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.
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
