On 15/10/2008, at 4:57 PM, Tim Shirley wrote:
Where is the evidence that direct election leads to better
candidates, better selections and most importantly, better outcomes
for the organisation that adopts this procedure?
Better than what? The GFA's current system hasn't exactly shown
itself to
be a stunning success over the 8 or 9 years I've been watching.
It seems to me that organizationally it had its best climbs between the
1950's and 1970's, and has spent much of the rest of the time looking
for
the next thermal, as it were. Has the sea breeze arrived and wiped
out any
prospect for further convection? How much longer before its membership
count sees it below its safety height on final approach for an
outlanding?
The US president is (to a very close approximation) popularly
elected...:)
If you mean, "popularly elected by the majority of the US Supreme
Court after an abortive Florida recount," you might have a point.
But when you examine the last eight years of consequences that
flowed on from that thoroughly undemocratic decision, I fear that
the point you're making might actually be helping the other side. :-)
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
shows how this latest instantiation of the process is going. I think
it'd
suck to be on the red team right now.
Back on point: I think if the GFA had direct elections, most of the
candidates would probably be drawn from current staff anyway.
Why? Because most pilots just want to fly and don't want to spend
their time getting involved in organizational stuff. The same drivers
that inspire people to dedicate their personal time as State
association delegates, State Councillors, or GFA Office Holders
right now would inspire the same people to run for elected positions
if GFA was managed under a different model. At the end of the
day most people care so little that most of the elected positions would
be uncontested anyway.
But at least there'd be the opportunity for members to fix it if it
was broken.
(it's broken right now, btw: The GFA clearly has no idea how to
structure itself as an organization that can cater to the requirements
of Gen-Y, so it's almost impossible for it to attract statistically
significant amounts of new blood. Ferchrissakes, it's 2008 and it
still uses a freakin' MAGAZINE as its official communication medium
with members, and it complains about the administrative overhead
involved in processing AEF forms instead of just automating the
administrative overhead out of existence like any other business
would have done years ago. Does any of that sound a bit 1980's to
anyone else, or am I out on my own here? How is it possible for a
concerned group of members to fix those problems at the moment,
given that the current management doesn't seem to understand them
enough to think they're important? Or should we all just forget about
it and jump onto the parallel path?)
Approaching the same issue from a different angle: To suggest
that direct elections are inappropriate for the GFA is to suggest that
if a different decision had been made at the inaugural GFA AGM
all those years ago, and a constitution with direct elections had
been adopted way back then, GFA would have collapsed. Does
anyone seriously believe that? Because if you're saying GFA can't
deliver useful outcomes with direct elections, that's the point
you're making: That the only attribute that has enabled the GFA to
achieve what it has done over the last 75 years is its lack of
direct elections, and without that attribute everything would have
been difficult or impossible.
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 -----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
