Hi all,
The extent to which we embrace democracy in any organisation is
somewhere on a scale between dictatorship at one end and popular votes
on every decision, at the other. Clearly one end of this scale is
highly dangerous, the other is hopelessly inefficient. It is very
reasonable for us to be discussing where on that scale we are and where
we should be - but I don't think we should start out with an assumption
that any move in one direction or the other is necessarily an improvement.
There are two basic issues raised by Robert - one being the method of
election of the major office-holders, the other being the election and
powers of department heads.
On the subject of popular election of the major office-holders, the
upside is greater accountability and more frequent judgement of
performance - clearly a good thing - but the downside is that
politicians and those with the "gift of the gab" may be more electable
than those with the ability to really perform. Popular and frequent
election can lead to populist and short term approaches. I'm not
arguing against the idea, just pointing out that there is an effect that
needs to be considered when moving in this direction.
On the subject of Department Heads, the real question is whether these
people are really Department Heads, or the GFA equivalent of ministers.
Ministers are politicians who are elected, and then appointed to ensure
that the political agenda is carried out; Department Heads are appointed
because they are experts in their fields and good at running their
departments. At present, the current crop of GFA Department Heads are
expected to be experts, and as a result are elected by their peers in
most cases. I assume the reasoning was that the best way to choose a
leader for the Instructor Panel was to ask the Instructors, rather than
throw the election open to anyone who cared to vote. I also expect that
the reason they have Board and Executive places today is that at present
there is no other way to get those expert opinions heard in those places.
This anomaly can be overcome, of course. There could be a Board Member
elected as a sort of "Minister for Ops" who say on the Exec, provided
that there was also an Ops Department Head who was qualified to run the
Ops Department, to the policy set by the Board and communicated by the
Minister. The alternative is for the Head of the Department to be
popularly elected by the whole membership. The downside of this
approach is that it becomes possible that the person elected may not
have the necessary qualifications or experience for the role, and at
worst may not be accepted by the people they are elected to lead.
For me personally, the real issue is the continuing existence of State
Associations. We are a small sporting body, and can ill afford to
engage in petty squabbles across state borders, or a structure that
places the State bodies in the way between the membership and the
National body - which is the only one with any clout.
Cheers
Tim
Robert Hart wrote:
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.
There is now a proposal to change that limit from 5 years to 8 years -
as noted below, although this will require a change in our articles
(which can only be done at a special GM or AGM).
We need to think about this issue and determine our position.
The arguments for the change are given in the email below. There is
however the other side of the debate.
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.
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.
Looking forward to an interesting debate! Over to you...
--
Robert Hart [email protected]
+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: TERM OF OFFICE
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:01:46 +0900
From: Graeme Wishart <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Hi Everyone,
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
