The actual process seems to be confused by many. The Board comprises 5
state elected representatives. That is they are 100% chosen by their
constituents (the ordinary members of their region). The remaining Board
members are 4 heads of department again 100% elected by the other members
of the respective department again those in the best position to know the
relative skills, qualities and merits of their rank. The remaining 3 Board
members are elected from the ordinary members by the Board which have
already been the best selection provided by the specialist department or
the region. It is these three that your point is centered around in regard
to experience, knowledge consistency and it is these three that may benefit
from general membership election rather than Board election from the
general membership, but that would hardly change the balance of power and
could reasonably create a disconnect such as exists in the HGFA and which
causes them constant problems.
All members had a chance to vote for the constitution when we migrated.
What we have was deemed by enough members to be the best compromise.
Members on this forum also had the chance to vote. If they did and they all
felt that the process of selection and election of Management was deficient
it is clear that the majority of the members simply didn't agree with them.
ML
At 06:39 PM 30/05/2008 +1000, you wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
