Geoff Kidd wrote:
*Robert*
Based on the data in your post below, GQ is to be commended on
many of these initiatives. Are the other States moving towards a
similar arrangement?
I had thought that NSW was headed that way - but nothing has happened
yet that I am aware of.
Now, from GQ's experience with your Item 4, can you advise why
the GFA Board should not be directly elected from the membership? I
assume that the Constitution prevents it and the State bodies would
oppose it .......... but apart from those little impediments why
wouldn't it work?
The reason given to me by a variety of people in the GFA management team
for the current system is to preserve knowledge. Their point is that the
relationship with CASA and the regulatory requirements involved in that
relationship require continuity. My response is always that there are a
number of ways to overcome this and that should not be a barrier to open
elections. I believe that direct elections would not result in the sky
falling - a feeling that GQ has in the past supported at an AGM (2005).
Your Item 3 rings alarm bells for me and I contend that it should
for all GFA members. If a State is pushing for "open governance" and
this is meeting " strong resistance at the Board and Executive to
inviting the membership into issues as they arise rather than when a
position has already been established" then surely members should be
concerned and voice their support for such an initiative.
In 2007, GQ proposed a motion that would have changed the Board
confidentiality regulation to permit regional representatives to discuss
freely all issues (with 2 exceptions - where privacy would be
compromised or there were significant legal reasons for continued
confidentiality). It was defeated - which, by the way, requires that one
or more regional representatives voted against it. Go speak to your
regional rep.
I'm just a concerned member and I expect some of the inner clique
to start their "your just a winger who sits outside the circle and
does nothing" line, as it is done fairly regularly here, however as a
member I reckon I have the right to voice a concern. I hope that the
GFA would actively support that right ............ but it appears to
me that the existing mechanisms make it quite difficult or ponderous
for a member to do something about it directly. I assume that such a
member would have to start to lobby this at Club level 1st. If Robert
and GQ are having no success in achieving a move to more open
governance, what hope does a dumb little individual member have?
Every chance if you can engage the membership in your region on this issue!
** *PS* Robert ...... Is this likely to be discussed or raised at the
AGM in September? If so I'll start to save up for the Avgas to go over.
It will be if someone raises it. I (and more importantly GQ) are
unlikely to do so given what occurred at the Board meeting last year.
Read the Articles on the subject of the AGM - they are pretty clear on
what is necessary. You also need to read the Articles on the subject of
changing the Articles. The Articles also clearly lay out the proxy
voting system.
--
Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)438 385 533 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
