Tweet
The accompanying list of proposed changes to the ASRA Constitution arises from the difficulties experienced by the ASRA Board earlier this year.
-
-
G"day Admin,This is all a bit of a worry. First point. The constitution appears to have: - Sections A,B, & C ;- PARTS I, II, II, IV, & V; and - Clauses 1-39.Yet the proposed amendments refers to "Section 1", "Section 7(3), 7(4)", "Section 9(2)" etc, etc, etc. Might be a bit pedantic, but we are talking about messing with the constitution, so we need to be a little bit specific.Some of the proposed amendments don"t appear to be in any shape or form as you described in your post "The accompanying list of changes.......................experienced by the ASRA board earlier this year." In particular, the amendments under "Statement of Purpose" appears to be going to task ASRA with enforcement responsibilites, among other things. Is that what we want? I don"t think I am reading the amendments wrong, (and if I"m not) then if Bill Bloggs from Bogabilla does something wrong in his gyro, then it is the proposed that the ASRA membership is responsible to make him comply. Currently (the way I understand it), if Bill Bloggs doesn"t comply with the ASRA rules, he falls foul of CASA (on his own). If we go down the enforcement route, how the hell are we going to resource that?Some amendments that are in accordance with your post appear to be "putting right" the actions of the board of earlier this year. Some-where along the line we have got the "bull by the bum". It is not the purpose of the constitution to be made to comply with the actions of the board. It is the boards obligation to comply with the constitution. The constitution is an instrument of the members, not an instrument of the board. It is the guidelines and rules that the members give to the board to govern the way that the board operates. Given that, the most glaring example of a problem with-in the constitution (that the propsed amendments do not even mention) is with Clause 33. (The clause that specifies the process for changes to the constitution.) Put simply, if 3/4 of the members that turn up to a general meeting that are entitled to vote, vote in favour, then the constitution can be amended. Theoretically (not allowing for quorums etc), only 4 people need to vote to change the constitution, and 3 of them in the affirmative, to have that change to the constitution confirmed. That makes it real easy for power freaks to get hold of the Association and drive it in whatever direction they want. Just last year we had some amendments to the constitution put through. Llewella (in one of her posts) stated that only one member bothered to read the proposed amendments. Yet the amendments still went through.What we need here is for the person who is putting forwards each of the propsed amendments (in admins post) to declare who they are, and to tell us the purpose of the amendment (in working mans speak) so we can all understand it. There appears to be an indecent amount of haste about the timing of these amendments, and we need far more information to be able to have an informed vote (unless it is the intention to bull-doze the amendments through).
-
Fred,I only posted what Paul (VP) provided.I will inform him of your post so he may comment.webbie
Comment
-
Thanks Webbie,I suspected it wasn"t you.
Comment
Comment