Proposed change to the Constitution - Another opinion

Dear Rag and Tubers,

 

I have asked J ohn Mc if I could write a second opinion on the issue of the constitutional change.   When the Constitution was written, it was by amateurs who

Neglected to put everything IN the constitution to reflect what they actually did in the representative distribution.  They decided that all states should have at least one rep (this is what they didn’t put in the constitution), then

Additional reps were allocated according to member population. 25 years ago when this happened, QLD had the lion’s share of members, so they got the lions share of reps.  25 years later, Vic and NSW and QLD have approx the

Same membership, but QLD has 4, and Vic has 2.  MEMBERS asked the Board why we hadn’t engaged in electoral re-distribution which is a fact of life.  So this proposal was put forward from the committee as a response to members and

As a response to the intent of the original writers of the constitution.  J ohn’s proposal, is  a bit of a red herring, I feel (sorry J M).  That’s not what is on the table.  He is arguing we could keep it unfair and unequal because he  wants something different. Let’s deal with what is on the table.  J ohn can get another committee and try to get up his proposal – (which is a bit mean since Tasmania , WA, NT and SA will never get a rep on the Board in his system- and the reps from those states and a number of others will howl it down).  So I encourage you to Vote in favour of the proposed change.

Cheers, Carol Richards, NSW member  (Thanks J ohn for doing this)

Above is  an opinion by Carol Richards, our hard working Board Member from NSW. If there are other opinions I will also publish them. It is very healthy to have all sorts of different opinions. But as this is my Blog I reserve the right to make comment.

1. Two members only asked the Board why a redistribution was not done. One was Max Brown, who did a lot of work on our Constitution. His original proposal was much closer to our stated aim of "one vote one value" and would include Tasmania into Victoria and NT in with SA. This second proposal surprises me knowing Max's knowledge of the Constitution.

2. I have never proposed any change to the voting. I do not have any future proposal. My only issue is, this change, in my opinion, is NOT Constitutional. It does not aim for a one vote one value representation.

3. If the membership wants a State Based system (and that has merit) then they should vote to repeal the "one vote one value" clause and replace it with a State based clause. All associations live or die by their Constitutions. To bastardize the stated clauses in the Constitution to appease special interests is a recipe for disaster. 

4. My understanding of our Constitution, is it is based on the standard non profit sporting constitution given to us by the ACT Government, and modified by some very knowledgeable members. I would see it as not entirely Amateur.


5. If there are other opinions please email me and I will publish them here.

John McKeown

Proposed Change to Constitution

Hi All.

Coming up in September you will be asked to vote on a change to the Constitution. Please consider how you will vote and the ramifications of your vote. You, the members, are the association, it is you who decide the direction of the association, so whatever you decide please vote.

Now for my view.

The Constitution is very specific on this matter and I quote the relevant section below.

13. Election of Board Members.
(i) The Board shall be elected by the membership on a one Member - one vote system."
 
That statement is very specific yet there are members of the executive and others who are muddying the waters by claiming the vote needs to also be State based and want a gerrymander voting system.

Like Nick Sigley, I am also uncertain as to how the membership numbers were arrived at as were published in the magazine, however the August 2010 figures are approx. Queensland 2444, NSW, 2415, Vic. 2185, SA 1079, WA. 622 , Tas. 277. NT. 148,  ACT 138. The total membership, including international members is approx. 9337. Currently ACT and NSW are combined for representation purposes giving NSW 2553 members.  NQ and SQ are  separated for representation purposes, and these figures can't be obtained, but an upper estimate could be around 300 members in NQ.

I fully agree there needs to be a redistribution. But not this one. How can anyone really claim to be following a "one vote, one value" voting system where the new system will have the member from Tasmania representing only 277 members, NT 148 members, and NQ approx 300. While SQ will be 1200 approx, SA 1079 approx, Vic 728 approx, NSW 800 approx. and WA 622 approx.

My personal view is VOTE NO

Any change must be close to a one vote one value redistribution as per the Constitution. A redistribution needs to be redone on a one vote one value, without some powerful members pushing the "State" based model. NQ should also be abolished and SQ should perhaps include parts of northern NSW. The representation model should be based on a post code model to give as equal voting as possible.

However the members decide. So please vote. A change to the constitution with a 5% to 7%  vote is a farce. I implore you again to vote.I personally witnessed the last change to the Constitution at the AGM 3 years ago with 7 raised hands, and no provision for postal votes.

John McKeown