Boundaries. To the Country, the Country and to the State, the State.

The feedback I am getting is a little bit troubling. Maybe it would be a good thing for MCF to sit down and discuss the boundaries. I am told that MCF is asking the States to find the sponsorship to host National Close and future NAG's. Does that seem right to you?

Look at the selection criteria below. Doesn't it look like there is some confusion between the rights of organisers and the rights of MCF? More in my next post.

What do I mean by to the Country, the Country and to the State the State? MCF has a National responsibility and so it should cover National events don't you think? That is why I said that it is good that strong, active States should have National representation in MCF during the run up to the AGM. Why? Because they have developed their State and can now contribute their expertise and know how on the National level.

But once they are in MCF they have to think on a National scale and no more on the State level.

But now it looks like MCF is passing their burden onto the States. It is the job of MCF to help the States that want to grow and not to pass on it's responsibility to the States. Then what happens to the development of the States if they are carrying the National burden?

Why take on National posts if you cannot handle the heavier responsibility? MCF needs to work this out urgently. Are you there to develop the Country or are you there to bleed the States? What happens to the development of the States then? Isn't that very short sighted?