| I agree with the
proposed changes as being tabled by the QLD Branch. I also
think the idea of obtaining a wider view (voting on various
issues) from the entire membership by utilising the internet
is a positive move forward. I agree that the National
committee meeting replace the AGM, but the vote of a branch,
either for or against a proposal count as only one vote.
This will negate the larger branches dominating policy with
their greater numbers. One branch, one vote.
1. Online/Postal voting needs to be scrutinised to ensure
transparency of the process and the accuracy of the data
being presented. Suggest the raw data be tabled and then
analysed by more than one person before any report is
generated. 2. If the "majority" of members vote on a
particular resolution surely the resolution should be
decided by those members. What value would a successive vote
by the National Committee add unless the numbers were such
that a "casting" vote by the National Committee was
required? Is not the role of the National Committee to
"serve" the interests of the majority of members rather than
promote their own personal views?
In all other areas where you a member you are given the
opportunity to vote in absence. Even in our own Local, State
and Federal election can you vote in absence so why would
SAA be any different. We are being dictated to by the few
who choose to disregard the many who for various reasons of
family, jobs and other commitments cannot attend all the
annual conferences. All we ask is that we be heard and the
SAA would benefit from its members having a greater say in
the direction and governance of our association.
Is the concept 1 member 1 vote of one branch 1 vote? I
think all votes would need to be tallied and submitted.
However, I would be concerned that the National Committee
would hold the deciding vote if decision was close. Would a
two thirds majority be a better way of indicating how the
members feel, just a thought.
Some of the comments against the proposals stress that if
you care enough you will be there. I cant disagree strongly
enough, I care for my mates in boats, I care how we all
travel in the future. What stops me attending AGM is the
the cost and whole ball going, monkey suit mentality I don't
remember going to many balls when I was in boats. What's
needed is what eventuated a few years ago when we all met at
the Kirribilli Returned Services. That was what meeting your
mates was all about not pretending to be something your not.
Vote aye for democracy and nay to elitism DBF.
These matters need to be addressed in the proper forum
and not for one group or another allowed to push their own
agenda. We definitely need to come in line with similar
organization's format. We simply cannot remain a beer and
skittles group and at the same time attract more members and
support. The Vietnam Vets are a good example of this. If it
wasn't for them we would not have TIP training and
recognition by DVA and the RSL. They learnt their lessons
the hard way.
Whilst I support the motion more clarity is required on
how the voting system will be implemented, ie will it be a
simple majority at the AGM committee meeting or would it be
more in line with the type of majority required for a
federal referendum which takes into account distribution of
representation numbers.
I agree with the proposals, however, I think the votes
should be taken at State level and the results presented to
the National Committee meeting prior to the AGM so they will
have the "answer" to the polls.
I feel that the proposals give all members the
opportunity to vote on matters that effect the SAA not just
those that attend the AGM. Not all members are able to
attend the SUBCON weekends, work commitments or financial
situations I\'m sure are a couple of reasons, not that they
dont care about the SAA. As an active branch member who
attends the majority of branch meetings and functions I
consider what we discuss and vote on at our meetings is more
important than what I feel is an unfair way items are
voted on at the AGM. Branch support to me is supporting the
SAA not the fact that you attend SUBCON weekends.
The proposed initiatives demonstrate a fair approach. All
members deserve the equity of having a mechanism that
provides members with the ability to initiate, and shape,
the future direction of OUR association. Positive
organisational change is only possible if the majority of
stakeholders are prepared to embrace change that has the
potential to continually improve our association. It is
likely to be highly useful if those with strong opposition
to change take the time to consider what it is that they are
so opposed to. Change doesn't\'t have to be negative, if we
continue to do what we have done in the past we will also
continue to receive what we have always received and this
may not be best for all or any of us. There is always scope
to improve, therefore, it is highly useful to demonstrate
some flexibility by supporting initiatives with probable
positive consequences. I am 100% behind anyone that takes
the time and puts in the effort to implement a better
future.
I would support this if an overall national vote is
recorded, with the result being decided by all votes cast,
not on a branch by branch basis. Each vote must have equal
weight regardless of the size of the branch membership to
avoid any stacking or manipulation. I don\'t believe it
would be correct for the final decision to be carried by the
National Committee, because it is possible that the outcome
may be decided dependant upon the demographics of the three
National Executive who may have a bias toward a particular
branch.
Having read all of
the comments below I am in agreement with most of the
reasons in favour and only some of those against both
proposals. I therefore wholeheartedly support both
proposals as it will give a voice to those members who
cannot or are unable to attend the AGM.
The proposals are
a big improvement over the current arrangements which
disenfranchise many members. However, may I suggest that to
achieve the maximum level of fairness, the final vote
envisaged under Proposal 2, should be the actual numbers of
votes cast at the State level rather than 1 vote per State.
I am still working
and do not contribute to the running of the organisation and
therefore feel obliged to endorse the proposals of those who
do .
I agree with Proposal No 1, a much fairer way of
obtaining the feeling of all members, however I disagree
with Proposal No 2. The voting results of each state should
be combined, to give an overall result for proposed
amendments/changes. I think all forms of voting should be
considered (online/postal/mail/fax).
Great to see we are starting to keep up with technology!
I do however think that some sort of weighting of numbers
(equity across the board) could/should be taken into
consideration for each state delegate. Food for thought!!
The same members that do not turn up at SUBCON will be
the same members who do not vote at their State AGM's so
nothing will change. We are trying to fix something that is
not broke.
Unfortunately, I am only an Associate Member, so my vote
will not count, however I do consider that the above
proposals, if accepted, would result in a much more
representative voting outcome that that which is currently
in use
Good idea, but if an overwhelming majority of members
vote for a proposal will this then merely be ratified by the
National Committee or will they be able to vote against the
wishes of the membership.
ALL OF YOU HAVE QUICKLY FORGOTTEN THAT THIS WAS THE WAY
IT WAS UNTIL BARRY NOBES STOOD DOWN. WHO CHANGED IT?
If for some reason you are unable to attend the AGM you
should be able to have your vote either online or postal,
lets hang with the times and stop the bun fight at the AGM's.
If the member chooses not to vote so be it but at least give
them a chance to have their say.
As a still serving member I am at sea or overseas a fair
amount of time. I often can not make the meetings due to
service reasons but would still like to have a vote.
I joined the
association years ago because I remember the camaraderie of
our members in past times. I believe that it has become too
political with too many personal agendas. This proposal, if
it were a national proposal, would allow more of us "less
politically motivated" members the chance to have a say.
I
do not believe that the polling results should be
promulgated on the polling screen as this could influence
the out come of the poll
I think is a great move by the Association as a whole. It
is important for the majority of members to be involved in
any decision which effects the OUR Association long term. It
is also good to see so may if us being computer literate,
yet, allowing those that are not the opportunity to vote via
mail as well. Perhaps a Fax could be included as an option
to allow the speeding of some replies, as most that do not
have email, may have access to a fax instead.
I feel this would be a more fair way of giving Everyone
their vote.
Question. 1. Is it intended that election of SAA Office
Bearers be included in the ' issues' (Proposal 1), and if
so, has any thought been given to the procedure to be
followed?
Question. 2. If 'all issues', including election of Office
bearers can be voted on prior to the AGM, does this not
bring into question the need for an AGM?
As the proposal states all members should be given the
right to vote it is a democracy after all.
Whole heartedly agree lets make the whole thing
transparent and whilst we are at it lets bring the Assoc up
into the 21st century.
The introduction of the above two proposals gives all
members in each State Branch the opportunity [as all members
should] of voting in their individual Branches, the
respective President or endorsed Branch Representative then
acts as the Delegate at the AGM for that Branch. It is a far
more equitable system.
Not all can afford the costs of attending AGM's.
Not before time!!!!
Please publish a full DRAFT copy of the Constitution so
members can see where all the amendments will be.
There needs to be a reasonable deadline for agenda items
that allows sufficient time for states to have their
internal postal and/or in-person votes correlated. There
should still only be one vote per state at the subsequent
AGM.
Like any organisation with reasonable governance, the
voice of the members is the only democratic way to decide
matters that impact them. SUBCON is not a forum that is
truly representative of members - it is a great concept for
a get-together but ..........
The minority of those who can afford to attend Subcon's
should not represent my thoughts on National issues should I
not be able to attend these meetings. I wear the dolphins
and my say should be recorded when decisions are made for
the good of all Submariners as that is my constitutional
right to have a say. This will help resolve issues whereby
there may be some who are misinformed by listening to
hearsay or innuendo. This voting process will open up the
discussion in a fair and equitable way so as to generate
healthy discussion for the whole of the submarine community.
These proposals will give every individual member, their
voting right on all future SAA decisions.
These proposals will enable the SAA members timely input to decisions
on the agenda. Currently the time lapse for anything on the agenda takes
too long for it's resolution and most members loose touch with the
issues at hand. It's a big ask for any member to avail themselves
for the AGM, at various locations around Australia, just to vote on
agenda items. This new proposal, will I'm sure, give the SAA a 'dynamic
lift' in the decision making process.
The method of voting at the National AGM does not give all
members their right to vote, only those that can attend are permitted a
vote. And that is only IF the proposals get past the National Committee
Meeting. It is time to make voting in the Association transparent and
democratic.
This seems a fair and reasonable proposition. If for any reason I
cannot attand a SUBCON meeting, I would like to think I still have a
vote and say on what will be.
The proposed amendment will without doubt create a much better system
of voting
Proposal 1 should read ---so that _ALL_ SAA Members have the
opportunity to vote"
Proposal 2 should clarify that each Branch President present the for and
against votes for each proposal, these be totaled for the whole SAA and
the outcome be binding on the Executive without a further vote by them.
I understand from this that the AGM as we know it will not take place
but will be substituted by the National Committee Meeting held in
conjunction with the SUBBCON. How does this permit members to raise
matters of concern in the forum of an AGM?
Would seem to be both a fair and equitable way to conduct our
business. Subcon seemed to have developed its own motivators and we do
not need to press-gang members to attend.
ABANDON THE THREE DAY SUBCON EVENT. AGM REMAINS AN ANNUAL
EVENT AS IT MUST FOLLOWED PERHAPS BY AN SAA DINNER/GUEST SPEAKER.
CONDUCT OTHER SIGNIFICANT SAA EVENTS AT A LESS FREQUENCY THAN ANNUAL SO
THAT MEMBERS CAN AFFORD AN OCCASIONAL INVOLVEMENT RATHER THAN THE
EXPENSE OF EVERY YEAR ATTENDANCE.
Timing of the proposed National Committee Meeting for the new proposed
AGM would best be served by being just prior to, or possibly, at the SAA
yearly gathering.
This will give all members a vote .
This proposal is very proactive. BZ to all of those involed.
By allowing members to vote may help in encouraging more members to
be involved in the association, it also gives member( such as myself)
the oppurtunity to have a say although we are unable to attend meetings
as work commitments keep us away
I am in total agreement with the proposals as I feel that this is the
only equitable way for ALL members to have their say in the running of
THEIR Association!!! I also feel that this proposal will attract
members back to their Branches & form a stronger bond which has been the
hallmark of the Submarine Community in the past. It is apparent that a
lot of members have fallen by the way-side - this could get us all
together again. The AGM Meeting of the Members would be unaffected!! I
also agree with both postal & on-line Voting would allow the Executive
to obtain a better understanding of the FULL Associations feelings on
these most important issues - including votes for National/Branch
Committees!!
|
I agree that there
needs to be some change to the Constitution in order to
ensure that the whole membership has the opportunity of
voting directly on fundamental issues of governance in the
SAA, but definitely not in the form proposed by Queensland.
Governance of the SAA is the fundamental issue at stake
here. Firstly, I can't find any evidence of incorporation
of the SAA, although the Constitution does mention the
Associations Incorporation Act, The Incorporations Act and
incorporation, but it doesn't specify which state or
territory incorporation has been effected, or any other
issues related to incorporation. Through incorporation, the
laws of that state or territory would guide and govern the
SAA Constitution and changes to it, including the extent to
which an AGM must provide for all financial members being
able to attend AND vote at an AGM. Hopefully, SAA as a
national body is incorporated, and if so the Constitution
needs to specify this fact and in which state or territory
it has been effected. Regrettably, the Queensland proposal
would deprive individual members of the right to attend and
vote at an AGM. It would also change the fully
representative "one vote, one value per member" to a skewed
unproportional system that transfers fundamental power away
from ordinary members. Secondly, I suggest that there is TOO
MUCH "Special Business" that is included in the AGM Agenda
and conducted at the AGM. The majority of this "Special
Business" is probably within the power of the National
Executive or National SAA Committee to conduct. Where the
business is fundamental, such as approval of or changes to
the Constitution, then the Constitution needs to include
powers for disseminating information about the proposal and
provision for postal and/or electronic voting at the AGM, so
that all members have an equal opportunity of voting.
Special Business at the AGM should be confined to essential
items, including approval of a revised Constitution and
approval of changes to the existing Constitution, that are
beyond the capability of the National Executive or National
SAA Committee to resolve, or which become too contentious
for resolution at that level. For an organisation of the
size and type of the SAA, the AGM should be be over in an
hour or less under most circumstances, and deal with all the
Ordinary Business, and include Special Business of only
essential items. Change is necessary, but use modern
communications technology to effect it, rather than
disenfranchisement of members from direct participation in
the AGM. I have voted NO as I don't agree that the "The
SAA Committee Meeting consisting of the State Presidents and
the National Executive becomes the AGM". This to me means
that there will never be an AGM. Is this really what you
mean? If the results of the vote were presented at the AGM
attend by all members available, then I would vote yes.
I concur with the opposition comments to the effect that
turning up at the AGM, in common with most other societies,
indicates a genuine interest in the welfare of the society.
The attendance of delegates from all branches at National
Committee meetings permits the airing of diverse views and
also provides a fair degree of participation of the
membership if the delegates are truly representative and
well-briefed.
I feel this kind
of voting can be manipulated in favour of the state with the
largest number of members. I believe the AGM is where the
votes should be taken and if you can not be bothered to
attend the Annual General Meeting then you unfortunately do
not have a vote. The SAA NSW meeting are lucky if they
attract 10 people yet there are hundreds of submariners
living in and around Sydney. If they want to make a
difference they must get off of their buts and attend the
meetings in their home state and try to get to the AGM.
Members attending
the National AGM are recognised as being "active" in the
submarine community. Are we to be governed by a lot of
"button pushers" who rarely even attend their local
meetings, but can readily vote out active and worthy
members? Who takes the place of these "active" members -
more button pushers! Members have a full 12 months to
organise whether they can attend National AGMs or not.
Such a proposal should first be submitted to the National
Committee as an Item for discussion at the next National
Committee Meeting. If agreed (by majority vote) by the
representatives of the SAA National Committee, the matter
should then be put to the test, as a motion, per the rules
of the current constitution.
If you don't have sufficient interest to go to Subcon/the
AGM then you don't get a vote seems fine to me.
What is wrong with Queensland?
If somebody wants to vote at the AGM, then turn up. I am
trying to attend every Subcon until I drop off. I do not
attend the AGM any more because of all the pathetic crap
that went on at the Queensland AGM. My non attendance at the
AGM means I am prepared to accept what is decided. If People
want to change things, attend the meeting. None of this
absentee voting and decision making crap.
The problem with this type of voting is that, the end
result is not proportional. For example, at the "AGM"
Tasmania will have one vote although maybe 20 voted at the
branch meeting. Queensland will have 1 vote, when maybe 100
may have attended the meeting. If they disagree on the
motion then 20 "votes" cancel 100 "votes", where is the
equity in this system? I agree, the current system is
not ideal as the representation at the current AGM is not a
true representation of the total membership. A system
whereby everone has an opportunity to submit their vote
(similar to this poll) and the result of such "pre-polling"
on a motion(s) would be a significantly better solution.
If its not broke don't fix it. I am frightened by an US and
THEM element creeping in to our loosely knit wonderful
association. Everyone has the best intentions but I feel the
old maxim IF IN DOUBT DO NOTHING should apply. I would hate
to see our crew of good men slip into a factional brawl
whilst I am watch.
|
![[Company Logo Image]](_borders/logo_saa.jpg){kind=logo}
