A poster called Sam made these interesting remarks!
With regard to another issue, currently being discussed on Facebook.
I would like to suggest a new rule preventing domination of committee places by any single district, whereby representation of a specified number of districts must exist on any national SNU committee. This to include officers positions especially.
Why am I suggesting this?
50% of the NEC officers are from the West Midlands district.
42% of the Finance committee are from the West Midlands district.
25% of the Accreditation committee are from the West Midlands district.
66% of the Arthur Findlay Centre committee are from the West Midlands district.
25% of the Arthur Findlay College committee are from the West Midlands district.
42% of the Training & Awards committee are from the West Midlands district.
40% of the General Purposes committee are from the West Midlands district.
60% of the Spirit of Youth committee are from the West Midlands district.
I’ll use award holders to roughly gauge the size of a district. The West Midlands District accounts for 11% of the award holders in the SNU. Should one SNU district have the lions share of control over the SNU to such a great extent?
What are the other 89% of award holders doing?
Let’s take a look at the figures another way.
100% of the officers positions on the Finance committee are held by people from the West Midlands district.
100% of the officers positions on the Training & Awards committee are held by people from the West Midlands district.
100% of the officers positions on the Spirit of Youth committee are held by people from the West Midlands district.
66% of the officers positions on the Arthur Findlay Centre committee are held by people form the West Midlands district.
Can you see a pattern forming?
Fair play for SNU churches 