Robert,
I'm inclined to agree with Sean. The structure matters only to the
extent that it affects the outcome for members, and its not clear to me
that a better outcome would necessarily result. I expect the same
people - the ones who like to be involved in the political aspects of
the sport - will still be the ones who seek election because they like
to do that type of job, regardless of structure or rules. Politicians,
like it or not.
Just as the same groups of people make a lifetime gliding career of
instructing, coaching, being a competition pilot or complaining about
"The GFA", so the same types of people want to be president and board
members. Nothing you can do will change that basic fact of life.
As long as I can go flying, I really don't care if someone is President
for life. What is more important is that I can get the services I need
- my new glider approved, my old one inspected, a reasonable training
and checking system, coaching, well run comps. That's all that really
matters in the end, and how it gets done at the political level is not
all that important.
Cheers
Tim
Sean Jorgensen-Day wrote:
Robert,
You may find that like many other members we simply don't really
mind what the GFA does as long as we are allowed to continue flying
and soaring in piece. If heaven forbid the GFA put in place something
else that stops or limits our ability to fly. Say another rule that
(and this is toungue in cheek) requires a second Level 2 instructor to
always be on the ground to supervise us. Then yes we might just get a
little upset.
If the only feed back is that we don't want the new rules then
please feel free to fight the good fight to make sure the new rule
does not happen.
Your in appathy (and I have served on the board so I understand
your commitment)
Sean
Robert Hart wrote:
Board members
I have not received a single comment in support of the move to extend
terms. Not one. I have, however, received quite a few comments
actively opposed to it.
Amongst those comments was the view that because the changes happen
at an AGM which is generally attended by less than 5% of the
membership, there was never any real debate about proposed changes to
the constitution of our organisation.
If, as appears likely, the Board goes ahead with pushing for this
change, I would ask that a better effort is made to have a public
debate on the Article changes than has occurred in the past. I
realise that this is hard to do - but failure to properly engage the
membership would be a significant failure of responsibility. Given
the undemocratic way the GFA officers are elected, moving to extend
their term of office without a significant effort to engage the
membership in debate is far too easily seen as a flagrant attempt by
those in power to strengthen their grip on power.
Some ideas about how such a debate might occur...
1. Use the web site to provide a detailed commentary on the current
situation and the proposed changes; then, keep that article
listed on the front page until the time of the actual meeting.
Make sure the article contains a link to the GFA Articles so
members can easily find these. The article needs to contain
details of how members can have their say on this issue through
contacting their regional association and also detail the proxy
voting requirements.
2. Joomla, which runs our website, has a number of modules that
allow for polling opinions. Set this up and ask what members
think about this proposal. Require registration on the website
before you allow voting of course, but this could well provide
significant input (for or against the change) in terms of the
general membership who cannot be at the AGM and yet whose voices
should be heard.
3. Put the website article in the magazine - probably more than once.
4. Our membership database now includes the email address of a
significant majority of our membership. We should use this to
communicate directly with the membership on this issue. We could
send out an email to every known email address that contains the
same information as the article on the web site and in the
magazine.
5. Request every regional organisation to include discussion of the
article changes and distribution of information about proxy
voting.
6. The central administration also has the contact info for every
club and the GFA could use this to write to each club explaining
what the changes are and why the Board sees the need for them.
Then request each club to post this information on their
noticeboard and include reference to it in their club newsletter.
Furthermore, the communication effort needs to be protracted as well
as extensive. Ask yourselves: if you are concerned that the
membership might not like what you are doing, why are you doing it?
If there are good reasons for the change not understood by the
membership, then it is your job to communicate them.
If you are not prepared to put in a significant effort /*as a board*/
rather than relying solely on the regional representatives, your
motives for the change will understandably be called into question.
Over to you.
--
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
