Emilis Prelgauskas wrote:
Depends on how you see an administrative structure working. To the
incumbent GFA President's own words, it can be a top down
drivenorganisation where edicts issued from on high are faithfully
promoted, cajoled and enforced by the individual pilot/club/region
representatives who are told what to pass on.
It is indeed illuminating that, from what you know, the current GFA
president sees the organisation as a top down hierarchical structure,
with edicts issued from on high. That certainly matches my experience of
the individual - by his actions, his writings and his words.
As I become more involved in the gliding organisations at which I fly, I
have learned more about the GFA and I am amazed that an organisation of
volunteers has this top down structure in every aspect of the GFA. I can
well understand that there have to be directives in the operational and
airworthiness area, although in these areas too the feelings of the
memebrship should be sought prior to rule making - the membership may be
wrong, but they are still the membership!
Outside these areas in which there has to be rule making, I can see of
no valid reason for the top down, hierarchical structure we currently
have. In fact, it flies in the face of all the experience I have as a
result of my working life. I have worked in the public and private
sector (and in Australia, UK and the USA) and in every case that I have
encountered of a top down hierarchical structure across the board in an
organisation, that organisation has had serious problems - and not just
of staff unrest, dissent and dissatisfaction. Usually, the 'business'
is in serious external trouble too.
Others see the region as a useful level for collective experience in
the neighbouring clubs to be shared; in this case the state officers
are the faces accessible to those clubs and their pilots. In this
realm, the interaction is by mutual respect and consensus.
There seems to be something of a tension between these quite
different world views in the currently dysfunctional federal
organisation.
Thank you - I am glad to hear I am not the only person that believes our
organisation is dysfunctional!
I only know the Qld state organisation (Gliding Queensland) : there are
different views on a wide range of things but there is a great desire to
'go forward together' that helps build consensus. I doubt that anyone at
yesterday's QG AGM was entirely happy with everything that we agreed on,
yet after the meeting there was a significant, shared belief that we had
made some progress in a range of areas.
My experience leads me to surmise that this is because the membership
feels included and valued. I have yet to hear anyone say that of their
experiences with any of the GFA 'top tier' people.
The current initiatives to force payment from clubs, restructure the
federal processes (again) this time without plebescite or Articles
change may all be an attempt to cure the disparate views into the one
top end view of the world.
Please could you explain what's going on behind this - am I missing
something or are you referring to the the change from council to board?
The current system actually is GFA:individual pilot. In that change
from the original connected hierarchy there were some items missed,
like how clubs and regions now fit
This is certainly how I see it from my reading of the Articles - they
give the AGM (ie the members) the power to revoke any and all actions of
the executive or council/board. As the council/board elect the president
etc., that (at least according to my reading - please correct me if I am
wrong) gives the membership the ability to 'unelect' the GFA officers.
The GFA is the membership and so belongs to the membership - no other
interpretation of a voluntary sporting/recreational body is possible.
That we also have the delegated power to regulate our sport under an act
of parliament simply places greater responsibility on us, the members -
it does not change the 'ownership' of the organisation in any way.
Possibly Robert has found as others have that in asking clubs and
regions the questions, they don't know the answers, because they too
have been left out of the communication loop.
I don't know that 'left out' is the right expression. Talking with the
Qld council/board representatives, I gain the distinct impression that,
despite their best efforts to come up to speed on issues before a
council/board meeting, they could not find the information they needed,
even when they asked questions in advance of the meeting (emails to the
president and others went unanswered or failed to answer the questions
asked). When they tried to find out at the meeting, they were told "we
don't have time to bring you up to speed" and so they might as well not
have been there.
How is a state representative supposed to discharge their
responsibilities to the members of their region under such circumstances?
How does the GFA executive/council/board feel it is discharging its
responsibilities to individual members under such circumstances?
Given the above, is it any wonder that there is such dissent and
dissatisfation within the Qld region? I am frankly astonished that the
other regions are content to permit this sort of way of going about OUR
business to contine!
Tough, this human stuff, isn't it.
It certainly is. Unfortunately, it is made even harder when the
organisation is top down, hierarchical because only the people at the
top get any say in what goes on.
To paraphase Orwell, "All organisations are imperfect, but some are less
perfect than others!"
--
Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)438 385 533
Brisbane, Australia http://www.hart.wattle.id.au
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
