Divisions remain largely irrelevant to me. I have had little contact
since resigning as Director and Treasurer of the local Division after we
amalgamated with the one next door in 2001. When I went to their AGM
last year it seemed that not much had changed.
They are not "member based organizations" but NGOs whose main
customer/funder is Govt. Their role is to facilitate govt programs by
their local contacts with GPs and others. If they would grasp this
nettle and become more realistic, I believe they would be more
acceptable to both Govt and GPs.
Some of these programs are indeed potentially useful.
The problem is that I dont believe Divisions in general are competent
and robust enough to achieve such a difficult task - many of them barely
survive doing very little in the cocoon of full Govt funding
While Divisions attempt to be independent political players, they upset
both Govt and the other GP organizations. Unity is a perpetual
intractable problem in GP land. Probably the best way to achieve it
would be to kill off a few of the players
R
Greg Twyford wrote:
Wal Tracey wrote:
On 31/07/2006, at 10:24 PM, Richard Hosking wrote:
Richard
Most people would agree that a national deidentified dataset may be
valuable in the future.
I can see a big push looming from ADGP to drive their agendas using
the existing infrastructure of the Divisions
This is our opportunity to kill off the whole divisions apparatus.
We should studiously ignore them and all their projects.
Wal,
You see no value in Divisions, even in their local activities which
most try to make relevant to members? I admit that we have become less
able to be self-directive and respond to local needs and more bound to
objectives determined in Canberra, but I'm surprised you are so negative.
Yes, we mostly wonder about ADGP too, and we've been making our
concerns felt as best we can.
Greg
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
