quite plain that the committee is elected on a popular vote. So the members decide who they want.
I don't see a problem with any of this.
The person nitpicking didn't get voted onto the committee. Perhaps you can see why!

[Unwashed]

If your constitution says the AGM quorum is 10% of the membership then that's what it is.

If your constitution says that where possible the age, sex and ethnicity of your committee should reflect the composition of the membership, then I suggest it is unconstitutional to have elected a committee that doesn't reflect the age, sex and ethnicity of the membership if there was a combination of nominees that would have met those criteria.

Decisions of the AGM and committee are effective once the decision is made, not once the minutes are published.

You're the management committee.  So manage.  If a member has a complaint then discuss it formally, fairly and openly at a committee meeting and decide the matter, then publish the decision in the minutes, and if the accusation is serious enough call an EGM to decide it.  You're a customer service organisation, you need to start treating your members with respect as customers.  Sometimes customers can be extremely unreasonable, but that doesn't make them idiots, just unreasonable customers.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Not having a quorum would be absurd. The Chair and Secretary could sit down together, constitute themselves a meeting, and decide whatever they liked.

[tonybloke]

You're the management committee.  So manage.  If a member has a complaint then discuss it formally, fairly and openly at a committee meeting and decide the matter, then publish the decision in the minutes, and if the accusation is serious enough call an EGM to decide it.  You're a customer service organisation, you need to start treating your members with respect as customers.  Sometimes customers can be extremely unreasonable, but that doesn't make them idiots, just unreasonable customers.

Very well put, Simon!! 100% agree with that.
Tony
(General Secretary of The Great Yarmouth & Gorleston Allotment Asociation Ltd)

[Cruz]

But in the week after an AGM, which is an open forum where we invite anything to be discussed an dpolicy for the year is decided, a member can't surely expect any respect if they then bring up issues which they failed to mention at that AGM, even when invited beforehand to put down anything they liked on the agenda, can they?

[tonybloke]

But in the week after an AGM, which is an open forum where we invite anything to be discussed an dpolicy for the year is decided, a member can't surely expect any respect if they then bring up issues which they failed to mention at that AGM, even when invited beforehand to put down anything they liked on the agenda, can they?

Not really, I agree!!
But, if they are so incensed about something, perhaps you could suggest that they raise it at next years AGM? ( and make sure everyone else is aware of this action taken by the committe)