Proposals Results

Vote Image THE PROPOSAL VOTE RESULT 09/02/2011

At the last AGM held in London, the committee put forward 4 proposals to the meeting. After much debate, it was the overwhelming decision of the meeting that the proposals should be put before the whole membership.

It was then decided by the committee that due to the lateness of renewal notices being sent out to members that a cutoff date of the 26th June, 2010 would be applied
for eligibility to vote. There were a total of 440 Fellows and Members eligible to vote.

The voting papers were sent in mid-September and votes had to be returned by the 20th November.

The 4 proposals were:

Proposal 1: Changing the Name of the Society
Proposal 2: Change the structure of membership
Proposal 3: Change the structure of the committee
Proposal 4: Change the editorial format of Fingerprint Whorld

The committee would like to thank those who took the time vote. The committee decided not only to send out the voting documents we also made online voting available via the Society website. We sent newsletters, put it on the Society’s new Facebook page & Twitter account and used the CLPEX chat board,to stimulate interest.

The committee does appreciate, especially in the UK, under the present climate that last thing own your minds was voting, but the Society can only progress with your involvement.

In simple terms none of the proposals were accepted, below is the collation of the returns.

I would like to thank Dr. Fred Preston & Ron Cook for the collation of the votes and producing the figures.

Postal replies

Question	Yes as % of votes cast	No as % of votes cast
P1	11	89
P2	25	75
P3	23	77
P4	30	70

Question	Yes as % of votes cast	No as % of votes cast
P1	13	87
P2	17	83
P3	20	80
P4	27	73

Question	Yes as % of votes cast	No as % of votes cast
P1	10	90
P2	50	50
P3	30	70
P4	40	60

The last postal vote was received on 22nd November

Total replies – postal plus email

Question	Yes as % of votes cast	No as % of votes cast
P1	22.3	77.7
P2	31.9	68.1
P3	38.7	61.3
P4	41.5	58.5

Question	Yes as % of votes cast	No as % of votes cast
P1	18.3	81.7
P2	26.8	73.2
P3	33.8	66.2
P4	39.4	60.6

Question	Yes as % of votes cast	No as % of votes cast
P1	34.8	65.2
P2	47.8	52.2
P3	54.5	45.5
P4	47.8	52.2

There were additional comments made by individuals, which have been attached, with no identifiers. This is simply to reflect some of the views expressed. These are the view of individuals and may not reflect the views of the Society as a whole or committee members.

Comments received

Comments provided with Proposal 1: Changing the Name of the Society

Society of Forensic Identification (formerly The Fingerprint Society)

Leave name as it is - The Fingerprint Society

FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION SOCIETY

The Society of Forensic Identification

Society for Forensic and Fingerprint Identification

The Fingerprint and Forensic Identification Society (FFIS)

The Forensic Identification Society

There are societies covering scene examination and human identification. If the name changes it should directly reflect the sector of the “society” market that we cover that no-one else does. The name has to reflect the unique selling point of the society. If you do change the name then maybe “The Biometric Identification Society”.

Society of Fingerprint and Forensic technicians

If name is changed then Identification Society.

Fingerprint Pathway Association

The Forensic Fingerprint Society

Forensic Identification Society

Forensic Society

Police Forensic Identification & Investigation Society (PFIIS)

FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION

Forensic Identification Society

Comment provided with Proposal 2: Change the structure of membership

I’m in favour of the new structure apart from the inclusion of the non-fingerprint experts as fellows or honorary. However this is only a marginal decision for not changing that aspect. Student membership s essential to the future.

Comment provided with Proposal 3: Change the structure of the committee

By all means change the committee structure. But again a committee of 21 may overestimate the enthusiasm for participation in actively running the society. Also do the representatives for the different work streams have to be separate? Could not the roles of treasurer/footwear be combined for example?

Comment provided with Proposal 4: Change the editorial format of Fingerprint Whorld

A concern is that it has been difficult to attract helpers for the editorial duties. To expand from one member of staff to over a dozen may vastly overestimate the potential enthusiasm for active involvement.
Also my experience as editor told me that the majority of readers who are active fingerprint analysts / experts do not get a lot of use or enjoyment from reading papers that are overly involved in technical areas that do not assist them.. The purpose of the society is to educate and inform the membership and help them with their work. 2nd hand articles can be of use to members who haven’t seen them elsewhere. And an article full of formulae is of very little use to most members. The IAI is the forum of reference for academic articles. If they want that they can get it there already.

You can add a peer review without changing the structure. Making the editor someone "respected in the identification field" is highly subjective and really is a means to kick some people out.

General comment

As a footwear expert with a fingerprint background I am delighted the society may open up for the likes of me.

We also received a letter from a Fellow which made a couple of points.

We did not hold the AGM at the appropriate time as per rule 24. Therefore the appointments seemed to be rushed through, are they valid?
That when looking at rule 2 the object states that ‘The objects of the Society are to advance the study and application of fingerprints and to facilitate co-operation among persons interested in this field of personal identification'.

With regard to point 1 the committee has a whole agreed the timings of the conference. The oversight was that we should have made a change to rule 24 with the agreement of the AGM prior to any business being undertaken. We will rectify this at the 2011 AGM.

In regards to the rush nature of the new appointments, the timings were out with the control of the present members of the committee.

Addressing point 2, yes we are here to advance the study of fingerprints. In 1974 fingerprintsmay have solely been the main stay of personal identification, but now we are looking at Fingerprint Experts taking on multi-disciplined roles such as footwear, ear prints, glove marks, facial identification which now fall under the field of personal identification. Our membership has diversified and that diversification has enhanced the Society bringing more educational opportunities for all members. Is it not correct to reflect that in the Society?

You the membership have now spoken, we on the committee respect the decision and will try and move forward and develop the Society in a way that the majority of the membership desire. The committee will always look to promote the Society and find educational opportunities for members, we will look to try and play our part in influencing national and international thinking in our field for the benefit of all.

Again thanks for continued support.

BobDoak
Chairperson, on behalf of the committee.