Change of constitution

[Yenn]

I got an email yesterday saying there would be a special meeting to consider changing the constitution. At first glance it looks to me as if it is un necessary to change the constitution and it could be a grab for power. I will read the proposal more closely to understand it. Anyone else got any ideas about it?

[FlyBoy1960]

it looked like they were trying to get rid of some naughty board member to me so I rang up you got an explanation and the 2nd email gave additional information. Basically, it is only aligning the Constitution we the companies act.  Nothing to see here, move along

[Yenn]

I have read it again and it looks to me as if the board wants to be able to dismiss a director and also prevent that person from standing again for 5 years.

I don't know what the law concerning directors is, but it appears to me that the board is wanting to be able to dismiss a director who may be not able to be a director under company law. Why try to do what is already in the laws.

I have little faith in anyone who holds power nowadays and going on past performance I would not trust some of the present board to be given more power. There needs to be a really good reason to change a constitution and I don't see it here.

[FlyBoy1960]

it was because a board member from Victoria who is no longer a board member sent an email saying he was going to nominate and then didn't send in the required information package for several weeks after the deadline. He then send in the required information package and was told he could not stand because he did not meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Companies act. He then raced off to court and it cost RA-Aus an undisclosed amount to seek legal advice. It doesn't matter now because this member is no longer on the board but it shows the fragility of the system somebody can take the association to court and cost a lot of money to the membership.

[Flying_higher]

54 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I have read it again and it looks to me as if the board wants to be able to dismiss a director and also prevent that person from standing again for 5 years.

I don't know what the law concerning directors is, but it appears to me that the board is wanting to be able to dismiss a director who may be not able to be a director under company law. Why try to do what is already in the laws.

I have little faith in anyone who holds power nowadays and going on past performance I would not trust some of the present board to be given more power. There needs to be a really good reason to change a constitution and I don't see it here.

If you read it again, and read the note from the Chair, it is illegal for a Board to get rid of a director, it can only be done by the members. 
it’s a mechanical change only and as someone above said, nothing to see here. 

[kasper]

Not quite just aligning with corporate law. It also allows the board to set additional required capacities or experience for applicants.  This is a further step away from any member being able to put themselves forward in a year as they may meet all the corporate law requirements and be a member BUT can't nominate because they may lack an experience or skill that the board have set as a requirement for that election.  

 

Under the changes its perfectly legit for the board to add a restriction to nominations like must be an Raaus instructor.  Or they may require a registered accountant.  Or they may require a person with LAME registration.

 

All possible under this change but still no requirement for an actual set of election rules to be published to members.  

 

Ill be voting no as this is not simply a clean up to align with the corporation's law which already applied but an extension of powers TO the board in respect to who can be put forward by the members to join the board. 

 

Not needed in my opinion. It's already open to the board to express their desire for some areas of skill when calling for nominations but this change means they control in part the board skills and only allow parts of membership to nominate

Edited April 24, 2022 by kasper

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, kasper said:

Not quite just aligning with corporate law. It also allows the board to set additional required capacities or experience for applicants.  This is a further step away from any member being able to put themselves forward in a year as they may meet all the corporate law requirements and be a member BUT can't nominate because they may lack an experience or skill that the board have set as a requirement for that election.  

 

Under the changes its perfectly legit for the board to add a restriction to nominations like must be an Raaus instructor.  Or they may require a registered accountant.  Or they may require a person with LAME registration.

 

All possible under this change but still no requirement for an actual set of election rules to be published to members.  

 

Ill be voting no as this is not simply a clean up to align with the corporation's law which already applied but an extension of powers TO the board in respect to who can be put forward by the members to join the board. 

 

Not needed in my opinion. It's already open to the board to express their desire for some areas of skill when calling for nominations but this change means they control in part the board skills and only allow parts of membership to nominate

Great that someone is still awake!

[Yenn]

I have already voted no. I remember the problems we had a few years ago and one of the problem makers is still on the board and proposing we should vote yes. If it in corporate law it doesn't need to be stated in our constitution.

[circuitsun]

Any one who would vote yes to this proposal is either asleep, totally apathetic, or dense as lead.  Members have already lost most of their rights & influence after the coup changing to a corporate administrative model. To give away more of your last few rights,  to simply & unnecessarily solidify the power of the entrenched "drivers at the wheel"   to remove a director, effectively without recourse. 

      Think !   down the track it may be a director you have supported/elected, who rebels & actually tries to work for the members.   Do not give them more power, it is not necessary, and certainly not in the members interest.  Keep your few remaining options open.

 

Circuitsun

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, circuitsun said:

Any one who would vote yes to this proposal is either asleep, totally apathetic, or dense as lead.  Members have already lost most of their rights & influence after the coup changing to a corporate administrative model. To give away more of your last few rights,  to simply & unnecessarily solidify the power of the entrenched "drivers at the wheel"   to remove a director, effectively without recourse. 

      Think !   down the track it may be a director you have supported/elected, who rebels & actually tries to work for the members.   Do not give them more power, it is not necessary, and certainly not in the members interest.  Keep your few remaining options open.

 

Circuitsun

It's certainly stunning that the members haven't pulled out the old and new constitutions and powers and looked at the side by side.