Well Said! - A comment given its due prominence
My experience and research of this matter is far from exhaustive, but all that I have heard or witnessed suggests that the club members holding office and/or volunteering their time toward the proposed new project do so honestly, with noble intentions and in the main for altruistic reasons.
Which does not mean that egos are checked in at the door, or that personal power-plays are excluded from the mix - all of them are human after all. While no conflicts of interest of a crudely commercial material variety may be apparent, there appear to be some who have come to regard this proposed project as, in effect, "my turf, my baby".
This is not healthy in a club where responsibility and liability appears to be very loose indeed, and the project in question is so vast and potentially significant to the very existence of the club.
It appears that the lengthy study and research phases of the various committees have, step by step and layer by layer, built up a broad concensus for the proposed rebuild project now being touted so strenuously by a well-oiled, costly P.R. machine : a concensus of the wise and well-informed that does not appear to have been challenged much.
Maybe it has, but there is little or nothing to indicate that committee A or team B disagreed on a key matter, and solved that impasse by way of documented fact finding or convincing recorded debate - the P.R. picture is one of continuous harmony and happiness.
This is, to say the least, most unusual in a project of such complexity as many might know from other experiences : also it is entirely normal for those who become involved and dedicate their spare time to believe very firmly in what they are doing, to the exclusion of considering a differing or questioning viewpoint. I say this from personal experience.
If indeed the various questions being raised anonymously in this forum are ill-founded and redundant, then the members of the Board of Governors and the LRPC owe it to themselves, to their own credibility - as much as to the membership - to set out exhaustively and in plain understandable language all that they have investigated and discussed, and how the decisions they have taken to advance matters as far as this are all well founded and sound.
The documents on the TAC website do not do this - they read like simplistic propaganda, all in support of a decision that appears to have been set in stone already.
Evidently it is up to the members - if they so wish -to challenge "the club within the club" on this project, and on a few other key aspects of the mismanagement of TAC that are being thrown up here.
It seems to me that all members should be encouraged to attend the upcoming town hall meetings, well armed with questions, whether or not they support the proposed project.
GET OUT THE VOTERS !
posted by Unlock at 7:19 AM
3 Comments:
I'm enjoying this blog. I knew nothing about any of these issues and just thought the Club had decided to move to Takanawa.
This comment is excellent, I hope someone says it or reads this out or something at the next town hall meeting.
It's not often that TAC members get a chance to air their views in a forum that has not been screened and vetted by the various areas that like to think or do control TAC. I welcome this blog.
As a longstanding member that has also served in a number of capacities at TAC over these years, I have long given up thinking that TAC will become a better place despite the best intentions of the many people involved.
The latest plans that seems to be being presented as a fait accompli and members need merely to rubberstamp the proposal is the lastest example.
Let's review a couple of simple facts:
1. No TAC project that I am aware of has come in on time and on budget in the last twelve years.
2. TAC management (in the broadest sense) has shown over the years an amazing talent for consistently getting it wrong and then paying (and paying) for the mistakes.
So now we have a project that is by far the biggest ever undertaken by TAC and what do we have? Confusing information, a PR firm hired to do what? Make TAC members comfortable with a plan that should stand on its own merit without spin. Staff hired for a project that seems not to be approved, a vendor selected that is a Japanese construction company that has at the very best a vested interest and at worst, plans to acquire easily prime Tokyo real estate from a project that will probably go badly wrong.
But in fact, I don't really care so much either way about all that. My concern has become selfish. My family and I have used TAC facilities for years for one good reason. As a long-term resident of Tokyo, we've learnt that convenience has its price. TAC is not the cheapest in what it offers, it is not even the best in what it offers. It has two main advantages - it is the only club offering what it does in one package and for us, it is convenient.
We can walk there, we don't need transport, our children can also walk (Tokyo being a safe place). Japan has zero tolerance drinkdriving laws. Whilst I might risk at TAC's current location a quick drive TAC to home, I won't risk longer drives. So if I was to go to TAC at the proposed new premises for entertainment, I can either not drink or not drive. If I have to do either, I might as well not go to TAC. TAC will have become inconvenient. I might pay a premium for convenience but I won't pay at all for inconvenience.
In summary, if TAC moves, TAC loses a family membership and its resultant revenue.
In the spirit of an earlier comment, here are some questions that might be adopted for future town hall style sessions, or else for addressing to iNTOUCH or countdown@tac. I stress that this a quick draft on one subject only - there are many more it seems, and other readers here may feel inclined to add their ideas.
THE VOTE
1. Define the voting process - who among the members may vote and what qualifications if any are applied ?
2. What constitutes a quorum for such a vote, and is this quorum exceptional in any way when compared with other voting occasions within TAC?
3.What constitutes a binding result - is it a simple majority either way [50% of votes counted plus or minus one vote] providing that a quorum has been obtained ?
4. What happens if a quorum cannot be obtained on the first or a subsequent occasion - is the decision delegated to a vote by another body e.g. Board of Governors, and, if so, would this be constitutionally correct or for that matter appropriate in the likelihood that any such other body would not have been put in place or elected to office on the basis of any professed opinion by its members of the proposed TAC redevelopment project ?
5. What is the methodology of the vote - at a special meeting by show of hands or yeas and nays, or by paper ballot by mail or drop ?
6. If voting will be or can be by paper ballot, will it be a true secret ballot or will the general manager and/or his staff be tasked to open ballots received by mail or drop in order to check off members' credentials - as was reportedly done in either or both the elections to Board of Governors in 2004 and 2005 [which ostensibly would suggest that members' votes could be unofficially recorded by name]?
7. Will the vote be audited by a truly disinterested neutral party [i.e. not TAC's current auditors, who - no professional offense intended - could not be construed to be disinterested, but presumably a qualified organisation having neither members at TAC nor a commercial relationship with TAC now or in the future]?
There may be more questions on this single matter of voting.......see how suspicious this whole set of shenanigans is making some people, me included !
Now for a list of questions about project costs and who gets paid what and who has been paid already........
Post a Comment
<< Home