July 2011 Committee Members Report

User avatar
MartinBg
Guest
Guest
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Nov 2015 20:07
Fleet Base: Non Club Member
My Ship Yard: Smit London
Fairmount Glacier
HMS Bittersweet
Kustwacht
Location: Central Victorian water hole

July 2011 Committee Members Report

Postby MartinBg » 16 Aug 2011 21:44

Attached is the July 2011 Committee members report for FBV
Attachments
2011 July Update.pdf
(163.57 KiB) Downloaded 159 times
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 2869
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: July 2011 Committee Members Report

Postby MikeJames » 17 Aug 2011 13:22

Martin, I would suggest that your report needs some clarification regarding the consequences of the constitution vote and the events leading up to it.

The updates to the AGM emails were expressly to highlight changes to the applicants for positions, including the position you hold, given that position went from contested to uncontested in one of those emails.

As the proposition to change the constitution had not changed there was no need to update that information.

The issue is that given less than 75% of all paid up members of Task Force 72 voted to change the constitution, the Executive and Committee of the Association legally only consists of the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, plus representatives of Fleet Bases Sydney, Wagga and Canberra (who were present at the AGM). This makes up the maximum legal committee of 7 people. The vote had to pass to increase those numbers.

It means that neither the representatives of Perth, Brisbane, Gulf Waters or Victoria, nor the Web Master or Editor, have a vote in Task Force 72 matters, until the constitution is changed.

Given the block voting by Fleet Bases apparent at the AGM, the failure to pass the constitution changes lies squarely at the feet of those members who failed to read the revised constuitution and understand the consequences. and in particular their Fleet Base representatives, who failed to understand that not passing the changes would result in their disenfranchising from voting. They can make their concerns known to the members of the Executive and Commmittee but cannot vote on matters under consideration.

Also, neither the Web Master nor the Editor are members of the Executive, they are Committee members, the Executive positions are specified in the legislation and consist of the four positions of President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. This is not to in any way downgrade the contributions of either Craig or Carl, simply pointing out that they are Committee, not Executive members.

Mike
User avatar
MartinBg
Guest
Guest
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Nov 2015 20:07
Fleet Base: Non Club Member
My Ship Yard: Smit London
Fairmount Glacier
HMS Bittersweet
Kustwacht
Location: Central Victorian water hole

Re: July 2011 Committee Members Report

Postby MartinBg » 17 Aug 2011 18:46

Mike,

Apologies for the misunderstanding around the Webmaster and Editor positions. I based my understanding on your email of 18/6/2011 at 5:23PM where the attachment "TF72 Form A Postal ballot paper for Exec Committee positions" listed both the Webmaster and Editor positions, therefore my assumption that they were part of the Exec Committee.

As with any club, there are a large portion of members who are not from a business background but rather come together for a common interest (with TF72 the building and sailing of 1:72 models). When fronted with a legal document such as a constitution, the understanding of the document and its changes/implications to them is not understood without an explanation by a legal representative or someone with a business background who does understand the document. In my experience both in business and with other clubs, the voting on major or important changes has always been preceded by a summary explanation by the person in charge (i.e. I am a member of the CFA and all major or important changes is accompanied by communication by the head of the CFA in summarising the changes and impact to ensure a consistent and accurate message is received by all members. My wife is a member of VicQuilters and they do the same thing). I do not recall ever receiving anything on the TF72 constitution changes of this type from anyone.

Communication is an identified issue within TF72 that the new Exec and Committee are looking to address going forward. As Fleet Base Victoria is currently looking for a home to sail on a regular basis as we currently do not physically meet and the members are spread over several hundred Km's, these reports are an attempt at getting some communication to members to fill the void that exists.


Martin B
User avatar
MichaelB
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 982
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 12:17
Fleet Base: Sydney

Re: July 2011 Committee Members Report

Postby MichaelB » 18 Aug 2011 09:48

Martin,

You say also

[i]Some of the other changes are:- the introduction of a public officer, [/i]There has always been a Public Officer, we are required by law to have one.


The "TF72 Form A Postal ballot paper for Exec Committee positions" was based on the assumption that the Constitution would be passed. It was felt that as the Wagga members who had requested these changes via the Forum had organised the their members' numbers for the Committee, they would also do so for their constitutional changes. They obviously did not.

If you read that Forum you will note that I commented that, although not legally required to accept the votes of the additional Fleet Base representatives, the previous Committee always counted the Fleet Base Representatvive's votes. Kim, Graham, Robert etc were always including in Committee matters e.g. the funding of assets for the Fleet Bases.

Michael
User avatar
MartinBg
Guest
Guest
Posts: 142
Joined: 03 Nov 2015 20:07
Fleet Base: Non Club Member
My Ship Yard: Smit London
Fairmount Glacier
HMS Bittersweet
Kustwacht
Location: Central Victorian water hole

Re: July 2011 Committee Members Report

Postby MartinBg » 18 Aug 2011 13:14

MichaelB wrote:Martin,

You say also

[i]Some of the other changes are:- the introduction of a public officer, [/i]There has always been a Public Officer, we are required by law to have one.

Michael



Michael,

Just confirms my earlier response to Mike in this post.
As I have only become a committee representative since the AGM, I am only just now having access to all the prior committee discussions on the subject of the constitution.
My understanding of the Public Officer being new, is based upon the June Constitutional Draft that was sent to members which had the highlighted section all through it of “or public officer” giving the appearance that prior to this point the constitution did not contain those words. Hence, as no commentary of changes accompanies the draft constitution, I assumed that the addition of a public officer in the constitution was new.

It is good that all this discussion is at last now occurring and that a greater understanding of the constitution and changes and therefore implications to members is actually being communicated to members.

Martin B

Return to “Fleet Base Victoria”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users