SOS

I'm in two minds. I must say that track up aids with nav, but north up helps with a quick " ABC what is your position" question ... which I can answer quickly as "10 SW of GAFA". With track up ... I have to think a bit. But that might just be me!

I was just talking with someone today, who is a member of Regional Tourism Board. The State Tourism Board now reuires all appointments to the regional boards to be skills based. In fact, my friend had to go through an interview and selection process to get the gurnsey. Surely the RAA is at least at the professional level of a Regional Tourism Board?

Your mind is misleading you into thinking that the proxy holder has 150 votes against your 1. It's just a perception...it's not reality. If you look at proxies as just 150 or so other members standing beside you, then it's easier to handle.

Here! Here!

So, if I buy Travel Insurance, the Insurance Company shouldn't tell me what events are covered ... in case I ... "create" one of those events????? This is crazy stuff!

Nev ... I hope you're right. That's the way it's supposed to happen ... and it would certainly saves us all a lot of heartache and time! ... and I could be watching the cricket, instead of hurting my head here!

Turbo ... all fair comment and all those issues are certainly in need of urgent resolution. However, I can only see chaos if we run off to plug this hole and then plug that hole ... without getting to the bottom of what's causing our ship to flounder. You may fix the immediate leaks, but are you sure the same mysterious forces will not create new ones just as quickly. No matter how slow and cumbersome it may seem, a clear plan of action is required to (a) Get rid of the source of the leaks and, then, (b) fix the existing leaks... in line with what we find. And to be honest, I'm not sure how you get that plan of action ... into action. I don't necessarily see February's meeting as a cure all, but perhaps it might precipitate an agreement on an appropriate framework.

Nev ... it appears to me that your concern is ... how does the Board get the Policies, that they turn into strategies, which they, in turn give to the GM? I would be interested in how that is done now. I haven't been in long enough to have a handle on that. If there is no current mechanism, then, perhaps there should be!

I can't find much wrong with Andy's view...especially adherence to the KISS principle, strategies and action plans. If I've got it correct, The GM will report to the Board, The Techie will report to the GM ... with a possible link to the Board and CASA, if necessary; The Office Staff will report directly to the GM. However, I'm still a bit vague on where the President, Treasurer, Secretary fit in ... do you see them as "just members of the Board" as far as responsibility and "managing" the GM go? Or, do you see them having a "control" over him ... greater than the rest of the Board?

There's two issues here: How WE require the Board, Executive and Staff to operate Who WE want to fill the Board, Executive and Staff positions I think issue no. 1 has to be resolved, before we worry about no. 2

Unfortunately, a system that permits individuals to allegedly operate outside "good governance" is not an appropriate system. Systems under which multi-million dollar Associations operate, need to be fail-safe.... and not personality-dependent.

Turbo ... no worries. Pete ... couldn't agree more. There would be nothing worse than a mob trying to put forward all their individual ideas for change at the Feb meeting. Chaos would rule supreme! The best outcome might be a successful resolution that obliged the Association to procure professional services to assist a "committee of appropriate members" to assess and/or re-build the structure and/or constitution of the Association and implement any resultant changes.

To date, I have been supporting the "fixing" of our current Organisation, and its Officers' performance, through re-education, membership direction and perhaps constitutional change. However, recent events are steering me more towards supporting an Executive clean-out and re-start!

The fact that the Board is even thinking about ways of strangling the Members' wishes, proves that the Board's intention is to "circle the wagons". If they had any real wish to allow the Members to democratically have a say in the running of the Organisation, they would steer any constitutional ambiguity ( if it exists) in favour of the Members' wishes.

Would it not be more prudent to "bring the current Board into line" ... rather than replace them with another crew of untried and unknown newbies? My gut feeling is that the alleged shortcomings we have in the Board are due to inexperience and lack of guidance and training ... rather than evil intent. No one intentionality tries to be a bastard (except for a few of my friends). I suggest that the majority of the Board are trying to do the right thing , but are, perhaps, unaware of how. As members, we have a chance in February to commence a process of providing the guidance that is required.