> Robert,
>
> You hit the nail on the head when you said
>
>
>
> One of the reasons that it is so difficult to find volunteers is that those
> who do join the Board or take on administrative roles fairly rapidly find
> the frustrations of the current system too great to bear - and they
> withdraw. The experience of quite a number of GQ personnel over quite some
> time illustrates this problem.
>
>
>
> Extending the term does not resolve this issue. All organisations require a
> balance of experience and new blood; one thing the GFA management team seems
> to lack is new blood that has not screened by the incumbents.
>
>
>
> SDF
Hi all,
I could not agree more Stuart & Robert.
This seems a straight out attempt to circumvent constitutional rules made
specifically for the purpose of
keeping people from being in office too long, by the current office holders.
These rules have been in place for years, and are most
appropriate. I was amused at the use of the term "unintended cosequences", I
would say these were the FULLY INTENDED consequences of that rule.
Interesting that the board feels that they rather than the membership should be
the people to vet new board members.
The concept of electing the President secretary and treasurer yearly is an
excellent one.
The current incumbents will probably do all they can to continue the status
quo. (Screening by the incubent board is essential, we the members might elect
the <wrong> people!) It will indeed be an interesting debate. I am not holding
my breath.
I had a discussion with a GFA official not so long ago, where the view was
expressed that they were great believers in democracy
but were not pushing for it to be introduced in the GFA. The person involved
did not seem to see the irony in their position.
The discussion started when I laughed out loud at the officials statement that
the GFA was a democratic organization.
The electoral college model is fatally flawed, and had lead to stagnation in
the organisation.
I was told to approach my State association if I wanted to see a change in the
way the board was elected. Just 4 weeks before I was told by the current State
association president that not even a gliding club could be run democratically,
never mind the GFA. What hope is there for change?
Change needs to come throughout the structure, from club level upwards.
With modern communications it is easily possible for all to have a say in any
issue.
I strongly urge all members to not allow the current board to change this rule,
unless it is changed with the election model proposed
by Robert, including the direct election of 3 main positions and removal of
Dept heads from a voting capacity on the board.
So its time to lobby your clubs state reps, to lobby the state association, to
tell the 2 state reps how to vote. (In a non binding suggestion form)
Such is the Byzantine election model of the GFA board by which any real voting
power is removed from ordinary members. Heaven forbid we should have a populist
board, who had to state policies to members to justify their positions.!
Does anyone know if this change can occour by just a vote of the board, or do
changes to the articles require a vote of membership?
Regards
Dave l
>
> HI folks
>
> You may be aware that the current GFA constitution limits Board member terms
> to a maximum of 5 consecutive years. There are quite a number of current
> Board members who are approaching that limit.
> To extend the term of office of individuals to 8 years would further cement
> the position of those holding office who do not have to face the membership
> in a direct election (the President, Vice President, Treasurer and the
> chairs of the major committees).
>
> I believe that extending the maximum term of office would be acceptable were
> the articles changed as follows at the same time:-
>
> 1. the President, Vice President and Treasurer were subject to annual
> election by the membership at large.
> 2. the Board level voting rights of the chairs of Operations,
> Airworthiness, Marketing and Development and Sports were removed. These
> positions should be policy advisors to the Board and on the Executive,
> actioning the policies set by the Board. They should not, however, be
> setting Board policy as this places them in the position of advising on,
> determining and actioning policy, which is generally held to be not be
> desirable.
>
> If these changes were implemented, I do not believe that a limitation of
> service would be necessary as the entire Board would be subject to annual
> election, a process that would allow the membership to remove those deemed
> to have passed their use by date.
>
> At our Board meeting on Saturday 28th February the President listed item 4.5
> Term of Office on the agenda for discussion.
>
> Listed were current Board members whose term in office would soon create an
> issue with Clause 12(e) of our Articles.
> This circumstance has occurred as a result of the new Board being recently
> established in 2005.
>
> The clause states:
> 12 e) A maximum consecutive term for any Board member shall be five years
> and shall apply except in special circumstances
> and where invited to continue,
> such an invitation being approved by at least two thirds majority of the
> Board.
>
> This is an explicit statement that restricts any Board member to a maximum
> of 5 consecutive years regardless of position.
> The intent of course was to ensure turnover of Board members and to prevent
> featherbedding, stagnation and empire building.
> There is no disagreement with the intent, however the reality is different.
>
> Individual members may come to the Board through more than one route and by
> gaining experience undertake several roles resulting in a period of
> continuous representation that would preclude them from taking on a
> different or more senior role on the Board.
>
> For example a member may represent a region for 2 years, take on treasurer
> for 2 years, Vice-President for 1 year and then be precluded from nominating
> for President. That representitive may be the only person willing to
> nominate or be the most suitable nomination.
>
> Or 3 years as Chairman of a Department, 2 years as Vice-president and then
> also be precluded
> from nominating for President, or any other position.
>
> In each case special circumstances may apply, however these "special
> circumstances"
> will inevitably become a common occurrence outside the intent of special
> circumstances.
>
> We now have a situation whereby the clause needs to be amended at the next
> AGM to allow freedom
> and flexibility for members to nominate for positions on the Board and still
> meet the spirit of the intent of the clause.
> The unintended consequences of the current limitation is that it does not
> allow a period of training, exposure and familiarisation at the highest
> level of GFA management. Volunteers are generally in short supply and
> members willing to commit to management and administrative roles are always
> in demand.
>
> After discussion at the Board meeting there was general consensus that the
> clause needed to be revised
> to reflect reality and still meet the spirit of intent.
> The only issue to be resolved is the exact wording of the amendment.
>
> May we start with this recommendation and come to a resolution by
> consultation.
> PROPOSAL
> 12 e) A maximum consecutive term for any "board position by a" Board member
> shall be five years
> "and shall be limited to 8 years consecutive in total"
> and shall apply except in special circumstances
> and where invited to continue,
> such an invitation being approved by at least two thirds majority of the
> Board.
>
> Under this proposition a Board member could be on the Board for a
> consecutive 8 years in various roles for example:
> Regional representative member 2 years, Department chairman 2 years,
> President 4 years. (or variations and computations thereof)
> On this basis there should still be a reasonable turnover of representatives
> over the 12 board positions over time.
>
> This amendment will need to be advertised in sufficient time for the next
> AGM on 12 Sept 2009.
> Alterations to Articles and notice of AGM requires 21 days notice (21 August
> 2009 at the latest)
> and in addition Clause 23a) requires a notice to the Secretary with 21
> signatures (1 + 20).
>
> Please return comments to me for compilation.
>
> Regards Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Hart [email protected]
> +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/private/aus-soaring/attachments/20090323/24b7e160/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> End of Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 66, Issue 34
> *******************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Need a new place to rent, share or buy? Let ninemsn property help.
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Edomain%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Fs%5Fcid%3DFDMedia%3ANineMSN%5FHotmail%5FTagline&_t=774152450&_r=Domain_tagline&_m=EXT
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
