Thanks for the heads up on the current system. However you are incorrect in assuming that the dissatisfaction towards the current system is limited to a few on this forum, I can tell you it goes way beyond that.
Maybe the GFA should have its members vote on what they want, i.e keep the status quo or vote for a democratically elected board, this could be done via a postal vote. As far as selecting people suitable for managing GFA based on credentials I can think of several who would do a good job, at least half of them technically qualified, the other half financially qualified. I am sure the current board are doing the best they can but like government maybe it's a time for a change. Just my thoughts, all abuse welcome. Cheers Nig "A Queensland Company devoted to Research and Development in aviation electronics" **************DISCLAIMER************ The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maurice Little Sent: Monday, 2 June 2008 7:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] IMPROVED GOVERNANCE & DIRECT ELECTION OF THE GFA BOARD 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 _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
